2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[Zynerji]

What a farce this sport and its rules and rule makers really are!

[tpe]

If rumour mill is correct, can we name them Farce International association?

[DChemTech]

Can't really understand why they're trying to say they spent the extra 1.8 million on catering costs! Whatever it was they spent it on it means they had 1.8 milllion more to spent on development since they didn't include these "catering costs" in their budget cap to begin with!

We can't call this a small breach...

Because that is not necessarily the conclusion. If all teams provide free lunch, and RB is the only to exclude it from the cap, then yes. If RB is the only team that provided free lunch, there is no reason to assume they spent more on development - they just provided an additional secondary benefit that may ot may not have to be included in the cap, but which is very unlikely to have had bearing on the outcome of a single season.

[DChemTech]

If rumour mill is correct, can we name them Farce International association?

If the rumour mill is correct, we also need to remember this whole thing came out through a leak.

Perhaps there really just wasn't anything wrong and all would all have been sorted out internally without hassle, were it not for some leaker and a few eager teambosses that blew things out of proportion and forced rushed FIA statements. But let's first see if these rumours are true.

[organic]

AMuS have had good info so far on the budget cap saga. They have reported yesterday:

When will the Red Bull file close?
The more interesting part happened off the track. Everything revolved around Red Bull's offense in the budget cover affair. The racing team has known for a week what punishment it faces. Allegedly a deduction of 25 percent of the wind tunnel time for the coming season plus a fine. A retroactive punishment with a point deduction for 2021 should be off the table. Red Bull is said to have disagreed with the cost cap administrator's proposal. The process then continues.

25% is pretty large tbf

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... estzeiten/

[chrisc90]

Surely if the FIA have downgraded the ‘punishment’ then it will show RB as being within the rules - for which they should not even accept the procedural breach as if the FIA comes out now and says it’s only a procedural one - they effectively admitting they have got it wrong and their is a loop hole in the regulations Regarding certain costs, or they mid understood RB’s submission. In which case they should go back and review the other teams submissions

[simieski]

Can't really understand why they're trying to say they spent the extra 1.8 million on catering costs! Whatever it was they spent it on it means they had 1.8 milllion more to spent on development since they didn't include these "catering costs" in their budget cap to begin with!

Providing a free lunch and excluding it from the cap is a perk that could offset a small salary reduction and thus allow them to employ more staff. One way or another it can all be linked to performance on track.

We can't call this a small breach...

Because that is not necessarily the conclusion. If all teams provide free lunch, and RB is the only to exclude it from the cap, then yes. If RB is the only team that provided free lunch, there is no reason to assume they spent more on development - they just provided an additional secondary benefit that may ot may not have to be included in the cap, but which is very unlikely to have had bearing on the outcome of a single season.

Providing a free lunch would be a perk that could offset a small salary reduction, which in turn could allow them the budget to higher more staff. £5 per Mon-Fri worker equates to close to £1200 per person per year. That could certainly fund a few more engineers.

[organic]

https://it.motorsport.com/f1/news/f1-bu ... /10388052/

Red Bull is reluctant to accept the settlement agreement with the FIA ​​for minor violations in the spending limit of the 2021 season: Ben Sulayem wants an economic sanction made up of a fine (or the deduction of a figure from the amount available in the next two years) and the reduction of 500 hours in wind tunnels of the 2,000 granted for the next two years. Milton Keynes's team considers the double measure to be very strong. We will find out today what Horner thinks at the press conference.

[DChemTech]

Can't really understand why they're trying to say they spent the extra 1.8 million on catering costs! Whatever it was they spent it on it means they had 1.8 milllion more to spent on development since they didn't include these "catering costs" in their budget cap to begin with!

Providing a free lunch and excluding it from the cap is a perk that could offset a small salary reduction and thus allow them to employ more staff. One way or another it can all be linked to performance on track.

We can't call this a small breach...

Because that is not necessarily the conclusion. If all teams provide free lunch, and RB is the only to exclude it from the cap, then yes. If RB is the only team that provided free lunch, there is no reason to assume they spent more on development - they just provided an additional secondary benefit that may ot may not have to be included in the cap, but which is very unlikely to have had bearing on the outcome of a single season.

Providing a free lunch would be a perk that could offset a small salary reduction, which in turn could allow them the budget to higher more staff. £5 per Mon-Fri worker equates to close to £1200 per person per year. That could certainly fund a few more engineers.

I get that, but then the question is did RB pay employees 1200 pounds less and compensate that with uncapped free lunch, or did they pay similar to other teams and was it an 'on top of' benefit. If it was just on top of, sure, it is an additional benefit that could help attracting people in the long run, and needs to be clarified and possibly fined, but it is not a decisive aspect that gave some enormous advantage on short term and would justify disqualification.

