RB

Author
Discussion

Evercross

Original Poster:

6,253 posts

70 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
So, Alpha Tauri's rebranding exercise is complete and the new name is.......

RB.

Discuss.

Bo_apex

2,844 posts

224 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
If within the rules is it actually similar to the Mercedes B Team ?

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysi...

blackmme

327 posts

89 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
Bo_apex said:
If within the rules is it actually similar to the Mercedes B Team ?

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysi...
There's an absolute world of difference between two completely independently owned teams with commercial arrangements to buy components and two teams owned entirely by the same business.

I'm guessing you know that though.

I'm sure if Torr.. Alph,,,, Visa Cash Grab RB have a dramatic leap in competitiveness come March everything will have been closely monitored by the FIA and entirely above board..

Hustle_

25,144 posts

166 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
bot_apex' ongoing effort to immediately make every thread about Mercedes or Mercedes personnel continues

Sandpit Steve

11,228 posts

80 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
There’s a lot of grey areas in the rules here, and there’s likely to be the suspicion from other entrants that RB are using two budget caps to develop four almost-identical cars.

It needs to be exactly the same as the Haas/Ferrari relationship, where the technology transfer is only ever one way, and Chinese Walls exist in the various businesses.

Any suggestion of a two-way transfer of technology has the potential to bring the sport into disrepute, and creates a nightmare for both FOM and FIA. No-one is going to watch The Red Bull Show.

Jasandjules

70,416 posts

235 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
Hustle_ said:
bot_apex' ongoing effort to immediately make every thread about Mercedes or Mercedes personnel continues
Yup, he is like the F1 equivalent of a vegan...........

Siao

1,007 posts

46 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
Sandpit Steve said:
There’s a lot of grey areas in the rules here, and there’s likely to be the suspicion from other entrants that RB are using two budget caps to develop four almost-identical cars.

It needs to be exactly the same as the Haas/Ferrari relationship, where the technology transfer is only ever one way, and Chinese Walls exist in the various businesses.

Any suggestion of a two-way transfer of technology has the potential to bring the sport into disrepute, and creates a nightmare for both FOM and FIA. No-one is going to watch The Red Bull Show.
People won't stop watching, they didn't after much bigger scandals.

F1GTRUeno

6,512 posts

224 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
blackmme said:
I'm sure if Torr.. Alph,,,, Visa Cash Grab RB have a dramatic leap in competitiveness come March everything will have been closely monitored by the FIA and entirely above board..
I mean they already did in the last few races last season and questions were asked

Bo_apex

2,844 posts

224 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
blackmme said:
Bo_apex said:
If within the rules is it actually similar to the Mercedes B Team ?

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/article.analysi...
There's an absolute world of difference between two completely independently owned teams with commercial arrangements to buy components and two teams owned entirely by the same business.

I'm guessing you know that though.

I'm sure if Torr.. Alph,,,, Visa Cash Grab RB have a dramatic leap in competitiveness come March everything will have been closely monitored by the FIA and entirely above board..
Yes ownership is one thing and data sharing is another. How much data sharing is going on between Williams > Mercedes / Red Bull > RB.

Or just open up and have 4 cars per team !


GCH

4,042 posts

208 months

Friday 26th January
quotequote all
I'm sure they will have the finest catering team on the grid.

gt_12345

1,873 posts

41 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
To be fair their relocation makes sense in terms of hiring engineers. UK is the place to be and that's one of the reasons Ferrar, Sauber and Alpha Tauri struggle.

Jasandjules

70,416 posts

235 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
GCH said:
I'm sure they will have the finest catering team on the grid.
The second most expensive I would wager...

Peacockantony

267 posts

165 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
gt_12345 said:
To be fair their relocation makes sense in terms of hiring engineers. UK is the place to be and that's one of the reasons Ferrar, Sauber and Alpha Tauri struggle.
The part moving was already in the UK... It is the aero department that is currently in Bicester.

Red Bull and Racing Bulls/Alpha Tauri/Toro Rosso have never worked together to the fullest extent that they were allowed, even when other teams were. Mercedes and Racing Point/Aston Martin worked more closely together when Aston used Merc's wind tunnel and when Merc gave Aston their car to copy. Haas literally get everything they can from Ferrari (and more prior to joining).

