33 replies to this topic

[Myrvold]

In the newest part of the MBS-saga. He seems to feel like the F1 cost cap is just creating work for the FIA and doesn't see the point of it.

https://www.grandpri...budget-cap.html

 

 

I'm looking at the cost cap and it's just giving the FIA a headache, he told AP News. "So what's the point of it?

I don't see the point. I really don't.

 

I don't think there has been many rule-changes over the last years that have been as effective in creating a competitive environment as that cost cap combined with the different wind tunnel and CFD allocations.

Usually it feels like there is a political angle to it, but this one? I'm baffled.

[FLB]

IMHO, he's shooting everywhere to try to see if something sticks.

[PayasYouRace]

He’s definitely in the “pay attention to me” phase of his presidency.

[Stephane]

Wasn't it the whole point of his presidency ? 

[Risil]

As I understand this the cost cap is the basis of the astronomical values that each F1 team franchise can command. Because any investor knows the teams can't soak up every available penny chasing minute advantages.

Removing the cost cap would weaken Liberty. But then, maybe that's the point.

[brucewayne]

He is not wrong.

[juicy sushi]

The teams hate that it works, but love that it makes them much better business propositions.  The only teams that might hate the cost cap are Ferrari and maybe Mercedes.  But he's just stirring the pot because he wants to be the one causing the problem so he can control the problem, instead of being the regulatory coat hanger in the corner at the very successful Liberty and F1 teams party.

[Anderis]

"Just a headache for the FIA." = we have to spend money to police it and if we didn't, I would have more money left for whatever my corrupt goals may be.

Just a random thought that came to my mind when I read it.

Edited by Anderis, Yesterday, 14:54.

[Myrvold]

Removing the cost cap would weaken Liberty. But then, maybe that's the point.

 

Didn't think of that. But then again, no cost cap and we'd probably have less than 10 teams at the moment - that is less income to FIA. I find it hard to believe that it costs the FIA more than they get in entry fees to police F1. They do get 680'000 USD per team as a base fee. But a team like McLaren paid over 6 million USD for 2025.

[loki0420]

Clown.

[7MGTEsup]

He is not wrong.

 

You think unlimited spending is a good thing?

[pup]

Yeah, I was staunchly against the idea of a cost cap for years, since I didn't think it could be reliably enforced. But holy cow, how much evidence does anyone need to see before admitting that it's transformed the sport?  MBS is an idiot.

[jonklug]

Neah the cost cap is what is making F1 interesting

[FNG]

What is this guy's purpose? Seriously. He just seems to go around causing problems for the sake of causing problems

Edited by FNG, Yesterday, 16:34.

[BertoC]

You think unlimited spending is a good thing?

 

Look at his avatar. Ferrari desperatly needs to outspend their rivals.

[noikeee]

Yeah I'm with everyone here on this one, don't get what's the upside in undoing the cost cap. Going back doesn't seem to benefit anyone. Unless he wants to push the burden of policing it to someone else?

[DaddyCool]

Maybe if competent FIA officials weren't leaving in droves due to his idiotic """leadership""", it wouldn't be a problem...

 

What an assclown

[Tsarwash]

The cost cap is one of the few things the FIA/Liberty have got right in recent years.

[Garagista]

After cap, the V10, Please MBS propose unrestricted testing again, Fiorano needs to be used more often and Ferrari needs to catch up.

[PayasYouRace]

Wasn't it the whole point of his presidency ? 

No, first was the “Do as I command” phase.

[SenorSjon]

Look at his avatar. Ferrari desperatly needs to outspend their rivals.

Ferrari should have never given up on their testing abilities. With the cost cap in place, there is no real use for the testing ban anymore. And more teams understanding the rubber could prevemt runaway seasons.

[jacdaniel]

I don’t like him but I’m interested in understanding more about why he thinks like this. I wonder if some teams have very clever accountants or something like that and the whole thing is just a nightmare to manage.

[Marklar]

No, first was the “Do as I command” phase.

What's the next phase? I need to mentally prepare.

[MrMonaco]

As I understand this the cost cap is the basis of the astronomical values that each F1 team franchise can command. Because any investor knows the teams can't soak up every available penny chasing minute advantages.

I thought the value comes mainly from the closed-door policy for new teams.

[Risil]

I thought the value comes mainly from the closed-door policy for new teams.

They go hand-in-hand I think. Without the cost cap there wouldn't be a queue round the block of entrepreneurs and sponsors thinking they could give F1 a go. Indeed there might be a few teams on the grid that wouldn't still be competing.

[nivoglibina]

I'm in favor of the cost cap, but there are some downsides;

 

- It's an extra opportunity for cheating - if there's no rule, you can't break it.

- I see more instances of only one driver getting the new upgrades, to be evaluated and eventually produced for the 2nd driver if it's deemed worthy.

- Unfairness; If I crash into you, we both have damage and both suffer the cost consequences (or Las Vegas vs Ferrari)

- Teams might choose to spend their budget for next years car sooner, if they think this year might be a bust. For instance Ferrari and Red Bull this year might want to give up already.

