241 replies to this topic

[renzmann]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this one.

The cost cap is not only 'the FIA's baby'; it is also the teams' baby. They all have an interest in its success. But in true FIA fashion the FIA were opaque about the process, so we have no idea what Red Bull submitted or what the FIA questioned. We know only the final agreement, presented to the public in brief summary form.

The FIA told the teams from the outset that, for the first year, they would not audit whether the amounts the teams submitted as their actual expenses were correct. Absent a whistleblower-type revelation, the only potential challenge would be whether the amounts submitted - and accepted as read - were properly categorised as included or excluded. This made it clear that the FIA would be going easy on the teams in the first year's implementation.

The entire history of the FIA (with only a few exceptions, such as Mosley's vendetta against McLaren) is replete with the FIA's (as opposed to individual stewards') watering down sanctions when lobbied by teams and, the more political power a team has had, the more diluted has been the sanction. Just look at how they treated Ferrari with the fuel-flow cheat - 'You mustn't do that again, you naughty boys!'.

 

The argument that Red Bull's breach was only 'formal' is sophistry. Unless Red Bull Racing have become a charity, every penny they spent was with the objective of winning championships. They made a false submission about certain of their expenses because they thought they could get away with it in those areas - it wasn't because they had not spent the money in pursuit of the team's competitive goals.

 

You're not wrong, and your point in your third paragraph seems excellent to me. Regardless, you were only considering arguments that substantiate your thesis. I was merely pointing out that there's more to be considered.

 

Your last statement is wrong IMO, there's definitely a substantial difference between formal and material breaches, and RBR's breach only was partially material. But let's agree to disagree here please. I have no interest in unpacking all the details again

 

I think we're at the same trenches as last year.

We are. Wouldn't it be great if the FIA made a habit of releasing their cost cap reports at the beginning of the summer break? It would be a welcome topic to overcome the raceless weekends.

[New Britain]

You're not wrong, and your point in your third paragraph seems excellent to me. Regardless, you were only considering arguments that substantiate your thesis. I was merely pointing out that there's more to be considered.

Yes, I was giving reasons why one would suspect that the FIA would have considered Red Bull to have breached the cap beyond the £1.86m agreed between the two parties. This was because it had been asserted above that the suggestion that the number had been above £1.86 was 'baseless speculation'. I pointed out that it was speculation, but it was not baseless. In the absence of the details that the FIA have denied us, there are still deductive reasons for one to believe that it is likely that the actual number was higher and I was giving those reasons. It is certainly true that, from the outside, one cannot be certain. I was stating what I think is more likely, and why.

[chrcol]

Ferrari were the most dishonest team on the grid until Mosley left the scene, which roughly coincided with their replacement by Red Bull. Ferrari were allowed to get away with it, hence no reputational damage apart from among the small minority of the public who were paying attention to what Ferrari were doing in motor racing.

Your example of Ferrari however proves my point: when publicly-owned Ferrari were discovered in 2019 to be running an illegal fuel-flow sensor defeat device (or whatever it was), Ferrari insisted on an NDA with the regulator in order to protect their reputation.

I seen a article lately sourced from Frank which said every time Williams submitted changes for approval to the FIA, after it got approved the changes would appear on Ferrari's cars the next race.

 

One thing I learnt about this sport, its far from clean.

[thefinalapex]

I seen a article lately sourced from Frank which said every time Williams submitted changes for approval to the FIA, after it got approved the changes would appear on Ferrari's cars the next race.

One thing I learnt about this sport, its far from clean.

Same like that extra stay at Mercedes in canada last year. It was already magically on their car the next day, or that secret tyre test in 2013. Brabham with the water tanks, BAR in 2005 with the extra fuel tank i believe. Mclaren with the third pedal in 1998. The list goes on and on.

[New Britain]

I seen a article lately sourced from Frank which said every time Williams submitted changes for approval to the FIA, after it got approved the changes would appear on Ferrari's cars the next race.

