Stolen RedBull plans?

[Roamy]

Ok I'll bite now lets start removing some illegal *******s from F1. Red Bull is a **** drink and the fact people mix it with vodka makes it even worse for the public. Give that team to someone from Napa Valley who produces something fit to drink. Berger was never capable of winning a WDC so why should he be a team owner - give that team to MS to compete with Ferrari.

[ioan]

Ok I'll bite now lets start removing some illegal *******s from F1. Red Bull is a **** drink and the fact people mix it with vodka makes it even worse for the public. Give that team to someone from Napa Valley who produces something fit to drink. Berger was never capable of winning a WDC so why should he be a team owner - give that team to MS to compete with Ferrari.

Did you wake up on the wrong side or you just drank some RedBull Vodka?!

[Gannex]

Ok I'll bite now lets start removing some illegal *******s from F1. Red Bull is a **** drink and the fact people mix it with vodka makes it even worse for the public. Give that team to someone from Napa Valley who produces something fit to drink. Berger was never capable of winning a WDC so why should he be a team owner - give that team to MS to compete with Ferrari.

I think removing Red Bull entirely is a little strong, fousto, but they should at least be removed from the trough of Constructors' TV money. They have no business there at all, unless they are willing to take on the cost of design and manufacturing, like the real Constructors.

Compare Colin Kolles to Paul Stoddart. Both were fighting for fair shares of TV revenue for independent teams, but whereas Stoddart's weapons were pity and accusation, Kolles has stuck to reason, evidence, and truth. Oh yes, a little espionage as well, but what's a little spying between F1 friends?

[ozrevhead]

so Gannex your saying that RB as well as Toro Rosso could be removed from the Championship?

Oh f***

[PSfan]

I think removing Red Bull entirely is a little strong, fousto, but they should at least be removed from the trough of Constructors' TV money. They have no business there at all, unless they are willing to take on the cost of design and manufacturing, like the real Constructors.

Ok, what if Berger paid 25% of Newey's contract, and the Toro Rosso cars where manufactured and built in Italy?

And what if Newey designed subtle differences that made the parts on the Toro Rosso incompatible with the Red Bulls?

Compare Colin Kolles to Paul Stoddart. Both were fighting for fair shares of TV revenue for independent teams, but whereas Stoddart's weapons were pity and accusation, Kolles has stuck to reason, evidence, and truth. Oh yes, a little espionage as well, but what's a little spying between F1 friends?

Its very sad when there is actually someone out there that you can compare to Stoddart!!! And I thought things where getting better :

[ioan]

Oh yes, a little espionage as well, but what's a little spying between F1 friends?

Lawyers, deforming reality to suit their POV. Stealing or asking someone to steal for them is not a little espionage, and as history shows (i.e. Toyota) they might get in deep trouble.

[Gannex]

so Gannex your saying that RB as well as Toro Rosso could be removed from the Championship?

Ok, what if Berger paid 25% of Newey's contract, and the Toro Rosso cars where manufactured and built in Italy?

And what if Newey designed subtle differences that made the parts on the Toro Rosso incompatible with the Red Bulls?

oz and PSfan, my position is very simple, and is the same as Williams's and Spyker's position. Toro Rosso and Super Aguri have both claimed to be Constructors, with a capital 'C', as defined in the Concorde Agreement. But they are not, because one of the elements of the definition of a Constructor is that it may not use parts designed by another Constructor. Toro Rosso uses parts designed by Red Bull and Super Aguri uses parts designed by Honda. That makes them competitors, but not Constructors.

If the two teams are not Constructors, that does not mean, in my opinion, that they should not be allowed to continue in Formula 1. Their drivers are entered into the Drivers' Championship, and properly so. If Davidson, Sato, Liuzzi or Speed should ever score points, those points should be awarded, and their teams should receive the TV money that the Concorde Agreement awards for points in the Drivers' Championship. But the two teams should not be listed as entrants in the Constructors' Championship, should not receive points in the Constructors' Championship, and should not receive any of the TV revenue or other privileges accorded to Constructors. Because they are not Constructors! They do not meet the definition; simple as that.

That is the legal argument, and I think it is unimpeachable. The logic behind the rule prohibiting parts designed by another Constructor is, however, also very sound. It is meant to ensure that every Constructor is obliged to go to the trouble and expense of designing its own car (or paying an outside contractor, like Dallara or Lola, to do it for them). If they aren't prepared to enter their own design, and want to use a fellow competitor's design, as Prodrive intends to do, then how on earth can they be considered entrants in a competition between designers?

Let me give you an analogy. Each year in Ruritania there is a Storytelling Championship where authors read short stories to a panel of judges. There are two competitions, one for the Best Author, and one for the Best Reading Performance. You can enter either competition, or both. One year, Mr. Shakespeare shows up and reads his story badly, but all agree it is a brilliant story. The next entrant, Mr. Olivier, with Shakespeare's permission, also reads Shakespeare's story, but he reads it so well that the judges are moved to tears. Olivier wins the prize for Best Reading Performance, which no one objects to, but also comes second in the Best Author competition. The guy who comes third in Best Author objects, saying he should be second, since Olivier isn't an author at all, and shouldn't even be entered in the Best Author competition. He's right, isn't he? And so is Kolles, and so is Williams.

[ioan]

The way I see it Spyker are trying to make sure they receive a part of the TV money no matter how bad their cars are/will be.
Williams don't need to do that as for now neither STR or SAF1 are finishing in front of them.

[Gannex]

The way I see it Spyker are trying to make sure they receive a part of the TV money no matter how bad their cars are/will be.

I agree, and Spyker are right to do it because TV money is supposed to go to the top ten Constructors. Not counting Toro Rosso and Super Aguri, Spyker are likely to be the ninth Constructor, which should give them a fair wad of cash, a well-earned, hard-fought, expensively achieved return on their investment in design and manufacturing capability.

[Ranger]

If the two teams are not Constructors, that does not mean, in my opinion, that they should not be allowed to continue in Formula 1. Their drivers are entered into the Drivers' Championship, and properly so. If Davidson, Sato, Liuzzi or Speed should ever score points, those points should be awarded, and their teams should receive the TV money that the Concorde Agreement awards for points in the Drivers' Championship. But the two teams should not be listed as entrants in the Constructors' Championship, should not receive points in the Constructors' Championship, and should not receive any of the TV revenue or other privileges accorded to Constructors. Because they are not Constructors! They do not meet the definition; simple as that.

Good principle in theory, but in practice its different. By the same logic, RBR would have been punished in 2005 for essentially using Jaguars, same with the Prost team using old Benneton's in the late 1990's.

Where the line is slightly muddy, the FIA won't act, unless they are at the centre of a championship. Just ask Renault with their mass dampers last year.