Paddy Love of Mcl said openly they will build it so there must be a way around the RRA!raymondu999 wrote:Yes but that's what we were sort of discussing - and Crucial was saying it might be an RRA violation.alogoc wrote:They should build a new one! end of philosophizing!
How do you mean? The RRA began years ago and is binding until 2017.Nando wrote:Regarding RRA.... Is it even in effect? I got the idea that nothing has been done in terms of the RRA deal.
The logical thing to do is to spread an investment.alogoc wrote:Paddy Love of Mcl said openly they will build it so there must be a way around the RRA!raymondu999 wrote:Yes but that's what we were sort of discussing - and Crucial was saying it might be an RRA violation.alogoc wrote:They should build a new one! end of philosophizing!
Can i look at that?raymondu999 wrote:Yes but a signed contractual agreement is in place, and has been for a while now. The disagreements were on how things should be, moving forwards.
Fiat can build a wind tunnel for their road cars, as could McLaren and Daimler AG. The teams can then pay for its use, just as they pay for use of the Toyota wind tunnel.Nando wrote:Can i look at that?raymondu999 wrote:Yes but a signed contractual agreement is in place, and has been for a while now. The disagreements were on how things should be, moving forwards.
That´s great but can i look at the RRA agreement? Where can i read this document?gilgen wrote:Fiat can build a wind tunnel for their road cars, as could McLaren and Daimler AG. The teams can then pay for its use, just as they pay for use of the Toyota wind tunnel.Nando wrote:Can i look at that?raymondu999 wrote:Yes but a signed contractual agreement is in place, and has been for a while now. The disagreements were on how things should be, moving forwards.
It's not open for public consumption - us meer mortals don't have access to it. But I've always consistently read of it being a legal contract until 2017 (ie. The policing and prosecution of it should be pursuable even in normal court)Nando wrote:Can i look at that?raymondu999 wrote:Yes but a signed contractual agreement is in place, and has been for a while now. The disagreements were on how things should be, moving forwards.
Another: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2012/01/ ... bout-2012/[...]it’s important to remember that the RRA is a legally binding agreement which runs to 2017[...]
I don't mind talking of this but I think this is the wrong thread. Mods can we move the RRA talk?The RRA is still standing. The first agreement runs to the end of 2012 and the second, which was agreed in Singapore in 2010, goes until the end of 2017.
It's BY FOTA - but it's not part of FOTA. Red Bull/Ferrari leaving FOTA had no bearing on their participation in the RRA - it's a contract they signed out of FOTA. If they were to break the RRA now the other teams could bring them to legal (read: normal) court.Spankyham wrote:As I understood it, the RRA is a FOTA agreement and Ferrari and Red Bull (amongst others) opted out of FOTA.
My take is that it IS policeable - but the steps outlined in the current agreement (based on what I've heard) are idiotic in that they don't police everything thoroughly. If your accountant is creative enough, it is possible to go past the intended limits without breaking the RRA.Apparently it also could not be policed - there were complaints that Red Bull abused it, but, as I remember it, they refused to have themselves audited so nothing could be proved or disproved.
Yep, that's how I understand it too. X hours of WT time, Y Tflops of CFD power, etc.Lastly, I'm pretty certain there was no budget restrictions or spending caps in the RRA anyway. It restricted resources such as the number of direct employees (but they could be paid as higher salary as desired).
