FIA Thread

[Big Tea]

Just as you can't police Eric Blandin's knowledge of Mercedes going into AMR, you can't police someone who worked in one project, regurgitating his ideas elsewhere for a fraction of the true investment. You may ask them to "cite the true investment" but how realistic do you think this is going to be? If Dan Fallows can show up and regurgitate his ideas at AMR and claim "I just remembered the final product", then why wouldn't someone working on the Project One, the Valkyrie, or the 499P say the same thing?

Seems the FIA doesn't agree with you!

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-n ... /10488184/

TD45, as it is known, has now come into force and makes it clear that, from January 1 this year, any IP passed from a technical division back into an F1 squad must be included in cost cap spending.

The FIA is taking the matter seriously and, as part of a much more detailed analysis of team activities, Autosport has learned that it is being active in checking what non-F1 staff at teams are actually doing.

It is understood that, as part of enhanced monitoring introduced since the first cost cap submissions were made in 2021, a deeper probe has been made to check on non-F1 activities.

This now includes interviewing staff who were declared to be outside the scope of the F1 cost cap, to try to get a better understanding of exactly what projects they were working on.

Furthermore, samples of work completed by such staff are being analysed to ensure that they are totally separate from the F1 team and that no knowledge is being passed across.

You present this as a rebuttal, yet it doesn't relate to the point raised. AR3-GP is talking about quantifying IP/experience held by an employee expressed in €/£/$ because that is what a cost cap deals in, limits defined by discrete numbers. The article can only make vague allusions to "enhanced monitoring" and "taking the matter seriously" (lol). This precedent if it has any teeth will only be used arbitrarily for politics akin to LCA and DEI because it uses objetivesque precisionish sciency language in lieu of maths and logic.

It would need something like a compulsory spell of gardening leave, or 'service' in FIA to be sure of no transfer and I can not see anyone accepting that.

[vorticism]

That would be the sledgehammer approach, sure, and it still wouldn't provide quanta.

[dans79]

You present this as a rebuttal, yet it doesn't relate to the point raised. AR3-GP is talking about quantifying IP/experience held by an employee expressed in €/£/$ because that is what a cost cap deals in, limits defined by discrete numbers.

The rules do not require quantification.
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -04-25.pdf

section 2.1 Each F1 Team must:

(d) faithfully execute its obligations under these Financial Regulations and act at all times
in a spirit of Good Faith and cooperation.

section 8.2 Examples of Procedural Breaches

(e) submitting Reporting Documentation that is inaccurate or misleading (e.g. by
including inaccurate or misleading information or by omitting relevant information);

section 8.3

8.3 In the event the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel determines that an F1 Team has committed a
Procedural Breach, the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel shall impose a Financial Penalty, unless:

(b) the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel determines that a sufficient aggravating factor(s) exist, in
which case it shall impose a Minor Sporting Penalty in addition to the Financial Penalty, or
in lieu of the Financial Penalty.

section 8.14 & 8.15

8.14 In determining the sanctions appropriate for a particular case, the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel
shall take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors

8.15 Examples of aggravating factors include:

(a) any element of bad faith, dishonesty, wilful concealment or fraud;
(b) multiple breaches of these Financial Regulations in the Reporting Period in question;
(c) breaches of these Financial Regulations in respect of a previous Reporting Period;
(d) quantum of breach of the Cost Cap; and
(e) failure to co-operate with the Cost Cap Administration and/or Independent Audit Firm
appointed by the Cost Cap Administration

Intentionally trying to circumvent the cap would be considered bath faith by any logical person.

[vorticism]

The rules do not require quantification.

Sweet. Need to get the FIA running the tax office.

Intentionally trying to circumvent the cap would be considered bath faith by any logical person.

So would burning motor oil during the fight against climate change, or making a 2-axis steering wheel (I mean we all can agree what a steering wheel is and how it should work, can't we fellow good-faith sportsman?)

"I'm LoGiCaL." Again, anyone can appropriate language. The question (second reminder) is HOW would one accurately QUANTIFY the sum fractions of various IP transferred when a new employee is hired?

[dans79]

The question (second reminder) is HOW would one accurately QUANTIFY the sum fractions of various IP transferred when a new employee is hired?

As I said yesterday, the td isn't about new employees, it's about internal moves and transfers.

The fia can do nothing about new external hires as it would be illegal for them to even try to regulate them.

[Just_a_fan]

Lots of obfuscation being attempted here.

