2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[dans79]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10392320/

Shovlin noted that if 10% of windtunnel time were really worth half a second, then “a team at the back of the grid would have a three second advantage to the one at the front, and that isn’t the case.” The team finishing 10th in this year’s championship will get 115% of P7’s windtunnel time next year.

Everyone going after horner now! Bloods in the water and the sharks are circling!

[Sieper]

They can circle all they want. And man,do they circle It’s a bit like that Sugababes hit.

But an extra spent of 400.000 was also worth .5 second if we remember correctly so it seems “some” exaggeration is taking place.

[f1jcw]

They can circle all they want. And man,do they circle It’s a bit like that Sugababes hit.

But an extra spent of 400.000 was also worth .5 second if we remember correctly so it seems “some” exaggeration is taking place.

Stop saying 400k, it was 2.2m.
This tax rebate doesn’t exist (as yet)

[dans79]

They can circle all they want. And man,do they circle It’s a bit like that Sugababes hit.

But an extra spent of 400.000 was also worth .5 second if we remember correctly so it seems “some” exaggeration is taking place.

Stop saying 400k, it was 2.2m.
This tax rebate doesn’t exist (as yet)

And as I posted a while back, Horner himself indirectly said $280k could be the difference between winning and losing.
viewtopic.php?p=1095054#p1095054

[GrizzleBoy]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10392320/

Shovlin noted that if 10% of windtunnel time were really worth half a second, then “a team at the back of the grid would have a three second advantage to the one at the front, and that isn’t the case.” The team finishing 10th in this year’s championship will get 115% of P7’s windtunnel time next year.

Everyone going after horner now! Bloods in the water and the sharks are circling!

Not really imo.

I think Horner has made his excuses and now principals and engineers from other teams are answering questions about what he's said.

And since they're not Red Bull, they're free to talk about it without the requirement of any pro Red Bull spin, which Horner won't or isn't able to do.

[Big Tea]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10392320/

Shovlin noted that if 10% of windtunnel time were really worth half a second, then “a team at the back of the grid would have a three second advantage to the one at the front, and that isn’t the case.” The team finishing 10th in this year’s championship will get 115% of P7’s windtunnel time next year.

Everyone going after horner now! Bloods in the water and the sharks are circling!

Not really imo.

I think Horner has made his excuses and now principals and engineers from other teams are answering questions about what he's said.

And since they're not Red Bull, they're free to talk about it without the requirement of any pro Red Bull spin, which Horner won't or isn't able to do.

Also, The Red Bull overspend would probably only directly effect Merc and Ferrari, but this is a 'test case' for everyone and the team bosses from lower down know that it could be any team next, so the want clarity (even if they are thinking of it being them being caught)

[Sieper]

They can circle all they want. And man,do they circle It’s a bit like that Sugababes hit.

But an extra spent of 400.000 was also worth .5 second if we remember correctly so it seems “some” exaggeration is taking place.

Stop saying 400k, it was 2.2m.
This tax rebate doesn’t exist (as yet)

That is not a number I came up with, it was used to illustrate with that even with that amount they could be up to a .5 second faster.

[diffuser]

Is there a way the general public can check if they ever get the tax credit?

For 2021 ????? Little late for that.

[mendis]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10392320/

Shovlin noted that if 10% of windtunnel time were really worth half a second, then “a team at the back of the grid would have a three second advantage to the one at the front, and that isn’t the case.” The team finishing 10th in this year’s championship will get 115% of P7’s windtunnel time next year.

Everyone going after horner now! Bloods in the water and the sharks are circling!

I didn't understand the significance of your comment. But that's an excellent point from Shovlin there! It's as good as saying, so much money can give you so many tenths. Everybody has money, but not performance, just like wind tunnel time.

[henry]

Turns out the muddy water contest still rumbles on.

In quoting the overspend as %age of allowed total spend the FIA tends to minimise its impact.

What’s important/relevant is not the absolute overspend but the relative overspend. We need to relate it to the minimum cost of getting a car on the grid at all (think Williams, Haas), or the minimum cost of getting a car near the front of the grid (think Ferrari, Mercedes)*. If we do that the overspend looks larger, and more representative of the difference it might make.

This is classic distraction politics, quote a number or fact that is true, and let the observer fit a context to it. The observer will choose a context dependant on prejudice and/or knowledge (or lack of it). Once some observers have fitted a context you like, amplify it.

*If it costs $140m to put a pair of cars near the front of the grid then the overspend looks more like 10 to 50%. The level depends how you want to view the “notional” tax credit, which may, or may not, materialise.

[101FlyingDutchman]

Turns out the muddy water contest still rumbles on.