If RB deliberately gamed the system by underpaying directly and compensating with free lunch to hire more staff, and the rules are clear on inclusion of secondary benefits in the cap, it is another matter. So, comparison with what other teams did is important. But the main point was that free lunch does not automatically mean hence morr development money.

[henry]

On the subject of punishments.

I like @Stu’s suggestion that testing should be curtailed, but I would include practice sessions.

I would implement it by setting a quota of testing and practice sessions for a period, perhaps the whole season. The team would need to be ready to start any and all sessions but would only be told which, if any, car(s) are allowed to take part at the start of the session. This means that:

• They have to commit all of their budget for a session, including employment for all the personnel involved. So no cost cap benefit and no collateral damage for employees.
  
  It inconveniences the team in a way they can’t avoid.
  
  It serves as a reminder to everyone that the team are being punished for a transgression every time there is a test or practise session.
  
  It would restrict their ability to develop and operate the car.

Some rules would be needed to manage consumables, tyres, PUs, gearboxes etc to make sure there is no benefit to accrue from not running. And probably some allowance for shake down and safety checks.

Depending on the severity of the overspend this might operate in conjunction with other punishments, reduced cost cap, reduced wind tunnel and CFD etc.

The objective should be clear, to hurt the team in both performance and reputation. No-one should want to experience this.

[selvam_e2002]

They have the car to win next 3 years. I don't think deduction of 25% of wind tunnel will make RB week.

RB and Max will get next 3 WDC and WCC. It is already decided in 2021 itself. Horner mentioned cost breach several times from 2021 itself. So, RB will create some drama then accept it.

Well planned executed script by FIA and Liberty.

[101FlyingDutchman]

They have the car to win next 3 years. I don't think deduction of 25% of wind tunnel will make RB week.

RB and Max will get next 3 WDC and WCC. It is already decided in 2021 itself. Horner mentioned cost breach several times from 2021 itself. So, RB will create some drama then accept it.

Well planned executed script by FIA and Liberty.

Do you believe the earth is flat too? Some people just see conspiracies everywhere. Don’t led bias cloud your judgement

[hollus]

On the subject of punishments.

I like @Stu’s suggestion that testing should be curtailed, but I would include practice sessions.

I would implement it by setting a quota of testing and practice sessions for a period, perhaps the whole season. The team would need to be ready to start any and all sessions but would only be told which, if any, car(s) are allowed to take part at the start of the session. This means that:

• They have to commit all of their budget for a session, including employment for all the personnel involved. So no cost cap benefit and no collateral damage for employees.
  
  It inconveniences the team in a way they can’t avoid.
  
  It serves as a reminder to everyone that the team are being punished for a transgression every time there is a test or practise session.
  
  It would restrict their ability to develop and operate the car.

Some rules would be needed to manage consumables, tyres, PUs, gearboxes etc to make sure there is no benefit to accrue from not running. And probably some allowance for shake down and safety checks.

Depending on the severity of the overspend this might operate in conjunction with other punishments, reduced cost cap, reduced wind tunnel and CFD etc.

The objective should be clear, to hurt the team in both performance and reputation. No-one should want to experience this.

I have bolded the part I am replying to:
The part about reminding everyone of the breach every week is why that would not happen. The show must look pristine. A weekly accusation-victimism session will not help. Every time they lose it would be because of the punishment, every time they win they would be heroes.
The 25 % wind tunnel reduction looks large enough to hurt, and it can be ignored by Average Joe. I sort of like it.

[Big Tea]

Daily?? for 3 meals? $45 I can understand, but £5 is ridiculous.

If this is true, then we know where the issue comes in. RB low balled the catering/canteen figure to come in under budget, FIA called BS on it.

That depends on the refractory. I had £5 daily 'chitty' which would cover a start, main a desert and a bar to take out and as much tea or coffee as you want all day.
Most company facilities are subsidised by the company and the actual cost is not reflected.

Edit, it included 'light' breakfast 'help-your-self'

Yeah, £5 daily is pretty 'chitty' if you ask me...

(sorry, I just had to)

Yeh, it was a standing joke

The point I was making is that it depends on the cost of the 'items'. It would have covered a slice of toast in the cafe down the road, but as it was used against subsidised 'items' it comfortably covered them.
( Anything from outside was paid at the value on the receipt of course.)

[hollus]

They have the car to win next 3 years. I don't think deduction of 25% of wind tunnel will make RB week.

RB and Max will get next 3 WDC and WCC. It is already decided in 2021 itself. Horner mentioned cost breach several times from 2021 itself. So, RB will create some drama then accept it.

Well planned executed script by FIA and Liberty.

This is not trying to fit punishment to the crime, this is trying to make them lose.
If a 1.5% extra budget for one year creates an advantage that cannot be eroded for years, that is a very magical 1.5%. It had an effect in 2021 most likely, it had an effect on 2022 probably, but the carry on must diminish over time. I mean, the car has a lot of carry on for 2023-24-25, but it is not the 1.5% that creates most of that carry on.