No one can do anything about, for example, a Ferrari employee leaving Ferrari and going to Red Bull. That's natural employment dynamics and is generally in balance over time - plenty of people move teams every year so "what goes around, comes around".

What can be monitored and prevented is a team running a non-F1 "stand alone" secondary team to gain information which is then moved from the "stand alone" to the F1 team (either by movement of personnel or just by sending information). If a team wants to do this, they have to account for those people and the resources used in gaining the information. If they don't, they're in breach of the cost cap/resource limits.

They are two entirely different situations and to try to conflate one with the other is simply disingenuous.

[vorticism]

As I said yesterday, the td isn't about new employees, it's about internal moves and transfers.

And this relieves us from the burden of arithmetic?

Tell me, how many more millions of €/£/$ would have made James Allison's W13 concept work well enough to relive 2014 again? 1? 5? 100? 500? 0?

[Big Tea]

Lots of obfuscation being attempted here.

No one can do anything about, for example, a Ferrari employee leaving Ferrari and going to Red Bull. That's natural employment dynamics and is generally in balance over time - plenty of people move teams every year so "what goes around, comes around".

What can be monitored and prevented is a team running a non-F1 "stand alone" secondary team to gain information which is then moved from the "stand alone" to the F1 team (either by movement of personnel or just by sending information). If a team wants to do this, they have to account for those people and the resources used in gaining the information. If they don't, they're in breach of the cost cap/resource limits.

They are two entirely different situations and to try to conflate one with the other is simply disingenuous.

I suppose it is the same as your local workshop where a mechanic is working on several cars a day and charges actual hours, and if a Tec of a particular stripe is required only the time spent on that vehicle is charged to the owner.
At the end of the day or week all the paperwork goes to someone who makes an actual bill.
More elaborate, but if 'time' is being charged and someone has al the paperwork, its traceable.

[Just_a_fan]

Lots of obfuscation being attempted here.

No one can do anything about, for example, a Ferrari employee leaving Ferrari and going to Red Bull. That's natural employment dynamics and is generally in balance over time - plenty of people move teams every year so "what goes around, comes around".

What can be monitored and prevented is a team running a non-F1 "stand alone" secondary team to gain information which is then moved from the "stand alone" to the F1 team (either by movement of personnel or just by sending information). If a team wants to do this, they have to account for those people and the resources used in gaining the information. If they don't, they're in breach of the cost cap/resource limits.

They are two entirely different situations and to try to conflate one with the other is simply disingenuous.

I suppose it is the same as your local workshop where a mechanic is working on several cars a day and charges actual hours, and if a Tec of a particular stripe is required only the time spent on that vehicle is charged to the owner.
At the end of the day or week all the paperwork goes to someone who makes an actual bill.
More elaborate, but if 'time' is being charged and someone has al the paperwork, its traceable.

Exactly. The big word there is "if". If someone keeps a record and if someone charges it appropriately. Easy to hide stuff - the US Government/Military has done it for decades with their "black projects".

[Big Tea]

Lots of obfuscation being attempted here.

No one can do anything about, for example, a Ferrari employee leaving Ferrari and going to Red Bull. That's natural employment dynamics and is generally in balance over time - plenty of people move teams every year so "what goes around, comes around".

What can be monitored and prevented is a team running a non-F1 "stand alone" secondary team to gain information which is then moved from the "stand alone" to the F1 team (either by movement of personnel or just by sending information). If a team wants to do this, they have to account for those people and the resources used in gaining the information. If they don't, they're in breach of the cost cap/resource limits.

They are two entirely different situations and to try to conflate one with the other is simply disingenuous.

I suppose it is the same as your local workshop where a mechanic is working on several cars a day and charges actual hours, and if a Tec of a particular stripe is required only the time spent on that vehicle is charged to the owner.
At the end of the day or week all the paperwork goes to someone who makes an actual bill.
More elaborate, but if 'time' is being charged and someone has al the paperwork, its traceable.

Exactly. The big word there is "if". If someone keeps a record and if someone charges it appropriately. Easy to hide stuff - the US Government/Military has done it for decades with their "black projects".

But that sort of thing is not on the books at all. If the auditor knows how many people are employed and how many hours are worked it can be found. If hours are deliberately not being booked then that is a real no-no and most places not have to have everyone booked in and out for fire regs so it is probably too much of a risk for them once it has been highlighted as a 'watched area'.
People like Newey are not charged at all, so will not fall under this. Use of other facilities by him will if it falls under the cap, and other people work there so till be on the books and will not correspond to running with no one there.


