AlphaTauri will change name in 2024 and follow Red Bull’s design lead – Marko

2024 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

AlphaTauri will move closer to Red Bull’s design philosophy next year and change its name again, Helmut Marko has revealed.

The team previously announced it will have a new management team for the 2024 F1 season, when Peter Bayer and Laurent Mekies will take over from current principal Franz Tost. Marko has now revealed the changes will go much deeper.

As well as another change of brand for the team which was called Toro Rosso between 2006 and 2019, AlphaTauri will also follow Red Bull’s design philosophy more closely, Marko indicated.

“AlphaTauri will have two new leaders in Laurent Mekies and Peter Bayer from 2024,” Marko told Kleine Zeitung. “There will be new sponsors and also a new name.

“The orientation is clear: based on Red Bull Racing, as far as the regulations allow. Do-it-yourself constructions are the wrong way.”

The two Red Bull-owned teams share the same power units, based on the designs created by Honda and adopted by Red Bull Powertrains after the Japanese manufacturer withdrew from F1 at the end of 2021. The teams also share some parts which are supplied by Red Bull Technologies.

F1’s rules prevent teams from sharing components completely. However it is possible for one team to closely but legally mimic a rival’s car, as Racing Point (now Aston Martin) did in 2020, basing its RP20 on the successful design raced by Mercedes.

AlphaTauri fell to last place in the constructors’ championship at the most recent race in Canada. Meanwhile Red Bull is dominating the season, winning every race held so far, and is on course to score a second consecutive constructors’ title.

Red Bull created Toro Rosso in 2006 by purchasing the assets of Minardi, which had been in F1 since 1985. Toro Rosso initially used old Red Bull chassis in a customer supply deal, until that practice was outlawed. Its premises are split between the former Minardi base in Faenza, Italy, and an aerodynamics division in Bicester, United Kingdom.

AlphaTauri has been approached for comment.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2024 F1 season

Browse all 2024 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

48 comments on “AlphaTauri will change name in 2024 and follow Red Bull’s design lead – Marko”

  1. So another identity change for Team Faenza only four seasons after the previous.
    I wonder what’ll be the next team name.

    1. Since Red Bull has testing restrictions due to the cost cap breach – the Alpha Tauri and Red Bull teams will simply switch identities and team members (including drivers). Hence the Red Bull design lead..

      1. I think this topic deserves a more serious answer

        1. @tobikomu I like that answer despite being somewhat sarcastic.

        2. I don’t think this topic is so serious to begin with…

    2. Fun that we’ll go from 2 Alphas / Alfas to none. They’ll probably choose a name that sounds similar to Audi next, like Aldi perhaps?

      1. Well.. now that you mention it. Alfa Tauri? Would make sense. Alfa brand up for grabs, clear link with Italy – maybe Ford would be less enthusiastic? Probably need a brainstorm session for better name..

    3. Faenza Auto Racing Team.
      Or Minardi.

      1. Roy Beedrill
        29th June 2023, 2:40

        Oh, I see what you did here, that acronym. Perfectly fits for the current era F1 cars.

  2. Red Bull created Toro Rosso in 2006 by purchasing the assets of Minardi

    Red Bull bought the Minardi team, not just its assets. (unlike another current F1 entrant)

    1. What do you mean? Red Bull being Stewart/Jaguar yet not counting the wins or history of that previous branding of the team?

      1. This site has previously claimed continuity between entries where this is none (the entrants starting out as Jordan Grand Prix and Racing Point), now it appears to call into question the very real continuity between Minardi and Toro Rosso. (Dietrich Mateschitz bought the Minardi team, F1 entry included, not just its assets.)

        1. Agree. That’s what I thought. The only one that doesn’t have continuity that I can think of is Merc coming from the assets of Tyrrell. The rest are all the same teams that have different branding.

  3. Adam (@rocketpanda)
    28th June 2023, 15:54

    Actually surprised how badly Red Bull/AlphaTauri fumbled this identity so badly. I don’t feel this has anything to do with the car’s performance on track and everything to do with the identity – or lack of, with the team.

    AlphaTauri has a great logo that fits with Red Bull’s brand, a defined colour/livery style with metallic blue and white and instead of advertising the drink it advertises Red Bull’s clothing brand. But the clothes themselves are bland, uninteresting and ludicrously overpriced. The brand comes across cold, corporate and lacking energy, personality or character. AlphaTauri did a poor job of advertising it’s own product

    I felt that turning into its own identity diverged from Red Bull was a good step but it’s been handled so badly and is disappointing as it feels it was never given the opportunity, tools or individual style to distinct itself in the first place.