 

One thing I learnt about this sport, its far from clean.

I have a feeling that you read the Sir Frank Williams anecdote in a post that I wrote here a few weeks ago. It was something that he told me in a private conversation about a decade ago, but I did not share it whilst he was alive.

In retrospect he laughed about it, but that was more because he was an extraordinarily upbeat and equable person, not because he excused the FIA's or Ferrari's behaviour.

[AlexPrime]

Still no news, eh? And they said last year it won't be clear that late in the year...

[Brian60]

Still no news, eh? And they said last year it won't be clear that late in the year...

They've got to give the at fault teams time to re-submit corrected figures in the hope of averting another RB situation.

[New Britain]

They've got to give the at fault teams time to re-submit corrected figures in the hope of averting another RB situation.

Has something changed? Last year no re-submissions past the deadline were allowed, which was one of the things about which Red Bull whined.

[Brian60]

Has something changed? Last year no re-submissions past the deadline were allowed, which was one of the things about which Red Bull whined.

No I said it tongue in cheek with regards to the whining you mentioned from last year.

[ferrarista]

https://www.gazzetta...ingegneri.shtml

Fred Vasseur on the budget cap

There is talk of other possible infractions related to the budget cap.
"I don't want to make any comments about something I don't know about. Generally speaking what I can say is that last year's punishment wasn't harsh enough, and if it were to happen again this time it would have to be much more drastic. Considering the fact that the technical advantage translates into sporting advantage, the punishment must be sporting, not a fine. If in football you commit handball in the penalty area, they don't give you a fine. Cutting 10% of wind tunnel work is one joke: you've already done the big work, and what you don't use for aerodynamics you can spend working on weight savings etc. If another irregularity were found, a drastic punishment would be needed, for 2024, a disqualification of a year or something like that. We know it's difficult to manage the budget cap but we have perfect systems to control what you spend, and when in doubt you can ask the FIA. And then another thing needs to be explained: an infringement of 5 % isn't small, it's big. You have a budget set at 135 million, 80 million for personnel alone, then about twenty costs for the races (material you buy, brakes and so on), building 4 cars at the start of the season is worth another 20 and there are further rumors. In the end you are between 120 and 125, more or less fixed costs for everyone, and you have less than 10 million left for development. So you've overshot 2 million out of 7 or 8, it's not 5% of the 135 total like they said. Collectively, like F1, this thing must be resolved, we must not sweep the dust under the carpet because in the end there is a risk that someone will organize it at the table. There is a big difference between an involuntary mistake and a choice. As between those who make a mistake in completing their tax return and those who instead found a company in some tax haven to evade taxes. We have to be tough, the future of the cost cap depends on it. If it ends up with another "multina" then everyone will do the same thing, the allocation to pay is budgeted and amen. The big builders can afford it...".

[RedRabbit]

Is he still crying about this? For goodness sake.

He isn't even making coherent sense here, pointing out working on weight savings instead of doing wind tunnel work. Ferrari had both options available, and created a tire chewing, under steering, unreliable mess. That would still have happened without Red Bull breaching any cap.

Just misdirection and deflection.

[New Britain]

Is he still crying about this? For goodness sake.

He isn't even making coherent sense here, pointing out working on weight savings instead of doing wind tunnel work. Ferrari had both options available, and created a tire chewing, under steering, unreliable mess. That would still have happened without Red Bull breaching any cap.

Just misdirection and deflection.

Considering that Vasseur wasn't even at Ferrari when their current car was being designed, it would not seem that he would be deflecting as you allege.

The gist of his argument is that a supposedly 'Minor Breach' may, in performance terms, not be minor at all. He offers an insider's knowledge of the proportions of money spent inside the cost cap on different things. As such he is making a contribution to the discussion which is helpful for us outsiders.

He is also alluding to how another team got off too lightly last year when it broke the rules.

 

to Frédéric Vasseur.