Edit, there are ways around everything, but then it is black or white cheating or not

[Just_a_fan]

I suppose it is the same as your local workshop where a mechanic is working on several cars a day and charges actual hours, and if a Tec of a particular stripe is required only the time spent on that vehicle is charged to the owner.
At the end of the day or week all the paperwork goes to someone who makes an actual bill.
More elaborate, but if 'time' is being charged and someone has al the paperwork, its traceable.

Exactly. The big word there is "if". If someone keeps a record and if someone charges it appropriately. Easy to hide stuff - the US Government/Military has done it for decades with their "black projects".

But that sort of thing is not on the books at all. If the auditor knows how many people are employed and how many hours are worked it can be found. If hours are deliberately not being booked then that is a real no-no and most places not have to have everyone booked in and out for fire regs so it is probably too much of a risk for them once it has been highlighted as a 'watched area'.
People like Newey are not charged at all, so will not fall under this. Use of other facilities by him will if it falls under the cap, and other people work there so till be on the books and will not correspond to running with no one there.


Edit, there are ways around everything, but then it is black or white cheating or not

If someone wants to circumvent the cost cap by the use of off-book working (using information from a non-F1 company), then they are, by definition, not recording that stuff anywhere where an auditor can find it. Sure, it will be recorded so that the accounts balance but it won't be down as "J. Bloggs, CFD work on F1 wing".

People aren't booked in for fire regs (well, not in the UK), they're booked in so management know they're at work and not skiving off i.e. to show that they were present during their contacted hours.

Newey charges as a consultant, in effect. But that work definitely falls under the cost cap - he's the teams TD, after all. Anyway, the teams are allowed to ignore, for cost cap purposes, a small number (3?) of their top salaries and Newey will no doubt fit in that if required.

[Big Tea]

Exactly. The big word there is "if". If someone keeps a record and if someone charges it appropriately. Easy to hide stuff - the US Government/Military has done it for decades with their "black projects".

But that sort of thing is not on the books at all. If the auditor knows how many people are employed and how many hours are worked it can be found. If hours are deliberately not being booked then that is a real no-no and most places not have to have everyone booked in and out for fire regs so it is probably too much of a risk for them once it has been highlighted as a 'watched area'.
People like Newey are not charged at all, so will not fall under this. Use of other facilities by him will if it falls under the cap, and other people work there so till be on the books and will not correspond to running with no one there.


Edit, there are ways around everything, but then it is black or white cheating or not

If someone wants to circumvent the cost cap by the use of off-book working (using information from a non-F1 company), then they are, by definition, not recording that stuff anywhere where an auditor can find it. Sure, it will be recorded so that the accounts balance but it won't be down as "J. Bloggs, CFD work on F1 wing".

People aren't booked in for fire regs (well, not in the UK), they're booked in so management know they're at work and not skiving off i.e. to show that they were present during their contacted hours.

Newey charges as a consultant, in effect. But that work definitely falls under the cost cap - he's the teams TD, after all. Anyway, the teams are allowed to ignore, for cost cap purposes, a small number (3?) of their top salaries and Newey will no doubt fit in that if required.

In UK anyone in a 'factory' has to be on the evacuation list, even visitors. It is not (supposed to be) allowed to have someone on the premises who can not be accounted for at a fire assembly point at any time.

As you say, maybe beyond a less skilled scrutiny, but are they? F1 usually get the top ( OK, make that most expensive) people. It would not then be a matter of neglected reports but actual wrong doing and I would not think anyone would risk much of that.


There are ways around any rule if the prize is great enough or the risk low enough, but I think that for the present time this is one they will adhere to as it is not worth the risk.

[Just_a_fan]

There are ways around any rule if the prize is great enough or the risk low enough, but I think that for the present time this is one they will adhere to as it is not worth the risk.

The very fact that the FIA has issued a TD indicates that someone is suspected of doing it. Or at least has a structure in place that allows it to be done relatively easily.

[Big Tea]

There are ways around any rule if the prize is great enough or the risk low enough, but I think that for the present time this is one they will adhere to as it is not worth the risk.

The very fact that the FIA has issued a TD indicates that someone is suspected of doing it. Or at least has a structure in place that allows it to be done relatively easily.

I agree

[ispano6]

There are ways around any rule if the prize is great enough or the risk low enough, but I think that for the present time this is one they will adhere to as it is not worth the risk.

The very fact that the FIA has issued a TD indicates that someone is suspected of doing it. Or at least has a structure in place that allows it to be done relatively easily.

I agree

Yup, the ones that got away with it.