2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[Wil992]

I don’t normally like all the silly nicknames that people make up for drivers etc they don’t like. But I’ve just read someone on twitter referring to Christian Horner as “spendy spice”, which did tickle me.

[Hoffman900]

ITT people who don't work with money trying to explain to those that do why Red Bull have done nothing wrong.

This

[PlatinumZealot]

It is no longer runours so the title should be fixed. That said... Wwe want that championship back....

[langedweil]

That would be entirely unacceptable because any overspend during 2021 will have had a beneficial effect on the development of the 2022 car and thus also give a head start on subsequent cars that are developed from it.

That's as much a possibility as it is an uncertainty ..
Good luck in proving that.

It's entirely obvious. If you design next year's car during one year, and during that year you spend more than allowed, then your car for next year has benefitted from the overspend. If you hadn't overspent, you couldn't have spent as much on the new car and still had the performance with the old one.

Nah, you're kinda twisting now ..

.. any overspend during 2021 will have had a beneficial effect on the development of the 2022 car and thus also give a head start on subsequent cars that are developed from it.

And that's just as true as it isn't ...

[e30ernest]

And that's just as true as it isn't ...

Why wouldn't it then?

Given the current cars were developed within last year and would also be affected by last years cap. Likewise, cars for next year are under development now and are affected by this year's cap.

If you have a head start with your car because of overspend last year, that's money in this year's cap you can use for next year.

[mendis]

IMO people are reading way waay too much into this.
This won't be settled for weeks. So just relax. We can't know for sure if RBR is quilty of anything at all until then.

Financials can be manipulated, filtered and assigned in so many different ways. It doesn't surprise me at all that a team has calcuated a different outcome than the FIA.

Now they'll have to go over it together, find the differences and let the lawyers decise what the regulations actually say, if anything at all. There might be both grey-zones, different interpertations as well as unspecified areas and complete loop-holes which might come to light.

Given it's the first time with the budget cap, I think its just as likely that the FIA has got it wrong than that Red Bull got it wrong.

You are right, but your suggestion is misplaced because this period has passed prior to issuance of a certificate. An auditor or finance person can correct me if I am wrong.

I thought you resigned from this place a while back?

viewtopic.php?p=1091683#p1091683

[langedweil]

And that's just as true as it isn't ...

Why wouldn't it then?

Given the current cars were developed within last year and would also be affected by last years cap. Likewise, cars for next year are under development now and are affected by this year's cap.

If you have a head start with your car because of overspend last year, that's money in this year's cap you can use for next year.

Well, you're the one assuming a headstart by overspending on 22's car, while you could have easily overspent on 21's car.
And because of the overall concept change, there was little-to-none carry-over.
It's not the overspend that's the issue (overspend = overspend), it's the assumption that any overspend was beneficial to this years car. That's a possibility as much as it is an uncertainty; we simply could not know.

[e30ernest]

And that's just as true as it isn't ...

Why wouldn't it then?

Given the current cars were developed within last year and would also be affected by last years cap. Likewise, cars for next year are under development now and are affected by this year's cap.

If you have a head start with your car because of overspend last year, that's money in this year's cap you can use for next year.

Well, you're the one assuming a headstart by overspending on 22's car, while you could have easily overspent on 21's car.
And because of the overall concept change, there was little-to-none carry-over.
It's not the overspend that's the issue (overspend = overspend), it's the assumption that any overspend was beneficial to this years car. That's a possibility as much as it is an uncertainty; we simply could not know.

You can't differentiate though. It's the same argument why overspending on catering is not an excuse.

[Zynerji]

I don’t normally like all the silly nicknames that people make up for drivers etc they don’t like. But I’ve just read someone on twitter referring to Christian Horner as “spendy spice”, which did tickle me.

That wins the internet today.

[tpe]

It is amazing!
FIA already said in their announcement that any possible fine/punishment will NOT be harsh. The wording implies a reprimand as the worse possible outcome. Still, people dream of harsh punishments, deduction of points, wind tunnel restrictions and so on. Well, stop dreaming.

As for the reason of Toto's and Mattia's barking is nothing more and nothing less but PR. I start to believe that they want to know the penalties so as to take a decision abput overspending.

[Alakshendra]

Just got one question, so now its proven its just a minor breach so what will be the punishment that RB will be looking at? Less tunnel time etc or just some financial penalty.

"Just a minor breach" can carry the same penalties as a major one apart from a disqualification, it's not automatically just a fine as some suggested here, if the possible penalties did not include the removal of points for a 'minor' breach then they surely would not be listed.

viewtopic.php?p=1092393#p1092393

Thanks, so is it possible that it will impact some aero testing for RB. atleast that will make some sense , finanacial penalty wont be affecting RB in my opinion.

[Alvareth]

Just got one question, so now its proven its just a minor breach so what will be the punishment that RB will be looking at? Less tunnel time etc or just some financial penalty.

"Just a minor breach" can carry the same penalties as a major one apart from a disqualification, it's not automatically just a fine as some suggested here, if the possible penalties did not include the removal of points for a 'minor' breach then they surely would not be listed.

viewtopic.php?p=1092393#p1092393

Thanks, so is it possible that it will impact some aero testing for RB. atleast that will make some sense , finanacial penalty wont be affecting RB in my opinion.

Points reduction or cost gap reduction can only happen if the breach agreement was not accepted by Red Bull or if the Cost Cap Administration refers the case directly to the “judge panel”.

[DChemTech]

Ok, I'm a bit late to the party... but basically, we're still just speculating.
We know that RB and AM are, in some form, over the limit - that was already being rumoured, now just confirmed.
We know the breach is less than 5%. Nothing new there.

The information that we would like to have, however, is still missing.
We do not know how much more was spent exactly. 5% over the limit is still a lot, but it could just as well be $5000 over.
We don't know what it was spent on. It could be crucial - if one team spent a lot more on car development than others - or inconsequential, if it was some thing RB regarded as marketing, but the FIA disagrees for some reason. It could be the costs required to cope with FIA's in season rule changes. We do not know, and we also do not know why RB was under the impression they were in the cap while the FIA judged otherwise.

All we have really learned is that the FIA is completely incapable of transparant communication with regards to issues that are rightfully a big deal for the fans. But then again, we already knew that, too.

[astracrazy]

It is no longer runours so the title should be fixed. That said... Wwe want that championship back....

Give over, it's getting boring now. That will 100% not happen and you know it.

[e30ernest]

We don't know what it was spent on. It could be crucial - if one team spent a lot more on car development than others - or inconsequential, if it was some thing RB regarded as marketing, but the FIA disagrees for some reason.

While I agree with you that for now the amounts are speculation, and it could be an inconsequential amount, I do not agree with the above.

If the amount is deemed to be of consequence (when you start dipping in the 6 figures that's pretty much an update for some teams) then it doesn't matter where they spent it. They could have cut the same amount off the car's development and then spent that to whatever else they needed it for.

All the other teams had marketing, catering and other expenses. Who knows what development they had to cut in order to stay within the limits. They stayed in budget while RB did not.