166 replies to this topic

[SophieB]

“I think there is value for discussions in the near future with the other team principals, FIA and F1,” said Binotto.
“Obviously if you're not guilty, having such damage in the budget cap is something which is even more of a consequence now.
“Should we add exemptions? I'm not sure that’s the solution. I think it may be very difficult to be policed.
“But I think that what we may consider is that if a driver is faulty, the team of the driver should pay at least to the other teams for the damages and repairs. That will make the drivers more responsible.”

https://www.autospor...errari/6641026/

 

Interesting idea, although I think Ted suggested changes like this would require unanimous agreement, not sure, maybe that was just in year? Anyway, What do you think?

[Risil]

Can't they get third party insurance?

[midgrid]

I think this is something to think about. Suffering adverse consequences due to the fault of others has always been part of motorsport, but now we have the resource restriction system on top of the existing parts restrictions, it can exaggerate this "natural unfairness".

We already have a system in which stewards review incidents and apportion blame, so in theory at least, this suggestion could be integrated.

[Requiem84]

Can't they get third party insurance?

 

The insurances premiums will be insanely high for a risk that is equally high. Probably it will not be worth it to insure this, assuming that there even would be an insurance company willing to take on this risk. 

[Casey]

Nah , but if innocent you should be able to repair outside of the budget cap and a broken engine because of the accident should be repaired/replaced without a penalty .

[SophieB]

I’m kind of in favour of this but wonder who sets the value of the damage. 
 

*Bottas crashes*

 

All teams: you us one billion quid.

[LightningMcQueen]

Too complex to police. The solution is very simple - all teams should have to set aside a small side pot for damage within the cost cap (c 5 million) You dont get to spend it on anything else.

Leave the cap at 145 million next year and 140 for the season after.

[A.Fant]

My gut feeling says it would be more than fair. The only issue that comes up immediately is how do you ensure that the amount is correct, the injured party gets plenty of incentive to overstate the incurred cost.

But considering the amount of accounting that has to go on with the budget cap, I guess it would be difficult to fudge the numbers.

[PayasYouRace]

Have the teams pay into a repair fund, which can then be accessed if your cars get smashed up.

[Nemo1965]

I voted no. But I think that financial damages inflicted by another driver/team (and so noted and decided by the stewards of the meeting) should not count towards the budgetcap.

 

Very simple solution. 

[smitten]

Massive can of worms.

 

Stewards are there to adjudicate on sporting issues.  The financial impacts of that are, and should remain, outside of their influence. 

[Astandahl]

Too complex to police. The solution is very simple - all teams should have to set aside a small side pot for damage within the cost cap (c 5 million) You dont get to spend it on anything else.

Leave the cap at 145 million next year and 140 for the season after.

They are already doing this.

[engineblock1]

Have the teams pay into a repair fund, which can then be accessed if your cars get smashed up.

 

Good suggestion, very much inline with your handle 

[smitten]

Why stop at accident damage?  Loss of constructors points?  Loss of TV air time and sponsorship?

 

Let us just litigate the hell out of it all....

[Marklar]

Just exclude it from the budget cap

If we follow the suggestion stewards decision become too important (how else to determine how one is guilty?)

For example the Bottas crash in Imola was arguably as much (IMO even more) Russells fault as the Verstappen crash in Silverstone was Hamiltons fault. Yet the former wouldnt have been paid and the latter would have. That's just a giant can of worms to open.

Edited by Marklar, 02 August 2021 - 10:53.

[SCUDmissile]

In theory it's a good idea but it will be tough to enforce.

Because there should be some consequences for Bottas and Stroll clowning about yesterday, but harsh to penalise them re. Grid drops because it was accidental.

But a budget cap hit for them would be appropriate in this new era.

[smitten]

Would Pirelli pay for Verstappen & Stroll's baku crashes under this concept? 

[SophieB]

Would Pirelli pay for Verstappen & Stroll's baku crashes under this concept? 

A good question. Presumably not (as seemingly sketched out on Binotto’s napkin) because it implies steward judgement would trigger the process.

