Beautiful matching colors!
Cash App is a Visa partner, they don’t own them.
This is spot on. They tried to make the team name so generic that you have to refer to the sponsors as the name, but it simply doesn't work. If that's your goal then just make a single sponsor the name, like Red Bull, Stake, or even Alpha Tauri!!! Putting two different sponsors together and putting it before a generic "RB" that stands for nothing achieves *nothing*. (Except, if anything, people having negative associations with Visa, Cash App, and the team).Raleigh wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 20:24Visa Cash App RB is just getting greedy with the sponsor names.
Visa RB F1 Team would have worked. Or RB Visa F1 Team. Abbreviates to RB Visa which is completely useable as a team name. Same deal with Hugo Boss or even Cash App on their own.
But no one is going to call out Visa Cash App RB during a race so instead you're going to get some version of "the RB Team" or "Red Bull's second team" or "the team formerly known as Alpha Tauri". Too many equally positioned sponsors equals no coverage for any of them.
Cannabis leaves ftw.Wouter wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 19:46Beautiful matching colors!
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/GF_au4hXkAA ... name=small
I agree, tbh most times the sky sports coverage calls it the sister red bull anyway, so that's my guess. Wonder if the F1 commentators will be contractually obliged to call it my it's real name.stonehenge wrote: ↑11 Feb 2024, 04:41This is spot on. They tried to make the team name so generic that you have to refer to the sponsors as the name, but it simply doesn't work. If that's your goal then just make a single sponsor the name, like Red Bull, Stake, or even Alpha Tauri!!! Putting two different sponsors together and putting it before a generic "RB" that stands for nothing achieves *nothing*. (Except, if anything, people having negative associations with Visa, Cash App, and the team).Raleigh wrote: ↑10 Feb 2024, 20:24Visa Cash App RB is just getting greedy with the sponsor names.
Visa RB F1 Team would have worked. Or RB Visa F1 Team. Abbreviates to RB Visa which is completely useable as a team name. Same deal with Hugo Boss or even Cash App on their own.
But no one is going to call out Visa Cash App RB during a race so instead you're going to get some version of "the RB Team" or "Red Bull's second team" or "the team formerly known as Alpha Tauri". Too many equally positioned sponsors equals no coverage for any of them.
Why not call it Visa Cash App Toro Rosso??? Everyone would've been happy with the team identity and probably would've had a better perception of Visa and Cash App as a result. It simply boggles the mind...
the fact that we are talking about this, that means the marketing campaign is working. If its just VISA I don't think anyone will be talking about it
Good point.
That's not how it works.CjC wrote: ↑09 Feb 2024, 19:03But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?organic wrote: ↑09 Feb 2024, 18:08The option is available to customer teams and many choose not to take it eg AMR, Williams, Alfa Romeo.. so it isn't pure advantage or an absolute no-brainer like you're suggesting.CjC wrote: ↑09 Feb 2024, 18:03
So it’s a massive advantage to buy the proven Red Bull front suspension and no doubt walk onto the podium?
Then all the money and allocation saved front not designing your own suspension can be pumped into pure aerodynamic performance resulting in a laptime gain….
Come on…. how can this be fair to the others
Having autonomy over the design is extremely valuable; designing around decisions made for another car layout is generally not going to be optimal. Additionally, with Toro Rosso they're always a year behind RB's design with their 2024 car running 2023 parts. Haas on the other hand takes up-to-date components as Ferrari releases the designs early enough in the process for them to incorporate. So I would say Haas stand to gain even more in this region, but as we see it has not helped much, right?
Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
Yes a previous contributor pointed the same out as well. I wasn’t aware that the purchasing team had to over pay effectively. My faith in the governance of the sport has marginally been restored.JordanMugen wrote: ↑12 Feb 2024, 11:06That's not how it works.CjC wrote: ↑09 Feb 2024, 19:03But my point about freeing up resources from not designing their own suspension stands surely?organic wrote: ↑09 Feb 2024, 18:08
The option is available to customer teams and many choose not to take it eg AMR, Williams, Alfa Romeo.. so it isn't pure advantage or an absolute no-brainer like you're suggesting.
Having autonomy over the design is extremely valuable; designing around decisions made for another car layout is generally not going to be optimal. Additionally, with Toro Rosso they're always a year behind RB's design with their 2024 car running 2023 parts. Haas on the other hand takes up-to-date components as Ferrari releases the designs early enough in the process for them to incorporate. So I would say Haas stand to gain even more in this region, but as we see it has not helped much, right?
Say for example taking the RB 2023 suspension looses them 5% of performance because it’s not optimal but because they haven’t designed it to begin with, they have extra resources available for aerodynamics which gain them 10% say- then its an unfair advantage
Under the budget cap you have to "pay" (at least for FIA accounting purposes) more for the transferable parts than what it would cost to design and make them yourself. To make this a disadvantage is precisely why the FIA set a high mandatory price for transferable parts.
So no, you absolutely do NOT have more budget left over to spend on aero than if you designed your own suspension.
This also negatively impacts Aston Martin who are using the Mercedes transmission and rear suspension by the way.