This whole Red Bull - Spyker thing. Comments?

[Rob W]

I've seen the various news-items about the leaked blue-prints and, if it's true, it seems laughable that Red Bull are essentially working outide the intended rules yet are crying foul over Spyker's possession of their blueprint.

The related topic which I've seen mentioned a few times of whether to allow teams to earn constructor points is the interesting one. I know it's come up before but surely there is something amiss if Torro Rosso can earn points for technology they had no hand in developing? If they did have a hand in developing it, then another set of rules has been infringed correct?

Williams has been strangely quiet on this topic for a few weeks. What's up?

Rob W

[joseff]

IMO Williams' sponsors told them to shut up. Besides after the first race they suddenly found themselves quicker than the Aguri and STR. With Toyota and Renault adding weight to Spyker's punch, all Sir Frank has to do is simply swoop in and pick up the monetary compensation (if any) after the damage is done.

Maybe they even financed lawyers for Spyker, or quietly asked for Toyota's support. We'll never know.

[mx_tifoso]

Seeing how STR has borrowed the chassis and everything else from parent company RBR, it is essentially illegal and at least shouldnt be allowed to earn Constructors points.

But thats the least that they should have happen to them (STR-RBR) for competing on illegal terms. They should have at least gone the SA route and use the previous seasons chassis from their parent company, and then modify it.

And whats even worse is that the FIA doesnt give a d*mn about this issue. They havent even threatend with legal action or anything. I doubt anything will be done about this, STR will continue to compete under the usual and normal circumstances. Thats the modern world where money can do anything you want it to. And RBR has plenty of it to go around for sure.

It is funny how Spyker have those blueprints and RBR are trying to take them to court, for "illegal" possesion of "illegal" blueprints.

Just my 2 cents

[Rob W]

After all, this is about money. The less constructors points you win the less money you earn at the end of the year.

So why doesn't the FIA say, OK, keep the points you earn - but the money earned by the customer team is split halved - with the rest going to a pool which is split amongst the constructing teams evenly?

The main issue here, from the end-of-year perspective of Sir Frank etc, is that without making the car you shouldn't be able to win earn any of the money associated with the constructor series. It rewards people who don't deserve it and therefore also denies reward to people who do deserve it.

Rob W

[mcdenife]

Rob wrote:

I've seen the various news-items about the leaked blue-prints and, if it's true, it seems laughable that Red Bull are essentially working outide the intended rules yet are crying foul over Spyker's possession of their blueprint.

Its not laughable. I thinks its good tactics. This issue is looking like its heading to the courts. That being the case, Spyker have to prove their 'proof' is not stolen before they can use it. Thats why RB are crying foul

[MrT]

What I don;t understand is why are they trying to stop torro rosso getting the constructors points, why not Red Bull as well? It is known that the car was designed by Red Bull Technology or whatever it is called, who appear to have given the designs to two teams.... both teams are therefore doing exactly the same as each other and using a customer car.... Either the rules allow an outside constructer to make cars for more than one team, or both RBR and STR are both at fault and both shouldn;t score constructors points???

Can anyone clear up my view?

Thanks

Mr t

[manchild]

I don't see how people easily overlook whole issue and settle with "no points" idea.

If Spyker or any other team including those who are about to lap STR or SA cars have to waste time and risk collision or excursion because those cars are in front of them than STR and SA are definitely in the championship because they affect its outcome.

That is what's wrong about "no points" idea.

They must not be allowed to influence championship in any way as long as they use illegal cars. They must be expelled from F1 up to 2008.

[Rob W]

...Spyker have to prove their 'proof' is not stolen before they can use it...

It's pretty common in law for evidence which has become public - no matter what the source - to eventually be accepted or considered. Once public it's futile trying to get time wound back.

Spyker don't have to prove anything except maybe that they didn't fake the blueprint. How they would do that is beyond me.

I think, privately Bernie will be fuming about this.. it's one thing for everyone to just agree to 'agree' that red is blue as is the case here but now that there is publicly shown evidence the FIA have no choice but to front up and say something.... otherwise it's the FIA who look like muppets for not enforcing or ruling on this quickly.

Bernie is reportedly coming up with a solution which will be pitched to the aggrieved teams... but the source of the evidence here is a whole other issue.

Rob W

[Rob W]

I don't see how people easily overlook whole issue and settle with "no points" idea.

I agree. I think it's now a case of Williams and Spyker being resigned to the fact that the cars will be allowed for the season - so the points thing is their only hope for some payback in the season ending points tally.

Money I think is a huge issue - and damn right. A lot is at stake. Imagine if Williams got pipped by one point at the end of the season - their sponsors and investors would rightly say "where did all the money go? *they* beat you without even bothering to make their own car."

Rob W

[Tom]

Why don't the FIA just fine the offending teams around £1M each and share the money out between themselves and the other teams who have been cheated?

[Sawtooth-spike]

Why don't the FIA just fine the offending teams around £1M each and share the money out between themselves and the other teams who have been cheated?

But surely All the Teams who made there own cars could be classed as being cheated? so 3 (SA, RB, STR) or 4 (Honda, SA, RB, STR) mill split between the rest. Maybe renault could use it to make there car faster

I cant see there FIA doing anything, as next year this will be legal.

[RH1300S]

I think this boils down to money; and money will solve the problem.

I fully agree with the Williams/Spyker point of view.

The whole thing is an issue because the true Constructor teams have invested large sums of money simply to be Constructors. Also, there is the question of divvying up the TV money. So, it is not right (and seemingly against the meaning of the regulations) that other teams can pop up with "off the shelf" cars and little investment.

I think using the Red Bull blueprints was misguided - there is every chance that Red Bull will use the "stolen" status to drive a coach and horses through the legal arguments - which will detract from the real point of the legal challenge. Someone should have mentioned this to Stryker before they went in with both feet.

Williams have been very quiet on the matter - but have made their point clearly enough. IMHO - FW is a shrewd operator and he knows when to keep things out of the public domain, you can bet he's no push-over behind the scenes.

The truth is......the disputed cars have entered the championship; they continue to race and will probably see the season out. They contiunue to affect the outcome (as Manchild correctly points out).

The resolution will probably come with a clearer definition of the status of "Constructor" which will vindicate the position of Williams/Stryker - and somewhere money will move around to sweeten the pill.

Next year (IIRC) it is no longer an issue and all this will be forgotten.

[manchild]

I agree that it is all abut the money, even more, STR and SA are not teams representing some constructor or manufacturer eager to show himself in F1, no, STR and SA are just money in possession of those who have nothing to do with constructing or automotive industry.

If there was better way to invest that money their owners would spend it in some other sport or area of business so considering them as "teams" or "constructors" is really inappropriate. STR, SA as well as RBR are not "naturally belonging" in F1.

Red Bull's business are energy drinks, they do not live from racing but just (ab)use F1 for promotion of their product.

I really don't like idea of F1 turning into competition of teams who don't have long term interest to be in F1. Having F1 turned into competion of big corporations who temporary use F1 to promote their products is bad for F1.

F1 2020

1. Red Bull Racing
2. Nokia racing
3. Pampers racing
4. McDonald's racing
5. Durex racing
6. Nescaffe racing
...


or even worse

1. Red Bull Racing
2. Coca Cola racing
3. Pepsi racing
...

[manchild]

Of course they are but manufacturers are the ones who founded motor racing in the first place over 100 years ago and technology developed for racing was later applied in passenger cars improving safety.

[joseff]

I'm afraid Frank Williams is the only team owner that is in F1 because he wants to win races on the biggest stage.

I'm a Williams fan, but credit where credit's due: add Michiel Mol to that list