[Anderis]

So if you cause a Spa 1998-like crash(and are found guilty by the stewards), your team might as well pack up and leave the rest of the season because it'll not have any cash left for its own operations?

[Zoe]

Nah , but if innocent you should be able to repair outside of the budget cap and a broken engine because of the accident should be repaired/replaced without a penalty .

 

Probably one of the better approaches, but probably also hard to police.

[KnucklesAgain]

Have the teams pay into a repair fund, which can then be accessed if your cars get smashed up.

I'm against the whole idea but this would be the only way. Midfielders have a much higher risk for getting into situations where the driver has a chance to be at fault

And this is a good point as well:

So if you cause a Spa 1998-like crash(and are found guilty by the stewards), your team might as well pack up and leave the rest of the season because it'll not have any cash left for its own operations?

Edited by KnucklesAgain, 02 August 2021 - 12:36.

[P123]

I'd say if that is the case, then to avoid something akin to insurance fraud the paying team would need a properly audited breakdown of what was to be replaced and proof of damage.  I'm not sure teams would be willing to be thatf orthcoming with each other.  And imagine disputes that would drag on over several seasons, potentially leaving more than one outfit in budgetary cost cap limbo.

 

By participating the teams are accepting a degree of risk.  If they don't wish to pay for repairs, or their budgets don't allow for such then that is down to them.  It is no coincidence that first we had Wolff complaining after Imola, then Horner, and now Binotto.  The three big spenders.  Why should a team like Williams, for example, pay out to any of that lot, ever?

[midgrid]

Massive can of worms.

Stewards are there to adjudicate on sporting issues. The financial impacts of that are, and should remain, outside of their influence.

The stewards wouldn't have to make overt decisions on financial culpability - there could be a separate framework for reparations/exemptions from the resource restriction system based on how the stewards apportion blame. I do appreciate that this would raise the stakes for the stewards, though!

[smitten]

A good question. Presumably not (as seemingly sketched out on Binotto’s napkin) because it implies steward judgement would trigger the process.

Fair enough I guess, but would Ferrari have to had paid Ferrari in Brazil 2019? (Can't remember who, if anybody got a penalty there, but you get the point).

[smitten]

The stewards wouldn't have to make overt decisions on financial culpability - there could be a separate framework for reparations/exemptions from the resource restriction system based on how the stewards apportion blame. I do appreciate that this would raise the stakes for the stewards, though!

They would though, I think - a struggling back marker team hits a rich front running team and it's a bit 50-50, a bit 51-49, do they really still feel able to rule without considering the financial impact.  They should be able to, but as humans could they?

[Rocket73]

Ridiculous idea. It would be endless lawsuits all year.

[thegobetween]

Can of worms.

 

Teams just need to budget for damages throughout a season.

[LightningMcQueen]

They are already doing this.

Then why are they saying these crashes are impacting development budget? They either aren’t doing it or need to adjust the pot

[TennisUK]

This is just transparently the big teams asking for a bigger budget cap so the smaller teams are disadvantaged. Ludicrous.

[Anderis]

It is no coincidence that first we had Wolff complaining after Imola, then Horner, and now Binotto.  The three big spenders.

Bingo. The big spenders just want to squeeze out every opportunity to have a little bit more cash available to spend for a sporting advantage.

 

I have an impression that crashes and damaged cars were more frequent some 15 or 25 years ago yet even the most poorly funded teams have managed to deal with it.

 

I don't deny there's some level of unfairness to suffering season lasting consequences due to a crash caused by someone else but I fear we're likely to open an even bigger can of worms if we're not very cautious about the measures we take to counter it.

 

Just imagine how much weight would every stewards decision have if paying for repair damage depended on it.
 

Edited by Anderis, 02 August 2021 - 11:13.

[Risil]

Binotto is saying exemptions won't work, so I think we're stuck. Teams paying reparations to other teams will cause weird sporting effects and essentially force an FIA panel to play forum games about who was "at fault" for everything.

[Augurk]

Have the teams pay into a repair fund, which can then be accessed if your cars get smashed up.