[MissingApex]

Considering that Vasseur wasn't even at Ferrari when their current car was being designed, it would not seem that he would be deflecting as you allege.
The gist of his argument is that a supposedly 'Minor Breach' may, in performance terms, not be minor at all. He offers an insider's knowledge of the proportions of money spent inside the cost cap on different things. As such he is making a contribution to the discussion which is helpful for us outsiders.
He is also alluding to how another team got off too lightly last year when it broke the rules.

to Frédéric Vasseur.

He also states that

There is a big difference between an involuntary mistake and a choice. As between those who make a mistake in completing their tax return and those who instead found a company in some tax haven to evade taxes.

.

[Clatter]

Love that he talks about a years ban. Everyone is going to love the idea of less cars on the grid. Can just see it if multiple teams are involved. I can't see a ban ever happening, especially when they are so actively trying to prevent anyone else from joining.

[ferrarista]

Is he still crying about this? For goodness sake.

He isn't even making coherent sense here, pointing out working on weight savings instead of doing wind tunnel work. Ferrari had both options available, and created a tire chewing, under steering, unreliable mess. That would still have happened without Red Bull breaching any cap.

Just misdirection and deflection.

The interview is long and if you care to read it, it’s the opposite of what you are saying; for the point of my post, read the subsequent one of New Britain.

[taran]

https://www.gazzetta...ingegneri.shtml

Fred Vasseur on the budget cap

There is talk of other possible infractions related to the budget cap.
"I don't want to make any comments about something I don't know about. Generally speaking what I can say is that last year's punishment wasn't harsh enough, and if it were to happen again this time it would have to be much more drastic. Considering the fact that the technical advantage translates into sporting advantage, the punishment must be sporting, not a fine. If in football you commit handball in the penalty area, they don't give you a fine. Cutting 10% of wind tunnel work is one joke: you've already done the big work, and what you don't use for aerodynamics you can spend working on weight savings etc. If another irregularity were found, a drastic punishment would be needed, for 2024, a disqualification of a year or something like that. We know it's difficult to manage the budget cap but we have perfect systems to control what you spend, and when in doubt you can ask the FIA. And then another thing needs to be explained: an infringement of 5 % isn't small, it's big. You have a budget set at 135 million, 80 million for personnel alone, then about twenty costs for the races (material you buy, brakes and so on), building 4 cars at the start of the season is worth another 20 and there are further rumors. In the end you are between 120 and 125, more or less fixed costs for everyone, and you have less than 10 million left for development. So you've overshot 2 million out of 7 or 8, it's not 5% of the 135 total like they said. Collectively, like F1, this thing must be resolved, we must not sweep the dust under the carpet because in the end there is a risk that someone will organize it at the table. There is a big difference between an involuntary mistake and a choice. As between those who make a mistake in completing their tax return and those who instead found a company in some tax haven to evade taxes. We have to be tough, the future of the cost cap depends on it. If it ends up with another "multina" then everyone will do the same thing, the allocation to pay is budgeted and amen. The big builders can afford it...".

I am still waiting for Ferrari to be disqualified for a year for cheating with their 2019 (and likely earlier) engine......

 

While I appreciate the overall breakdown in budget provided by Vasseur, the lack of self-awareness is high in this one. Yes, it was done by his predecessor but people still living in glass houses should be careful before opening their mouth.....

[New Britain]

Love that he talks about a years ban. Everyone is going to love the idea of less cars on the grid. Can just see it if multiple teams are involved. I can't see a ban ever happening, especially when they are so actively trying to prevent anyone else from joining.

That penalty is already available to the FIA. As you say, it would rarely make sense to impose it.

However other penalties, such as retroactive reduction in points (and with it reallocation of prize monies) and reduction of tunnel time and lowering of the offending teams' cost cap are potentially powerful tools that, if applied, should do the trick without shrinking the grid.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

That penalty is already available to the FIA. As you say, it would rarely make sense to impose it.
However other penalties, such as retroactive reduction in points (and with it reallocation of prize monies) and reduction of tunnel time and lowering of the offending teams' cost cap are potentially powerful tools that, if applied, should do the trick without shrinking the grid.

