FIA Thread

[Cuky]

I think it is not wise to review it, basically FIA would be telling smaller teams to go f*** themselves because bigger teams are those that matter. Budget cap was agreed by everyone, smaller teams operated in last few years even bellow that cap. So why would FIA have to cater to bigger teams. They can better budget their R&D and production and save some money. Like Szafnauer said, if you have rising costs at one department you cut your costs at the other department(s) and you still make it under the cap.

Or they can just spend more and suffer the penalties that will be brought onto them. I don't care. Small teams had to budget their finances carefully even before budget cap came in, it is time for rich kids to learn that lesson as well.

[Big Tea]

Has it been stated anywhere what the penalty is for breaching the cap and how it is enforced?
For instance, if there is a fine of 50K for exceeding it full stop, so what its peanuts. If its 50K per 100K excess it is a different matter.
Ah I correct in thinking it is sporting regs, so cannot be Dsq or points removal?

[abcdefgh]

Will the teams be penalised if they spend too much?
Put simply, yes. There are three categories of potential breaches. The first is a procedural breach, such as a team submitting their accounts late or inaccurately. The second is a minor overspend breach, when a team’s report shows they have exceeded the cost cap by less than 5 percent or the Cost Cap Administration finds they have exceeded that percentage. The third is a material overspend breach, where a team’s submission of their accounts or an investigation by the panel shows they have exceeded the cost cap by more than 5 percent.

Once a breach has been identified, three forms of penalty are possible. The first is a financial penalty. The value of the fine will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The second is a minor sporting penalty which could be a combination of a reprimand, deduction of constructors and/or drivers points, a ban for a certain number of races, limitations on testing – both CFD and on-track – and/or a reduction of their cost cap.

The third is the material sporting penalty, which is the most serious as it can involve all of the above plus exclusion from the World Championship.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... seCHO.html

[Stu]

That sounds pretty fair & measured.
The difficulty is in seeing where the spend goes that is not in the accounts (we all know how good some accountants are at hiding stuff!!)

[Big Tea]

Will the teams be penalised if they spend too much?
Put simply, yes. There are three categories of potential breaches. The first is a procedural breach, such as a team submitting their accounts late or inaccurately. The second is a minor overspend breach, when a team’s report shows they have exceeded the cost cap by less than 5 percent or the Cost Cap Administration finds they have exceeded that percentage. The third is a material overspend breach, where a team’s submission of their accounts or an investigation by the panel shows they have exceeded the cost cap by more than 5 percent.

Once a breach has been identified, three forms of penalty are possible. The first is a financial penalty. The value of the fine will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The second is a minor sporting penalty which could be a combination of a reprimand, deduction of constructors and/or drivers points, a ban for a certain number of races, limitations on testing – both CFD and on-track – and/or a reduction of their cost cap.

The third is the material sporting penalty, which is the most serious as it can involve all of the above plus exclusion from the World Championship.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... seCHO.html

I did not think sporting regs 'faults' could affect the points? Must me because they would be deemed to have gained an unfair advantage on track from it.

[wogx]

[diffuser]

Will the teams be penalised if they spend too much?
Put simply, yes. There are three categories of potential breaches. The first is a procedural breach, such as a team submitting their accounts late or inaccurately. The second is a minor overspend breach, when a team’s report shows they have exceeded the cost cap by less than 5 percent or the Cost Cap Administration finds they have exceeded that percentage. The third is a material overspend breach, where a team’s submission of their accounts or an investigation by the panel shows they have exceeded the cost cap by more than 5 percent.

Once a breach has been identified, three forms of penalty are possible. The first is a financial penalty. The value of the fine will be determined on a case-by-case basis. The second is a minor sporting penalty which could be a combination of a reprimand, deduction of constructors and/or drivers points, a ban for a certain number of races, limitations on testing – both CFD and on-track – and/or a reduction of their cost cap.

The third is the material sporting penalty, which is the most serious as it can involve all of the above plus exclusion from the World Championship.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... seCHO.html

I did not think sporting regs 'faults' could affect the points? Must me because they would be deemed to have gained an unfair advantage on track from it.

I think the regs are CR@P there, again, very vague penalities which will certainly lead to different interpretations of them against different teams that exceed them. Like everything in a rule it should be in black and white.

