Red Bull and Toro Rosso deciding not to sign off on the latest suggestions for the Resource Restriction Agreement (RRA) preferring to see costs controlled during other ways. Red Bull and Toro Rosso still not sign a letter to the FIA which floated the option of the FIA becoming concerned in the process of overseeing compliance with certain aspects of the agreement.
Last season Red Bull leave from FOTA (Formula One Teams’ Association) wake of disagreements over the way forward for the RRA, the legal document drew up by the teams in 2009 following opposition to Max Mosley’s budget cap proposals.
“What I would like to make clear is Red Bull is fully behind cost control in Formula One,” Horner told Sky F1.
“Whether the RRA is the right route to achieve that is what we question. I believe that letter, from what I read, requested for the FIA to police the RRA, which in our opinion would be the wrong route.”
“We believe whole-heartedly in controlling costs in Formula 1 and not frivolous spending.
“But there are better ways of doing that and containing that through the sporting and technical regulations as opposed to a resource restriction that relies on equivalence and apportionment of time and personnel.
“That is always tricky in subsidiary companies, particularly of automotive manufacturers. So we would be totally open to any discussion that involves cost control that pursued those avenues.”
Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Williams and Marussia – are due to meet in Paris on Thursday to talk about the way forward for the RRA in greater detail but Horner believes the precedent originally set by FOTA is the basis from which to proceed with further cost cuts.
“When FOTA was first created there were clear and tangible restrictions in personnel, amount of engines, gearboxes, in testing, all things you can see policed and genuinely save costs,” he said.
“They’re the type of things that should be focused on rather than apportionment of people’s time and equivalence which is, in any formula or mechanism, fraught with problems and difficulties.
“It was well intended at the time, but as with all these things, when you drill into the detail it’s something much harder to police. That’s especially the case when there are companies or teams which are subsidiaries of other organisations. For us, we would prefer to keep it simple and go on tangible, measurable items.”