Only the Signature is missing..!

EvilMonkey

Why would they waste any of Neweys time on the Torro Rosso (which is for sale by the way) when he could be working on a Red Bull design.

Slutmonkey57b wrote: »

On the other hand, BMW and Toyota and possibly Renault will have teams to flog too.

BMW is sold to qadbak(sp) isn't it and Toyota are trying to flog the design of their 2010 car(which i bet will be purchased by anyone that can afford it just to have a look at what they came up with) so i imagine the teem is not for sale.

Oblomov

What happens in the real world between branches, i.e head office and branch..

Head Office has a detail problem, sends drawing to branch asking for ideas and could they run some test on titanium 101 and get back when .. blah blah..

Branch.. has problem... visitor, ,, daily basis sez... Oh check with so and so they had a similar problem and did .. blah blah...

Managing Director is counting his sheckles and buzzes the branch for prices on ..... utilisation of resources, rationalisation of resources...

It goes on all the time.. John Barnard, worked in Surrey and posted his drawing to Ferrari.. the only problem.. Ferrari engineers altered his drawings and causing a good car to become a dog... of course the other way round it becomes a benefit.

Firewalkwithme

Oblomov wrote: »

What happens in the real world between branches, i.e head office and branch..

Head Office has a detail problem, sends drawing to branch asking for ideas and could they run some test on titanium 101 and get back when .. blah blah..

Branch.. has problem... visitor, ,, daily basis sez... Oh check with so and so they had a similar problem and did .. blah blah...

Managing Director is counting his sheckles and buzzes the branch for prices on ..... utilisation of resources, rationalisation of resources...

It goes on all the time.. John Barnard, worked in Surrey and posted his drawing to Ferrari.. the only problem.. Ferrari engineers altered his drawings and causing a good car to become a dog... of course the other way round it becomes a benefit.

So how do you reconcile your belief that Newey is supposedly designing next years Toro Rosso and next years Red Bull (gonna have to work a lot of weekends to design two different cars isn't he...) with the fact that Toro Rosso is for sale? What you are saying makes no sense because Red Bull would be screwed when it becomes obvious that the Toro Rosso has parts from the Red Bull.

Frank Bullitt

Nicely on topic lads!

Iron Hide

Okay i will make this simple. from 2010, customer cars are outlawed. This years STR4 was an RB5 with a Ferrari engine, next year that is not allowed. Adrian Newey may well design Toro Rosso's car, but it must not be a copy of the RedBull chassis. Otherwise BOTH teams will incur penalties and possibly exclusion from the constructors championship..


END OF STORY!!!

EDIT: Thank you Gintonious, back ot for gods sake. This is about Kimi, not the powerthirst cars....

Oblomov

Simplistic.. reality..

Why employ two designers, when one is a world leader?

Why only use the brain of one and ignore any ideas that will be useful to your other team?

Yawn... reality it seems to slip by some people..

Have you ever looked very closely at an F1 car.... the suspension parts, machining etc. suspension links, mounts etc..

Oh, well, never mind.

Firewalkwithme

Oblomov wrote: »

Simplistic.. reality..

Why employ two designers, when one is a world leader?

Why only use the brain of one and ignore any ideas that will be useful to your other team?

Yawn... reality it seems to slip by some people..

Have you ever looked very closely at an F1 car.... the suspension parts, machining etc. suspension links, mounts etc..

Oh, well, never mind.

The reality is that there are two sets of designers - did you look at the links I posted earlier?

Why would Red Bull have Newey design two different and new cars when instead they could have him concentrate on one? That what they would have to do if they were to do what you are suggesting since they couldn't re-use this years chassis. The answer is that they wouldn't do it because it would be a crazy, nigh on impossible thing to do and you would probably end up with two uncompetitive cars because of the time involved!

EDIT: Oh and if you're going to respond to this, could you please answer what I asked you earlier about how your idea makes any sense when Toro Rosso is for sale anyway....

