About the F1 Resource Restriction Agreement

[Raptor22]

We'll have to agree to disagree

[Richard]

Other teams would need a couple of years and a truck load of cash to align themselves with the Red Bull model.

A decent company lawyer could probably set a new company in an afternoon. A team could simply create a new company to own the grid slot just like RBR, but Bernie a bit pedantic about that sort of think so they'd loose their entry fee.

So they'd probably need to create a new parent company like RBT and transfer the assets, liabilities and staff to the new company. It'd take bit longer but that's simply paperwork and legal costs. It'd be the same people doing the same job in the same building.

So it wouldn't cost much (in F1 terms) to align to the model.

[FoxHound]

A decent company lawyer could probably set a new company in an afternoon. A team could simply create a new company to own the grid slot just like RBR, but Bernie a bit pedantic about that sort of think so they'd loose their entry fee.

So they'd probably need to create a new parent company like RBT and transfer the assets, liabilities and staff to the new company. It'd take bit longer but that's simply paperwork and legal costs. It'd be the same people doing the same job in the same building.

So it wouldn't cost much (in F1 terms) to align to the model.

But if housed in the same building as the racing team, it would no longer be a supplier. McLaren have sepearate entities, as do Williams. But these entities do not exist for the sole purpose of "supplying" F1 teams. McLaren's spinoff companies are looking into things like carbon-fibre shells, electronics that have banned in F1, engine development in conjunction with Ricardo.
Developments for the road.

To compare these spinoffs to Red bull is unfair as Red bull Tech is 3/4 times the size with a vastly bigger budget.
It is housed in it's own unique building and it's main purpose is F1 and F1 only.

For another team to replicate this, would mean entire departments being moved to new premises. New equipment(likely) and vast sums of cash.

But forget all that.

What can suppliers do, that racing teams cannot? This is the crux of the matter right here.

[Richard]

Why do they need to build new buildings and new equipment? They simply pass ownership of assets and liabilities to the new company with a signature on a bit of paper. That would transform the existing race team into a shell with minimal staff.
So any team can have exactly the same set up as Red Bull for minimal cost.

Where is your data for Red Bull having 3 or 4 times the turnover of other teams? The difference is actually £215m for RBT with 657 staff compared to £176m for McLaren with 596 staff.

The real issue is that Red Bull are far more transparent than their rivals because they have a much simpler operational model.

[raymondu999]

But if housed in the same building as the racing team, it would no longer be a supplier.

Says who? Housing in the same building does not make them a single entity. Suppliers and customers can still be working in the same building.

[Raptor22]

I know of many companies operating under the same roof and all are subsidriaries of a larger parent group.
In fact the group I work for is a separate entity completely from the folk sitting around me.
My group is a global SME function that sells its time to the P&L centres. Ou P&L centre sits in our head office, thousand of miles away.
Our scorecard is different our ay structure is different but we all wear the same brand at the end of the day.

It not any different to the way Redbullls F1 are activities are structured. If you don't get it, you probably never will.

I can promise you every company in the Fortune 500 list are similar.
Not everything is to evade the law, in fact its done to comply with the law, protect scarce and critical skills and separate out strategic functions from support functions (Finance, HR etc).

[FoxHound]

Where is your data for Red Bull having 3 or 4 times the turnover of other teams? The difference is actually £215m for RBT with 657 staff compared to £176m for McLaren with 596 staff.

The real issue is that Red Bull are far more transparent than their rivals because they have a much simpler operational model.

Where is my data that Red Bull technologies has 3 or four times the turnover of other teams suppliers?
Do I even need it?

It's not a simpler operational model, it is more complex. The reason being that the racing team will always comply with the RRA(having 50 members of staff and a paltry budget), and the RBT group can then spend as much time in any windtunnel, using whichever sized models, and invest in far more powerful computers than is currently feasible under the FIA rulings for teams.

Thank you for the message to Richard, but in this thread can you point me where I used the word cheating?
I have said a couple of times now, that Red Bull have flexed yet another rule to their advantage. CHT pointed out that RBT was set up in 2007, although I see companies house say it was 2005...it's immaterial. Red Bull found themselves with a big advantage going into an era of limited testing, and limited resources. I wouldn't call it luck, but is it really that hard to see why eyebrows are raised with regard to the way they run the operation? Ie, outside of F1 as a "supplier"?

