Should crash repairs be excluded from cost cap?

Apologies if this has been talked already but I don't remember reading about it.

IMHO calculating crash repairs to cost cap is a double punishment, first you suffer in race and then you have less money for development. That is why repairing a car back to condition it was before crash shouldn't be included in seasons cost cap. And in that key phrase is 'condition it was before', if broken parts are replaced with development parts it would be unfair advantage if that wasn't calculated for cost cap. It would mean that repair process would need to be supervised for keeping track of what parts are for repair and what are for development.

That's my thought of the subject, what do you think?

Only if the mechanics are well catered for.

Off course not. There isn't even a real budget cap. Top teams like Mercedes , Red Bull & Ferrari are spending just or almost as much as they did before but people / fans / journalists don't even realise this.

So many things are kept outside the budget cap: accounting, marketing, cleaning staff, catering, transportation etcetera...

If you look at the budgets and number of staff of the three top teams: it hardly changed, they still spend around 300 million or more and not 145 (which has already been raised to almost 150) as they claim. They hide costs under different parts of the book keeping also.

Note that he budget cap is only for racing / development costs!!! Note that the top teams have hardly let staff go. With Mercedes the staff number just dropped from around 1070 to 1011 or something like that so still ridiculously high.

The smaller teams, like Haas , Williams Sauber or spending maximum 145 million IN TOTAL, it's their total budget. With the top teams they spend 145 million on Research & Development and the actual racing (including car damage repairs). So they still outspend the other teams at least double or tripple!

The budget cap is not really there. And still Red Bull found it necessary to cheat despite of this. 

The budget cap should be the TOTAL budget and not just R&D and racing. Besides how can you claim that accounting is not part of the racing activity because the business activity of a team is... racing so everything relates to it in some way.

It's also odd how many people, more people, suddenly work in accounting or marketing at the top teams... Almost as if they put an engineer as working in catering, in accounting or marketing in the documents they supply to the FIA....

This is all a bad joke. Why do people think the top teams eventually agreed to the budget cap? Because in reality there isn't a real budget cap, it's a smoke screen.

Edited by William Hunt, 15 November 2022 - 16:33.

Excluded only when caused by someone else, not on their own.

Cost cap for a large racing team backed by a large factory is purely theoretical in my opinion. Who checks that e.g. Mercedes does not run any simulations / analysis in one of their many F&E offices not for a commercial project, but for the F1 racing team?

I voted "no", but considering how well teams seem to know other teams budgetary situation I guess there are new strategies that opens up here.

Excluded only when caused by someone else, not on their own.

 

 

Seeing how "guilt" is appointed right now, that would certainly make F1 explode

You got a point, but sometimes there are clear cases (e.g. RIC vs MAG on Sunday), or the awarding of penalities might be an indicator as well....

My issue would be that the likes of Sauber and Williams can't actually afford to go over the cost cap even if the rules allow it in a certain set of circumstances. So it still undermines the cap by dividing the grid into teams that can fix their cars without compromising performance and teams that can't.

I could see a case for allowing crash repairs to be excluded from the cap, but only if like-for-like parts are created. Any process whereby costs are included or excluded based on attributing blame in a given incident would always fail spectacularly.

Crazy that people ignore my post where I wrote that there is no real budget cap in reality thus that means crash repairs should certainly not be excluded since most a top team's cost is already excluded.

I read your post carefully, William, and respect your perspective, but do not feel it is entirely relevant to the current discussion. Top teams may indeed still be spending significant sums outside the budget cap, but the costs incurred in crash damage do have an impact on car development, and in specific circumstances this could influence title battles (which, if we are honest, are always most likely to play out amongst the top teams). As a way of avoiding controversy, excluding crash damage (with the necessary provisos) strikes me as a sensible measure.

There is already a system in place that handles damage during a sprint session, shouldn't be to difficult to extend that to the race/other sessions.

@ Muppetmad: is very very relevant what I wrote. Because we should not be having the discussion about crash damage at all. What we should be discussing is the budget cap itself and why top teams still spend as much as before with more or less the same number of staff. That is relevant.
This is an example of the top teams trying to raise their budgets even further.

And it would open a major can of worms. They could then make the cost of a crash repair 4-5 times higher as the true cost in bookkeeping and spend the rest on development and nobody would know... Off course smaller teams can't do that because their total budget is under or at the budget cap whilst the top teams spend that money just on racing, repairs & development (supposedly, I don't believe they do that, in reality they can hide costs in book keeping).

There is no level playing field budget wise in F1, it's the same as before really. Hardly anything changed. How do you think a team like Mercedes went from a backmarker team in the opening races to winning a race in the same year? They can still outspend the other teams easily.

