2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[Just_a_fan]

There must be some allowance on this though. They cannot draw a line on the day and the penny as things take time to clear or for a bill to be cleared. If it is a million surely that is trivial.
OK, its past the trigger point, so impose a punishment, but not something that is going to change much.
As someone here said, say 2.5 mill off for the next 2 years or something.

Easy enough to just punish by reducing the budget of any team that goes over the budget by twice the error. Apply that for 2 or 3 years.

Go over by $1m and you lose $2m for each of the next two seasons, for example. That means small bookkeeping errors (in the thousands/tens of thousands) that make no real difference have little in the way of punishment, but figures that buy real performance gains result in real performance losses for the next 2 years. That's the only way to focus the teams' attention on not going over and not trying to be clever with the figures.

What I can see happening is a deal being done whereby the FIA applies the same "first lap" rules to this first round of budget cap assessments. "It's the first year so we're going to be lenient, but from now on we're going to be really tough". Gets them out of having to apply penalties that might affect a title race and thus means they don't have to answer any tough questions. That an overspend in the first round of budget caps can have a run-on benefit in to following seasons that is hard for others to catch won't be an issue they want to recognise.

[Just_a_fan]

If that’s what brawn’s says will happen then why are there multiple different penalties for a minor and major breach?

In F1 there is no minor breach. 0.5mm on a rear DRS flap cost a disqualification for two teams recently.

Why should a deliberate decision on luxury spending be gently punished?

There is a no minor breach though. Its written in the rule book. Minor and major rule breach with a list of the possible penalties for each.

Which basically turns it into a risk vs reward situation.

Is it worth having a 5% over spend, and facing a deduction in WCC points, is it worth a public reprimand?, Is it worth a reduced wind tunnel time?

I mean if you know for a fact that a spend of 7million over your budget, is going to help develop a car for the next 4-5years, then it makes very good sense to do it.

If it was similar to the DRS rule, then the rules would say the penalty is always harsher than the gain.

If you had a business that could spend a extra 7million, knowing that that spend in that season is going to give you a huge advantage for the next 4-5 years to come, in being much more competitive than your competition AND knowing that your only likely to get a slap on the wrist publicly, or you lose a handful of points for the season IN THE PAST, what would you do?

All that will happen is every team will overspend by the 5% and the budget cap becomes a public joke.

[chrisc90]

Thats why the current penalty structure is a game of risk vs reward. The reward for taking the risk (in terms of punishment) vastly outweighs the punishments when you look at the offerings in the seasons to come under a set of car design regulations.

Look at Haas - spending their 2021 budget on the 2022 car and a whole new era of regulations. Was it worth the risk of effectively having $280m to play with designing your car? In their punt, it probably wasnt.

[Big Tea]

Thats why the current penalty structure is a game of risk vs reward. The reward for taking the risk (in terms of punishment) vastly outweighs the punishments when you look at the offerings in the seasons to come under a set of car design regulations.

Look at Haas - spending their 2021 budget on the 2022 car and a whole new era of regulations. Was it worth the risk of effectively having $280m to play with designing your car? In their punt, it probably wasnt.

I see Haas as a different fish. They were never going to hit the budget cap, it was just a matter of using the money on this years car, or next years car. They knew where they stood with this years car ( that is, last years car ) and must have thought there was little to gain on spending money that was not going to bring improvements.

Delayed gratification?

[chrisc90]

Thats why the current penalty structure is a game of risk vs reward. The reward for taking the risk (in terms of punishment) vastly outweighs the punishments when you look at the offerings in the seasons to come under a set of car design regulations.

Look at Haas - spending their 2021 budget on the 2022 car and a whole new era of regulations. Was it worth the risk of effectively having $280m to play with designing your car? In their punt, it probably wasnt.

I see Haas as a different fish. They were never going to hit the budget cap, it was just a matter of using the money on this years car, or next years car. They knew where they stood with this years car ( that is, last years car ) and must have thought there was little to gain on spending money that was not going to bring improvements.

Delayed gratification?

Maybe Haas was a bit of the wrong team to use given their performance last season and before. But if say one of the big teams such as RB, Ferrari, Mercedes did it...Those teams that are easily capable and have the talent working for them to exceed the budget cap.

