2023 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[Joel709]

That doesn’t mean to say that the information taken from that project still can’t be passed on. In my opinion it’s a rule that’s near impossible to fully implement, Newey undoubtably would have figured out some information from his days working on the Valkyrie but how does one prove that? If you remember certain things or have them jotted down in a note pad then it’s going to be very hard to implement, I’d be very shocked if any team left a digital paper trail of these sort of transfers and mostly I don’t think it would be useful, the RB17 is being built without any restrictions, the majority of that car would be highly illegal within F1 due to the technical regulations. It’s a really hard rule to implement.

[ispano6]

Surely those huge 46 ppl keeping track are included in the cost cap. Surely they need to be fed? Seems news of FIA clampdown comes after Toto's comments.

Maybe familiarise yourself with the rules first eh?

Section 3.1(i) All costs Directly Attributable to Human Resources Activities, Finance Activities or
Legal Activities are under special exemption.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -02-18.pdf

Uh, my point is that you could set up a financial arm made up of 20-30 F1 personnel and handful of bean counters and call that a huge organization outside of the cost cap. Those bean counters aren't going to know a lick about how much a part is worth in money or performance, and then you have the potential manipulation of what costs go toward the cap based on what your finance arm says how much a part cost or whether it was actually used or even benefitial.

This cost was simply moved out of the F1 "operation" but other smaller teams probably can't afford such a huge organization or are able to do with a much smaller headcount. Which just makes Toto's comments about q "huge" organization seem suss.

[ispano6]

Surely those huge 46 ppl keeping track are included in the cost cap. Surely they need to be fed? Seems news of FIA clampdown comes after Toto's comments.

Maybe familiarise yourself with the rules first eh?

Section 3.1(i) All costs Directly Attributable to Human Resources Activities, Finance Activities or
Legal Activities are under special exemption.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -02-18.pdf

Yes, and simulations don't always mean CFD.

Right, so all that performance and development will come from Mick on the simulator as I had already mentioned. What other simulations can Toto run that don't cost money???? hrmmmmm

[dans79]

Right, so all that performance and development will come from Mick on the simulator as I had already mentioned.

No, that's not what i said or implied!

What other simulations can Toto run that don't cost money????

everything costs money, because no one is getting free power to run the servers or pc.

educated guess is that when he refers to money, he is talking about making actual parts and running them on track, as those automatically count against the cap.


with regards to simulations thats don't count against the cap, you have FEAs that play a big part in determining how thin, rigid, and light you can make components.

Another big one is empirical simulations. This is where you take real world data and cfd level data and develop simpler mathematical models (simple being a relative term). Then as long as you stay within bounds of the mathematical models, you can run quick simulations on personal pc grade hardware.

an analogous example is the delft systematic yacht hull series for sailing boats. CFD and tow tank data was combined to generate models to approximate various properties.
https://www.boatdesign.net/attachments/ ... pdf.35348/

This allows a designer to rapidly iterate through many design concepts. They then run the more promising designs through a full on CFD simulation or tow tank.

Much the same thing can be done with aspects of a formula 1 car.

[AR3-GP]

Th flow of IP and resource on Project One is (or rather was) F1 to HPPs Advanced Technology Group which is independent of the F1 programme andis nothing to do with Brackley. In any case this Power unit is a detuned 2016 one - so completely irrelevant to the 2025/6 programme never mind usage strategies NVH etc which are completely different in a series road car world

One could have interns learning to use Dynos, combustion chamber CFD, and any number of things associated with V6 architecture, while developing the project one PU. Those people would then be able to be transferred to the 2026 power unit group with a much-reduced cost associated with training them.

Considering that the 2026 PU has a budget cap, this would be a loophole.

[dans79]

One could have interns learning to use Dynos, combustion chamber CFD, and any number of things associated with V6 architecture, while developing the project one PU. Those people would then be able to be transferred to the 2026 power unit group with a much-reduced cost associated with training them.

Considering that the 2026 PU has a budget cap, this would be a loophole.

The issue with that line of thought is as follows.

the ONE PU development was done prior to June 1st of last year when the production model was announced (went into production in August).

