Much has been made recently over the new stronger, closer relationship between the Formula One teams Red Bull Racing and their newly branded junior outfit Visa Cash App Red Bull (V=CARB).

Whether named as Toro Rosso or AlphaTauri the Faenza based F1 team bought fro Paul Stoddart in 2005 has pretty much plowed its own furrow. When the 2009 Concorde agreement allowed teams to acquire ready finished components from another from the FIA’s ‘listed parts’ schedule Toro Rosso on the whole continued to go it alone.

 

 

 

Red Bull junior team reborn

The sacking of Nyck de Vries by AlphaTauri brought to a head rumours that had been swirling around the paddock over the uncertain nature of the team’s future. A number of seasoned observers at the time had been suggesting the team would be sold in the post Didi Mateschitz era given it was underperforming and didn’t merit the funding it received.

Dr Helmet Marko, fiercely defensive of his deceased friends legacy, fought to retain the team within the Red Bull family. Such was Marko’s determination he was prepared to sacrifice one route to F1 for the development drivers under his watchful eye.

No longer would the soon to be V-CARB team have two F1 drivers in training but it would recruit an experienced driver for one seat to improve the team’s results. Thus the route for Daniel Ricciardo’s return for the grid was complete.

Further, in the push to make V-CARB more competitive, the team would move a significant part of its activities to England where they could be better resources and whilst retaining the overall design concept of the car, Red Bull would provide a lot of there components under the FIA’s ‘listed parts’ arrangement.

Andretti F1 legal battle looms

 

 

 

Duel F1 team ownership criticised

Before the 2023 season was finalised this new closer arrangement between the two teams came evident in Singapore when AlphaTauri fitted the RB19 rear suspension and was immediately more competitive. Having propped up the table for most of the year suddenly the junior Red Bull team was challenging Williams for P7 at the final race of the year.

A number of other teams became concerned over the new Red Bull/V-CARB relationship with Zak Brown has become the most vocal. The McLaren CEO has repeatedly questioned over the winter whether the new relationship Red Bull propose with their junior team needs scrutiny.

Brown has also questioned whether it is time to legislate in the next Concorde agreement that no competitor in Formula One should be allowed to own two teams.

The running critique from Brown created a response from the FIA and the head of F1’s day to day affairs, Nicolas Tombazis, was forced to comment as per Autosport. He stated he was aware of the concerns but had no evidence to suggests there was any impropriety but further guidelines on how teams interact with each other in the design and build phase of their F1 cars will be forthcoming.

Verstappen reveals special contract clause

 

 

 

New F1 rules agreement looms

As Christian Horner states, the revised relationship between Red Bull Racing and V-CARB is called is nothing revolutionary and is merely a reflection of the one Ferrari have with Haas F1.

Yet the Brown message is now being trumpeted by respected F1 commentators as Ben Anderson now claims there are shocks ahead for the Red Bull and V-CARB F1 teams.

The current Concorde agreement which legally binds and defines the relationship between the FIA, F1 commercial rights owners and the teams expires in 2005. Anderson believes there is a surge of support for a motion that will ban any entity owning more than one Formula One team.

Of course just one exists at the moment and to is the Red Bull energy drinks empire who saved both Jaguar and Minardi from going to the wall and Formula One losing two more teas at a critical time in the sport’s history.

F1 dump Barcelona for Madrid based Spanish GP

 

 

 

Concorde Agreement political battles ensue

Speaking on the Race podcast Anderson stated: “I think speaking more broadly, they (V-CARB) need to obviously continue the quite impressive development gradient they were on at the end of last season.

“[It was] So impressive that it started to make other teams twitchy in terms of how they were able to make such progress.

“And that probably feeds into one of the bigger, wider concerns that team has or will have which is the political battle that’s coming over shared ownership and second teams.”

Yet the Zak Brown agenda is not shared by everyone and surprisingly Red Bull’s arch rival Mercedes’ James Allison believes the concerns expressed are little to do with duel team ownership. 

Pirelli clear up ‘secret letter’ rumour

 

 

 

Mercedes strangely back Red Bull position

The Mercedes’ technical director believes the rules preventing improper intellectual property transfer are strong enough and within the current FIA’s remit it is possible to demand a team shows from concept the progress of an idea which finally ends upon their car

Further, the FIA’s head of F1 day to day activities, Nicolas Tombazis, recently revealed it was teams apparently unrelated which required careful attention to ensure no transfer of knowledge was taking place at any level. 

Its not too distant in the past since we had controversies over a Pink Red Bull and Green Mercedes where a team was accused of illegally copying another’s design.

The real problem with all the noise over duel F1 team ownership is that is missed the point completely. It is not the relationship between Red Bull and V-CARB which is questionable, Haas would do the same but Ferrari didn’t have a killer upgrade they could utilise – or afford.

Ex-FIA president predicts Red Bull slump

 

 

 

New Concorde may revisit ‘listed parts’

The real issue is whether the 2009 Concorde agreement which set out the ‘listed parts’ arrangement should be resisted. At the time the sport was losing teams and manufacturers were withdrawing following the 2008 global financial crash. So the listed parts agenda was designed to protect smaller teams and keep their heads above water.

Formula One is now in a whole different place. Even perennial back of the grid Williams are making progress as the FIA special allowance for smaller teams to catch up kicks in. They can now spend over the cap applied to the bigger teams on infrastructure projects to bridge the gap between their production and design capabilities.

Williams are moving forward as an independent F1 constructor. V-CARB have Red Bull and Sauber will soon be an Audi works team. 

This leaves Haas F1 alone as Gene the owner refuses to build the team’s infrastructure. His philosophy is buy everything as cheaply as possible and even outsources their chassis build to Italian company Dellara.

Clear swipe at Hamilton

 

 

 

Haas F1 not a proper F1 constructor

Gene Haas recently claimed his philosophy was not born out of a lack of funds, he has rejected big money offers from venture capital partners to buy into his F1 team. The American merely believes his team should be more efficient with the resources they have – hence why Steiner was sacked.

Yet should the ‘listed parts’ rules change or be cancelled in the new Concorde Agreement, Haas F1 would immediately cease to exists as a Formula One team. It is equally likely this could be the new F1 horizon as the cancelling of duel team ownership.

And it is Haas F1 who face the greatest threat as the new Concorde agreement is negotiated, rather than Red Bull and V-CARB who for much of their existence have each ploughed their own furrows anyway.

In a way this would solver the current difficulty over the eleventh team given Haas F1 would have no saleable value.

READ MORE: Following Haas F1 sacking Steiner announces new project