Best idea so far I think. That equalizes amongst the field as well whereas exempting repairs from the budget cap still aids the big 3 and hampers the others.

To counter abuse I'd still say make a difference between incidents (predominantly) caused by yourself and incidents where you were an innocent bystander. 

[JeePee]

You can't put a value on it.

 

Imagine is someone breaks your front wing which will be obsolete next race because of a front wing update. The effective damage is 0, but it's easy to say "give me 100.000!" Which is probably a price where R&D cost are also taken into account with, which have to be paid with or without a crash.

[Risil]

You can't put a value on it.

 

Imagine is someone breaks your front wing which will be obsolete next race because of a front wing update. The effective damage is 0, but it's easy to say "give me 100.000!" Which is probably a price where R&D cost are also taken into account with, which have to be paid with or without a crash.

I'm thinking about those insurance fraudsters you read about in the news who deliberately get you to rear-end them and then lodge absurdly high claims to your insurer.

[kumo7]

FIA have not been capable of making someone "guilty" except Ron Dennis at the Stepnygate. 

I say just give team the reserve, that is to say then only the big teams are capable of using tho.

Otherwise, just keep the harsh line of budget cap, or else, give the whole cap away!

[OneAndOnly]

Current state of affairs isn't fair to the teams being victims of other's mistakes, but charging other team for the damage isn't good solution imho. Imagine charging Mercedes for damages Bottas made in Hungaroring only. It would be more like punishing one team instead of making it fairer for the other.

However it would be fair to allow teams to repair cars outside of budget cap and penalty restrictions if their car is damaged due to error of other team's driver, like it was case in Hungarian GP. 

[midgrid]

They would though, I think - a struggling back marker team hits a rich front running team and it's a bit 50-50, a bit 51-49, do they really still feel able to rule without considering the financial impact. They should be able to, but as humans could they?

I think any system could only work in cases where one party is judged wholly or possibly predominantly to blame. Incidents where parties broadly share responsibility could only ever to be treated as racing incidents in a financial sense, as in a sporting sense.

[Marklar]

I also think that there is a lot of bullshittery about the actual costs going on, Merc claimed they had 1 m cost in Imola, Red Bull 1.8 m. If it was really the case Haas would be long gone. I'm quite certain that the actual material cost (the stuff like costs for staff or R&D which they most likely include in those estimations we read dont increase just because you produce a new front wing), In parts it's a political game.

Edited by Marklar, 02 August 2021 - 11:17.

[Roadhouse]

You can't put a value on it.

 

Imagine is someone breaks your front wing which will be obsolete next race because of a front wing update. The effective damage is 0, but it's easy to say "give me 100.000!" Which is probably a price where R&D cost are also taken into account with, which have to be paid with or without a crash.

 

Could say you'd have to replace that part with the same spec. Could also come up with a standard price for parts.

But I agree, you'd need to close many holes for teams not to abuse the system.

[andyscoot]

The sport is risky and things happen. I wondered when Wolff/Horner complained after Imola/Silverstone if there was a way to just not have the repairs count on the cap and the replacement parts be free of penalties. I suppose the risk is that you will have teams replacing parts that weren't damaged to circumvent penalties/costs.

[Augurk]

I also think that there is a lot of bullshittery about the actual costs going on, Merc claimed they had 1 m cost in Imola, Red Bull 1.8 m. If it was really the case Haas would be long gone. I'm quite certain that the actual material cost (the stuff like costs for staff or R&D which they most likely include in those estimations we read dont increase just because you produce a new front wing), In parts it's a political game.

Of course they were overstated. However it should be reasonably possible to ascertain a fixed amount per part that only covers manufacturing cost. Everyone except Haas (who pays a commercial price for parts) knows what the materials cost, the use of the autoclave, etc. 

[JeePee]

I also think that there is a lot of bullshittery about the actual costs going on, Merc claimed they had 1 m cost in Imola, Red Bull 1.8 m. If it was really the case Haas would be long gone. I'm quite certain that the actual material cost (the stuff like costs for staff or R&D which they most likely include in those estimations we read dont increase just because you produce a new front wing), In parts it's a political game.