You know what, if I was one of the top 3 teams bosses, and someone could prove that a overspend in 2021 of $7m (example) was going to give the team a great benefit on the new era of cars for 4-5 years and had a very good chance of increasing competitiveness and bringing more money in for the team through higher results finishes....id absolutely tell them to go for it, knowing the possible penalties are well worth the risk knowing you might get shamed publically (which you can easily turn a negative into a positive in that instance.... Their team exceeded the cost cap by $7m in 2021 and we the FIA choose to publicly shame them for it.... I turn round and say yeah, we exceeded the budget, but that budget went on development for the next 4-5 years of era of car, and look at the results its bringing in the team. We now on the podium almost every race and the team looks better overall and expect that form to continue for the seasons to come.

Simple - bit of bad light turned into a easy positive.

Yeah, might loose 50-100points on the constructors title for the previous season - that's not bad, we'll be 1 or 2 spots lower in the WCC and we will get more wind tunnel time due to the lower finish position. Yeah my driver who finished 4th or 5th might lose 50-100 points, and they now end up 7th in the WDC.....but now the same driver is constantly on the podium bringing home valuable points for the team. (points can only be deducted for the season the breach happened as per the rules)

If you had decent evidence the overspend would make you more competitive in a new era - you would be stupid not to spend a bit more ££££

[chrisc90]

Similar to what Mercedes did last year with those disposable engines that they brought every 2-3 races.

Build a super fast engine you know isn’t going to last very long, but it offers you a extra 50bhp over your competitors.

Engine might be $15m each time you swap it out in 2-3 races. You know each time you put a new PU in you get a 5 place grid drop after the initial higher punishment…. But that engine is easily capable of making up that 5 place grid drop each time it’s replaced.

Exactly the same theory as the cost cap, It’s a case of being able to take the punishment for the gains you get from overspending /taking a fresh engine each race.

[Just_a_fan]

You know what, if I was one of the top 3 teams bosses, and someone could prove that a overspend in 2021 of $7m (example) was going to give the team a great benefit on the new era of cars for 4-5 years and had a very good chance of increasing competitiveness and bringing more money in for the team through higher results finishes....id absolutely tell them to go for it, knowing the possible penalties are well worth the risk knowing you might get shamed publically (which you can easily turn a negative into a positive in that instance.... Their team exceeded the cost cap by $7m in 2021 and we the FIA choose to publicly shame them for it.... I turn round and say yeah, we exceeded the budget, but that budget went on development for the next 4-5 years of era of car, and look at the results its bringing in the team. We now on the podium almost every race and the team looks better overall and expect that form to continue for the seasons to come.

Simple - bit of bad light turned into a easy positive.

If the word "cheat" gets thrown around about your team because of it, suddenly you're wondering if it was a great idea as you see your sponsors walking away. No brand wants that sort of association. Ask Lance Armstrong.

That's the other side of that particular coin.

[chrisc90]

Swings and roundabouts. If that sponsor is on the top 3 steps of the podium each race, and the car or driver they sponsor is top of the tables….

Personally, I don’t think the word ‘cheat’ is the correct phrase to use for it really. Otherwise the penalties would be different to what they are.

Same with anything really, you find a way that the rule book can be exploited or used in a grey area.

Look at the AM rear wing, perfectly legal and within the rules, but against the spirit of the rules. Same for the cost cap really.

There is literally hundreds of examples you could use that have been found, loopholes closed, etc over the years of F1. This cost cap is no different.

[Just_a_fan]

Swings and roundabouts. If that sponsor is on the top 3 steps of the podium each race, and the car or driver they sponsor is top of the tables….

Personally, I don’t think the word ‘cheat’ is the correct phrase to use for it really. Otherwise the penalties would be different to what they are.

Same with anything really, you find a way that the rule book can be exploited or used in a grey area.

Look at the AM rear wing, perfectly legal and within the rules, but against the spirit of the rules. Same for the cost cap really.

There is literally hundreds of examples you could use that have been found, loopholes closed, etc over the years of F1. This cost cap is no different.

Er, the AM wing is within the rules and therefore is legal and it isn't cheating. As for loopholes over the years, the whole point about a loophole is that it allows something to happen without breaking the rules. That's why they're closed - because they allow someone to do something that wasn't thought about when the rules prohibiting things were drawn up.

