RB Team Principal Laurent Mekies has again clarified that Red Bull is “not interested” in contravening Formula 1 rules using the model of owning two separate outfits.
Red Bull has funded two entities since acquiring the Minardi squad in 2005, but recent developments have caused several rival teams to oppose their relationship.
Amid the Faenza-based squad’s struggles last term, the team then known as AlphaTauri forged a closer technical alliance with Red Bull and sustained a resurgence.
AlphaTauri climbed to eighth place in the championship and has since undergone a rebrand, while it will relocate to a base in Milton Keynes where Red Bull is housed.
McLaren’s Zak Brown has been vocal about his concerns, arguing the arrangement has become outdated since a cost cap placed sides on an equal financial footing.
But Mekies believes complaints over the collaboration should be tempered as expectations that RB’s car would resemble last season’s Red Bull didn’t come to fruition.
“Our car is not the Red Bull of last year, it simply isn’t, and if anyone feels like analysing it technically, they will see it,” Mekies told Motorsport.com’s Italian publication.
“All our rivals, without exception, tried to find inspiration looking at the RB19, so did we, but we know from Formula 1 history that copying is not something unusual.
“We see it even today in the paddock, no two cars are identical or even close to being identical, and I would add that after seeing all the cars in the pitlane I can say that visually ours is among those which look the least like the RB19.
“Nobody from Red Bull is interested in playing around in grey areas of the rules, and fortunately for us the rules are very clear.
We share some components that the rules allow, as does half the pitlane.”
Along with a plethora of floor revisions, AlphaTauri’s late upgrade push last term witnessed its AT04 inherit the rear suspension from the title-winning Red Bull RB19.
However, Mekies insists that did not provide a substantial advantage, citing that other teams stopping development contributed to the Italian outfit’s sudden revival.
“It certainly wasn’t just a matter of suspension. We saw that nothing miraculous happened in terms of performance,” he added.
“The team was 10th in the championship for a long time, and to try and change things the decision was made to make a much bigger change with a development programme that went right up to the last race in Abu Dhabi.
“Practically half the car was changed and the results were also evident because of the fact that it was the only team having a development programme at that stage.
“It was a gamble that paid off, the team gained two positions in the constructors’ championship, and besides the sporting reward there was also the financial one.”
Mekies underlined his point with the argument that other teams who purchase non-listed components such as gearboxes and suspensions aren’t competing at the front.
The ex-Ferrari Sporting Director believes F1 should be cautious in making reactive changes to counter Red Bull and RB’s partnership which could also harm other teams.
“We have not seen a Williams on pole or a Haas on the podium, and this is because the shareable components did not include parts that were particularly significant in terms of performance, instead focusing on parts with a high development/cost ratio,” he expanded.
“These regulations also aimed to favour a new business model, to offer the possibility for a Formula 1 team to compete on the track without obliging it to make very significant investments in certain components, such as transmissions.
“I would like to point out that even at such a favourable time for F1 on the financial front, our owners continue to allocate budget every year, and I think this is the case for a large part of the grid.
“I don’t think there is any basis for deciding to change this part of the regulations, ultimately just to please one team. The danger is that we will make a wrong choice for our sport as a whole.”
