F1 2022

[caroper]

Catering.

That is covered by the cap: - Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost of catering services provided to personnel at its factory headquarters);

 

[Defonotaltaccount]

That is covered by the cap: - Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost of catering services provided to personnel at its factory headquarters);

Yeah, you spend more on catering.
Invite the FIA around too.

 

[quovadis]

I thought about this whole cost cap fiasco again and assuming the FIA deem the cap excess to penalty multiplier for minor infringements is quantifiable as 3.25x ($7M fine divided by $2.15M excess) then it probably would've been more sporting to apply the exact same in addition to the points allocations for the percentage for the year of transgression.

So the excess was 1.6% thus the penalty should be 1.6% x 3.25 = 5.2% of points earned.

Thus in a "fair parallel universe" RB would receive:

1) A $7m fine paid from the following years cap allocation (this provides a future disincentive)
2) A 20.56 point drivers penalty for Max Verstappen
3) A 9.88 point drivers penalty for Sergio Perez
4) A 30.42 point constructors penalty for Red Bull

Forget the wind tunnel etc.

 

[Speedster]

I thought about this whole cost cap fiasco again and assuming the FIA deem the cap excess to penalty multiplier for minor infringements is quantifiable as 3.25x ($7M fine divided by $2.15M excess) then it probably would've been more sporting to apply the exact same in addition to the points allocations for the percentage for the year of transgression.

So the excess was 1.6% thus the penalty should be 1.6% x 3.25 = 5.2% of points earned.

Thus in a "fair parallel universe" RB would receive:

1) A $7m fine paid from the following years cap allocation (this provides a future disincentive)
2) A 20.56 point drivers penalty for Max Verstappen
3) A 9.88 point drivers penalty for Sergio Perez
4) A 30.42 point constructors penalty for Red Bull

Forget the wind tunnel etc.

I thought RB was only about $400k over the limit after applying the tax stuff correctly?

 

[quovadis]

I thought RB was only about $400k over the limit after applying the tax stuff correctly?

They considered that but they didn't apply that tax credit correctly within their submission - thats partly the reason why the amount of $7m was the penalty. If you consider that then the multiplier would be $7m/$500k or 14x 0.37% = 5.18% - Almost identical...

 

[2023]

They considered that but they didn't apply that tax credit correctly within their submission - thats partly the reason why the amount of $7m was the penalty. If you consider that then the multiplier would be $7m/$500k or 14x 0.37% = 5.18% - Almost identical...

My understanding is they did get the it, but never added it to the submission towards F1

(at 3min50 in video)

 

[2023]

I still stand by that the FIA just needs to define the punishments upfront in the tiers of amounts in overspend. Going into a back room and thumb sucking punishments is never good.

 

[quovadis]

I still stand by that the FIA just needs to define the punishments upfront in the tiers of amounts in overspend. Going into a back room and thumb sucking punishments is never good.

My point is simply that if the multiplier is essentially defined there is a somewhat arguable retrospective sanction that is at least understandable/explainable to fans. It'll obviously never materialise but I still think at minimum the fine should be paid out of the following years cap.

 

[caroper]

Rivals hit out at leniency over Red Bull budget breach

Toto Wolff and Zak Brown were among the first to criticise the punishment meted out to Red Bull for its breach of the budget cap, claiming that the FIA has been lenient.

www.pitpass.com

For the breach, which Red Bull agues it only accepted "for the good of the sport", the Austrian team is fined $7m, but more importantly faces a restriction on aerodynamic testing time.

With the fine not forming part of the team's 2023 budget, rivals feel the FIA has effectively merely given the world champions a slap on the wrist.

"I think as for any penalty, for us, it's too little," said Toto Wolff. "For them, it will be too much."

However, he admitted...

"Any reduction in wind tunnel time is going to be detrimental. How detrimental is difficult to judge at this stage.

"I think in absolute terms, $7m is a lot of money," he continued. "But maybe in the bigger scheme of things for Red Bull, considering the investment they do on the power unit side and on the team, it's not."

Looking ahead, the Austrian hopes the punishment will be a deterrent for future offenders.

"I think that the sum of the penalties is a deterrent, the sporting penalty, and to a lesser degree, the financial fine. But reputational damage that is happening is probably the biggest thing, and no team will want to come anywhere near that, because obviously, we are living in a transparent and compliant world. Our shareholders or our partners demand compliance, and in that respect that's just not on anymore."

Asked about Christian Horner's explanation of how his team exceeded the cap, Wolff replied: "Nine teams complied with the regulations and stayed below the cap. This is a sport of marginal gains, and everything else is just chatter. There's no mitigating factor.

"What I take as a positive is the strong governance," he said of the FIA. "Nothing was brushed under the carpet. The FIA stood by the process. And I think that although the administration has only been in place for ten months, it's very encouraging to see things executed.