Should be something like :
Exceed CAP by less than 5% equals loss of 50% of constructors & drivers points.
Exceed CAP by more than 5% will lead to 100% loss of both points plus all the Money from F1 that the team would have received for finishing last is thrown back into the pool and divided up evenly by the the teams not exceedingthe CAP.

If we don't make it REALLY Painfull to exceed the CAP then what's the point?

[Big Tea]

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... seCHO.html

I did not think sporting regs 'faults' could affect the points? Must me because they would be deemed to have gained an unfair advantage on track from it.

I think the regs are CR@P there, again, very vague penalities which will certainly lead to different interpretations of them against different teams that exceed them. Like everything in a rule it should be in black and white.

Should be something like :
Exceed CAP by less than 5% equals loss of 50% of constructors & drivers points.
Exceed CAP by more than 5% will lead to 100% loss of both points plus all the Money from F1 that the team would have received for finishing last is thrown back into the pool and divided up evenly by the the teams not exceedingthe CAP.

If we don't make it REALLY Painfull to exceed the CAP then what's the point?

Or, which they will not do because they (F1 FIA you name it) will not profit from it is the amount exceeded equivalent to be put into a pot and shared at year end among the teams who spent less than the pao on a pro rata %.

EG HAAS spend 10% under cap Williams spend 20% Williams get 20 shares HAAS get 10 shares etc.
It is supposed to bring the field together, this way will help the most needy

[diffuser]

I did not think sporting regs 'faults' could affect the points? Must me because they would be deemed to have gained an unfair advantage on track from it.

I think the regs are CR@P there, again, very vague penalities which will certainly lead to different interpretations of them against different teams that exceed them. Like everything in a rule it should be in black and white.

Should be something like :
Exceed CAP by less than 5% equals loss of 50% of constructors & drivers points.
Exceed CAP by more than 5% will lead to 100% loss of both points plus all the Money from F1 that the team would have received for finishing last is thrown back into the pool and divided up evenly by the the teams not exceedingthe CAP.

If we don't make it REALLY Painfull to exceed the CAP then what's the point?

Or, which they will not do because they (F1 FIA you name it) will not profit from it is the amount exceeded equivalent to be put into a pot and shared at year end among the teams who spent less than the pao on a pro rata %.

EG HAAS spend 10% under cap Williams spend 20% Williams get 20 shares HAAS get 10 shares etc.
It is supposed to bring the field together, this way will help the most needy

I was really hoping that the rule change would have REALLY shaken things up. The big 3 are still the big 3. The midfield distance in quali to the top is still about 1 second, same as 2021. The only REAL difference is we swapped Ferrari for Merc this year. Well and Merc are stronger than how Ferrari started the year last year. Those teams are already more effieint that the everyone else. Let them add on more budget, that THEY can make the most of, .... Good by midfield.

Really hoping that the big 3 have over spent and the middfield can keep bringing upgrades and closing the gap.

[Stu]

It will be interesting to see how the mid-season handicap reshuffle affects teams use of the budget cap; from a logistical perspective RedBull and Ferrari should be throwing the kitchen sink at WT/CFD as they are going to take a hit on operating times in the reshuffle which will primarily affect there 2023 projects.

[Wouter]

FIA confirm departure of long-term top official

Date published: June 1 2022

The FIA have confirmed that the governing body’s Secretary General for Motor Sport has departed his role.

Peter Bayer, a long-standing top official with the FIA, has departed his role as Secretary General for Motor Sport.

Bayer began working with the FIA in 2017, taking on the role of Secretary General and executive director of the FIA’s single-seater division in 2017 under Jean Todt’s regime.

Upon the arrival of Mohammed Ben Sulayem in December 2021, as part of the FIA’s reshuffle in the wake of the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix season finale controversy, Bayer’s role was tweaked to become F1 Executive Director.

This role saw him assume responsibilities for implementing decisions taken by the World Motor Sport Council, and works closely with the various FIA Sporting Commissions.

“The Federation Internationale de l’Automobile announces the departure of Peter Bayer, who served as Secretary General for Sport since 2017 and also as F1 Executive Director since 2021,” read a short statement from the governing body.

“The FIA warmly thanks him for the achievements he has contributed to the development of motorsport over the last five years.

