WilliamsF1 wrote:turbof1 wrote:FoxHound wrote:I'm sorry turbo,
But if Red Bull hold a gun to the head of the governing body, utilising a quit threat as ammunition when it runs 2 teams, is ample evidence that this was driven by Red Bull.
This was exactly what Red Bull wanted, to stay in the sport. They have said as much too, so there can be no argument what the prime motivator was.
If the FIA didn't blink, anything was possible.
Red Bull used the situation at large, and the fact they have 20% of the grid, to their advantage.
Defending Red Bull to say that any team would've done this plain wrong. This is unprecedented....
You are not listening. This did not start with Red Bull, it started 4 years ago when the FIA neglected to implement cost cap and supply measures in the sporting rules. It then reached the surface when Ferrari vetoed the cost cap to be implemented while under the rules. Red Bull only jumped on the wagon when the FIA tried to bully Ferrari into accepting the cost cap.
According to your analogy, this is the FIA giving the gun and bullets to Red Bull, explicitly telling Red Bull to hold the gun to their head and then telling Ferrari to bend or Red Bull will shoot them.
And yes,
any team would asked for guarantees when they are given such an oppertunity. F1 is a shark club, not a charity fund raiser.
At the stage of rule formulation the manufacturers would have blocked any attempt to a cost cap. If Ferrari Vetoed it now they would have done it then.
Not necessarily. Possible, but not necessarily. Let me tell you why: budgets.
At the moment of rule formulation you work up your budget: material costs, overhead costs, R&D costs, etc. You factor in projected future revenue: R&D transfer, customer revenues, indirect revenue through marketing, etc. At the moment when the rules we have today were conceived, Ferrari basically inserted the budget based on X costs with Y revenue. If you implemented back then a cost cap, Ferrari could atleast have incooperated this into their budget. Reduce projected R&D costs, project a higher revenue from R&D transfer, reduce activities from other parts of the company or simply accept the lower revenue. At that point most costs were not made based on Y revenue.
We are now 2015. A large, if not the largest, chunk of the costs have been made, again based on Y revenue. Those are sunken costs and cannot be changed anymore. It's very unreasonable to now demand that you have a lower revenue when the costs have been made.
So Ferrari could atleast have been hold a bit more accountable in 2011 since they atleast could alter the budgetting. They could still veto it, with a possible repercussion that FIA could have said: "fine, then we'll wait until 2013. We'll not renew your veto right and in 2015 the cost cap will be implemented."
Why would an alternate rule be illegal?
I might have not formulated that completely as it should be. Illegal might give the wrong impression. This is my original sentence:
This is completely ignoring the current rule set by putting in an alternative engine which currently would be illegal.
The alternative engine would be something that the current manufacturers, bound by different rules, could not factor in their decision making process. I'm loathing it that they'll have to accept competitor with a PU which is not conform with the rules they have signed up for.
Foxhound wrote:How is costs of any relevance for Red Bull to go barking for an alternative engine? They cannot use this, as it has no relevance to them!
You are trying to change the subject. The fact of the matter is, the FIA wants to introduce an alternative engine and red bull saw an oppertunity in that. What reason they have for the alternative engine is irrelevant in a discussion where you blame red bull for forcing the fia into it, while it is the fia who only introduced this plan as a reaction to Ferrari.
