Spyker launch arbitration

[Valve Bounce]

I can understand Spyker's point of view but considering the 2008 regulations allow customer cars isn't all this somewhat futile?

No because at the end of this year, the amount of money the team will receive from the F1 organisation, whatever that is, will depend very much on where they finish in the championship. Just ask Paul Stoddart.

[PSfan]

From what you said, they did drop the idea. Then why wouldn't they complain about others doing it, taking into account that it is not permitted by the rules?

Whoops I forgot to add the sarcastic lookup with my "guess this is why" statement. If they had discovered that having Dallara design and build their chasis was outside the rules then sure it wouldn't be a factor, but the reason I read concerning Midlands decision to give up on the Dallara team was due to a lack of commitment on Dallara's part. I also think that Midland might have liked the "Jordan" way off designing their own chassis, and have different 3rd parties build the various parts.

And futhermore, what do we know what is or isn't permitted by the rules? Its not like we have a copy of the concorde agreement sitting next to our computers, and even then I'm sure its just as open to interpretation as the bible. Do we even know where Aguri's and Team Toro's cars were built, and by who?

[Ian McC]

So what's the worse we are talking about here? Teams kicked out? Or expected to run and not score any points?

[PSfan]

The worst I imagine is, this drags out for months, the cars are found illegal, and then the previous results are re-calculated to reflect, and then the teams wouldn't be allowed to score contructors points (not sure about the driver points though)

[Dazz9908]

I'm in two minds,
I like to see F1 teams develop their own cars for creativity and individualism and how each can twist/interpret the rules.

But Customer cars to New teams could help swell the field sizes, in time.

[V12]

Running a Dallara built chassis would have been allowed - provided nobody else did - like Scuderia Italia did 1988-92, and the Lola in 1993 (and Larrousse running Lolas 1987-91)

[Gannex]

Whoops I forgot to add the sarcastic lookup with my "guess this is why" statement. If they had discovered that having Dallara design and build their chasis was outside the rules then sure it wouldn't be a factor, but the reason I read concerning Midlands decision to give up on the Dallara team was due to a lack of commitment on Dallara's part. I also think that Midland might have liked the "Jordan" way off designing their own chassis, and have different 3rd parties build the various parts.

And futhermore, what do we know what is or isn't permitted by the rules? Its not like we have a copy of the concorde agreement sitting next to our computers, and even then I'm sure its just as open to interpretation as the bible. Do we even know where Aguri's and Team Toro's cars were built, and by who?

The Concorde Agreement says that "A constructor is a person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of Formula One racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment. Provided always that nothing in this Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis." Gerhard Berger has conceded that Scuderia Toro Rosso uses fundamentally the same chassis as Red Bull Racing. But according to Scuderia Toro Rosso, they are not using "any part designed . . . by any other constructor" because the chassis is designed not by Red Bull Racing, but by Red Bull Technologies who, so the theory goes, is not itself a constructor.

[ClarkFan]

Guess that was the reason Midland dropped the idea of running a Dallara designed and built chassis:

I thought that Midland dropped Dallara when Dallara insisted on being paid before they delivered chassis.....

ClarkFan

[wmcot]

The Concorde Agreement says that "A constructor is a person (including any corporate or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of Formula One racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment. Provided always that nothing in this Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis." Gerhard Berger has conceded that Scuderia Toro Rosso uses fundamentally the same chassis as Red Bull Racing. But according to Scuderia Toro Rosso, they are not using "any part designed . . . by any other constructor" because the chassis is designed not by Red Bull Racing, but by Red Bull Technologies who, so the theory goes, is not itself a constructor.

Doesn't that define Red Bull Technologies as the constructor of BOTH the Red Bull and Toro Rosso teams?

[aryan]

IIRC, the fallout between Midland and Dallara was purely based on financial reasons. Dallara was actually intrested in the project as they had some unfinished business in F1, but they were not sure the Midland guys would ever have the money to pay them back.

In short, it has nothing to do with the current fiasco.