About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[CHT]

Almost forgotten that williams is a listed company. Here are the financial statement. Notice that Williams entrant to F1 is registered as Williams Grand Prix Engineering Ltd instead of Williams Grand Prix Holding PLC.
No difference to RBR and RBT I guess.

http://www.williamsf1.com/system/upload ... s_2011.pdf

[bhall]

If Williams is playing this shell game - which, as you pointed out, is entirely possible - they're doing it all wrong.

[WhiteBlue]

We've been going over this for a couple of weeks now. It's disheartening to see that you haven't been paying attention.

Straight from the bull's mouth (for perhaps the third or fourth time):

Well if you look at the way the English accounts are presented, you’re looking at the gross turnover of each entity, whether it be Red Bull Technology or Red Bull Racing. Within the RRA we’ve complied fully with the RRA within Red Bull Racing, which is the entrant to the Formula 1 World Championship. Red Bull Technology is a supplier to Red Bull Racing…

(If that's not enough for you, have a look here, here, and here.

Additionally, I have no idea how you're still able to look at all these numbers and take them at face value. Do you seriously not understand that the whole --- point of the Red Bull Technology/Racing scheme is to avoid having to adhere to the proscribed limits? Or do you honestly believe Red Bull GmbH went to all the trouble to create both Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Technology to somehow be better quipped to comply with even the spirit of the RRA?

And finally, when was the RRA released for public consumption? I've never seen it, only speculation. (I haven't seen anything about a "40m allowance" since 2010.) Yet, you quote these things like they're psalms. Would you please be so kind as to share this document with us?

(Disclaimer: As this is the Red Bull Racing thread, I've confined by comments to Red Bull Racing only. The rules are obviously the same for each team, meaning the loopholes available to each team are the same. Long live the Bull.)

1. You are quite rude without having any facts to supply for your opinion. None of your quotations mentions a proper full company name. You cannot exclude that in the group of Red Bull Technologies companies there is one that is named Red Bull Racing something and that this company is used as the entity to answer RRA accounting. We simply don't know.

2. Red Bull technologies was founded many years before the RRA in order to exploit synergies between RBR and STR. The constructor principle has reduced such synergies but they still exist and we can be confident that Red Bull will keep exploiting them.

3. There is sufficient evidence in the RRA thread backed up by sources to know the things that I have posted. You can deny them as much as you want, it will not change the facts. I can also bombard you with quotations from Christian Horner that confirm again and again that Red Bull observe all RRA regulations.

4. Indeed I fail to understand how Red Bull could possibly avoid compliance with a contract that was running until this month. If the company that obviously ran the race team had been supplied with technical services worth hundreds of millions that relationship could never have passed the first RRA report they did.

[raymondu999]

I can also bombard you with quotations from Christian Horner that confirm again and again that Red Bull observe all RRA regulations.

Yes, but in the proposed scenario in this thread, with RBT being the subcontracted supplier to RBR, RBR also fully complies with the RRA.

[CHT]

If Williams is playing this shell game - which, as you pointed out, is entirely possible - they're doing it all wrong.

there are actually practical reasons for it, it is not just about trying to bypass RRA; which at this moment is just hot air

When you split the company, you allow the technology division to be a stand alone entity and a profit center, which could branch out to other business area that doesnt involve the racing team. E.g like being a supplier to other formula series, or even supplying KERS and gearbox to other formula 1 team.

I think this is the same concept that applies to many other team as well.

[FoxHound]

Unless you can prove otherwise - by which time I will be happy to apologise and rescind my words

How can I prove otherwise? Renault sold to a Capital firm. The relationships weren't sold nor where the staff moved on.
It is plausible therefore that there is a very good working relationship with Renault. It's natural to assume this.
Not sure what you'd want to be apologetic about or the need to rescind your words...it's your opinion and I have mine.

[Richard]

1. You are quite rude without having any facts to supply for your opinion. None of your quotations mentions a proper full company name. You cannot exclude that in the group of Red Bull Technologies companies there is one that is named Red Bull Racing something and that this company is used as the entity to answer RRA accounting. We simply don't know.

It's in the company accounts. RBR is a wholly owned subsidiary of RBT. RBR is the only subsidiary of RBT. RBR holds the entry for F1.

As it happens most other teams operate on the same model. CHT has mentioned Williams, and McLaren have a similar split.