But it doesn’t get rid of their advantage or understanding. It’s like a sprint runner with a x head start.

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 17 August 2023 - 17:20.

[ARTGP]

Love that he talks about a years ban. Everyone is going to love the idea of less cars on the grid. Can just see it if multiple teams are involved. I can't see a ban ever happening, especially when they are so actively trying to prevent anyone else from joining.

 

Would a ban allow the other teams to get more of the prize money? 

[flyboym3]

There needs to be some sort of stronger deterrent when you learn something that you shouldn't have and its at the beginning of the ruleset so you get to carry that advantage for many years.

If there are repeat offenders this year then this also gives insight to us all that the teams thinks the penalties are a very light and its worth risk breaching again.

[MikeTekRacing]

this can be solved so simply.

Just offer all the teams that are not happy the possibility to breach the cap with the amount that the first team breached if they accept the same penalty.

 

If they think it's worth it - we'll see who takes on the offer. I'll go further and give them twice the breach amount for the same penalty.

Take it or just zip it

Edited by MikeTekRacing, 17 August 2023 - 18:41.

[New Britain]

But it doesn’t get rid of their advantage or understanding. It’s like a sprint runner with a x head start.

True, but the primary objective is to reduce the temptation to breach the cap in the first place. If you thought there was a high likelihood that you would get caught and, in the case of an intentional breach, lose all your WDC and WCC points for that season, lose all your prize money, have your tunnel time hours slashed and have your spending limit slashed (both potentially by large amounts), would it be worth chancing it? One would need a high degree of confidence that the reason for the breach would generate substantial and long-lasting performance gains.

 

Perhaps another possible penalty, rather than exclusion, would be the release of all the offender's design data, wind tunnel results, and car details to all the other competitors?

[renzmann]

this can be solved so simply.

Just offer all the teams that are not happy the possibility to breach the cap with the amount that the first team breached if they accept the same penalty.

 

If they think it's worth it - we'll see who takes on the offer. I'll go further and give them twice the breach amount for the same penalty.

Take it or just zip it

That doesn't make sense. If one team breaches in year x, they have an advantage over all of the competition. If all other teams can spend more in year x+1, nobody has an advantage over any competitor.

[MikeTekRacing]

That doesn't make sense. If one team breaches in year x, they have an advantage over all of the competition. If all other teams can spend more in year x+1, nobody has an advantage over any competitor.

in year x+1 everyone can have an advantage over the initial team that overspend. 

Mind you this is for the minor breaches. 

 

If teams think 10% of tunnel time is too little for that money - allow them to buy it. I call BS on them, and that would be a way to prove it

[renzmann]

in year x+1 everyone can have an advantage over the initial team that overspend. 

Mind you this is for the minor breaches. 

 

If teams think 10% of tunnel time is too little for that money - allow them to buy it. I call BS on them, and that would be a way to prove it

Well yes, but that competitor had a serious chance of winning championships in x, but the other teams do not have that opportunity in x+1. Granting everybody more money doesn't make the teams equal if they don't get it simultaneously.

[pdac]

Just increase the fine to $200m (i.e. an amount much greater than the entire budget for the next year) and then split it evenly between the FIA and the other teams. Oh, and couple that with declassification for the entire season and a 100% loss of prize money.

Edited by pdac, 17 August 2023 - 19:22.

[ARTGP]

Just increase the fine to $200m (i.e. an amount much greater than the entire budget for the next year) and then split it evenly between the FIA and the other teams.

 

This sounds sensible in the forum, but the teams would never agree to it because of the off chance that they get their own sums wrong...

Edited by ARTGP, 17 August 2023 - 19:22.