“In particular, he has supervised, with the entire Sport Division, the building of the single-seater pyramid from Karting to F1, the creation of the new World Rally-Raid Championship, as well as improving safety and sustainability in all disciplines. The FIA wishes him all the best for the future.”

The FIA also confirmed Bayer’s interim replacement.

Shaila-Ann Rao, who recently returned to the FIA after serving as their Legal Director between 2016 and 2018, left to work with Mercedes as General Counsel and Special Advisor to Toto Wolff.

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-announces- ... la-ann-rao

[diffuser]

It will be interesting to see how the mid-season handicap reshuffle affects teams use of the budget cap; from a logistical perspective RedBull and Ferrari should be throwing the kitchen sink at WT/CFD as they are going to take a hit on operating times in the reshuffle which will primarily affect there 2023 projects.

If they remain in the same order in constructors race that they are currently in, they'll each just get a 5% cut in CDF/WT time. If Ferrari pull ahead then Ferrari will take a 10% cut and RBR will stay the same. Not sure how they can just go Crazy on WT./CDF time, It is CAPPED.

[Zynerji]

I still think the team that carries the 2022 car into 2023 could win big, early, and have more money to continue development.

Look at HAAS. An obviously good car that the team is still learning. If they unlock what's in it and add performance on top, it would be silly not to just put full budget into continuing that instead of starting over.

[peewon]

I think the regs are CR@P there, again, very vague penalities which will certainly lead to different interpretations of them against different teams that exceed them. Like everything in a rule it should be in black and white.

Should be something like :
Exceed CAP by less than 5% equals loss of 50% of constructors & drivers points.
Exceed CAP by more than 5% will lead to 100% loss of both points plus all the Money from F1 that the team would have received for finishing last is thrown back into the pool and divided up evenly by the the teams not exceedingthe CAP.

If we don't make it REALLY Painfull to exceed the CAP then what's the point?

Or, which they will not do because they (F1 FIA you name it) will not profit from it is the amount exceeded equivalent to be put into a pot and shared at year end among the teams who spent less than the pao on a pro rata %.

EG HAAS spend 10% under cap Williams spend 20% Williams get 20 shares HAAS get 10 shares etc.
It is supposed to bring the field together, this way will help the most needy

I was really hoping that the rule change would have REALLY shaken things up. The big 3 are still the big 3. The midfield distance in quali to the top is still about 1 second, same as 2021. The only REAL difference is we swapped Ferrari for Merc this year. Well and Merc are stronger than how Ferrari started the year last year. Those teams are already more effieint that the everyone else. Let them add on more budget, that THEY can make the most of, .... Good by midfield.

Really hoping that the big 3 have over spent and the middfield can keep bringing upgrades and closing the gap.

I wouldn't hold my breath. F1 is first and foremost a business. A business which derives its prestige, and therefore commercial appeal, from the marquee automakers in the world competing in its series. People need to consider why would the so called best car manufacturers in the world show up to be humiliated by boutique teams. Mercedes, for example, is notorious for not sticking around in any motorsport competition where they're not favorites to win. Too much brand value at stake. There's a good reason the big teams will always be there or there abouts. Why the regulation changes were so extensively negotiated (retaining MGU-H and not reducing the size of the car too much). I think they would like a bit more parity for the expanding audience but ultimately I don't see it ever being a completely level playing field.

[diffuser]

I wouldn't hold my breath. F1 is first and foremost a business. A business which derives its prestige, and therefore commercial appeal, from the marquee automakers in the world competing in its series. People need to consider why would the so called best car manufacturers in the world show up to be humiliated by boutique teams. Mercedes, for example, is notorious for not sticking around in any motorsport competition where they're not favorites to win. Too much brand value at stake. There's a good reason the big teams will always be there or there abouts. Why the regulation changes were so extensively negotiated (retaining MGU-H and not reducing the size of the car too much). I think they would like a bit more parity for the expanding audience but ultimately I don't see it ever being a completely level playing field.

Team's values are all going up. The CAP is helping. More people want teams.

Maybe the issue is that those smaller teams don't have the tools yet.

Merc has been in F1 for a long time, maybe not as a chassis but as a PU manufacturer. Honda is one that is very fleeting.