This whole Red Bull - Spyker thing. Comments?

[jwielage]

After reading the posts on this thread it appears as though the reason we are all so dumbfounded by the FIA's actions is that there is we are confusing the distinction between the rules of F1 and the rules of business. "F1 rules" are in place to enforce competition and a level playing field for all teams. Without making qualitative judgments I think it is fair to say that if a sporting rule comes in gross violation of one of the "rules of business" than the aforementioned sporting rule will be bent.

F1 could heavily penalize RBR, STR and SA teams, however they would do so out the peril or destroying F1 brand value. Unfortunately those of us who love F1 (hence we take the time to post on this web-site) are not the individuals the F1 management is concerned about. We represent no growth potential for the sport as we are already hopelessly addicted and our loyalty is unconditional. What they care about is growing the value of the brand, which means expending the scope and scale of F1. My thought is if they penalized these teams as a whole the field would be less competitive. And we can debate until that issue until the end of time, but for the sake of argument lets just suppose that is the case. That being said one of the main detractors of f1 (the outsider's view, not nesisarily mine) is that the top one or two teams dominate, and the field as a whole is not that competitive. So in this situation their is a choice to be made, do we rigidly uphold our sporting rules or do we bend under preassure. As such if the perceived cost of enforcing a rule exceeds the expected benefit, the rule will be bent every time.

These are just my opinions. In addition I am not saying that this is the way it should be, but merely how I think it works. In the end economics seem to govern most situations.

[mcdenife]

Rob wrote:

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 RH1300s' response sums it up ie:

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.

The stolen issue will come up (ie. to court, if it gets that far) long before the issue of customer cars/identical cars can be used. It may well be in the public domain, but Spyker did not obtain it from the public domain and that will be the 'bone of contention'. Infact from a legal point of view, any competent lawyer can make spyker pay RB to have the case dropped. As 'RH1300s implied, I think spyker have over-reached and in their zeal, shot themselves in the foot. The only way out, is to hope another team/constructor takes up the 'fight'.

[mx_tifoso]

If there was better way to invest that money their owners would spend it in some other sport

I think that quote applies equally well to Toyota, Honda, BMW, Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari, and Spyker. They're all in F1 to promote their road cars.

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

It actually doesnt apply to Ferrari, Ferrari actually started their road car business to promote/fund their racing activities. It just happens that when they manufactured road cars they turned out to be rather good. And they now help each other out, F1 <> Road Cars.
I'd say that it applies more so for Toyota, their F1 program is the only thing thats going well for them, performance wise, and we all know where Toyota is regarding the F1 field, with their 3rd best driver in F1 and all.

[checkered]

Jwielage, rules will

be "bent" as you put it, but even then there's a proper above-board way of doing so. A due process, if you will where a team, team owner or financial backer points out an inconsistency or inefficiency in the way the sporting side is run in relation to the business side. It's an ongoing process, even an overriding one these days.

Now, Honda and RBR have come, out of different motivations, to a conclusion that I think is a false analogy. They're using the logic and the method (introduction, inspection, regulatory considerations, approval or ban) that the teams apply to introducing new technology and innovation to the sport. But introducing a customer chassis is the very opposite of introducing new technology and innovation, in fact in the limited environment that is F1 it prevents the introduction of those. I think this is shortsighted because in there the true value of the sport, especially financial, lies.

Beyond that, the sporting and business considerations within the sport and how the revenue is split, noted by other posters already, are significant. I'm just surprised that in this situation, an energy drink corporation and a manufacturer wield such influence. As was shown by the interest in the remaining slot, which Prodrive got, there are at least a handful of capable constructors willing and ready at the moment. And yes, a homologated engine, too, that at the moment remains unused.

I read it somewhere that basically, the issue is settled, without so many words in the 2008 sporting regulations. I tried to relocate the feature in vain, but it analyzed the wording to the effect that customer teams couldn't get constructor points, but it was more complicated than that. Maybe this will ring the bell and someone can post a link. I remain firmly against any customer chassis schemes. Out of conviction, principle and yes, ultimately financial standpoints. If a team with a budget running into hundreds of millions can't construct its own chassis, that's a sorry state of affairs and I for one can't understand where the money is going.

Yes we represent no growth potential in numbers for F1. But what we do represent could be of far greater value - our common passion and perspective, when combined, will always surpass that of a few individuals in charge. In that sense, we'll always be disappointed. But it doesn't mean that our driving force and expectations couldn't be tapped in a mutually beneficial way to the sport and the world that the sport affects.