Edited by William Hunt, 15 November 2022 - 18:03.

No. You have a budget and hard luck if you can't afford everything you want because of crash damage. That's basically been true through the ages. In principle, the cost cap only changes the size of the budget; it doesn't change the fact that you have one.

Edited by flyboym3, 15 November 2022 - 22:37.

Off course not. There isn't even a real budget cap. Top teams like Mercedes , Red Bull & Ferrari are spending just or almost as much as they did before but people / fans / journalists don't even realise this.

So many things are kept outside the budget cap: accounting, marketing, cleaning staff, catering, transportation etcetera...

If you look at the budgets and number of staff of the three top teams: it hardly changed, they still spend around 300 million or more and not 145 (which has already been raised to almost 150) as they claim. They hide costs under different parts of the book keeping also.

Note that he budget cap is only for racing / development costs!!! Note that the top teams have hardly let staff go. With Mercedes the staff number just dropped from around 1070 to 1011 or something like that so still ridiculously high.

The smaller teams, like Haas , Williams Sauber or spending maximum 145 million IN TOTAL, it's their total budget. With the top teams they spend 145 million on Research & Development and the actual racing (including car damage repairs). So they still outspend the other teams at least double or tripple!

The budget cap is not really there. And still Red Bull found it necessary to cheat despite of this.

The budget cap should be the TOTAL budget and not just R&D and racing. Besides how can you claim that accounting is not part of the racing activity because the business activity of a team is... racing so everything relates to it in some way.

It's also odd how many people, more people, suddenly work in accounting or marketing at the top teams... Almost as if they put an engineer as working in catering, in accounting or marketing in the documents they supply to the FIA....

This is all a bad joke. Why do people think the top teams eventually agreed to the budget cap? Because in reality there isn't a real budget cap, it's a smoke screen.

@ marcm: the competitive advantage 'very limited'? The top 3 teams are driving in a different league and no other team is able to come close to a win. The top 3 teams still spend around 300-400 million per year and they still have +1000 people of staff. 
They spend just on R&D and racing costs what the smaller teams are spending in total, and you claim that hardly makes a difference????!!!

They spend just on R&D and racing costs what the smaller teams are spending in total, and you claim that hardly makes a difference????!!!

Because this statement is untrue.

All teams are spending 145m or very close to on R&D and racing costs.
 

This is a complete false statement. Only the top teams spend that amount on R&D on racing. For the other teams it's their total budget (or less). Check out the budgets of the teams of the last couple of years please before you start to make things up.

Edited by William Hunt, 16 November 2022 - 22:40.

They should be included or the cost of every crash will triple as teams game the system...

Fixed cost for repair or replacement  of parts would fix that.

Don't think crashes should be included. 2 or 3 accidents 100% not your fault could cost you $2-3 million. Seeing how people are claiming RB basically had a massive advantage with their over spend on the cost cap means through no fault of your own you get screwed on the season. 

Zero chance they should be included. Makes no sense

Edited by FNG, 16 November 2022 - 22:46.

Fixed cost for repair or replacement  of parts would fix that.

 

Don't think crashes should be included. 2 or 3 accidents 100% not your fault could cost you $2-3 million. Seeing how people are claiming RB basically had a massive advantage with their over spend on the cost cap means through no fault of your own you get screwed on the season. 

 

Zero chance they should be included. Makes no sense

agree - maybe a system like teams buying some virtual insurance....

This is a complete false statement. Only the top teams spend that amount on R&D on racing. For the other teams it's their total budget (or less). Check out the budgets of the teams of the last couple of years please before you start to make things up.

Excluded only when caused by someone else, not on their own.

A bit off topic, but didn't know where to ask and am sure someone has looked in to it.

Are PU costs included in the cost cap? Talking about the ones allowed and the extra ones that come with a grind penalty.

I'd like to see transfers between teams when a crash is clearly assessed to be one driver's fault over another. For solitary crashes (ahem, Mick), no changes.  But if Ric bumps off Mag, and his car is damaged, the funds are removed from McL's reserves and pay for repairs to Mag's car.

That, if nothing else, should improve some driving standards.  At least, to this foolish optimist's view of things.

I'd like to see transfers between teams when a crash is clearly assessed to be one driver's fault over another. For solitary crashes (ahem, Mick), no changes. But if Ric bumps off Mag, and his car is damaged, the funds are removed from McL's reserves and pay for repairs to Mag's car.

That, if nothing else, should improve some driving standards. At least, to this foolish optimist's view of things.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 17 November 2022 - 14:09.

Repairs could be excluded when the replacement part is exact as the broken one.