Then there is the ownership issue, which has only become an issue recently despite Red Bull owning two teams for 18 years at this point. I can't remember many people objecting to VAG wanting to have both Porsche & Audi as teams in F1 either. It's almost as if the objections are in bad faith. People are jumping to conclusions far too quickly to suit their beliefs, calling Red Bull cheats for doing what other teams have been doing for years. If they wanted to share data between the two teams they could do it without moving the aero department from Bicester to Milton Keynes.



Edited by Peacockantony on Saturday 27th January 12:28


Edited by Peacockantony on Saturday 27th January 12:29

Peacockantony

267 posts

165 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
Bo_apex said:
Yes ownership is one thing and data sharing is another. How much data sharing is going on between Williams > Mercedes / Red Bull > RB.

Or just open up and have 4 cars per team !
Well we already know a lot of data was shared between Merc and Tracing Point... Oh wait, that was Brackley so it is all fine and dandy. It is only Red Bull that aren't allowed to do what others teams do, perfectly within the rules. For years Red Bull and Toro Rosso operated far more independently than the rules allowed them to.

The rules regarding building their owns cars are still applicable. There has been no rule changes that would allow Red Bull to design or give Racing Bulls and old car of theirs. We still have 9 constructors on the grid that build their own cars, and one assembler. It is a fuss over nothing fuelled by nothing but anti-Red Bull rhetoric.

NRS

22,808 posts

207 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
Oh yes, nothing to see here. It’s obviously Merc who are worse, RB have done nothing wrong. Same as the overspend issue, just a misunderstanding that should never have been counted against them.

Jasandjules

70,416 posts

235 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
NRS said:
Oh yes, nothing to see here. It’s obviously Merc who are worse, RB have done nothing wrong. Same as the overspend issue, just a misunderstanding that should never have been counted against them.
In fact, as I was told by someone, Merc overspent by more but the FIA doctored the accounts to show them underspending instead.................

Presuming Ed

1,463 posts

214 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
NRS said:
Oh yes, nothing to see here. It’s obviously Merc who are worse, RB have done nothing wrong. Same as the overspend issue, just a misunderstanding that should never have been counted against them.
Well with having 2 teams what have they done wrong?

When teams were loosing money each year and DM came along with his huge chequebook and saved, was it Minardi, no one cared and were grateful to have Toro Rosso on the grid. Now everyone wants into F1 because it’s become a cash cow it’s become a problem for RB to have 2 teams. Typical

NRS

22,808 posts

207 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
In the same way suddenly Merc apparently have a few extra teams which no one complained about before until they try and say it’s not just RB…

Teddy Lop

8,301 posts

73 months

Saturday 27th January
quotequote all
Sandpit Steve said:
There’s a lot of grey areas in the rules here, and there’s likely to be the suspicion from other entrants that RB are using two budget caps to develop four almost-identical cars.

It needs to be exactly the same as the Haas/Ferrari relationship, where the technology transfer is only ever one way, and Chinese Walls exist in the various businesses.

Any suggestion of a two-way transfer of technology has the potential to bring the sport into disrepute, and creates a nightmare for both FOM and FIA. No-one is going to watch The Red Bull Show.
What's to stop *red bull being the customer team in the relationship, *rb spending an inordinate amount on certain components and flogging them cheap to those upstairs?

  • Feel free to Insert whichever team relationship combo won't precipitate oneself bursting into tears

Bo_apex

2,844 posts

224 months

Sunday 28th January
quotequote all
Peacockantony said:
Bo_apex said:
Yes ownership is one thing and data sharing is another. How much data sharing is going on between Williams > Mercedes / Red Bull > RB.

Or just open up and have 4 cars per team !
Well we already know a lot of data was shared between Merc and Tracing Point... Oh wait, that was Brackley so it is all fine and dandy. It is only Red Bull that aren't allowed to do what others teams do, perfectly within the rules. For years Red Bull and Toro Rosso operated far more independently than the rules allowed them to.

The rules regarding building their owns cars are still applicable. There has been no rule changes that would allow Red Bull to design or give Racing Bulls and old car of theirs. We still have 9 constructors on the grid that build their own cars, and one assembler. It is a fuss over nothing fuelled by nothing but anti-Red Bull rhetoric.
Mercedes employees on PH ? Surely not.