[manchild]

I was wondering manchild, did you consider Benetton's involvement as "bad for F1"? They were just a clothing manufacturer afterall.

What good did they do for F1? Won 1994 championship after several disqualifications, using illegal launch control and promoting Schuey into WDC thanks to deliberate collision with Hill? That's their main contribution to F1, the thing they'll be remembered by the most.

[Rob W]

What good did they do for F1? Won 1994 championship after several disqualifications, using illegal launch control and promoting Schuey into WDC thanks to deliberate collision with Hill? That's their main contribution to F1, the thing they'll be remembered by the most.

Ditto... I was just going to say.

On the main subject though

In fact from a legal point of view, any competent lawyer can make spyker pay RB to have the case dropped. As 'RH1300s implied, I think spyker have over-reached and in their zeal, shot themselves in the foot.

I think this is far wrong. Any more talk about this subject publicly will only serve as bad PR for Red Bull - they wont be winning any money from Spyker. The FIA has stop-measures ensuring teams don't sue each other and make Formula One look bad in the media. They will def be having a talk with the teams involved and trying to find a way out of this.

Legally, only American-style law arguments would win anything here for Red Bull. Most of the rest of the world considered illicit evidence as "the horse has bolted" scenario. It's out, so no point worrying about the legality of the source - it's causing a public problem which teams, sponsors and fans all want to see an outcome of. On one hand you can argue Red Bull have been unfairly 'outed' - but the fact remains, everyone now knows there is evidence of their foul-play so the natural course of events must lead to a solution to that problem. If anything so the public know that the FIA aren't a bunch of push-overs who can't enforce their own rules - as would seem to be the case here.

However, far from punishing the two customer teams the FIA needs those two teams for its series - for sponsors and for the spectacle. For this reason they will find a way to make this work for 2007 and it will involve some very large financial concessions to the aggrieved teams - no doubt it'll be secret though.

Rob W

[checkered]

I'm curious as

to why (Etihad Aldar) Spyker (Formula One Team) felt compelled to make it a matter of public domain that they have/had RBR/STR designs? What other "evidence" of the two teams sharing a chassis (and much of their technology for that matter), really, would anyone need than superimposing photos of the two teams' cars?

I'm beginning to suspect the protagonists already are in complete agreement, Bernie is just milking this for some kind of "silly season light" publicity for the month between Bahrain and Barcelona. Picture them convening in "serious" meetings and actually playing scrabble or something to pass time ... only to step out to feed the press with some inconsequential tidbits.

That the cars are essentially the same is that obvious it'd really be embarrasing to argue otherwise. As far as I've observed, STR has never flat out denied that they have a customer chassis - they've just protested that the car isn't 100% identical with the Ferrari engine (well, duh!) and cracked some schoolyard jokes about all this in their press releases.

"Scuderia Toro Rosso confirms that this press release paper was designed on the same computer as the Red Bull Racing press release paper. Having flown out a ten strong legal team from Australia, the UK and Itlay last night, we can confirm that our paper complies fully with all regulations regarding media headed paper and the industry standard British Universal Lenght Layer Size Height Interface Template. (B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T.)"

Such lighthearted attention seeking really leaves me wondering whether there's more B.U.L.L.S.H.I.T. to the customer chassis issue than meets the eye.

[m3_lover]

I was hesitant to lump Ferrari and Spyker in there, but I still think Frank is the only one that doesn't have another business (AFAIK) that benefits from his being in F1. He's there to race, pure and simple. Whereas Ferrari has sold a hell of a lot of cars in the last 7 years as a results of Michael's performance.

.

I am in finance/accounting at my university and am actually the auto sector manager of our investment fund and I can accurately say with no doubt that the increase of Ferrari's sale has not been the result of Michael Schumacher winning. Check out there improve reliability, the marketing of the Ferrari Brand and opening up sales by increasing production and new markets (China case in point)..to say it was all because of Michael Schumachers performance is something that I would expect to hear from my 8 year old cousin.

[wowf1]

Well what's professional motorsport about then? It's marketing.

So F1 is about marketing, and Ferrari want to win in F1 to market their road cars.

So who do you employ to win and thereby achieve the best marketing? The greatest driver of that period - Michael Schumacher.

I think your 8 year old cousin would have had a point!

[m3_lover]

When Renault won there championship two times in a row there sales did not improve, also the improvement of Ferrari selling there cars was not Michael Schumacher but Luca di Montezemolo


In 1991, FIAT chairman Gianni Agnelli made Montezemolo president of Ferrari, which had been struggling since Enzo Ferrari's death; Montezemolo made it his personal goal to win the Formula One World Constructors Championship once again. During the 1990s he resurrected the Ferrari road car business from heavy debts into solid profit.

