F1Today.net wrote:Williams shareholder Toto Wolff has now joined Sauber in pushing Red Bull to move. "At the moment they spend an estimated EUR 250 million (per season)," he said, "so the cost ceiling would save Mr Mateschitz a hundred million euros. It would be doing him a favour," said Mateschitz's fellow Austrian, "because his model of unlimited spending no longer has the same advantage due to the current rules. The results of the first six races should have convinced him," added Wolff.
JohnsonsEvilTwin wrote:Red Bull have shown to have no appetite for the RRA, And wanted engines included in any deal.
How can Red Bull realistically ask such a question?
djos wrote:I think it's fairly obvious why they want this ... because they know the Car companies in F1 wont like it and while everyone bickers they can spend what they want - quite clever really.
Jersey Tom wrote:. ...I always have said I've wanted to open up the rule book to go along with that. Still lean toward it. Though there's some benefit to keeping the box a bit hemmed in as far as having good competition.
bhallg2k wrote:I don't know if clever is the word I'd use.
If Red Bull insists that engines be covered within any cost-cutting measures, they, along with other customer teams, should be required to pay for their engines at a standard rate or build their own. Without such a provision, engine supplying teams would be handicapped.
Of course, that brings up other questions. Could Renault then sponsor Red Bull at the same rate as the cost of a year's worth of engines and support? How would this work with Cosworth and PURE? And what's the difference between Red Bull and Red Bull Technologies if the latter can effectively sublet engines to itself?
Users browsing this forum: 360Spider, CCBot [Bot], Google [Bot] and 5 guests