"That's the really positive of the process. Mohammed, with a strong group of individuals, Federico (Lodi, the FIA's head of financial regulations), Shaila Ann (Rao, the interim secretary general for sport - and Wolff's former consultant) and Nikolas (Tombazis), ensured that the assessment and the policing of the cost cap was robust. And that is what I take as a positive out of the whole process.

"What we need to tidy up is the minor and major breaches. I think a breach is a breach. And that's how it should be handled."

"We appreciate the cost cap investigation is a complex process which the FIA have conducted in a thorough and transparent manner," said Zak Brown. "I'm pleased the truth is out there now and it is the result is as we expected, there was a breach of the cost cap by one team, with the other nine operating in line with the rules.

"It is therefore only right that punitive action is taken," he added. "If the FIA is to be most effective and its punishments serve as a lesson to others when rules are broken in this way, the sanctions have to be much stronger in the future.

"We hope that the lessons learned through this process will now mean all teams have a clear understanding of the rules in order to avoid any future breaches. While we are pleased to see them act, we would hope the FIA take stronger action in future against those that wilfully break the rules."

However, Brown's colleague, team boss, Andreas Seidl, believes the FIA didn't go far enough.

Asked if he had listened to Christian Horner's explanation, the German replied: "No, I didn't listen to it because I can imagine it was another fairy tale, probably. I'm not really interested in that.

"In the end, on a positive side I think it's good to see the FIA did a good job in terms of doing the audit," he told Sky Sports. "Nine teams got it right and it was clear one team was in breach, so that's a positive outcome.

"But on a negative side, it's also clear, from my point of view, that the penalty doesn't fit the breach. I just hope moving forward we have stricter penalties in place."

Asked if he expects any repeats, he said: "There's absolutely no reason to be in breach this year. We had good discussions earlier this year with all teams, the FIA and F1 regarding these topics.

"That's why the cap was adjusted and it was also made clear from all teams and the FIA's side that there is absolutely no reason, after this positive decisions in the interests of the sport, that there is any breach at the end of the year.

"I just hope if there is any breach, it ends up being appropriate penalties."

 

[caroper]

Ferrari "not happy" with budget breach penalty

Ferrari's sporting director, Laurent Mekies says the Italian team is not happy with the leniency shown to Red Bull over its budget cap breach, while contradicting Christian Horner's claim that the (10%) reduction on aero testing will hurt.

www.pitpass.com

After weeks... and weeks... and weeks of waiting, the FIA finally announced the results of its analysis of the teams' financial submissions, and the penalties agreed following Red Bull's acceptance of an Accepted Breach Agreement.

Along with a $7m fine, the Austrian time faces a reduction in the time it is allowed to spend on aerodynamic testing in 2023.

It is the latter part of the penalty that Horner has described as "Draconian", the Briton dismissing claims that the FIA has essentially only slapped the Austrian team on the wrist.


"The more draconian part is the sporting penalty," said Horner, "which is a 10 percent reduction on our ability to utilise our wind tunnel and aerodynamic tools.

"I've heard people reporting today that that is an insignificant amount, but let me tell you that is an enormous amount," he insisted. "That represents anywhere between 0.25s and 0.5s of lap time.

"That comes in from now, it has a direct effect on next year's car and it will be in place for a 12-month period.

"By winning the Constructors' Championship we have become victims of our own success by, in addition to that ten percent, having five percent incremental disadvantage or handicap compared to second and third place. That 10 percent put into reality will have an impact on our ability to perform on track next year."

Not so, argues Mekies, who, like Zak Brown, Toto Wolff and Andreas Seidl, believes the world champions got off lightly.

"We have talked a lot in recent weeks about what one can do with half a million more, or a million or two or three," he told Sky Italia. "Two million is a significant amount and we have given our opinion several times on this topic.

"We at Ferrari think that this amount is worth around a couple of tenths per lap," he continued, "and so it's easy to understand that these figures can have a real impact on the outcome of the races, and maybe even a championship.

"As for the penalty, we are not happy with it, for two important reasons. The first is that we at Ferrari do not understand how the 10% reduction of the ATR can correspond to the same amount of lap time that we mentioned earlier. Furthermore, there is another problem in that. Since there is no cost cap reduction in the penalty, the basic effect is to push the competitor to spend the money elsewhere. It has total freedom to use the money it can no longer spend on use of the wind tunnel and CFD due to the 10% reduction, on reducing the weight of the car, or who knows what else.

"Our concern is that the combination of these two factors means the real effect of the penalty is very limited."

 

[Willie Trombone]

I am bored of hearing CH trying to excuse going over cap.
They made errors in 13 areas to create their mess. Not one, two or three... 13.
Own it and move on.

Everyone else got it right.

 

[caroper]

I am bored of hearing CH trying to excuse going over cap.

What really annoys me is that he keeps saying "Not one penny of the overspend was on performance."
If there was overspend in any department then they still had extra cash to spend on performance, just creative accounting obfuscates the real issue. It is lawyer speak, not sportsmanship.

 

[2023]

I am bored of hearing CH trying to excuse going over cap.
They made errors in 13 areas to create their mess. Not one, two or three... 13.
Own it and move on.