The RRA appears to be a loose ambition rather than a binding contract. Sure the limits on wind tunnels, track testing, garage curfews and number of staff at each event are easily applied, but the wider budget and supply issues are a vague fudge ... fudge that is melting. We all know what it called and what it is meant to be, but it has no discernible form.

ps - I'll split this into the RRA thread when I get a chance in the next day or so

[bhall]

1. You are quite rude without having any facts to supply for your opinion. None of your quotations mentions a proper full company name. You cannot exclude that in the group of Red Bull Technologies companies there is one that is named Red Bull Racing something and that this company is used as the entity to answer RRA accounting. We simply don't know.

2. Red Bull technologies was founded many years before the RRA in order to exploit synergies between RBR and STR. The constructor principle has reduced such synergies but they still exist and we can be confident that Red Bull will keep exploiting them.

3. There is sufficient evidence in the RRA thread backed up by sources to know the things that I have posted. You can deny them as much as you want, it will not change the facts. I can also bombard you with quotations from Christian Horner that confirm again and again that Red Bull observe all RRA regulations.

4. Indeed I fail to understand how Red Bull could possibly avoid compliance with a contract that was running until this month. If the company that obviously ran the race team had been supplied with technical services worth hundreds of millions that relationship could never have passed the first RRA report they did.

Sometimes I genuinely don't know what to make of you. You reference rumors while at the same time you demand facts, and then you ignore them when they're presented to you. It's like you only believe what you already know, even if what you know couldn't possibly be more incongruent with reality.


Source: FIA

Be very careful. You've seen the reports. Disputing that entry list now is tantamount to accusing your favorite team of fraud. (And you'll probably do it anyway.)

[Richard]

.... pssst ... bghall ... I think CHT is agreeing with you .

[bhall]

If I say that's "just hot air," does that mean I agree with you?

[Richard]

He's saying the RRA is hot air.

[bhall]

Fair enough. I've probably lost my mind anyway.

[FoxHound]

With the count on heads, how can it be vaguely possible for Red Bull racing to have 52 staff members?
Horner had his tongue planted firmly in cheek when inisisting Red Bull comply with the RRA...of course they do...even HRT had more staff than Red Bull racing.
It is so obviously a play on the wording of the rules, that one cannot help but congratulate Red Bull on it's inception and execution.

As I mentioned a week back, we may as well hand Red Bull the title for next year and wait and see if this said ingenuity is clipped in 2014, or whether it cements Red Bulls position of dominance.
Other teams would need a couple of years and a truck load of cash to align themselves with the Red Bull model.

Also worth mentioning, suppliers are immune to the teams imposed limit of computational power, not so?

[Cam]

[...]
Example: RBT could conceivably state that they do indeed perform full scale F1 tests everyday of the year. They say they're are building they're own CFD system and are using full scale models to test and develop it - with the premise to sell their own CFD solution "RBT CFD v1.0". What better way to test and calibrate their CFD than to use current components on a real F1 car, then ask and receive the track data from Red Bull Racing and Toro Racing to compare it - purely as a means to test the RBT CFD v1.0 system only. All of this would be perfectly okay under the RRA.
[...]

I think you've missed a bit of the big picture here. There needn't be any false premises.

Soz bhallg2k, I used that simply as an example for all the peeps out there. I (and you) know full well what RBT is and how it relates to the RRA - it's all above board and completely okay. Trying to put a clear illustration out there for others to grasp is what I'm trying to achieve with the example - but yes, you're right, they don't have have to claim any reason to do it.

[CHT]

With the count on heads, how can it be vaguely possible for Red Bull racing to have 52 staff members?
Horner had his tongue planted firmly in cheek when inisisting Red Bull comply with the RRA...of course they do...even HRT had more staff than Red Bull racing.
It is so obviously a play on the wording of the rules, that one cannot help but congratulate Red Bull on it's inception and execution.

As I mentioned a week back, we may as well hand Red Bull the title for next year and wait and see if this said ingenuity is clipped in 2014, or whether it cements Red Bulls position of dominance.
Other teams would need a couple of years and a truck load of cash to align themselves with the Red Bull model.

Also worth mentioning, suppliers are immune to the teams imposed limit of computational power, not so?

the whole time you are talking about this, you have fail to recognize the fact that RBT was established in the year of 2007 while RRA was first mooted in year 2009 and till now it is only talk and no action.

So based on the timeline, how is it possible that RBT was established with the sole purpose of exploiting the loophole of RRA? And why would any company bother to structure themselves differently when RRA is not even being enforced?
And what exactly is RRA? Can RRA actually prevent other teams and manufacturers from exploiting the RRA loophole to since every team is run differently, some have factories that employs 10s of thousand workers, while other only operate from a factory that is no bigger than half a football field.