The TD is only backdated to the beginning of this year, and the 2026 power unit financial regulations didn't take effect till January 1st of this year.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... ssue_2.pdf

These Power Unit Financial Regulations come into force on 1 January 2023. They form part of
the terms and conditions for the homologation of Power Units to be supplied to F1 Teams for
participation in the Championship from 2026 onwards. Each Power Unit Manufacturer
intending to homologate Power Units for supply to an F1 Team(s) for participation in the
Championship from 2026 onwards agrees to be bound by, and undertakes to comply with,
these Power Unit Financial Regulations from the start of its N-3 Full Year Reporting Period.

In other words, if it was Merc doing something naughty and the FIA was looking to catch them, they failed miserably.

[pursue_one's]

James Allison: “I don't even think about this [recent] upgrade package anymore, but about the next one. We were pretty sure that with this package we will be one to two tenths closer to the top, but we still need a few more upgrades until we are really competitive. The state of development in which the car is now is already history for us. It is the foundation for the next steps.”

James Allison on the risks of anti-dive geometry : “The danger is that too much anti-dive makes the suspension a bit rigid because it takes away the damper travel. If you find the right measure, then it is net a profit, because the aerodynamic platform can be better controlled. This brings you more advantages than more freedom with dampers and springs.”

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... rade-2023/

[ValeVida46]

Uh, my point is that you could set up a financial arm made up of 20-30 F1 personnel and handful of bean counters and call that a huge organization outside of the cost cap. Those bean counters aren't going to know a lick about how much a part is worth in money or performance, and then you have the potential manipulation of what costs go toward the cap based on what your finance arm says how much a part cost or whether it was actually used or even benefitial.

This cost was simply moved out of the F1 "operation" but other smaller teams probably can't afford such a huge organization or are able to do with a much smaller headcount. Which just makes Toto's comments about q "huge" organization seem suss.

Unless I misread, your initial post was alluding to the size of their finance team and how it corroborates with the budget cap specifically the - "they need to be fed" comment. They're outside the ruling for budget caps, so they're being "fed" legitimately.

Secondly, and to do with the reply, the bean counters aren't the arbiters of what goes on a car depending on performance. They are the arbiters of cost control. The role of leads in the tech department will be to work towards what is available, liaising daily/weekly/monthly with finance. It's really not rocket science.

Thirdly, acts of manipulation are redundant when what you say it costs must marry up with the financial statements annually. Which is how Red Bull got caught.
Of course suppliers too will be at huge risk from HMRC(UK)if they are receiving larger sums from teams that are not tallying up with the teams reported payments, as this not only contravenes the budget cap, but also risks criminal sanction(even prison time) for tax evasion.

[Cs98]

Surely those huge 46 ppl keeping track are included in the cost cap. Surely they need to be fed? Seems news of FIA clampdown comes after Toto's comments.

Maybe familiarise yourself with the rules first eh?

Section 3.1(i) All costs Directly Attributable to Human Resources Activities, Finance Activities or
Legal Activities are under special exemption.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -02-18.pdf

Uh, my point is that you could set up a financial arm made up of 20-30 F1 personnel and handful of bean counters and call that a huge organization outside of the cost cap. Those bean counters aren't going to know a lick about how much a part is worth in money or performance, and then you have the potential manipulation of what costs go toward the cap based on what your finance arm says how much a part cost or whether it was actually used or even benefitial.

This cost was simply moved out of the F1 "operation" but other smaller teams probably can't afford such a huge organization or are able to do with a much smaller headcount. Which just makes Toto's comments about q "huge" organization seem suss.

I imagine you could easily place senior engineers in the financial arm of the team. Just say that their job is to greenlight projects based on cost, when what they are really doing is the same as before. That is, determine which projects (parts) are worth pursuing based on performance, car concept and cost. Let them do the same exact job under the guise of being a financial comptroller.

[Cs98]

Secondly, and to do with the reply, the bean counters aren't the arbiters of what goes on a car depending on performance. They are the arbiters of cost control. The role of leads in the tech department will be to work towards what is available, liaising daily/weekly/monthly with finance. It's really not rocket science.

So you're telling me you can't place an engineer in the financial department and then use that person to greenlight projects based on "cost control". From the outside it's impossible to tell the difference between, "this project is too expensive" and "this project won't yield enough performance".

I imagine it would be extremely easy to set up a system whereby any early project idea must go through the financial department first for a "cost review". Now if that "cost review" is simply what it says, or also a "performance review" is quite hard to discern from the outside.