If you deliberately spend several million more than everyone else who is abiding by the budget cap then that is cheating. It's not a "grey area" at all. It's buying performance that you couldn't otherwise obtain. It's no different to an athlete taking drugs to beat their competitors.

And trust me, if a team is branded as a bunch of cheats, the sponsors will leave them in a quick second. The "oh, but we're on the podium, isn't it great?" idea just doesn't wash when everyone else is looking at you and saying "you cheated". Go ask a major company if they want to be associated with someone that is accused of cheating and see how far you get.

[chrisc90]

Ok… so what do you make of the merc engine example I made from last season then?
So very much similar. But your just using a component outside the cost cap to obtain that advantage.


I mean the way the rules and the punishments are written, leaves it open to manipulation… exactly like I said above. Risk vs reward.

[PlatinumZealot]

How many seconds is $1million worth? How many seconds of development did it take to keep in front? The punishment must be harsher than the gain you say.

[Zynerji]

How many seconds is $1million worth? How many seconds of development did it take to keep in front? The punishment must be harsher than the gain you say.

I think 1M$ is like .03 points of downforce currently.

[mendis]

My take is whoever has infringed (if anyone) will get off lightly, the FIA has less teeth than gurning Jim and most stuff is conveniently swept under their very large carpet...

Or it's all might be just a figment of imagination and people want FIA to dance to this imagination.

Steps to a successful propaganda.
1. Create rumours of misappropriation.
2. Fuel using social media.
3. Force the targeted party to act on pressure.
4. Cause damage if the propaganda reaps fruit, ELSE, demean the target if the outcome is inversed.

What is your reasoning for why the FIA did not issue the teams their comiance certificates today as they planned to since the start of the year and why do they need to delay till Monday?

Surely the easy way to kill the drama and end speculation is to just give everyone their certificates, since every did a good job and complied and the idea that anyone has not is just fiction.

I don't have any reasoning as I don't want to speculate. I genuinely believe the specific part that FIA has mentioned that Financial Analysis is complex, which surely is more so, with new financial regulations. Overtime, it would become easier. Just because there is a delay, doesn't mean there is something fishy.

All this investigation and forensics are rumours. Even for a moment if we believe there is forensics accountant firm that has been employed by FIA for investigation and they have found something, Red Bull or any other team as well can employ another forensic accountant firm to challenge those finding. It's like a court case. If there are points of contention in these excruciatingly complex details, it would take time to resolve them. That's why I don't want to speculate and reason out anything as if I know all this.

[e30ernest]

So a few questions, where did the info that the FIA was going to release the certificates yesterday come from? Was it from the FIA? Was it a set date the teams knew? Or was it all a media rumor?

If it wasn't a media rumor (if it was officially a date the FIA set, or a date the FIA informed the teams informally about), then why was the delay last minute? Even with much less complex tasks you'd know if you won't meet a deadline. The issue would have been a lot less of an issue had they said they won't be releasing the info until Monday a day before the rumored deadline.

Right now, it all looks last minute hence the suspicion from among a big chunk of the fanbase.

[univex]

More leaks?
Max Verstappen 'keeps F1 title from Lewis Hamilton' as Red Bull 'learn FIA penalty'
https://www.msn.com/en-au/sport/motorsp ... r-AA12CFmp

Max Verstappen will not be stripped of the 2021 Formula One title despite Red Bull breaking F1 rules in a massive blow to Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton. That is according to journalist Alexandre Braeckman, per F1i, who claims the FIA initially found Red Bull to have exceeded the budget cap allowance by a massive £10.5million ($12million) but have since found the alleged breach to be significantly less serious than that. However, the FIA insist their findings will not be released until next Monday (October 10).

After an appeal and a further review, their overspend is claimed to now be just £131,000 ($150,000), per F1i. This constitutes only a minor breach of the regulations meaning Red Bull will not face the more severe sanctions such as losing championship points.

It is reported that the FIA have instead fined Red Bull £22,000 ($25,000) for breaking the budget cap guidelines. The error was because costs incurred by powertrain development were initially included in the submission to the FIA.

The apparent FIA press release added: "The FIA is satisfied, that under the 2021 regulations when powertrain development was not frozen, that this development could also include wind tunnel testing as well as research and development into floor technology which was not required as part of the submission... continued at link