Everyone else got it right.

Didn't Williams and Aston Martin also get it wrong?

 

[Icemanbrfc]

What a load of bullshit by the FIA

 

[2023]

What really annoys me is that he keeps saying "Not one penny of the overspend was on performance."
If there was overspend in any department then they still had extra cash to spend on performance, just creative accounting obfuscates the real issue. It is lawyer speak, not sportsmanship.

All sounds like he's trying to make sure there is no "cheater" associating with the brand so that investors aren't scared away by associating with a "cheating team" really.

 

[Icemanbrfc]

Rivals hit out at leniency over Red Bull budget breach

Toto Wolff and Zak Brown were among the first to criticise the punishment meted out to Red Bull for its breach of the budget cap, claiming that the FIA has been lenient.

www.pitpass.com

For the breach, which Red Bull agues it only accepted "for the good of the sport", the Austrian team is fined $7m, but more importantly faces a restriction on aerodynamic testing time.

With the fine not forming part of the team's 2023 budget, rivals feel the FIA has effectively merely given the world champions a slap on the wrist.

"I think as for any penalty, for us, it's too little," said Toto Wolff. "For them, it will be too much."

However, he admitted...

"Any reduction in wind tunnel time is going to be detrimental. How detrimental is difficult to judge at this stage.

"I think in absolute terms, $7m is a lot of money," he continued. "But maybe in the bigger scheme of things for Red Bull, considering the investment they do on the power unit side and on the team, it's not."

Looking ahead, the Austrian hopes the punishment will be a deterrent for future offenders.

"I think that the sum of the penalties is a deterrent, the sporting penalty, and to a lesser degree, the financial fine. But reputational damage that is happening is probably the biggest thing, and no team will want to come anywhere near that, because obviously, we are living in a transparent and compliant world. Our shareholders or our partners demand compliance, and in that respect that's just not on anymore."

Asked about Christian Horner's explanation of how his team exceeded the cap, Wolff replied: "Nine teams complied with the regulations and stayed below the cap. This is a sport of marginal gains, and everything else is just chatter. There's no mitigating factor.

"What I take as a positive is the strong governance," he said of the FIA. "Nothing was brushed under the carpet. The FIA stood by the process. And I think that although the administration has only been in place for ten months, it's very encouraging to see things executed.

"That's the really positive of the process. Mohammed, with a strong group of individuals, Federico (Lodi, the FIA's head of financial regulations), Shaila Ann (Rao, the interim secretary general for sport - and Wolff's former consultant) and Nikolas (Tombazis), ensured that the assessment and the policing of the cost cap was robust. And that is what I take as a positive out of the whole process.

"What we need to tidy up is the minor and major breaches. I think a breach is a breach. And that's how it should be handled."

"We appreciate the cost cap investigation is a complex process which the FIA have conducted in a thorough and transparent manner," said Zak Brown. "I'm pleased the truth is out there now and it is the result is as we expected, there was a breach of the cost cap by one team, with the other nine operating in line with the rules.

"It is therefore only right that punitive action is taken," he added. "If the FIA is to be most effective and its punishments serve as a lesson to others when rules are broken in this way, the sanctions have to be much stronger in the future.

"We hope that the lessons learned through this process will now mean all teams have a clear understanding of the rules in order to avoid any future breaches. While we are pleased to see them act, we would hope the FIA take stronger action in future against those that wilfully break the rules."

However, Brown's colleague, team boss, Andreas Seidl, believes the FIA didn't go far enough.

Asked if he had listened to Christian Horner's explanation, the German replied: "No, I didn't listen to it because I can imagine it was another fairy tale, probably. I'm not really interested in that.

"In the end, on a positive side I think it's good to see the FIA did a good job in terms of doing the audit," he told Sky Sports. "Nine teams got it right and it was clear one team was in breach, so that's a positive outcome.

"But on a negative side, it's also clear, from my point of view, that the penalty doesn't fit the breach. I just hope moving forward we have stricter penalties in place."

Asked if he expects any repeats, he said: "There's absolutely no reason to be in breach this year. We had good discussions earlier this year with all teams, the FIA and F1 regarding these topics.

"That's why the cap was adjusted and it was also made clear from all teams and the FIA's side that there is absolutely no reason, after this positive decisions in the interests of the sport, that there is any breach at the end of the year.

"I just hope if there is any breach, it ends up being appropriate penalties."

Stricter penalties in future? C'mon Andreas, the FIA have a set precedent now, so how can stricter punishment be enforced, if another team/s have the same/similar breaches?

 

[2023]

Furthermore, there is another problem in that. Since there is no cost cap reduction in the penalty, the basic effect is to push the competitor to spend the money elsewhere.

I agree with this. They should have have a cost cap decrease as well.

 

[Craig_]

That yank commentator is fck off annoying.

 

[Willie Trombone]

Didn't Williams and Aston Martin also get it wrong?

Not on that scale as per the FIA.

 

[Willie Trombone]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=497877965552828