Oblomov

Yawn, that's such a crock...

Put one guy in charge. and let him run the whole thing.. the man in charge... Adrian Newey...

Ask yourself a question: Would you, running a company, have a chief designer, top honcho, of the design department not give any input into a subsidiary company that you own?

The exchange of ideas is common in any company with satellite and supposed independent companies... It's the way the world works.... Have a look at the next Red Bull Sponsored team you see....they run the same trucks.... not two buyers doing separate deals, tools, and equipment, personnel.....

Slutmonkey57b

You're missing the point. Torro Rosso from next year isn't allowed to use the same staff, designs, etc etc as Red Bull. The situation you're describing is how the two teams used to work. From next year, they can't, which is why now is a good time to sell the team: "Buy now and get the last benefits of Newey's work".

frostie500

Oblomov wrote: »

Yawn, that's such a crock...

Put one guy in charge. and let him run the whole thing.. the man in charge... Adrian Newey...

Ask yourself a question: Would you, running a company, have a chief designer, top honcho, of the design department not give any input into a subsidiary company that you own?

The exchange of ideas is common in any company with satellite and supposed independent companies... It's the way the world works.... Have a look at the next Red Bull Sponsored team you see....they run the same trucks.... not two buyers doing separate deals, tools, and equipment, personnel.....

Are you looking to get a rise out of other people by not reading postings that actually apply logic, regulations and links to reports?

zeris

I took a quick look at the Sporting and Technical regulations for next year and I can't find any mention of the requirement for the cars to be unique or designed by the team only. Maybe I missed the rule. So is this an FIA regulation or something that appears to be part of the new Concorde Agreement. If it is part of the Concorde Agreement speculating on what a customer car is, what punishments can be dished out and who gets punished, is just that. Speculation.

I don't understand why everyone is so hostile of the idea that Red Bull and Toro Rosso may share ideas. Even if Mateschitz is trying to sell the team it is still costing him money right now. If by passing the Red Bull design onto Toro Rosso and asking the designers to make a couple of cosmetic changes how much money would he save? How many designers and CAD operators would Toro Rosso not have to hire?

Lets see if anyone turns up on the grid in 2010 with KERS.

Oblomov

Are you looking to get a rise out of other people by not reading postings that actually apply logic, regulations and links to reports?

No, I'm looking at this realistically and with the experience of seeing parent companies looking after their own.

frostie500

Oblomov wrote: »

No, I'm looking at this realistically and with the experience of seeing parent companies looking after their own.

The F1 environment is a very different one to that of other companies with subsideries, even the motoring industry where yes companies do share info and designs.
In F1 you need to have focused people working at their full potential to maximise all of your resources. Adrian Newey is agruably the biggest resourse at Red Bull Racing; why would you lessen his involvment in the RBR car to help Toro Rosso?
Toro Rosso are building their own car this year, how would Newey be able to devoit significant time to making the TR car better? He might tell their designer; "We found that having a weight bias of x:y was the best solution" but he wouldn't have the time to do anything of significance to the TR car without it being to the detriment of the RBR car.

Oblomov

The F1 environment is a very different one to that of other companies with subsideries, even the motoring industry where yes companies do share info and designs.

You are absolutely right, there is more spying, cheating, finding out what others are doing and trying to do than anywhere in the commercial world..... It's called industrial espionage and it's alive and well in Formula One.

Williams invited in the designer of the Leyton house F1 car, entertained him and presented him with a new steel ruler, because in copying the Williams GP car, after sneaking, I won't use the word breaking, into the Williams garage at a GP circuit he got it all wrong.

It does go on, it will go on and info within a F1 team and partners is paramount.

Please, do not delude yourself that fines by the FIA has stopped, curtailed or even slowed down the obtaining of info.

F1 is about money, and money and power corrupt and F1 is no different.....