    1. I’ve never actually looked at the AlphaTauri fashion website until now – jikes!

      1. Who buys €130 T shirts and €240 shorts??

        1. Seriously? You have to ask?

    2. Totally agree @rocketpanda. Moving The Artist Formerly Known as Toro Rosso away from Red Bull made sense if corporate was looking to eventually sell the team. But this indicates they really don’t know what they want to do with it.

      What’s doubly surprising is that, given some teams are being approached with billion-dollar buyout proposals, what they see in their B-team. I recall that Toro Rosso were utilised to test the Honda engines a year before Red Bull adopted them – are they looking to try something similarly radical in the future?

    3. You could say the same with Red Bull. When you’re in the Orient a bottle of Red Bull looks very interesting. When you’re in the west is looks cold and corporate. It’s just the Austrian effect on both these brands.

  4. Ferrari during the 90’s had a design centre based in the U.K it did not work, either have the whole team based in the U.K or in Italy. I feel like during the restructure they could do with a Ross Brawn type of figure head. So based in this year constructors performance levels these changes are knee jerk and some levels of time and patience are also needed for the long term future. A switch back to the Toro Rosso name please would be good.

    1. Didn’t Ferrari have it based in the UK when Todt was king and Schumacher was doing all the winning? I think Rory Byrne refused to be in Italy. Osamu Goto was in the UK. There most successful time in the history of Ferrari was when it was decentralized and foreigners were running it.

      1. You’re thinking of John Barnard, he had his design offices just outside just outside Guildford, Surrey, Ferrari Guildford Technical Office or Ferrari GTO.

      2. @darryn as others have pointed out, you are in fact wrong.

        John Barnard did have a design office in the UK in the 1980s, which was the Ferrari Guildford Technical Office, and he then set up a new office, Ferrari Design and Development, when he rejoined Ferrari in the 1990s. However, with Byrne taking over from Barnard in 1997 as part of Todt’s reorganisation of the team, Barnard bought Ferrari Design and Development from Ferrari and renamed it as B3 Technologies in 1997.

        Similarly, Osamu Goto wasn’t at Ferrari either at that time – he left Ferrari in 1997. Furthermore, Goto was never the head of the engine department – Paolo Martinelli was the head of Ferrari’s engine department, and it was Martinelli who was the key figure pushing for the switch to a V10 engine that helped Ferrari’s form improve from 1996 onwards.

        You are therefore wrong to claim that “The most successful time in the history of Ferrari was when it was decentralized” – on the contrary, it actually came after a period in which Todt had re-centralised resources back in Maranello.

        1. Interesting. Thanks for correcting me.

  5. Could they call the team Minardi again or does Paul Stoddart still own the Minardi name?

  6. Yeah… Alpha something… was bad from the first day. Toro Rosso sound better and also did looked better. Easy fix.

  7. A part of me thinks we should bring back customer teams, after a fashion…

    My idea would be to allow teams to buy a base chassis design from another team. It shouldn’t include front or rear wings, nor certain other bits of bodywork, but should include engine and gearbox supply from the same sources. They should have to build it themselves and add the missing parts (possibly with simpler, more limited design scope). All teams would have to accept any customer for a set price. They should not be entered into the WCC, but into a new competition (name TBD) with their own prize money, a lower budget cap etc.

    This would allow a much lower barrier to entry than currently. A new team could start as a “customer”, hone their skills, then progress to full constructor status.

    Only an idea off the top of my head, not sure how well it would work though. However, I’ve often thought about a route for teams into F1. Drivers can hone their skills through the ranks, but teams have a monumental hurdle to enter F1. There is no other competition like it for them to hone their skills. Having an “F1B” in some form (not necessarily this one) would a good stepping stone into F1.

    1. That would be great if anyone in F1 currently wanted more teams. They obviously don’t.

      1. Agreed, the fuss the teams (in particular) kick up about it and the “anti-dilution fee” do show that they don’t want anyone else coming in.

  8. I still don’t really like the ‘B team’ concept as I think every team on the grid should be independent from the others and aiming to do what is best for them rather than a parent team. It’s just always been something i’ve never liked the idea of.

