2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[chrisc90]

Are you serious now? Can't you read or are you trolling? I've already given you an answer to the same question twice!

There is not ONE list. Every race weekend you have to check on the FIA site.

viewtopic.php?p=1094518#p1094518

I asked for a link for the source you are citing as you made the claim RB did not upgrade every race.

I'm not trolling, I just want to know where you got your information from and why is it that you can readily make the claim but you can't provide a single source for even a single GP event.
So if possible, can you even provide one single source to say that Red Bull did not have updates on their car for a single race weekend?

That makes it so much easier for you.

Nothing declared in Japan.

[chrisc90]

Mercedes are ready to 'cheat'...

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... _sanction/

[Quantum]

Are you serious now? Can't you read or are you trolling? I've already given you an answer to the same question twice!

There is not ONE list. Every race weekend you have to check on the FIA site.

viewtopic.php?p=1094518#p1094518

I asked for a link for the source you are citing as you made the claim RB did not upgrade every race.

I'm not trolling, I just want to know where you got your information from and why is it that you can readily make the claim but you can't provide a single source for even a single GP event.
So if possible, can you even provide one single source to say that Red Bull did not have updates on their car for a single race weekend?

That makes it so much easier for you.

Nothing declared in Japan.

2021

[chrisc90]

My bad. Oops. Wrong season!

[RZS10]

Mercedes are ready to 'cheat'...

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... _sanction/

Wonder where the $100,000 comes from?

The FIA has not yet disclosed the final figure, but the variance implies anything from $100,000 to $7.5 million, which in turn suggests a negligible breach as well as a significant overspend that may have delivered performance gains and anything in between.

AFAIK there is nothing in the regs with regards to some bottom threshold?

[Wouter]

Are you serious now? Can't you read or are you trolling? I've already given you an answer to the same question twice!

There is not ONE list. Every race weekend you have to check on the FIA site.

viewtopic.php?p=1094518#p1094518

.

I asked for a link for the source you are citing as you made the claim RB did not upgrade every race.

I'm not trolling, I just want to know where you got your information from and why is it that you can readily make the claim but you can't provide a single source for even a single GP event.
So if possible, can you even provide one single source to say that Red Bull did not have updates on their car for a single race weekend?

That makes it so much easier for you.

.
Can't you see the link from this forum that I posted? Serious question. I posted this link twice plus the original text.

viewtopic.php?p=1094518#p1094518

This link is about this post:
.

Can you cite the source from the FIA please?

.
From every race weekend?? It seems to me that you can find those yourself.
Prior to each race weekend, each team's updates are announced.
Look on the FIA site at the Race Calendar and then at the Official Documents.

If that is too much trouble for you .... Albert Fabrega also puts those updates every GP weekend on his Twitter Account.

[Just_a_fan]

Evidence of crime need to established in front of law than the outfit and accessories of an individual to be considered a crime.

The FIA has established that the crime has occurred. The defendant is now attempting to get the verdict overturned.

The FIA Cost Cap Administration has issued certificates of compliance to seven of the ten Competitors:

Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant Formula One Team is considered to be in Procedural Breach of the Financial Regulations;
Oracle Red Bull Racing is considered to be in Procedural and Minor Overspend Breaches of the Financial Regulations; and
Williams Racing has complied with the Financial Regulations in respect of the 2021 Reporting Period with the exception of a previous Procedural Breach in regard to which the Cost Cap Administration entered into an ABA with Williams in May 2022. This Procedural Breach was then remediated by Williams in a timely, cooperative and transparent manner.

https://www.fia.com/news/fia-completes- ... egulations

There is no "they aren't guilty yet". The FIA has announced them guilty. If they wish to appeal they may do so. If they win their appeal then they may be cleared either totally or in part. But until they win an appeal, they are guilty.

You made your point, exactly the same one the other poster did and I gave my opinion on it, repeatedly. Feel free to continue as I can't repeat myself and pollute the thread. I respect your opinion though. Thanks.

Uh huh.

[Just_a_fan]

Mercedes are ready to 'cheat'...

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... _sanction/

Exactly what you said was the right thing to do. You should be glad to see them suggest it.

After all, if cheating is ok, within certain limits, then why not?

We could call it the "Red Bull margin" or the "Red Bull allowance" or something similar.

[Wouter]

Mercedes are ready to 'cheat'...

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... _sanction/

.
Exactly what you said was the right thing to do. You should be glad to see them suggest it.

After all, if cheating is ok, within certain limits, then why not?

We could call it the "Red Bull margin" or the "Red Bull allowance" or something similar.

.
Toto Wolff is playing pure politics here.
He is threatening the FIA to also go above the BC if they give RBR a minor penalty.
"Do you hear that FIA? Then we will do the same!!!"
With this, he hopes RBR will be punished harshly. Pure politics, as we know it from Toto.

