2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[littlebigcat]

I had similar thoughts that the word Determination was doing a lot of heavy lifting in those rules

[henry]

On the subject of punishments.

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.

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.

Fair point. However, the “lose as victims win as heroes” would also apply to loss of wind tunnel time, or any other performance affecting punishment.

IMO This is very much a PR battle. Red Bull want to be seen as renegade, rule kicking, risk takers. They may not have chosen to be in breach but it’s an opportunity to demonstrate these credentials. Any punishment which doesn’t have continuing affects on their reputation will fail to deal with that.

They have been preparing the ground to be able characterise any punishment as unfair, in not recognising their talent for taking rules to the limit. Unless the punishment is severe they, and their fans, will see it as a win.

Of course they may be entirely innocent, in which case non of the above is relevant.

[Mogster]

On the subject of punishments.

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.

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.

Fair point. However, the “lose as victims win as heroes” would also apply to loss of wind tunnel time, or any other performance affecting punishment.

IMO This is very much a PR battle. Red Bull want to be seen as renegade, rule kicking, risk takers. They may not have chosen to be in breach but it’s an opportunity to demonstrate these credentials. Any punishment which doesn’t have continuing affects on their reputation will fail to deal with that.

They have been preparing the ground to be able characterise any punishment as unfair, in not recognising their talent for taking rules to the limit. Unless the punishment is severe they, and their fans, will see it as a win.

Of course they may be entirely innocent, in which case non of the above is relevant.

I think that’s a fair assessment. MPH over at The-Race has been saying similar for 6 months. RBR never really intended to keep to the cost cap. Rather decided to blag it out afterwards and negotiate whatever punishment with the FIA. Ducking and diving etc..

[organic]

[organic]

Horner has pledged transparency. Good start

[chrisc90]

Seems like the 7 figure sum is coming from 75,000 lines of items that need to be included and potentially un-used items.

Judging by it, I dont think they will be accepting the ABA.

[organic]

So Horner confirms the regulatory change wrt spare parts that may have caused them to overrun

[chrisc90]

So Horner confirms the regulatory change wrt spare parts that may have caused them to overrun

I mean if that's the case then its bang out of order from the FIA, changing the goalposts 3 months down the line after the teams' submissions have been submitted.

[dans79]

So Horner confirms the regulatory change wrt spare parts that may have caused them to overrun

The other 9 teams would have had the same issue.

[chrisc90]

#
So Horner confirms the regulatory change wrt spare parts that may have caused them to overrun

The other 9 teams would have had the same issue.

Without knowing exactly what those items are, and how much each item costs each individual team, I dont think its fair to pass comment that 9 others managed it but one didn't.

You couldn't expect Williams or Haas to have the same costs on certain lines are the top 3 teams. It could be wages. Could you image a aero engineer for Williams being paid the same as a one for Red Bull? That's like a premiership footballer being paid the same as a non-league team player for example.

[GrizzleBoy]

So Horner confirms the regulatory change wrt spare parts that may have caused them to overrun

I mean if that's the case then its bang out of order from the FIA, changing the goalposts 3 months down the line after the teams' submissions have been submitted.

All they did was determine that what RB did with used parts productionwas not acceptable and released a clarification of the rules for everyone to see.

It wasn't a new rule, it was a clarification of the rules to put to bed incorrect interpretations.

[Mosin123]

I doubt, highly doubt, the fia would make a rule to effect books already closed. Be like saying this years regs changed seasons from 50 years ago..... Seems more like another RB PR spin, getting next years excuse in early.

If Horner agrees with the settlement, he cant speak of it, its clearly written in the regs. none of the teams can.

[littlebigcat]

If Horner agrees with the settlement, he cant speak of it, its clearly written in the regs. none of the teams can.

Horner politicking

6.32

The Cost Cap Administration will publish a summary of the terms of the ABA, detailing the breach, any sanctions, and any enhanced monitoring procedures, omitting any Confidential Information.

[RZS10]

Watched the whole thing ... some interesting bits

The rules say the teams have to ask for clarification if something is not clear, Zak Brown said they asked a lot of questions and found the process very manageable and ended up right at the limit of the cap, Horner on the other hand says that the rules are so complicated that it's almost impossible to get it right and that within the regulations there's a duty for the FIA to guide the teams to have effective compliance.

Horner did not deny the 1.8 million but was adamant that it did not bring them any performance or advantage, he later said "we're talking probably what is in contention with the FIA of a couple of hundred dollars" - so maybe the 1.8m is not correct.

He repeated the claim that they were significantly under the budget cap with their initial submission but that they "expected certain things to be potentially challenged" after they had professional third party accountants go through the regulations.

He hopes it will get resolved, ideally during this weekend, if not it might go to the panel, next to the ICA, drawing out the process for another 6-9 months.

An issue he sees with the clarification for the heritage stock, which he believes to be a retrospective rule change, is that they could not change their submission after the fact, which they would have done otherwise.

This one i'll just quote since i'm not sure what he's getting at:
"There are significant challenges within 2022 when you look at the amount of crash damage some of the teams are having, some of the upgrade levels that are going on, the precedents that will be set from 2021 will have to apply [... with ?...] consistency in 2022."

edit: maybe an addition: the procedural breach for Williams was due to a third party not submitting their docs on time

[morefirejules08]

#
So Horner confirms the regulatory change wrt spare parts that may have caused them to overrun

The other 9 teams would have had the same issue.

Without knowing exactly what those items are, and how much each item costs each individual team, I dont think its fair to pass comment that 9 others managed it but one didn't.

You couldn't expect Williams or Haas to have the same costs on certain lines are the top 3 teams. It could be wages. Could you image a aero engineer for Williams being paid the same as a one for Red Bull? That's like a premiership footballer being paid the same as a non-league team player for example.

Your football analogy is wrong because both Redbull and Williams are in the equivalent of the premier league seeing as F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport.
Secondly seeing as we’re talking spare parts I suspect the costs are very similar between the teams, it’s not like a front wing is going to cost HAAS considerably less to produce than Redbull