Red Bull RB3 / Toro Rosso

[Keir]

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.

That would be my interpretation of that. However that does leave you in the slightly sticky position of having 4 cars scoring for the same constructor.

My view is that if F1 is going down this route that there should be 3 dispirate championships.

A Drivers championship.
A Teams championship.
A Constructors championship.

Of course if you're getting really picky, it could be argued that the main tub or 'survival cell' is a standard piece of safety equipment

[ss_collins]

"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."

Right then here is how I see it (guesswork and fiction to try and fathom the truth)

Honda R&D (Tochigi) own the IPR of the RA106 raced last year by its subsidary Honda Racing F1, that IPR can be transferred to Super Aguri F1 who can then manufacture the RA106 as thier own car - though it must be all new tubs etc... - ie no parts from either Tochigi or Brackley (but they can use the same tooling I suspect). By that measure I reckon the Aguri is legal as long as its a RA106 not a modded version of the RA107.

Meanwhile in Milton Keynes there maybe some sleepless nights.

Red Bull technologies owns the IPR to the RB3/STR2 design not RBR or Toro Rosso which I think would suggest that it falls foul of this portion of the schedule 3 "A constructor is a person (including any incorporated or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races" well Red Bull Technologies owns the IPR and isn't racing at all ruling out both RBR and STR.

Now arguments -

RBTech owns both teams - doesn't stand up the teams are seperate entities so both cannot own the IPR to one design.

Its a different design - doesn't stand up and it wouldn't in court - can they really show significant differences to override the significant similarities we have all noted?

Solution - RBTech transfers the IPR to RBR and Toro Rosso race but score no constructors points.

[joseff]

"Honda R&D (Tochigi) own the IPR of the RA106 raced last year by its subsidary Honda Racing F1, that IPR can be transferred to Super Aguri F1 who can then manufacture the RA106 as thier own car - though it must be all new tubs etc... - ie no parts from either Tochigi or Brackley (but they can use the same tooling I suspect). By that measure I reckon the Aguri is legal as long as its a RA106 not a modded version of the RA107.

True, but what about "does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of F1 racing cars"? The IP may have been transferred (sold for $1?) but if any part designed by Honda Racing is still on the SA07 then they would not qualify. Going by that, "using the original tooling" should be out of the question.

Shame, they could've laid low for this year only by using the RB2. It would still be illegal but nobody would give a hoot.

[ss_collins]

we need some definitions - what defines a design?

[humble sabot]

i don't know what defines a design but i think the bigger problem is that redbull has two teams, rather than that both of their teams have essentially the same car. Super Aguiri needs all the help they can get so banning them is preposterous. If redbull of all companies couldn't afford a brand new car in their first year that just goes to show doesn't it.

First post and it's about the retarded politics of f1, what have i got myself into.

i think everybody's got their knickers in a bunch for no reason. the more apt analog would be multiple teams riding the same bike in the tour, not taking steroids, preposterous again, sorry.

i'm going to keep out of this part of the sport from now on; night all!