[dans79]

Mercedes are ready to 'cheat'...

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... _sanction/

.
Exactly what you said was the right thing to do. You should be glad to see them suggest it.

After all, if cheating is ok, within certain limits, then why not?

We could call it the "Red Bull margin" or the "Red Bull allowance" or something similar.

.
Toto Wolff is playing pure politics here.
He is threatening the FIA to also go above the BC if they give RBR a minor penalty.
"Do you hear that FIA? Then we will do the same!!!"
With this, he hopes RBR will be punished harshly. Pure politics, as we know it from Toto.

as if everything Horner spews out of his mouth isn't political.

[chrisc90]

Probably a poor thing for toto to say really, it’s one thing accidentally going over budget, it’s another to do it with intent.

Toto shouldn’t even know what the disagreement is between RB and the FIA.

It could be a absolutely brilliant move from RB, spend a bit more and pay a small penalty for doing so. I don’t blame Toto really, if the penalty is small, then it shows it’s worth the risk/overspend.

[Wil992]

Mercedes are ready to 'cheat'...

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... _sanction/

.
Exactly what you said was the right thing to do. You should be glad to see them suggest it.

After all, if cheating is ok, within certain limits, then why not?

We could call it the "Red Bull margin" or the "Red Bull allowance" or something similar.

.
Toto Wolff is playing pure politics here.
He is threatening the FIA to also go above the BC if they give RBR a minor penalty.
"Do you hear that FIA? Then we will do the same!!!"
With this, he hopes RBR will be punished harshly. Pure politics, as we know it from Toto.

Yes, you’re right in what you’re saying, that’s a message to the FIA. But at the same time, he’s got a valid point. If there’s no meaningful penalty then every team would be mad not to breach the cap. Imagine being last in the constructors because you alone kept below the cap? (I get it, that’s an extreme example, you see my point though).
So, if there’s a calculation to be done, if we spend budget cap + x, will it be worth it? The answer to that must always be no, regardless of the value of x. Otherwise the cap is useless imo.

[Wil992]

On a related note, I don’t agree with an arbitrary step at 5% for transgressors. Surely it makes more sense to have some kind of formula for punishments that gives a sliding scale without steps in it.
Maybe (the overspend / 100000 )squared, as a deduction in points for both drivers. So 100k overspend means 1 point off, 200k means 4 points off, etc. it would very soon become very expensive if you go over.

[Incognito]

Red Bull Racing are one of the most competitive and detail-orientated businesses on the planet.

Getting basic maths wrong is possible, even in an F1 team.
Not running it past the FIA to be sure (there's no downside to running everything past the FIA beforehand) is possible.
But it's not likely. Unless...human's are fallible.

Sort of like Hamilton at Silverstone last year. Remind me, if I go back to the race threads for last year should I be confident that everyone condemning RBR now also condemned Hamilton? Or that everyone pointing out that mistakes / human fallibility is the most likely source said the same thing then (and it's far more likely as one person/one second vs a department / a year)? Why do I suspect I'll find more inconsistency than the FIA has found regarding the cost cap?

Frankly, if there was an overspend (intentional or not), I hope the FIA come down on it like a ton of bricks. Then I hope they hire auditors to go through the books of everyone within $10m of the cap limit and, if they find irregularities, come down on them like a ton of bricks too. Personally, I favour DSQ. If you're going to be DSQed from a race for breaching the rules by a millimetre, why should the punishment be less for breaching over an entire season. And if that means that McLaren are WCC last year and Alpine this year then more power to them. And, frankly, I think Norris would be a fine WDC for '21 and '22.

[chrisc90]

On a related note, I don’t agree with an arbitrary step at 5% for transgressors. Surely it makes more sense to have some kind of formula for punishments that gives a sliding scale without steps in it.
Maybe (the overspend / 100000 )squared, as a deduction in points for both drivers. So 100k overspend means 1 point off, 200k means 4 points off, etc. it would very soon become very expensive if you go over.

Strictly speaking, a financial penalty is pointless. Fines and penalties are outside the cap. Its safe to say these F1 teams have hundreds of millions of budget available to them. If they get fined £20m for breaking the budget rules thats probably not bad business overall.

Your biggest penalties are going to be a points deduction, a reduction in the cap, or a reduction in wind tunnel time. What the FIA should do is take last years overspend off next years budget (although they cant do that for '22 now) and add say 5% onto that figure. That way if a team went over by £5m, they would have £140m - 5% so a total spend of £133m (not using true figures for 2022) That way the penalty is severe enough and cuts out the millions these teams can afford to throw away for the FIA christmas parties.

Continued breaches or really severe ones should result in a points deduction for the constructors, since I dont think its fair to punish the drivers for the teams wrong doing.