[Rob W]

I agree you can't equate F1 success exactly with sales increases, but it is definitely part of their marketing efforts - and rightly so. I see adverts for Toyota "One Aim" in Time Magazine often and they certainly aren't doing it to let people know about their F1 team - it's part of an overall public relations effort for the Toyota brand. Basically, if you can be in F1 = technology, forward-thinking, performance.

To say that Ferrari, Mercedes and Renault don't get advertising benefit from the success of their F1 teams is utterly wrong - but to equate a number of wins exactly to sales outcomes is difficult to prove. Economic conditions, consumer design preferences, competition etc all affect potential sales.

The comments above about Ferrari/Renault not gaining sales improvements during the years of their F1 success also means little. Perhaps they did achieve something - they avoided a drop in overall sales which they may have without the PR from their F1 successes, or they clawed a few market-share percentage points from a competitor, or survived a market slump in sales of high-performance cars...

I've worked in PR/advertising for many years, including with automotive clients, and I can assure you that the success of Michael Schumacher has had a positive effect on the brand-image of Ferrari, and therefore has had some effect on sales. To claim you can "accurately say with no doubt" otherwise shows a lack of understanding of public and consumer perceptions of brands and brand-building.

Despite this, of course Ferrari wouldn't have made as many sales without being able to deliver a car which performed well and which people liked. In the end, this (coupled with the brand-name) is the most important factor people consider when buying a luxury car. All factors contribute or take-away from sales potential and none lives exclusive of the others.

A well-known marketing adage is "half of my marketing budget is wasted... I just don't know which half.." applies perfectly to the car market.

Rob W

[Ciro Pabón]

Who said Renault is declining? I give you the first inception of "Ciro's World Vehicle Sales By Manufacturer", to allow you to know the pecking order of manufacturers involved in F1. Has someone data about sport car sales? That would be a treat...

Total Vehicles Sold


Cars sold


Source: OICA clumsy Adobe reports, which are a pain in the back to extract to Excel. So, you know what to do with any comments dismissing my humble effort...

The only thing you could deduce of such terrible figures for european manufacturers (compared to japanese: Banzai! ) is that all the money involved into Schumacher did little for FIAT.

Another interesting "blip" is the slump in sales in 2003, which I bet moved GPMA to turn the bolts on FOMA: I wonder how much of the negotiations between Bernie and GPMA were influenced by the declining sales, which shows that people buy cars when they have the money and, if I may add, they value much more a durable and well constructed car than all the lap times in the world...

Incidentally, my 8 years old son knows perfectly what half of Schumi is bad for the marketing... I won't repeat how he calls him, but Manchild can imagine. Clue: it's not the "honest blond guy", but it ends in "blond guy"...

I repost own Toro Rosso image (on their website) about their new chassis. I think they think it's funny. I don't.



BTW:

Go Williams! "We shall fight on beaches, landing grounds, in fields, in streets and on the hills. We shall never surrender!"

[FEAR-ME]

It has been reported on other news sites that a employee who left Red Bull after the Australian Grand Prix had taken the blueprints given them to Spyker.
Spyker should have know this sort of action would have got them in trouble and should have said no, and went about it a different way legally.
This would be very similar to what Toyota did a couple of years ago,which would border on espionage, so could cost Spyker a hell of alot.

they would only get one shot at this, and i think they stuffed it

[DaveKillens]

I think this is far wrong. Any more talk about this subject publicly will only serve as bad PR for Red Bull - they wont be winning any money from Spyker. The FIA has stop-measures ensuring teams don't sue each other and make Formula One look bad in the media. They will def be having a talk with the teams involved and trying to find a way out of this.

Spyker shot their bolt when they made a protest during the Australian GP. Of course the stewards did not have the power to make that type of decision. But I'm sure it set off alarm bells within Max's office. Lately the noise has abated, because I believe the FIA is trying behind the scenes to reconcile this opposition of parties. They don't want it to get ugly and public, but they also want everyone to stay relatively happy within F1. Deals are being made behind the scenes, meetings and phone calls abound, while the public remains relatively unaware of the fight behind the scenes.

[manchild]

Deals are being made behind the scenes, meetings and phone calls abound, while the public remains relatively unaware of the fight behind the scenes.

That is exactly the definition of lawless and corrupt system that has no chance for prosperity. Such deals behind the scenes only serve to those in power but in a long term they destroy the system for good. Since those in power don't really care what will happen once they're gone they only look for their own interests regardless on long term effects of their actions.