[Just_a_fan]

Secondly, and to do with the reply, the bean counters aren't the arbiters of what goes on a car depending on performance. They are the arbiters of cost control. The role of leads in the tech department will be to work towards what is available, liaising daily/weekly/monthly with finance. It's really not rocket science.

So you're telling me you can't place an engineer in the financial department and then use that person to greenlight projects based on "cost control". From the outside it's impossible to tell the difference between, "this project is too expensive" and "this project won't yield enough performance".

I imagine it would be extremely easy to set up a system whereby any early project idea must go through the financial department first for a "cost review". Now if that "cost review" is simply what it says, or also a "performance review" is quite hard to discern from the outside.

Unless the "cost engineers" are running CFD and using WT time, they will be no better placed to assess a design than the team that designed it. And if the "cost engineers" are using CFD and WT time to check on things, then they obviously aren't assessing costs at all.

Nice straw man, however.

[ValeVida46]

Secondly, and to do with the reply, the bean counters aren't the arbiters of what goes on a car depending on performance. They are the arbiters of cost control. The role of leads in the tech department will be to work towards what is available, liaising daily/weekly/monthly with finance. It's really not rocket science.

So you're telling me you can't place an engineer in the financial department and then use that person to greenlight projects based on "cost control". From the outside it's impossible to tell the difference between, "this project is too expensive" and "this project won't yield enough performance".

I imagine it would be extremely easy to set up a system whereby any early project idea must go through the financial department first for a "cost review". Now if that "cost review" is simply what it says, or also a "performance review" is quite hard to discern from the outside.

I imagine you view the cost of any upgrade as a random unknown. It isn't. Teams will know very well how much an upgrade costs before it even gets to CFD phase. Techs will also know through experience of the system how much upgrades will be to a fairly accurate degree. Why have an upside down system when you have known and quantifiable areas for budget requirements?
There are 1. time costs(labour), 2.resource restrictions(CFD, Windtunnel, Computational etc) and 3.material costs(production).

There will be some variation for all three in (1.) Cases of overtime (2.) Teams freeing up or losing more CFD windtunnel time based on where they are in the table (3.) costs of materials/inflation etc

So when dealing with these technicalities it stands to reason you're going to have someone in these positions who have at least some technical knowledge. That much is obvious, as is the liaising part.

Can you imagine the scenario otherwise?
Engineer: We need a new front wing turning vane that incorporates a new upper cascade that flows into the endplate that requires 5 hours CFD and about 6 hours baking time in the autoclave.
Do you want a clueless beancounter on the other end of that conversation?

No I don't suspect you do.

What I think you are suggesting though, is that they might have put a tech lead into finance to dictate expenditure to the design and management teams. I'm sorry that's just totally implausible and a total recipe for disaster and civil war.
"Sorry James, the new sidepods were cancelled because it wont bring the change we think you're looking for"


Unless you are suggesting Mercedes are cheating hiring 50 tech staff who are moonlighting as finance employees?

[Cs98]

Teams will know very well how much an upgrade costs before it even gets to CFD phase. Techs will also know through experience of the system how much upgrades will be to a fairly accurate degree. Why have an upside down system when you have known and quantifiable areas for budget requirements?

That why they need 50 bean counters?

What I think you are suggesting though, is that they might have put a tech lead into finance to dictate expenditure to the design and management teams.
Put the guy who used to greenlight projects for a certain department (where cost would have been one deciding factor) into the "financial arm" of the team.

Unless you are suggesting Mercedes are cheating hiring 50 tech staff who are moonlighting as finance employees?
With the recent FIA developments concerning "external projects" it's silly to suggest teams wouldn't be looking to take advantage of cost cap exempt areas of the company. And when the financial arm of a team goes from below 10 people to close to 50, it would be wise to take notice.

This is of course not evidence if wrongdoing, but I think the FIA should keep a closer eye on financial departments same way they do on external projects now.

[Tiny73]

It sounds more like Mercedes don’t want the stigma of cheating associated with their F1 team (other teams mileage may vary) and are ensuring they’re 100% above board on the cost cap (again, other teams mileage may vary).

Suggesting they’re hiding aerodynamic experts under the guise of accountants is a stretch at best.

[Puffpirat]

The logic behind these allegations is baffling. Guys really think Toto would come out and say, look we increased our department to 46 people when they would secretly try to hide tech staff behind financial positions… mindblowing

Mercedes starts to catch up and this stuff starts, disappointing but not surprising really