[Sterzo]

I'm in favor of the cost cap, but there are some downsides;

 

- It's an extra opportunity for cheating - if there's no rule, you can't break it.

- I see more instances of only one driver getting the new upgrades, to be evaluated and eventually produced for the 2nd driver if it's deemed worthy.

- Unfairness; If I crash into you, we both have damage and both suffer the cost consequences (or Las Vegas vs Ferrari)

- Teams might choose to spend their budget for next years car sooner, if they think this year might be a bust. For instance Ferrari and Red Bull this year might want to give up already.

I think all those things (apart from the first) applied before the cost cap too. Few teams had unlimited budgets. The difference is the cost cap means they have the same budget as each other

[MikeTekRacing]

I'm in favor of the cost cap, but there are some downsides;

 

- It's an extra opportunity for cheating - if there's no rule, you can't break it.

- I see more instances of only one driver getting the new upgrades, to be evaluated and eventually produced for the 2nd driver if it's deemed worthy.

- Unfairness; If I crash into you, we both have damage and both suffer the cost consequences (or Las Vegas vs Ferrari)

- Teams might choose to spend their budget for next years car sooner, if they think this year might be a bust. For instance Ferrari and Red Bull this year might want to give up already.

I think these are all fair points. 

1) is true, but probably easier to police than thought (or at least I thought). Sure, they can try to get away with stuff, but to sway the bar you would need HUGE stuff, and you can't hide that.

2) i don't think that's new. Red Bull with Webber and Vettel front wing saga - if unlimited budget (or huge budget), they will do 11 iterations instead of 1, but the last one will still be budget (and time) limited.

The more concerning for me is around car direction. It makes sense to prioritize feedback and invest in 1 driver only, especially under a budget cut.

3) here it could be tweaked - you are right, it is unfair. It could be that the guilty team covers some sort of costs, or you give an allowance in the budget for rebuilding your car if you were 100% innocent. It doesn't have to be over engineered, some sort of generic money to cover some of the costs

4) this was always the case. Maybe the benefits are larger, but i think there is a deadline anyway on how early you can start

[nivoglibina]

I think all those things (apart from the first) applied before the cost cap too. Few teams had unlimited budgets. The difference is the cost cap means they have the same budget as each other

My mind was on the rich teams, perhaps Mercedes could have been more competitive in 2023 if they had unlimited spending in 2022 and 2023, which would have made for a more interesting season. But I think you are right, so now I am even more in favor of the cost cap.

 

One more downside:

- There's pressure on the teams to spend as little as possible on wages, which can't be good for all those working for F1 teams.

[MikeTekRacing]

My mind was on the rich teams, perhaps Mercedes could have been more competitive in 2023 if they had unlimited spending in 2022 and 2023, which would have made for a more interesting season. But I think you are right, so now I am even more in favor of the cost cap.

 

One more downside:

- There's pressure on the teams to spend as little as possible on wages, which can't be good for all those working for F1 teams.

that one is super fair callout.

The only thing I cannot understand though is why some people are exempt from that. Like key people plus drivers. Is it because they think it's unfair? Probably so, but that makes an argument it's unfair for the small suckers that can't negotiate it...

[arrysen]

Sounds to me like El Presidente is angling for the FIA to be provided more funding to act as the police (again).

 

Quite why he feels the need to make such requests via obtuse statements to the media is beyond me.

 

While no such system is 100% perfect in every way, to me the F1 cost cap appears to be working well and has been with us long enough that it has wound itself into the fabric of how the sport operates. It also imposes external disciplines to restrain largesse, which is probably no bad thing in the current world in which we live.

 

Rather than sowing (or trying to sow) seeds of doubt, maybe the Prez should simply have a discussion with Liberty? 

[Nicktendo86]

If not for the cost cap there is a good chance, especially with Covid, a number of teams (including McLaren and Williams) would exist anymore. MBS is such a clown I’m surprised he doesn’t ride a unicycle.

[NCB619]

Didn't think of that. But then again, no cost cap and we'd probably have less than 10 teams at the moment - that is less income to FIA. I find it hard to believe that it costs the FIA more than they get in entry fees to police F1. They do get 680'000 USD per team as a base fee. But a team like McLaren paid over 6 million USD for 2025.

Not sure if you're including the Super Licence fees as part of this, but for all 20 drivers, that would be a total of 6.3million euros every year too

[The Passenger]

I don’t like him but I’m interested in understanding more about why he thinks like this. I wonder if some teams have very clever accountants or something like that and the whole thing is just a nightmare to manage.

I'm guessing he thinks paying auditors is too expensive and legalistic.

I've often wondered about that side of F1. I read they used Deloitte as auditors in 2024, but I've seen a lot of PWC ads at recent races who Mercedes in December proposed they use, so that could have changed.

Edited by The Passenger, Today, 02:05.