F1 2022

Status
Not open for further replies.
Is there any actual proof of any of the above? Sounds like nonsense, all the teams were subject to the same rules/circumstances and only one transgressed. If a few teams went over it could've been called a systems failure, but only one? Sounds like manufactured excuses.
 
Is there any actual proof of any of the above? Sounds like nonsense, all the teams were subject to the same rules/circumstances and only one transgressed. If a few teams went over it could've been called a systems failure, but only one? Sounds like manufactured excuses.
So, the details come out as fact and they outline where RBR spent too much money and you're calling that BS. I mean you've been wondering where the information was all along after they announced what was found, but it's now being done to protect RBR...

Are you also on Twitter and calling it Crashstappen's fault? :cautious:
 
So, the details come out as fact and they outline where RBR spent too much money and you're calling that BS. I mean you've been wondering where the information was all along after they announced what was found, but it's now being done to protect RBR...

Are you also on Twitter and calling it Crashstappen's fault? :cautious:

Please don't be hysterical, I specifically asked if there is proof of this, because I haven't seen any press releases from the FIA, and non of you posted anything unless I missed it. And yes, it does sound fishy if true because all the teams were subject to the same rules, how is it that only one transgressed?
 
Please don't be hysterical, I specifically asked if there is proof of this, because I haven't seen any press releases from the FIA, and non of you posted anything unless I missed it. And yes, it does sound fishy if true because all the teams were subject to the same rules, how is it that only one transgressed?
No bru, not that. It's one thing asking for proof. But then you follow up with: Sounds like nonsense + manufactured excuses.

So it doesn't really matter what comes out, your mind is made up.
 
No bru, not that. It's one thing asking for proof. But then you follow up with: Sounds like nonsense + manufactured excuses.

So it doesn't really matter what comes out, your mind is made up.
Yip, that is my opinion, I'm surely entitled to one aren't I?
 
Please don't be hysterical, I specifically asked if there is proof of this, because I haven't seen any press releases from the FIA, and non of you posted anything unless I missed it. And yes, it does sound fishy if true because all the teams were subject to the same rules, how is it that only one transgressed?

Most likely RBR pushed their development to/past the limit in 2021. They thought they were safe, but then got caught out by the retroactive rule change.

The one item I can't understand is how they 'forgot' the $1.2m catering costs that should have been factored in?
 
Let's be fair, we have only rumour and speculation here. It may turn out the report is accurate, but it is just a speculative report.

Doubt we'll see anything from the FIA though, seems we'll get another "it's all sorted now don't worry boys" like we did with Ferrari a while back.
 
Most likely RBR pushed their development to/past the limit in 2021. They thought they were safe, but then got caught out by the retroactive rule change.

The one item I can't understand is how they 'forgot' the $1.2m catering costs that should have been factored in?

Exactly, non of this makes any sense. What bothers me more is if all of this is true, how is it that only one team was caught out by the rules?
You are. But if you're just going to dismiss anything that doesn't suit your opinion, why bother even asking for proof?
Because it doesn't seem to exist, admittedly every time some or other allegation comes out it turns out to be at least partly true.
 
Let me be the one to say it.
You're on twitter
You take it seriously
That's on you.
I am on Twitter.
I don't take it seriously.
You're just being a lush.
That's on you.

Try again. I just said I found it pathetic and here you are assuming something completely different. Have a good weekend.
 
You'll have to explain that last one to us Mr passive aggressive.
Nah bro, not at all. But I do find it weird when someone reads 1 thing and overeaches into believing something else completely different was said. Which is where you put yourself.

Anyways, focus on F1, instead of assuming I said 1 thing but hadn't.
 
Ok bro


Red Bull in discussions with FIA over cost cap Accepted Breach Agreement
In effect, an ABA means that the team admits to breaking the rules with its 2021 spending, and accepts the punishment levied.

If a team doesn’t agree to an ABA, the case will move to the next stage, which is an investigation by the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel.

It is understood that team principal Christian Horner is likely to explain the team’s position on the cost cap breach in a press conference on Friday in Austin, although that has yet to be confirmed by the team.

However given the timing, it’s unlikely that any agreement will have been reached before he speaks.
Since rumours of an alleged breach by Red Bull first surfaced over the Singapore Grand Prix weekend, Horner has insisted that the team had complete faith in the numbers it submitted to the FIA in March.

The day after the Japanese GP, the FIA formally confirmed that the team was guilty of “procedural and minor overspend breaches” following a review of the documents submitted by all the teams. More details of Red Bull's alleged overspend have begun to emerge, although nothing has been officially confirmed by the FIA or the team.

The overall figure involved is believed to be around $1.8m, which puts the offence well within the “minor breach” limit of 5% over the cap, or just over $7m.
The team appears to have fallen foul of several areas of the FIA's financial regulations, which have regularly been updated by amendments that have not been published on its website or made public.

One is the allocation of the cost of catering at the factory and at the track. In addition, there are believed to be redundancy and sick pay issues related to key employees.
A subject more directly involved to the cost of running the cars is the allocation of the value of unused spare parts.
They were passed to the heritage department at the end of the season for use on show cars and any testing of the 2021 model in 2022, which falls outside the cap restrictions.

It’s understood that the FIA issued a clarification in June this year, three months after teams submitted their documents, about how such parts were to be considered by teams.
There is also a UK-specific tax issue which is believed to be similar to a procedural breach involving Aston Martin.
If Horner does speak on Friday he is expected to give further details on the team’s position in all areas.

Everyone knew that this morning.
 

Ffl-nPAWYAEhQjR
 

Everyone knew that this morning.

You know, if you could stop quoting certain people that would be great. It's technically not your fault but a shortcoming of the forum software, but really kills the power of the ignore function.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X