2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[littlebigcat]

Is Red Bull allowed to carryover this years remaining budget to next year?

Max is already champion, you would assume they will be avoiding major upgrades.

No and the cost cap is going to be $5m less in 2023

[dans79]

Is Red Bull allowed to carryover this years remaining budget to next year?

Max is already champion, you would assume they will be avoiding major upgrades.

No and the cost cap is going to be $5m less in 2023

They can however stockpile supplies!

[littlebigcat]

Is Red Bull allowed to carryover this years remaining budget to next year?

Max is already champion, you would assume they will be avoiding major upgrades.

No and the cost cap is going to be $5m less in 2023

They can however stockpile supplies!

I don't think they can to have "free" supplies as such. The rules about Unused inventory only applies to the "Current Car". If they stockpiled materials to build then they would be outside what they need to report and thus outside the cost cap. However as soon as they are used in 2023 they would be recognised as a material cost for the "Current Car" and past of that cost cap. You can argue there might be a small saving if the purchase price of raw materials increases, but storage costs money. And pregreg does have a shelf life.

Now, if they had an idea for 2023 and wanted to build a trial run part but never fit it to car, they could effectively build it and scrap it as a redundant part of the 2022 car. They would get the material and production cost of the part back but keep any manufacturing learnings on how to build the part.

From my layman understanding the rules seem to be fairly clear in what is and what isn't allowed. The only really opaque part is over the excluded persons, but having read them repeatedly over the last couple of days I've done a 180 on my thinking.

Personally I can't see how Adrian Newey wouldn't be included as an excluded person, whether he is contracted through RBR or RBAT they are both part of RBR's Legal Structure and included in the Reporting Group. If he is contracted as a individual or most likely a body representing him then he should fall under as a Connected Party. I'll admit I know nothing about how companies and trusts work, but unless there is something really funky going on, say he is being paid via something registered over seas to really avoid tax, he should be an Excluded Person.

[henry]

Is there a chance that the confusion could have come from staffing or parts development that were due to be for the next season/era of cars?

For example could RB have moved staff onto the 2023 car and development, or used budget to start making parts etc and the FIA is thinking they are for the 2021 season? Or a staff member working on the rb18 for 6 months, so 6 months is allocated to one car and 6 months to the other.

The budget cap is not related to the output, this years car or next, only the expenditure on cars in general during 21

RB are using this fact to suggest that they spent more on the 21 car than their rivals by delaying spending on the 22 car. This spikes arguments that RB brought more updates than their rivals.

No if you manufacture a 2023 part in 2022 its part of the cost cap in which year its first used. The R&D cost of this part is included in the year the R&D happened, this includes the staff cost. Only the manufacturing and material cost can be deferred to the next season.

Given this is applicable to every other team, I do not think the FIA would have made any mistake here

Thanks. I will re-read the inventory sections.

I agree with your comment on ubiquity, seems this is unlikely be a contentious issue.

[chrisc90]

Interesting video.

[Mosin123]

Redbull dont get a harsh penalty they might as well scrap the financial regs, cause Ferrari and Merc wont follow them if you are just going to get a fine. Breaching it makes more sense from a competitive point of view

[chrisc90]

Redbull dont get a harsh penalty they might as well scrap the financial regs, cause Ferrari and Merc wont follow them if you are just going to get a fine. Breaching it makes more sense from a competitive point of view

I think it depends on what area Red Bull believe what they say and what the FIA have put down on paper as they want something to mean.

If there's a grey area, I can see just a fine, and the loophole closed for 2023 season (since the 2022 season is about over for the reporting period (race wise)).

[GrizzleBoy]

Redbull dont get a harsh penalty they might as well scrap the financial regs, cause Ferrari and Merc wont follow them if you are just going to get a fine. Breaching it makes more sense from a competitive point of view

Exactly.

It'll be like parking fines.

People struggling with money can be crippled by them.

People with large enough budgets will just park precisely wherever they feel because the penalty is far outweighed by the convenience of parking where they want, when they want, for however long they want.

Those types of penalties are not penalties depending on who you are.

That should never be a thing in F1.

[Big Tea]

Interesting video.

So, if as Marko says, it is about sick pay, does that mean that the other 9 teams underspent, and was this due to advice from FIA? this has many aspects here.

[chrisc90]

I think when teams clarify information, that clarification is released, without who asked for it, to all of the other teams.

I dont understand the wording in the 3 paragraphs mentioned in the video... Paragraph 3.1 U, V, W

I think paragraph W can be forgotten about unless there was staff that were 'paid off' and not expected to return to work.

EDIT: Is paragraph V effectively saying you can bring in another employee, the costs of cover are excluded?

[ispano6]

Even if they’re not cheating the cost cap this season anymore (which I doubt), the fact they cheated last year gave them an important head start with the RB18.

What proof do you have that the Rb18 had a head start. And the fact that you just want to call RedBull cheaters without even knowing what the amount or nature of the breach isn't even remotely contributing to the conversation.

[ispano6]

Another deflection attempt. Overspending the budget cap can make your car faster without a single doubt. Even the kind of overspend that would be considered minor. Throwing in AD 21 wont help since that was another rule breach by FIA themselves to spice up the show.

What does Lewis car pace in Abu Dhabi has to do with RB breaching the cost cap? If RB didn’t overspend, they might have been even further back and not even on the same points as Lewis come Abu Dhabi, given their car would have slower without all of the updates they brought.

I'm not deflecting anything, I'm stating a technical fact that at no point was the car deemed illegal.
You do realize the top three teams put in a fair amount of effort to restructure their companies, created "ghost" or shell companies to move their people into, deemed personnel to not be part of the cost cap because they weren't involved in the racing aspect or duties. Wolffs' salary is excluded from the cost cap as is Horner's and the next top two of each F1 operation. Add those back in and you would have a change in which other teams breached. The upgrades Mercedes brought was also made possible by employing their restructuring.

In terms of Red Bull, if what the rumors are true and Newey was indeed receiving a salary that put him in the top three paid employees be it consultant or contractor, then it should be excluded. If that interpretation is what is at issue, the FIA probably was not clear as to what employee type salary can be excluded from the cost cap. That is not blatant cheating or an illegal car. You guys just are like Wolff and want to smear RedBull, we get it!

[RZS10]

[...]
Is paragraph V effectively saying you can bring in another employee, the costs of cover are excluded?

As long as the replacement does not earn more, if less you could exclude only the lower salary (?)

I'd say your interpretation is correct for all of them, U is essentially excluding paid paternity/maternity leave IF it would get paid to everyone within the group (team wide policy).

[chrisc90]

[...]
Is paragraph V effectively saying you can bring in another employee, the costs of cover are excluded?

As long as the replacement does not earn more, if less you could exclude only the lower salary (?)

I'd say your interpretation is correct for all of them, U is essentially excluding paid paternity/maternity leave IF it would get paid to everyone within the group (team wide policy).

So if im right in putting that into practice.....You could have 25 employees off with long term covid (example) and you draft in 25 extra heads from another area of the business that is outside the cap. The person off sick still gets their pay (or they could even be put on Statutory Sick Pay (SSP) and you can bring in another worker with equally or marginally less talent, to cover for their role and the salary for that work is excluded under the cap, providing it does not go over the salary of the person off sick.

[littlebigcat]

Yes, I thought that has already been covered. That's why what Marko says doesn't make sense.

And again, since Red Bull has a similar workforce to other teams in the UK, there can't be something uniquely about them.