2018 Rolex Australian Grand PrixFormula 1 

  • Thread starter Jimlaad43
  • 369 comments
  • 19,954 views
Haas has read the rulebook perfectly, and is using exactly as much Ferrari as they are allowed to use. And as @Pezzarinho17 says, they basically sacrificed the back-half of 2017 and poured all their resources into the 2018 car ridiculously early.

If that gamble has paid off, we will see them score points comfortably for a few races before other, better funded teams swallow them up.

Or not.
 
Tajima
Still Ross Brawn somhow managed to buy Honda F1 assets for a symbolic pound and win both titles... then selling the team to Mercedes, long story short.
Click to expand...

This doesn't make much sense, what does that have to do with customer cars in the same sense as STR and RBR or the Force India claim that this years Haas is a shared design from Ferrari? The Brawn GP was not a Honda there is a race car engineering article that goes into great detail that I've had saved for some time, any time someone brings this up.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/hondas-secret-f1-car-revealed/2/
 
LMSCorvetteGT2
This doesn't make much sense, what does that have to do with customer cars in the same sense as STR and RBR or the Force India claim that this years Haas is a shared design from Ferrari? The Brawn GP was not a Honda there is a race car engineering article that goes into great detail that I've had saved for some time, any time someone brings this up.

http://www.racecar-engineering.com/articles/f1/hondas-secret-f1-car-revealed/2/
Click to expand...
So you have... an article.
And I'm supposed to think they bought a billion dollar team for 1 pound at the of 2008 and they had enough time to create a winning car out of nowhere in a couple of weeks (featuring a doubledecker loophole as well).. just because in your article there are some unfinished scale models?
 
Tajima
So you have... an article.
And I'm supposed to think they bought a billion dollar team for 1 pound at the of 2008 and they had enough time to create a winning car out of nowhere in a couple of weeks (featuring a doubledecker loophole as well).. just because in your article there are some unfinished scale models?
Click to expand...
Seriously. This again? Dave Richards was hired by Honda to assess what was wrong with the team. He presented his report, was thanked for it, and fired. Honda then hired Ross Brawn to carry out the changes. He quickly decided the current car was rubbish and not worth developing. They concentrated on a new car for the following season. They spent the money on development, hired the drivers and THEN Honda decided to pull out of F1. No one wanted to buy the team. The management of the team came to them with a management payout option which Honda accepted. The drivers had to be rehired and an engine had to be found for the car.

How on earth did your original point about teams running the same chassis end up with you trying to say it is, somehow, the same as what happened at Brawn?
 
Tajima
And I'm supposed to think they bought a billion dollar team
Click to expand...
There's a key word in that sentence. It's "team".

Regardless of any other factor, the Brawn was never a customer car, because it was the only chassis of that type. The Concorde Agreement defines a constructor as:
A constructor is a person (including any incorporated or unincorporated body) who owns the intellectual property rights to the rolling chassis it currently races, and does not incorporate in such chassis any part designed or manufactured by any other constructor of F1 racing cars except for standard items of safety equipment, providing that nothing in the Schedule 3 shall prevent the use of an engine or gearbox manufactured by a person other than the constructor of the chassis.
Click to expand...
Brawn owned the intellectual property rights to the chassis, because it bought them from Honda. No other constructor of F1 racing cars designed or manufactured it, as Honda's withdrawal from the sport - by selling up to Brawn - meant that it was no longer a constructor. It didn't "currently race" and didn't have the intellectual property rights to the chassis.

This sort of thing happens all the time. As Brawn bought Honda, Honda had bought BAR (which bought Tyrrell). And Mercedes bought Brawn. And Red Bull bought Jaguar, who'd bought (as Ford) Stewart. And Renault bought Lotus, who'd bought Renault, who'd bought Benetton.


The 2007 STR2 (not the STR3 that Vettel won a race with) and 2007 Super Aguri SA07 were much more contentious. Super Aguri got through the cracks by the intellectual property loophole - the car was effectively a 2006 Honda RA106, run by Honda F1, but Honda F1 had sold the intellectual property rights to Honda Motor, so instead of being built in Brackley (like the Mercedes, Brawn and Honda F1) it was built in Japan...

The STR2 and RB3 used the same loophole, but in a much, much more convoluted fashion. Neither Toro Rosso nor Red Bull designed or built the chassis. A parent company called Red Bull Technology - which employed Adrian Newey - did the design and manufacture and licensed the chassis out to both Toro Rosso and Red Bull. As Red Bull Technology was a third party company, it wasn't a "constructor" of F1 racing cars, and neither team was using the chassis of any other constructor.


A huge chunk of F1 research is finding the gaps in the rules and exploiting them until it's plugged. Even something as explicit and enduring as Section 3 of the Concorde Agreement which defines what a constructor is has gaps, exploited as above. I'm sure Ferrari and Haas will have their own explanation, probably involving Dallara, the company that makes the VF-18.
 
Tajima
And I'm supposed to think they bought a billion dollar team for 1 pound at the of 2008 and they had enough time to create a winning car out of nowhere in a couple of weeks (featuring a doubledecker loophole as well).. just because in your article there are some unfinished scale models?
Click to expand...

No, because that's not what happened. Brawn was already designing the 2009 car before Honda announced they would sell the team. Development continued while a buyer was found. In the end Fry/Brawn led a management buy out. The "when is a hole not a hole?" design argument was instigated entirely by Brawn's revolutionary design - arguably he's one of the greatest F1 designers alongside Newey and (on his day) Head.
 
Tajima
So you have... an article.
And I'm supposed to think they bought a billion dollar team for 1 pound at the of 2008 and they had enough time to create a winning car out of nowhere in a couple of weeks (featuring a doubledecker loophole as well).. just because in your article there are some unfinished scale models?
Click to expand...

Who said they had time to make a car out of nowhere? Where did you come up with the two weeks? Your utterly wrong with this line of thought that the GP 001 was the remaining pieces of some world destroying Honda F1 car that just happened to get sold for a low price, and run exactly by Brawn. I've shown you why it's wrong with evidence if you want to acknowledge it that's up to you, doesn't change that you're wrong.

Brawn had a design idea and built upon and tweaked it, he didn't get the Mercedes engines 2 weeks before the start of anything as you've suggested, if he did then I have no idea how they made it to winter testing. And as other teams have done in the past, taking over a team that is no defunct even if they built or designed a car before fading out, doesn't constitute a shared design. @niky does a good job of helping you understand this. Again the onus is upon you to see where your beliefs are right and where they're wrong.
 
We need a Bahrain GP thread. I want to post the EST broadcast times from the ESPN app so everyone knows what's when.
 

Latest Posts

Back