For an insight, try reading:

The Piranha Club: Power and Influence in Formula One

Oblomov

The chief designer in any organisation oversees and suggests, details, orders, and motivates a team of designers, indivduals with different responsibilities, with different areas of responsibility.

The level of knowledge and expertise for each section, be it suspension, gearbox, electronics, steering then the geometry then assembly then the techies ....... from an idea in a CAD/CAM program to the finished product

The H.o.D's will meet and discuss and the chief will have overall responsibility for the successful design but it's not just one person and to set up a small team working within the overall organisation is relatively simple.

QED

zeris

Oblomov wrote: »

Williams invited in the designer of the Leyton house F1 car, entertained him and presented him with a new steel ruler, because in copying the Williams GP car, after sneaking, I won't use the word breaking, into the Williams garage at a GP circuit he got it all wrong.

Depending on what year that happened that could have been Newey.

frostie500

Oblomov wrote: »

You are absolutely right, there is more spying, cheating, finding out what others are doing and trying to do than anywhere in the commercial world..... It's called industrial espionage and it's alive and well in Formula One.

Williams invited in the designer of the Leyton house F1 car, entertained him and presented him with a new steel ruler, because in copying the Williams GP car, after sneaking, I won't use the word breaking, into the Williams garage at a GP circuit he got it all wrong.

It does go on, it will go on and info within a F1 team and partners is paramount.

Please, do not delude yourself that fines by the FIA has stopped, curtailed or even slowed down the obtaining of info.

F1 is about money, and money and power corrupt and F1 is no different.....

For an insight, try reading:

The Piranha Club: Power and Influence in Formula One

So are Torro Roso going to steal the designs or is Newey going to given them to him? I'm aware of spying etc in the paddock but thats a fair bit different to your statements that Newey will be designing next years Torro Roso cars

zeris

frostie500 wrote: »

So are Torro Roso going to steal the designs or is Newey going to given them to him? I'm aware of spying etc in the paddock but thats a fair bit different to your statements that Newey will be designing next years Torro Roso cars

RBR could give Toro Rosso a copy of the Newey design.

The FIA has only gotten involved with spying after a complaint from the team who feels their design was ripped off. This will not happen in this situation. The FIA regs for next year from what I can tell don't say anything about customer cars.

frostie500

zeris wrote: »

RBR could give Toro Rosso a copy of the Newey design.

The FIA has only gotten involved with spying after a complaint from the team who feels their design was ripped off. This will not happen in this situation. The FIA regs for next year from what I can tell don't say anything about customer cars.

According to reports in Autosport it's part of the new Concorde Agreement, hence it not being freely available to the public.

Toro Rosso team boss Franz Tost is optimistic that the need to construct its own car in 2010 will not mean his squad loses ground, but admitted that there could be a difficult transition period.

STR has so far used designs supplied by Red Bull Technologies, but this arrangement was frowned upon by several other teams who felt it was against the spirit of the regulations to run what could be described as a customer car. Dispensation was given until the end of 2009 to allow Toro Rosso time to ramp up its design facilities, so next season the team must become a fully-fledged constructor.

Also

However, with the new Concorde Agreement meaning that customer cars will be outlawed from the start of 2010, Mateschitz has said there is no way he can continue operating his junior team.

I think that these were linked elsewhere in this topic as well

zeris

So the FIA isn't involved and it is between the teams and FOM.

We don't know what mechanism by which either RBR or TR can be punished if at all. We also don't know what constitutes a customer car. We also know that teams can get a bilateral agreement between them and FOM built into the Concorde Agreement (re Ferrari getting more money).

We also don't know what the other teams can do in response. Is the legal courts their only option? If they decided not to race would they break their own contract with FOM and be liable for damages.

Probably Mr E would have to intervene to smooth things over in some way.

frostie500

zeris wrote: »

So the FIA isn't involved and it is between the teams and FOM.