[raymondu999]

While I'm not one to usually see eye to eye with Foxy Loxy here - I have to say that he hasn't called anyone cheaters, to my view. He's just been saying "Red Bull uses RBT to outfox the RRA. Red Bull clever tactic. Clever tactic for rule bending. Completely legal. Kthxbye"

[FoxHound]

But if housed in the same building as the racing team, it would no longer be a supplier.

Says who? Housing in the same building does not make them a single entity. Suppliers and customers can still be working in the same building.

Show me where this is happening to the extent of RBT and RBR please.

[bhall]

[Look, mummy. There's an aeroplane up in the sky.]

[FoxHound]

While I'm not one to usually see eye to eye with Foxy Loxy here - I have to say that he hasn't called anyone cheaters, to my view. He's just been saying "Red Bull uses RBT to outfox the RRA. Red Bull clever tactic. Clever tactic for rule bending. Completely legal. Kthxbye"

Bravo! =D>
Not sure about the foxy loxy bit mind...

[bhall]

How about a little conversation reset here?

I do not assert, nor do I believe, that Red Bull, in any form or entity, is cheating or has cheated. That's not only important to recognize for the sake of clarity of discussion, it's quite important for my entire interest in the conversation. I'm not interested in how teams break the rules, because that's easy enough to figure out as it requires only the "skill" to ignore. My interest is in Red Bull's methodology for ultimately adhering to the rules. For me, this conversation is about ingenuity and wit, not a brazen disregard to rules and regulations.

This conversation could also probably be had about every team in Formula One aside from the minnows. The reason why this conversation is about Red Bull is because the information about Red Bull is so transparent. We'd have to make educated guesses in the discussion of any other team. That's mot the case here; we have the facts and figures.

Does that clear things up at all?

[Raptor22]

While I'm not one to usually see eye to eye with Foxy Loxy here - I have to say that he hasn't called anyone cheaters, to my view. He's just been saying "Red Bull uses RBT to outfox the RRA. Red Bull clever tactic. Clever tactic for rule bending. Completely legal. Kthxbye"

The ryder to that statement is that how can a structure put in place in 2005 or 2007 have been a deliberate attempt to outfox the RRA when the RRA was not even under consideration at that point in time..

The words, "outfox", "bending the rules yet again to eek out an advantage" is synonymic to "Cheating" without actually using the word. The tone of the thread and posts is clear.

[Richard]

I'm not interested in how teams break the rules, because that's easy enough to figure out as it requires only the "skill" to ignore. My interest is in Red Bull's methodology for ultimately adhering to the rules. For me, this conversation is about ingenuity and wit, not a brazen disregard to rules and regulations.

This conversation could also probably be had about every team in Formula One aside from the minnows. The reason why this conversation is about Red Bull is because the information about Red Bull is so transparent. We'd have to make educated guesses in the discussion of any other team. That's mot the case here; we have the facts and figures.

Does that clear things up at all?

That's my perspective too.

The conversation does need a reset, there has too much misinformation and erroneous supposition of financial data and corporate structures presented as fact.

[raymondu999]

The ryder to that statement is that how can a structure put in place in 2005 or 2007 have been a deliberate attempt to outfox the RRA when the RRA was not even under consideration at that point in time..

Oh it's not deliberate. Circumstances just fell into RBR's lap in this regard, and as any good boss would - the RBR direction took advantage of this loophole.

The words, "outfox", "bending the rules yet again to eek out an advantage" is synonymic to "Cheating" without actually using the word.

"Cheating" is breaking, not bending, rules. While everyone in the thread has just about said that such a setup would indeed circumvent the RRA legally, no one has called it cheating.

Not sure about the foxy loxy bit mind...

The sky is falling*. Deal with it.

*"the sky is falling" is not a dig at anyone. It is a reference to my Foxy Loxy reference (Foxy Loxy from Chicken Little)