Quote Originally Posted by Gannex
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.