I don't want to see drivers slightly crashing to get a new spec front wing built outside the cost cap.

I can think of no good reason that repair costs should be included in a cap that's designed to even the playing field in terms of development, design, and production.

Repairs could be excluded when the replacement part is exact as the broken one.

I don't want to see drivers slightly crashing to get a new spec front wing built outside the cost cap.

I can't envision that scenario, where a driver would crash and then suddenly a better-designed front wing would be put on his car. Wouldn't they generally have the better-design on the car already if it were already available?

I can think of no good reason that repair costs should be included in a cap that's designed to even the playing field in terms of development, design, and production.

I can't envision that scenario, where a driver would crash and then suddenly a better-designed front wing would be put on his car. Wouldn't they generally have the better-design on the car already if it were already available?

I thought the concern was about later races. You ruin a front wing in some way, possibly on purpose, and get a cash allowance to replace it. Then you spend that towards developing a better FW. I am not sure if that's possible and apologies if I misinterpreted @GVera, but that's how I read it

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 17 November 2022 - 20:43.

I thought the concern was about later races. You ruin a front wing in some way, possibly on purpose, and get a cash allowance to replace it. Then you spend that towards developing a better FW. I am not sure if that's possible and apologies if I misinterpreted @GVera, but that's how I read it

Maybe. My question then would be that if damage/repair costs aren't included in the cap in the first place, then how could anyone game the system to get an advantage by purposefully breaking a wing? In that scenario, breaking the wing wouldn't afford you any more money under the cap than not breaking the wing, right? 

I can think of no good reason that repair costs should be included in a cap that's designed to even the playing field in terms of development, design, and production.

But the cap is on all F1 operations, not just development, design, and production.

OK. I just don't see why something as random as repairs from crashes should be included under the cap, especially when another team causes the damage in the first place.

Maybe. My question then would be that if damage/repair costs aren't included in the cap in the first place, then how could anyone game the system to get an advantage by purposefully breaking a wing? In that scenario, breaking the wing wouldn't afford you any more money under the cap than not breaking the wing, right? 

It's all going over my head on a Thursday evening

This maybe hard to enforce right but it makes sense to me personally. But if your driver just bins it alone then yes it should not be included. That's why I think hard to enforce right and make rules for it. 

I can think of no good reason that repair costs should be included in a cap that's designed to even the playing field in terms of development, design, and production.

I can't envision that scenario, where a driver would crash and then suddenly a better-designed front wing would be put on his car. Wouldn't they generally have the better-design on the car already if it were already available?

They would, if building that new wing doesn't imply going over the budget cap.

Or, building it for free means free budget for other updates.

I agree with William Hunt, although crashes are unfair in terms of budget caps IMO. So exclude the crashes, but reduce the cap while doing so. Smaller teams shouldn't be the victim of introducing more fairness.

www.autosport.com/f1/news/alfa-romeo-will-run-close-to-f1-budget-cap-in-2022/7656093/amp/

http://m.f1reader.co...-in-2021-260566

www.autosport.com/f1/news/haas-new-f1-title-sponsor-will-allow-team-to-reach-budget-cap/10387229/amp/

Again, for Haas & Williams that's the TOTAL of their complete budget. Top teams spend that amount just on R&D + Racing alone.

We've been cheated with all talk of a level playing field, it's a fairytale. Top teams like Mercedes still have over 1000 people on their F1 team, exactly like before. Nothing changed really except they created a fake image of more fair competition.

Top teams like Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull will never allow there to be a level competition field. They've managed to convince FIA to keep most of their costs outside the budget cap and now they're trying to convince the public that crashes (which is clearly racing budget) should also be outside of the budget cap, that way the budget cap would in reality be as good as gone. 

Despite of this Red Bull still cheated by outspending Mercedes & Ferrari on R&D. Blatant cheating.

Edited by William Hunt, 18 November 2022 - 16:42.

Again, for Haas & Williams that's the TOTAL of their complete budget. Top teams spend that amount just on R&D + Racing alone.
We've been cheated with all talk of a level playing field, it's a fairytale. Top teams like Mercedes still have over 1000 people on their F1 team, exactly like before. Nothing changed really except they created a fake image of more fair competition.

Top teams like Mercedes, Ferrari or Red Bull will never allow there to be a level competition field. They've managed to convince FIA to keep most of their costs outside the budget cap and now they're trying to convince the public that crashes (which is clearly racing budget) should also be outside of the budget cap, that way the budget cap would in reality be as good as gone.
Despite of this Red Bull still cheated by outspending Mercedes & Ferrari on R&D. Blatant cheating.

Drivers would crash on purpose just to get a gearbox change free of the cap 

Not if they're self-inflicted.