Infiniti Red Bull Racing 2015

[turbof1]

How do you want to send me my £10 Turbo?

Didn't that bumped off on the currency ? We'll see; it's not yet confirmed actually.

[FoxHound]

I agree I am overly cynical on it. To answer your question however: dozens of millions of prize money, if Red Bull does not compete. Of course, it can also open a can of worms. If Renault is allowed to have in effect 2 seperate development paths, what would stop Ferrari from instance to relabel some of their PUs Alfa Romeo and use that as a separate development path? How about Mercedes involving Chrysler for the same move? Honda and Mugen?

Nothing at all.
But Ferrari would be bearing the responsibility of chrysler though!

If Red Bull want their cake and eat it, should only they be allowed to?
The question is quite pertinent.

[turbof1]

the issue is on manufacturer's level, not on team level. The bigger picture would imply thay Renault keeps IP on both development paths. If it finds out the alternative is better, they can insert their tokens the year after to change their current PU for the alternative.

That can of worms should remain firmly closed.

[FoxHound]

Legally speaking, if TJ13 was correct abiut the IP sale of the engine, Red Bull have a right to develop it.

It would be illegal to enforce a rule that stopped a competitor developing it's engine.
Once the IP was split 50/50, it fails to be a single entities engine. And there is no law against it.

Besides, I think Renault may want a piece of ilmor right now, given their "upgrade" proved worse than the old unit.

[turbof1]

Legally speaking, if TJ13 was correct abiut the IP sale of the engine, Red Bull have a right to develop it.

It would be illegal to enforce a rule that stopped a competitor developing it's engine.
Once the IP was split 50/50, it fails to be a single entities engine. And there is no law against it.

Besides, I think Renault may want a piece of ilmor right now, given their "upgrade" proved worse than the old unit.

No it wouldn't necessarily. Rather, one interpretation would allow Red Bull to keep receiving updates from Renault, but can't make their own updates. Also do remember that the current regulations allow for 1 year-old PU supply. Having updates is not a right. Atleast not for one year.

Splitting IP would make much more of a mess. Which of the 50% would go to Ilmor? Which 50% goes to Renault?

There's sufficient interpretation room for both owning 100% of the IP. But that leaves the door open for all other manufacturers to do the same.

In my eyes, the best solution regulation-wise is that Renault provides technology and does some R&D transfer to ilmor, but does not provide any starting platform. Meaning Ilmor will have to create and build everything themselves. Either that, or just moving along with Renault without any separated development path. I think either of those 2 are very likely to happen. Or, we can assume the FIA is incompetent enough to go for option C and we'll have Mugen running alternative Honda PUs within a couple of years.

If you think that is far fetched: we already have Ferrari using HAAS effectively as circumvention for the aero rules, with Mercedes exploring the legality of such move to possibly doing the same:
http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2015/11/28/f ... ationship/

It would rather be fairly straight forward to do the same with the PUs: work up a document where you state you now share 100% of the IP with your customer and then sign up a contract where you supply expertise and production facilities to give the "independent" PU manufacturers to built and update their own PUs.

It's why I hope the FIA realises this and does not allow separate development. You will be creating another spending war.

[FoxHound]

Why would this be an issue Turbo?

Manufacturers would be happy, FIA would be happy and Bernie would be over the moon. Red Bull would be on the grid for the next few years, and responsible for their own development programme which will not be allowed to run in parallel to Renault's as there would be an effective split.

And when you think about it, it gives independent teams the ability too, should manufacturers wish to sell IP to them for their own development programmes.
This could actually be a solution rather than a problem.

The important thing to remember here, I'm not proposing a constant symbiotic relationship which is what it looks like Haas and Ferrari seem to have.
Once the IP is transferred, the team developing the engine are on their own.

[turbof1]

Why would this be an issue Turbo?

Manufacturers would be happy, FIA would be happy and Bernie would be over the moon. Red Bull would be on the grid for the next few years, and responsible for their own development programme which will not be allowed to run in parallel to Renault's as there would be an effective split.

And when you think about it, it gives independent teams the ability too, should manufacturers wish to sell IP to them for their own development programmes.
This could actually be a solution rather than a problem.

The important thing to remember here, I'm not proposing a constant symbiotic relationship which is what it looks like Haas and Ferrari seem to have.
Once the IP is transferred, the team developing the engine are on their own.

A spending war and basically going out of touch with reality. Do you want as presentator explain that for instance HAAS runs their very own PUs, but also not really because it is in some sort of degree a Ferrari PU, which Ferrari might use next year if it is a good one, while forcing HAAS to detune it in the present so they don't embarass Ferrari?

There will never be a split. Ferrari showed how easily they can go around development inhibiting rules by "laying off" employees and letting them all leave for HAAS, while those same employees stay at Ferrari in Maranello and use the excact same tools Ferrari uses. "Hey don't worry. We use the same hard drive to save both the HAAS development and the Ferrari development. But we SWEAR we aren't opening their files!"

It doesn't give customer teams more control. If anything, they become more dependent.

And who do you think who eventually gets the bill? Customer teams. F1 is surrealistic already enough. No need for more thank you. You want to allow this? Remove any restrictions on PU development and testing. That's the same for the same cost and very clear atleast.

[FoxHound]

There will never be a split. Ferrari showed how easily they can go around development inhibiting rules by "laying off" employees and letting them all leave for HAAS, while those same employees stay at Ferrari in Maranello and use the excact same tools Ferrari uses. "Hey don't worry. We use the same hard drive to save both the HAAS development and the Ferrari development. But we SWEAR we aren't opening their files!"

So it can happen with chassis and aero, but it's a massive issue with engines?

Besides, the comparison is flawed.
For instance, Haas utilise Ferrari's expertise in a pretty direct and blatant manner. This would be deemed symbiotic as Ferrari get data and cash out of it.