The Concorde Agreement is the document by which Formula 1 is run, and therefore the FIA as the sanctioning body of Formula 1 need to approve and sign off on the document so its between the teams, the FIA and FOM.

zeris wrote: »

]We don't know what mechanism by which either RBR or TR can be punished if at all. We also don't know what constitutes a customer car. We also know that teams can get a bilateral agreement between them and FOM built into the Concorde Agreement (re Ferrari getting more money).

The teams came to an agreement as to what constitutes a customer car and that will be defined within the agreement. This can be seen by the following excerpt from an interview with Gerhard Berger:

F1.com interview with Gehard Burger wrote:

Q: And where are the discussions regarding customer cars beyond the end of this season? You said that nothing is final yet…
GB: There is an agreement between the teams that from 2010 on there will be clear wording that defines what is a constructor and what is not. If nothing changes, from 2010 onwards we have to be a constructor in the wording of the new Concorde Agreement.

There will also be punishments outlined in the agreement for the use of customer cars

zeris wrote: »

]We also don't know what the other teams can do in response. Is the legal courts their only option? If they decided not to race would they break their own contract with FOM and be liable for damages.
Probably Mr E would have to intervene to smooth things over in some way.

The main response from teams is within the FIA court of appeal and through various channels such as Charlie Whiting and numerous other technical groups within the FIA

zeris

frostie500 wrote: »

The Concorde Agreement is the document by which Formula 1 is run, and therefore the FIA as the sanctioning body of Formula 1 need to approve and sign off on the document so its between the teams, the FIA and FOM.

Yes, you are right. The FIA is one of the signatories of the Concorde Agreement. And I was wrong about FOM, it is signed with the 'Commercial Rights Holder' which is the FOA.

frostie500 wrote: »

The teams came to an agreement as to what constitutes a customer car and that will be defined within the agreement. This can be seen by the following excerpt from an interview with Gerhard Berger:

Originally Posted by F1.com interview with Gehard Burger
Q: And where are the discussions regarding customer cars beyond the end of this season? You said that nothing is final yet…
GB: There is an agreement between the teams that from 2010 on there will be clear wording that defines what is a constructor and what is not. If nothing changes, from 2010 onwards we have to be a constructor in the wording of the new Concorde Agreement.

There will also be punishments outlined in the agreement for the use of customer cars

All the teams may have an understanding of what constitutes a customer car but that doesn't mean that Gerhard and RBR/TR don't know of a loophole or introduced a loophole. Teams often push the meaning of rules for their benefit (eg double diffuser). The previous Concorde Agreement has a clause about owning the "intellectual property" of the design. Yet this rule was circumvented as it was financially expedient for RBR/TR to do so.

Would punishments be financial? Probably but we don't know. Maybe the rights money would be withheld at the end of the season. Toro Rosso finished last this year. Would the money withheld by FOA be more or less than the cost of designing a new car? Would TR take the same gamble next year.

frostie500 wrote: »

The main response from teams is within the FIA court of appeal and through various channels such as Charlie Whiting and numerous other technical groups within the FIA

Google indicates that previous disputes have been handled by the Swiss based Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.

frostie500

zeris wrote: »

All the teams may have an understanding of what constitutes a customer car but that doesn't mean that Gerhard and RBR/TR don't know of a loophole or introduced a loophole. Teams often push the meaning of rules for their benefit (eg double diffuser). The previous Concorde Agreement has a clause about owning the "intellectual property" of the design. Yet this rule was circumvented as it was financially expedient for RBR/TR to do so.

The rule was circumvented because the F1 teams and the FIA knew that there was no way of filling the grid without allowing Torro Roso and Super Aguri to use Red Bull and Honda's cars for the seasons. This was allowed on the condition that both teams would become constructors in their own rights in future as is happening now

zeris wrote: »

Google indicates that previous disputes have been handled by the Swiss based Court of Arbitration for Sport in Lausanne.

The CAS is used when disputes within F1 are not resolved in an amicible manner for all participants, it is not a first avenue for an appeal to be made within.