    There shouldn’t be a question about a B team driver jumping out of the way of the parent team or not racing them as hard as they would anyone else and there shouldn’t be situations like what we saw with Jaime Algersuari in 2011 getting berated by parent team management just for trying to do the best job for himself & his team in a practice session and getting in the way of the already world championship winning driver in the A team.

    It’s supposed to be 10 teams (13 teams max) with 2 drivers per team & not 10 teams where one basically has 4 drivers.

    1. Just out of interest, when did that Algersuari incident occur? Must’ve missed it back then

    2. Why 13 teams max? In the peak it was 19 teams with 2 cars and 1 team with 1. There were a lot of interesting designs that didn’t even make it out of pre-qualifying. I’m enjoying the variety of hypercar even if it is all a bit artificial.

      1. That’s just the maximum number of teams set out in the current Concorde Agreement. Technically it could be changed in future, but right now that’s the set number it’s allowed to go up to. That’s all the ’13 teams max’ meant, I’d assume.

    3. Or with gasly literally waving Max by with his DRS flap.
      It’s embarrassing

  9. Ah yes, the “independent” team.

    If F1 is going to stick with 10 teams, at least make sure it’s not actually 9.

    If Red Bull didn’t need a seat for its obligatory Japanese driver, what even is the point. They’re not bringing any new talent into F1 anymore either.

    Time to let someone else have a go.

    1. Hard to remember now, but people were very hot for Mr de Vries getting a chance at Formula 1 after doing a good job at the track with the fewest corners while being compared to his paydriver teammate.

      That and Dr Marko’s need for a second driver added up quite nicely. Until we all saw Mr de Vries get pummeled by his current teammate.

  10. Tost’s departure will well and truly mark the end of any independence the team had in terms of design. I would not be surprised if this year’s Red Bull car with a different livery will be next year’s team Faenza car under whichever name it comes up. It is possible that there may even be a driver reshuffle for the team as well.

  11. The other way to look at this is to see the team (Red Bull “B”) being prepared for a sale.

    The team will not be sponsored by Red Bull to gain brand separation and will get Red Bull technology to increase performance. Increasing the value of the team prior to a sale.

    I don’t think having a “B” gives the primary team any greater advantage going into a budget cap future.

    The real advantage will go to the teams with road car manufacturing markets. How easy will it be for a McLaren, Ferrari, Aston Marton (Mercedes not so much) to design, build and sell a single seat, open wheeled, customer “track” car on which to play with design development outside the F1 budget?

    Time for Red Bull to buy a car manufacturer (Maserati ?) with the money from the sale of the Red Bull “B” team? Red Bull already have a relationship with Rodin Cars so may well look to exploit that loophole further now that Rodin has bought into the Carlin racing team. Carlin to “buy” the Red Bull “B” team and for Red Bull to use Rodin Cars as a F1 test mule as an alternative to buying a road car manufacturer?

  12. To keep it interesting for RIC when DEV gets the boot ;-)

  13. Broccoliface
    28th June 2023, 23:02

    Sugar Free Red Rull Racing

    1. Hahaha, nice!

  14. Apart from the obvious performance/points/strategy benefits of a strong second team, this also realigns their car with RB design philosophy (that they enjoyed back in the old chassis days) so that the driver development role that this team also performs, will actually measure and develop drivers that suit the RB car.
    Danny Ric can be dropped into a seat to test him against his former self and assuming he’s still got it he can then apply pressure to the second RB driver, provide an additional development tool/measuring stick for the driver in the car next door as well as provide the main team RB with a credible alternative driver if they needed to make a hasty change during the season (assuming he’s still got it).

  15. I am sure it’s been mentioned on this site before but what are the limits on sharing components, chassis design, etc? What does a separate team have to provide themselves?

  16. How do you get around the restrictions/limits aimed at levelling the playing field? Get someone else to do it for you.

    If AT copy the design of the RB next year, what’s to say that AT can’t CFD model and windtunnel test avenues of performance on behalf of RB? Piece of cake to do, especially when sharing resources across the different companies in the group.

  17. Obviously the new name should be some variation of Ruddy Mc Ruddy Bull Face etc.

  18. It is kind of ridiculous that there are just 10 teams on the grid and Red Bull get to have a B-team with all the development advantage that brings.

  19. Alan S Thomson
    30th June 2023, 4:49

    The day Marko retires will be a great day for the sport. What an awful human being.

  20. Alfa Romeo sponsorship will go to Haas when Audi takes over.
    However, on the AT name change, how about Red Calf?

Comments are closed.