Spyker launch arbitration

[Gannex]

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

No, because Red Bull Technologies does not race, and has not formally entered the competition. To be a constructor, you have to first enter the competition -- that much is clear from other provisions in the agreement.

[PSfan]

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

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. [/QUOTE]

As found on a couple of web sites via google search:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dallara was contracted to design Midland's cars. It came however to a split after financial problems arose at Dallara's side.
http://www.f1technical.net/f1db/teams/127

and:

Dallara had originally been contracted to develop the M16, however the agreement was discontinued during the design process after a disappointing contribution from the Italian manufacturer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midland_F1_Racing
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

But as I had already mentioned in this thread the "quess thats why they gave up on the Dallara chasis was meant to be sarcastic.

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

I had brought up the Dallara/Midland deal to point out that Kolles is full of it when he makes a statement like "It is in singular and you must manufacture your car. This qualifies you to be a constructor."

[Nikki Katz]

I was under the impression that the 2008 customer cars were just an agreement anyway, it's not actually stated anywhere in Concorde. So we may have this problem every year if it doesn't get resolved now, and it would also threaten the introduction of Prodrive next year.

[Gannex]

Nikki, the 2008 Concorde Agreement is still in the negotiation stage. Only general principles have been agreed. No drafts have been circulated, as far as I know, so the precise terms are very much an open question.

One of the "general principles" that have been agreed, according to almost everyone, is that customer cars will be allowed. To put it another way, it has been agreed in principle, by most of the interested parties, that the definition of "constructor" contained in Schedule 3 of the current Concorde Agreement will be revised in the 2008 agreement so as to delete the restriction that only engines and gearboxes can be bought from other competitors. Chassis, from 2008 onwards, may be bought as well.

Assurances about this very significant change to the existing Concorde Agreement have been given by Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone to Dave Richards, who has relied on those assurances in preparing his 2008 F1 entry. But Frank Williams has cast doubt on the validity of those assurances by stating that, as far as he is concerned, it is not agreed that customer cars will be allowed in 2008, and that Williams will continue to oppose the introduction of any such provision into the agreement which is currently under negotiation.

Williams and Spyker have a strong financial interest in opposing customer cars. It is almost not too strong to say that the very existence of those two teams depends on the retention of Schedule 3. But almost the entire F1 community is against them, so the struggle will be very hard for these two teams.

[ClarkFan]

No, because Red Bull Technologies does not race, and has not formally entered the competition. To be a constructor, you have to first enter the competition -- that much is clear from other provisions in the agreement.

Gannex, that strikes me as a distinction without a difference. But given that the Concorde agreement is owned by the lawyers (not the racers), I can believe that it is possible.

But that opens up a number of questions. What is the official corporate organization of Honda's F1 effort? What if Honda F1 Racing Ltd. of the UK had sold the design of the RA106 to Honda Development of Tochigi, Japan, which then proceeded to produce chassis for Super Aguri? Would those chassis be sufficiently independent (in the corporate sense ) to be legal? It is enough to make my poor little head hurt.

In the broader sense I support customer cars, but in the context of a very different world from the team preservation mindset of Concorde. Let anyone with the money/sponsors buy any legal chassis (eBay, anyone?), bung any legal engine/transmission into it, and go racing. 28 cars allowed in qualifying, 24 in the race, with pre-qualifying for the newbies and slowbies (those who didn't score championship points in the previous season or year-to-date). Teams that lose the plot face their own mortality (See any BRMs, Coopers, Lotuses, Tyrrells or Brabhams in this year's field?). For all the talk about "technical pinnacles," F1 has recently found itself saddled with perpetual loser teams like Minardi and Midland with no means to ease them into a merciful end. Bring in some real competition at the back of the field.

That's what I would do if I were king of the forest.

ClarkFan

[msaxman]

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

like they'd score, anyways. it would take a miracle (usgp 2005). i think it would be fair to have non-constructors score no constructor points, but allow their drivers to score drivers points.

but that's an armchair fans opinion. all you know-alls can shoot me off if you like.

[Valve Bounce]

This could be very interesting because Aguri can argue that their car is/was designed by Tochigi. Eiji did say that Toshigi was doing some idependant/separate design/R&D work on last year's Honda.

[Gannex]

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

No, because Red Bull Technologies does not race, and has not formally entered the competition. To be a constructor, you have to first enter the competition -- that much is clear from other provisions in the agreement.

Gannex, that strikes me as a distinction without a difference.

Well it is, I agree. But it's the loophole invented by Dietrich Mateschitz and it seems to be working.

[PSfan]

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.

Just gave this some more thought, and assuming that Schedule 3 hasn't been changed to much since 97, then this would explain why Spyker didn't originally go after Toro or Red Bull when they first protested after qualifying. As long as both the Toro Rosso and Red Bull cars are different enough to warrant their own intellectual property rights then there isn't a whole lot that Spyker can do about it.

Aguri on the other hand... While Honda F1 might have shipped off the intellectual property rights to Honda R&D, for this to work, Honda R&D would have to re-design every single piece of the chassis. If there is the slightest carry over from the RA106, then it would in fact be using parts designed by another constructor.

[aryan]

I had brought up the Dallara/Midland deal to point out that Kolles is full of it when he makes a statement like "It is in singular and you must manufacture your car. This qualifies you to be a constructor."

I see your point, I am sorry I didn't read the whole thread fully before that comment.