In Red Bull's case, they'd be getting engine plans directly from Renault, and from the point of transfer there would be no more transfer of cash or information.
Red Bull would then work with Ilmor on "their" engine, and Renault would work on their own.
There would be no symbiosis after the point of transfer.

It stands to reason that Red Bull have shown enough recently to demonstrate they have a will to at the very least be involved with engine development.

This next bit is quite important...

If the engine is as yet unnamed and there are new sponsors coming on board, with Red Bull's relationship in bringing Ilmor to the table, Bernie's and the FIA's desire to keep them in the sport, teams unwilling to accept the alternative engine, Red Bull lacking faith in Renault, Renault with no desire to continue supply... does it not solve the problem?

[ripper]

I really hope that FIA won't allow different development paths, otherwise we'll soon find Lancia, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Abarth Mugen, Dacia, Renault Samsung Motors, AMG PUs... and maybe more.

Hell no, please

[lio007]

A tight lipped Marko:
http://www.formula1.com/content/fom-web ... marko.html

[turbof1]

There will never be a split. Ferrari showed how easily they can go around development inhibiting rules by "laying off" employees and letting them all leave for HAAS, while those same employees stay at Ferrari in Maranello and use the excact same tools Ferrari uses. "Hey don't worry. We use the same hard drive to save both the HAAS development and the Ferrari development. But we SWEAR we aren't opening their files!"

So it can happen with chassis and aero, but it's a massive issue with engines?

I'm lamenting both, if you did not noticed . The comparison is not flawed btw. Both what Ferrari/HAAS do and potentionally with Renault/Red Bull can do, are examples of bending the rules in such a fashion you almost completely whipe out any regulations on development. It's up to the FIA to make sure these interpretations cannot be followed, because while I am for more development, it should be done in a controlled environment. Not within loopholes left open.

Just reading this: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122042
Will give you an understanding of why I'm troubled about this.

I really hope that FIA won't allow different development paths, otherwise we'll soon find Lancia, Alfa Romeo, Maserati, Abarth Mugen, Dacia, Renault Samsung Motors, AMG PUs... and maybe more.

Hell no, please

Exactly. It leaves the sport wide open for mockery.

[FoxHound]

Remember the reason I'm saying this is different, is that Ferrari directly benefit from Haas and vice versa.

Red Bull getting an engine and developing it themselves independently of Renault, with no transfer between the 2 is different.
There can be no comparison to the Haas situation.

[turbof1]

Remember the reason I'm saying this is different, is that Ferrari directly benefit from Haas and vice versa.

Red Bull getting an engine and developing it themselves independently of Renault, with no transfer between the 2 is different.
There can be no comparison to the Haas situation.

Yes there can be. Renault is not a charity fund, they will want something in return . And let's be fair: who is going to have the most benefit from the collaboration between HAAS and Ferrari? Ferrari of course. Besides that, it's an obvious case where rule bending will lead to a massive spending war. Both are perfect examples and can be compared in terms of impact. Both are very troubling to say the least. No better comparison can be made, that's a fact for you there .

[FoxHound]

In a symbiotic relationship both parties stand to gain their proportional share.

Haas will likely be way ahead of where they would've been sans Ferrari. And Ferrari get money, and data that will allow more progress than would otherwise have been possible. Win Win, with the added point that this will be continuous as both parties share information.

Renault are alleged to have already sold 50% of the IP of their engine. Which means they gain a monetary amount that can help them invest in their own development programme. Once sold...the relationship ends.
Red Bull gain an engine they would otherwise have had to run anyway, but without a Renault development programme.
Red Bull are taking the risk, as they have allegedly already paid to use the design, but have brought Ilmor in to help with developing it.
Renault will not be privy to this development, nor should they be IMO....if they are then I will have a problem with it as it then becomes a tripartite arrangement.

Red Bull are using the same engine, but with their own development path. It solves many issues, and keeps 2 racing teams in the sport.
It beats the alternative engine hands down, and the loophole can be shut once Red bull have facilitated it.

You know it makes sense Turbo.

[turbof1]

In a symbiotic relationship both parties stand to gain their proportional share.

You are neglecting the single most argument I'm making: it creates a spending war, where HAAS gains a little and Ferrari a lot. It's highly disproportional since Ferrari effectively doubles development input, where HAAS only enjoys half of that input. Either way, don't take my word for it. Ask Toto Wolff if this kind of loophole is further deepened out:
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122042

"This is the trigger of reorganising your structures to share ATR quota, to collaborate and educate personnel jointly and to share infrastructure.

"It would eventually be a situation where it could become an arms race of how many corporations or partners you could sign up in order to develop at the greatest speed."

You know it makes sense Turbo.

In a world outside F1, yes. Not in a sport where self-interest is the first and last thing you are dealing with. It's good to have nice intentions and to see positives. How many times have good intentions led to positives in F1? I can't tell you one from the past few years.

If we were talking about WEC, I wouldn't be even argueing with you . It's much better regulated, with much less self interest around.

Renault are alleged to have already sold 50% of the IP of their engine. Which means they gain a monetary amount that can help them invest in their own development programme. Once sold...the relationship ends.

Well first of all, Bernie Ecclestone might be party poper here since his deal with Renault is under jeapordy due Renault not having told this to him, which in extend means the deal with Red Bull (and Lotus too, for that matter) is also in jeapordy. Second, you are still dealing with the issue here that if you allow this for Renault, you are in principle allowing this for other manufacturers too. This is where you would be creating another spending war. No matter how you twist or turn it, the IP sold off is still Renault tech and the same base Renault uses. Nothing out there forbids sharing technology between 2 manufacturers. Even if Red Bull or Renault don't do this, others can in a similar construction.