Yeah, definitely. R&D cost are taken into account as well.

 

The raw carbon fibre costs are much cheaper.

[Requiem84]

I also think that there is a lot of bullshittery about the actual costs going on, Merc claimed they had 1 m cost in Imola, Red Bull 1.8 m. If it was really the case Haas would be long gone. I'm quite certain that the actual material cost (the stuff like costs for staff or R&D which they most likely include in those estimations we read dont increase just because you produce a new front wing), In parts it's a political game.

It’s not unreasonable to think that Haas has less manufacturing costs than RB/Merc etc.

You cant say that all FW’s of each team cost ‘x’. It will vary significantly between teams depending on the complexity of the FW, the materials, the required machinery, the staff costs, the agreed upon prices of sub contractors etc.

[BRG]

Would Pirelli pay for Verstappen & Stroll's baku crashes under this concept? 

No, that was clearly Mercedes fault.  It just was.  It must have been.  Helmut and Christian told me that.

 

Ridiculous idea. It would be endless lawsuits all year.

Exactly.  Ridiculous, and not just because of the legal wrangling, but because it is a very, very silly idea in the first place.

 

I'm thinking about those insurance fraudsters you read about in the news who deliberately get you to rear-end them and then lodge absurdly high claims to your insurer.

So you are pointing the finger at Lando?  

[F1 Mike]

Damage costs from crashes excluded from budget cap - sorted

[smitten]

Damage costs from crashes excluded from budget cap - sorted

All crashes, or just where somebody else is found to blame by the stewards?

[Fastcake]

Bad idea.

It would be a great way of discouraging small and financially precarious teams from racing the front runners. It’s easy to imagine a repeat of Jean Todt stalking the pit walls, threatening to let his cars past or he’ll stick them with the repair bill for the slightest contact.

Small teams at all levels of motorsport for decades have had to scrape together the funds to repair their cars after crashes that weren’t the fault of their drivers. We’ve had times where a team just doesn’t have the resources to field a car in time for the next event, and have been forced to pull out. I don’t remember any concern shown by the wealthiest teams on the costs for the backmarkers when a Ferrari hits a HRT or something, and yet now suddenly we’re meant to care when the budget cap means they can’t just redeploy their massive resources.

[Gary Davies]

Oh good heavens, the current lust for regulatory straight jackets appears to be insatiable.

 

This is racing. It gets intense at times. Short of an action that wilfully imperils life, any team competing in Formula One should take care of the damage to a car no one forced them to put in harm's way. The potential pong of lawyers must be avoided, at least in terms of damage to machinery. What next? Circuit owners sending Alpha Tauri or Haas a bill next time Yuki or Nikitia wallop a barrier? 

 

Binotto's call would be an expensive lawyer-fest... with justice being an elusive will o' the wisp.

 

Like it says on the back of the ticket, racing is dangerous.

[Peat]

Not voting, because I haven't a clue what would be for the best. 

It just feels plain 'wrong' at the moment that the biggest team on the grid has, at the past 2 races, directly inflicted physical damage upon it's rivals which snowballs into future damage due to A)'sporting' rules which will see them penalised later in the season with grid drops and B)Budget cap, taking away 2022 development resource. 

I know it's not deliberate, but Toto Wolff must have had a job stifling his laughter at T1. 

Edited by Peat, 02 August 2021 - 11:44.

[NewMrMe]

In theory I like the idea. It could also work the way I believe insurance can in the event of split liability, where it isn't always 50-50. If one driver is alleged to be 70% at fault and the other 30%, the first team pays 70% of damage to both cars and the second 30%.

 

In practice I can't see it working. How do you fairly price a part that is unique to one car? There is definitely an incentive for the team to make it seem as expensive as possible. The tyre question has already been asked. What about if another third party part failed and caused an accident involving multiple cars? Would there be a chain lawsuits going back to the supplier of the part? What about if an engine blew and a following car lost it on oil and crashed? Could that car now sue the other team's engine supplier? Also, if teams can claim accident costs off of each other, what about circuits? Could they claim the costs for repairing/replacing barriers?