Current Haas

RasputinLives

So Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
Contributor
Yes but in the legal system if new definition of the law is defined any offence committed that breaks that definition prior to it newly being defined is not an offence.
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
I'm not entirely sure of your definition defining the definition prior to the original definition being clearly defined with a revised definition by the FIA.

Having said that, there was no new definition, just a clarification because (would you believe it?) the Technical Regulations were a little ambiguous. ...Not something anyone involved in F1 either directly or as an observer has ever experienced to date.
 

RasputinLives

So Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
Contributor
So just to conclude then. The FIA presented another interpretation of the rules which made some cars now against the rules. One of the teams whose car now didn't meet the new interpretation of the rules asked the FIA if they could run it for two more races and the FIA said yes as long as no one objects. They pass numerous checks by the FIA with the car in that state. They get to the end of the second race and someone objects so they get DQ'd.

I see no cheating here just politics.
 

sobriety

Pole Sitter
To use speed limits as an example.

The speed limit on a road is 50.
You drive along it one day at 50.
A week late the speed limit on the same road is lowered to 40.
If you continue to drive at 50 are you breaking the law?
 

RasputinLives

So Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
Contributor
No that example only works if you've notified the Police you intend to drive down the road at 50 and they say that's fine as long as no one objects. So you drive down the road at 50 passing the police on several occasions whilst shouting "I'm doing 50!" for about 4 weeks. Then 4 weeks in another driver stops by the Police station and tells them they don't like you driving at 50 so you get fined.
 
Last edited:

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
The rules didn't change though, so to use sobriety's example, the speed limit is still 50. I'm trying to think how to explain without spending half my afternoon typing. Perhaps someone else on here would be better at explaining, but if not, i shall attempt to resist the sarcasm from the above and actually provide a concise explanation.

Yes, it is complete bureaucratic nonsense. Yes, it is perhaps unnecessarily unclear and has no doubt created the same queries the world over. No, there was no cheating per se, just poor planning on the part of Haas, who were clearly informed how this would play out if they were protested against.

If this isn't put to bed in the next couple of hours, i'll have another go!
 

RasputinLives

So Goodbye Yellow Brick Road
Contributor
I think we're coming from different angles here Grizzly - earlier in the thread someone said this was blatant cheating and the team should be banned. I was trying to say it's nothing like that.
 

sobriety

Pole Sitter
Ok let's try again: ;)

To use speed limits as an example.

The speed limit on a road is 50.
You drive along it one day at 50. The little old lady with the speed gun checks you, shrugs and wanders off.
A week later the speed limit on the same road is lowered to 40.
You drive along it again at 50. The little old lady with the speed gun checks you, reports you to the police and you're bang to rights?

I generally agree with you about the severity of it, but the FiA changed the rules, Haas broke the new rules but the FiA were willing to ignore it if all of the teams did, they didn't so Haas got done. I'm not a massive fan of it, it would be far simpler if clarifications like that would apply to the next season, rather than a few races into the future, it would also be far fairer to things like Renaults cunning mass damper.
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
I think we're coming from different angles here Grizzly - earlier in the thread someone said this was blatant cheating and the team should be banned. I was trying to say it's nothing like that.
Probably! I was responding to sifferts comment and we got embroiled in definitions :)

Agreed, they were not cheating. They took a risk (allbeit quite possibly without viable alternative) and paid the price unfortunately.
 

Il_leone

Champion Elect
FB Rich Energy were apparently in talks with Williams about $10m sponsorship but they jumped ship at the last minute to go with Haas and it could have cost Ocon a drive for 2019
 
I have seen some very nice pics of the possible livery for next year's Haas, with the logo of Rich Energy.

That looks like great news, a new sponsor, an exciting livery, all very exciting BUT that is not enough for starting a new thread...

What I find fascinating is Rich Energy: some of you might remember that some time ago there were talks of Rich Energy buying Force India, sadly that deal never happened. I had a chance to look up some info about Rich Energy and it's a very intriguing story.

Buying an F1 team or becoming the title sponsor of an F1 team requires a big investment, in order to make a big investment you need lot of cash and here the road gets a bit rocky for Rich Energy... Rich Energy's turnover? unknown! Yes, they never published their turnover, they published their accounts in 2017 and the turnover was unreported. However, I looked up Rich Energy in Endole (here) and it is listed as "Micro – Less than 10 employees or turnover under £2 million": yes, a company with 3 employees and a turnover of less than £2 million and £581 (and a share capital of £10,000) in the bank is going to be, or so they say, the title sponsor of Haas... In case you think that I'm making this up and that my source is inaccurate you can check Rich Energy's entry at Companies House here

now what is my problem in all this? my problem is that I see this company, this
Wholesale of fruit and vegetable juices, mineral water and soft drinks
(description taken from Companies House), associated with F1. There is clearly something wrong in all this story, because a company with an unknown turnover, 3 employees, a debt ratio of nearly 68% and £581 in the bank cannot sponsor an F1 team, they cannot even buy a few tickets for a go-kart race, let alone be involved with F1. So how can they get away with all this? In the past Sassetti's Andrea Mode was banned from F1 after an unpaid creditor impounded his cars, are we really to believe that Gene Haas didn't make a simple check on his new title sponsor?

I fear that this will end in tears, or, as with the purchase of Foce India by Rich Energy, this will never happen. but at least we will have something to talk about during the winter months, before testing and racing starts again
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
The whole situation is bizarre. The limited company has no assets of value so clearly the money is not coming from there. I'm not sure they have even sold any product yet beyond a couple of independent bars and restaurants. I was relieved they did not get an opportunity to meddle with Force India - team ownership would have been far more damaging to a team than losing a sponsor if they go belly up.

William Storey is the sole director of Rich Energy Racing Limited as well, setup i believe for the failed Force India deal (their first attempt, before FI went into administration this year) although this company is yet to file any accounts.

There is only one other director of Rich Energy Limited, who has limited voting rights. There were, however, 6 shareholders reported last year, with the company having been divided from 100 to 10,000 shares just recently. The division of the 10,000 has not been reported yet, but i assume this will be where the money will begin to appear if his 'backers' are real.

Sometimes i think the guy simply has an incredibly bold method of promoting his fledgling company and raising awareness and interest, but that doesn't get you a black and gold branded helicopter does it!?
 

Grizzly

Bear
Contributor
If that is the case, the Dietrich Mateschitz model for brand promotion may not work out so well in full public view, but if he can make a go of it, good luck to him.

Give it a year or so and we'll find he bought the rights to an ancient recipe from a penniless man in Africa or something 10 years ago..........
 

Bill Boddy

Professional layabout
Contributor
It could be a shell company, there just to pass money to get round taxes. Some years ago Brogan published a chart of all the companies owned by Ecclestone, it would be interesting to revisit it if it is out of copyright :D
 
Top Bottom