[thefinalapex]

I would go with a reduction of their budget for the next year. Red Bull should have gotten a 5 million reduction of their budget for this year imo.

[flyboym3]

I would go with a reduction of their budget for the next year. Red Bull should have gotten a 5 million reduction of their budget for this year imo.

Then its open to gamification - which is exactly how rbr benefited from it.

E.g. its a close year in the wdc, better to spend more and secure the title. Then pay later.

It would only be fair if upfront all the teams could use the buy now pay later approach.

Edited by flyboym3, 17 August 2023 - 20:14.

[pdac]

This sounds sensible in the forum, but the teams would never agree to it because of the off chance that they get their own sums wrong...

 

Why should they seek the agreement of the teams? Although, it does sound like something Vasseur would agree to.

Edited by pdac, 17 August 2023 - 20:53.

[Clatter]

I would go with a reduction of their budget for the next year. Red Bull should have gotten a 5 million reduction of their budget for this year imo.

 

That's easy to accomplish if they simply say all fines have to come from the budget.

[ARTGP]

Why should they seek the agreement of the teams? Although, it does sound like something Vasseur would agree to.

 

I have no idea, but that's how we got here in the first place. Teams agreed to cap. Teams agreed to definitions of minor and major. Teams agreed to the penalties.  No one is here to enrich the FIA. 

Edited by ARTGP, 17 August 2023 - 21:16.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

this can be solved so simply.
Just offer all the teams that are not happy the possibility to breach the cap with the amount that the first team breached if they accept the same penalty.

If they think it's worth it - we'll see who takes on the offer. I'll go further and give them twice the breach amount for the same penalty.
Take it or just zip it

It’s not that easy, as it’s apples and oranges…

[GrumpyYoungMan]

I would go with a reduction of their budget for the next year. Red Bull should have gotten a 5 million reduction of their budget for this year imo.

Their advantage is too strong for that to have any effect. As they simply nailed this ruleset!

[Brian60]

Just increase the fine to $200m (i.e. an amount much greater than the entire budget for the next year) and then split it evenly between the FIA and the other teams. Oh, and couple that with declassification for the entire season and a 100% loss of prize money.

Retrospectively of course!

[FirstnameLastname]

The reduction in wind tunnel time was a real hammer blow

[Myrvold]

The reduction in wind tunnel time was a real hammer blow

It helps when you start far ahead. Which may or may not be helped by breaching the regulations in the season where they did the majority of the work for the cars under the current ruleset.
Next time it is worth it, is in 2025.

Which is why the penalties must be harsh!

[renzmann]

The wind-tunnel penalties are working fine. It's quite obvious RBR were restricted substantially. It's no surprise their innovative work on the RB20 springs from areas that aren't wind-tunnel restricted.

 

It'´s too easy to say: RBR still wins, so the penalty wasn't harsh enough. IMO a breaching team must still have an opportunity to win, especially if the breach is deemed minor.

[Clrnc]

The wind-tunnel penalties are working fine. It's quite obvious RBR were restricted substantially. It's no surprise their innovative work on the RB20 springs from areas that aren't wind-tunnel restricted.

It'´s too easy to say: RBR still wins, so the penalty wasn't harsh enough. IMO a breaching team must still have an opportunity to win, especially if the breach is deemed minor.

Exactly. Without the aero reduction penalty RB will probably be miles and miles ahead.

They are winning because Newey is a genius and no one else on the grid is ever close to being smarter than him

[Burai]

Mercedes and Ferrari handed Red Bull a get out of jail free card by persisting with their dead-end car concepts last year. There was no punishment that could ever compensate for that.

[1player]

Why have a cost cap of you can field two teams? Shrinking it further just penalises those who don't.

Edited by 1player, 22 February 2024 - 08:43.

[SenorSjon]

Why have a cost cap of you can field two teams? Shrinking it further just penalises those who don't.

Indeed, Ferrari could have utilised Haas much better.