Red Bull RB3 / Toro Rosso

[Keir]

I think it was argued that there may have been a fair share of 'technical exchange' in addition to the engines.

But the car was manufactured in Hinwil by Sauber so there could be no argument in that instance.

[fwa2500]

aside from powerplant, paint job and drivers, is there ANY difference between the torro and the bull?


i find it rather depressing that F1 is turning into a spec series like IRL or Champcar.....

[Ignis Fatuus]

aside from powerplant, paint job and drivers, is there ANY difference between the torro and the bull?


i find it rather depressing that F1 is turning into a spec series like IRL or Champcar.....

[Saribro]

Less winglets on the STR2, and slightly different airbox, huray !!
...
...

[ss_collins]

perhaps it was a rush job though I suspect that this is a deliberate trick to make the RB3 different enough. I suggest though the main structures are largely identical and thats what I define as the chassis. The Lola Formula Nippon (in Racecar's Feb issue) is an interesting car designed to accomodate two different engines designed to thesame rule book.

Cooling is different for both engines (both water and oil), electronics obviously, some other associated systems need different stuff, and there are differences in the floor (read the article for more info). I suspect its much the same on the RB3/STR2 is similar - I suspect that the tubs may differ mildly at the rear but its hardly a different car or even a B spec.

I reckon its outside the regs but I'm only guessing what defines a constructor

[manchild]

Don't forget that they have different engines. If engines/radiators/gearboxes were identical cars would be identical too. So RBR/STR didn't make any deliberate changes to make them look different but only those imposed by engine and transmission.

I thought they'd try to use RB2 chassis (one year old) but now they've really gone too far by using 2007 chassis for both teams. If this goes unpunished F1 will completely loose its meaning since constructor's championship automatically stops existing. If Red Bull bought 2 teams and now has two identical cars what prevents for example Coca Cola or some other corporation to buy 4, 6 or all 12 teams one day, build one chassis, make a contract with one engine supplier and run one chassis, one engine one sponsor (12 different fake constructors) championship.

Red Bull was given finger and they've bitten whole hand. Having in mind who brought Red Bull to F1 it is no wonder things are developing this way.

As Tango (Kurt Russell) would say (Cash's partner in Tango & Cash): "This whole thing... *ucking sucks!"

[Ray]

If Red Bull bought 2 teams and now has two identical cars what prevents for example Coca Cola or some other corporation to buy 4, 6 or all 12 teams one day, build one chassis, make a contract with one engine supplier and run one chassis,

You mean like NASCAR and the new 'Camry' body? NASCAR is almost exactly what you describe MC. I sure hope and pray F1 doesn't go that route. It's a constructors championship, not the World Customer Championship.

[allan]

Maybe mad max should do something to this, and i wouldn't care if we missed 2 cars from he grid, so i really hope that Frank sues them as he said before

[Ray]

I think that there should be most definitely legal action. To not do so is ridiculous. Don't forget Super Aguri, they are guilty too!!

[bhall]

Do the 2008 regulations allow for customer cars? I remember reading something about it a while back, but I'm unsure.

But if that's the case, I can't imagine the FIA doing anything about the RBR/STR-Honda/Super Aguri situation. The argument that "it's in the rules for next year, so might as well do it this year to save money" has already worked for the engine freeze.

I do I hope I'm wrong though.

[ss_collins]

2008 allows customer cars but 2007 does not - also I don't know if the 2008 regs override the 1998 concorde agreement - but if they do or theres a new agreement the we will see custmer cars - not least from Prodrive.

back to 2007 and I'll say that I suspect that the Aguri and BOTH RB3 and STR02 are illegal. So you could lose 6 cars - I doubt that will happen.

[Sawtooth-spike]

but how come nobody kicked up as fuss last year when STR ran the old Redbull chassis?

If super aguri run last years honda then they are doing what has been allowed in the past?

[ss_collins]

cos STR were also running restricted V10's and were just an exception anyway. Nobody ever admitted that the old RB1 was the STR1 but they were very similar certainly. To be honest I don't think anyone checked.

[bhall]

The STR01 and the RB1 were basically the same car. However, that car was designed by Jaguar Racing, who was not a current competitor in Formula 1. So it was legal by definition of the rules.

It's the same reason Aguri was able to run a chassis last year that they didn't design themselves. Their chassis was made by Arrows, who, again, was not a current competitor.

[joseff]

from http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/56068, emphasis mine.

Section 3 of the Concorde Agreement states:

"A constructor is a person (including any incorporated 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 F1 racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment, providing that nothing in the Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis."

The Concorde Agreement is supposedly secret, but assuming the above quote is accurate, it's quite clear isn't it? RB Tech owns the IP to the chassis, therefore RBR and STR are not constructors by the strict definition.