In quoting the overspend as %age of allowed total spend the FIA tends to minimise its impact.

What’s important/relevant is not the absolute overspend but the relative overspend. We need to relate it to the minimum cost of getting a car on the grid at all (think Williams, Haas), or the minimum cost of getting a car near the front of the grid (think Ferrari, Mercedes)*. If we do that the overspend looks larger, and more representative of the difference it might make.

This is classic distraction politics, quote a number or fact that is true, and let the observer fit a context to it. The observer will choose a context dependant on prejudice and/or knowledge (or lack of it). Once some observers have fitted a context you like, amplify it.

*If it costs $140m to put a pair of cars near the front of the grid then the overspend looks more like 10 to 50%. The level depends how you want to view the “notional” tax credit, which may, or may not, materialise.

All good points. But it’s like arguing over spilled milk. ABA signed. Penalty given.
Nothing that will get revisited and the circus moves on…. Rightly or wrongly.

Would have liked to have seen a heavier penalty wind tunnel wise or a fine that comes out of budget. Shame.

[hollus]

A few years ago, when Manor, Caterham and HRT were around, IIRC, the cost of fielding 2 cars per race was cited as 60M.
That is simply having engines and parts, a tub that passes safety requirements, freight, personal transport, etc.
With more races we are probably looking at 75M just to be on the grid. Half the cost cap.

[johnny comelately]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/merce ... /10392320/

Shovlin noted that if 10% of windtunnel time were really worth half a second, then “a team at the back of the grid would have a three second advantage to the one at the front, and that isn’t the case.” The team finishing 10th in this year’s championship will get 115% of P7’s windtunnel time next year.

Everyone going after horner now! Bloods in the water and the sharks are circling!

I didn't understand the significance of your comment. But that's an excellent point from Shovlin there! It's as good as saying, so much money can give you so many tenths. Everybody has money, but not performance, just like wind tunnel time.

Williams are getting a poor return on their buck then

[henry]

Turns out the muddy water contest still rumbles on.

In quoting the overspend as %age of allowed total spend the FIA tends to minimise its impact.

What’s important/relevant is not the absolute overspend but the relative overspend. We need to relate it to the minimum cost of getting a car on the grid at all (think Williams, Haas), or the minimum cost of getting a car near the front of the grid (think Ferrari, Mercedes)*. If we do that the overspend looks larger, and more representative of the difference it might make.

This is classic distraction politics, quote a number or fact that is true, and let the observer fit a context to it. The observer will choose a context dependant on prejudice and/or knowledge (or lack of it). Once some observers have fitted a context you like, amplify it.

*If it costs $140m to put a pair of cars near the front of the grid then the overspend looks more like 10 to 50%. The level depends how you want to view the “notional” tax credit, which may, or may not, materialise.

All good points. But it’s like arguing over spilled milk. ABA signed. Penalty given.
Nothing that will get revisited and the circus moves on…. Rightly or wrongly.

Would have liked to have seen a heavier penalty wind tunnel wise or a fine that comes out of budget. Shame.

Sadly you’re right. But people like Horner, aided wittingly or not by the FIA, will continue to use these techniques to make it seem to many that their actions were not a big deal and maybe RB is the victim. Nasty people saying hurtful things about them.

The spilled milk is leaving behind a rather unpleasant odour.

[diffuser]

Turns out the muddy water contest still rumbles on.

In quoting the overspend as %age of allowed total spend the FIA tends to minimise its impact.

What’s important/relevant is not the absolute overspend but the relative overspend. We need to relate it to the minimum cost of getting a car on the grid at all (think Williams, Haas), or the minimum cost of getting a car near the front of the grid (think Ferrari, Mercedes)*. If we do that the overspend looks larger, and more representative of the difference it might make.

This is classic distraction politics, quote a number or fact that is true, and let the observer fit a context to it. The observer will choose a context dependant on prejudice and/or knowledge (or lack of it). Once some observers have fitted a context you like, amplify it.

*If it costs $140m to put a pair of cars near the front of the grid then the overspend looks more like 10 to 50%. The level depends how you want to view the “notional” tax credit, which may, or may not, materialise.

All good points. But it’s like arguing over spilled milk. ABA signed. Penalty given.
Nothing that will get revisited and the circus moves on…. Rightly or wrongly.

Would have liked to have seen a heavier penalty wind tunnel wise or a fine that comes out of budget. Shame.

Sadly you’re right. But people like Horner, aided wittingly or not by the FIA, will continue to use these techniques to make it seem to many that their actions were not a big deal and maybe RB is the victim. Nasty people saying hurtful things about them.

The spilled milk is leaving behind a rather unpleasant odour.

Well said, totally agree.