2023 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[ValeVida46]

That why they need 50 bean counters?

Because if you don't, you risk breaking the budget cap. Ok if you're target audience is addicted to caffeinated sugar drinks, less so for $40k plus cars.
So why risk negative press? Mitigate risk it with a solid fiscal department. Each team has a choice, and it's up to them.

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.

If you can spend 1 million outside the budget cap to save 1 million inside the budget cap, by legitimate means of streamlining finances, haggling suppliers and creating supplier competition, then that is well within the rules. Companies do this week in week out when set annual budgets. I mean if an F1 team isn't chasing this avenue, it's almost dereliction of duty.
It is a battleground of value, which is what it was always going to be.
So we have a situation where Mercedes have done something legitimately and within the rules, but you want the FIA to have a closer look and police because of potential wrongdoing. Ok to have this opinion, I still haven't seen a plausible explanation how fiscal staff would add anything.
Yet I notice you are ok with actual wrongdoing from "catering departments" shooting overbudget. I checked your replies...
That's quite a large discrepancy.

[AR3-GP]

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.

Did you know it's quite common for people with engineering degrees to end up in accounting? or even Patent law? It's quite beneficial to an F1 team and all teams probably have some finance people with engineering backgrounds.

look at this job posting at Williams: https://www.google.com/search?q=f1+fina ... AAAA%3D%3D

the point of these people is not to design the F1 car directly. These people are not engineers who were transferred to accounting positions. They can be people with engineering backgrounds that are able to digest technical regulations and provide guidance on areas which are predicted to be cost intensive.

[Cs98]

That why they need 50 bean counters?

Because if you don't, you risk breaking the budget cap. Ok if you're target audience is addicted to caffeinated sugar drinks, less so for $40k plus cars.
So why risk negative press? Mitigate risk it with a solid fiscal department. Each team has a choice, and it's up to them.

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.

If you can spend 1 million outside the budget cap to save 1 million inside the budget cap, by legitimate means of streamlining finances, haggling suppliers and creating supplier competition, then that is well within the rules. Companies do this week in week out when set annual budgets. I mean if an F1 team isn't chasing this avenue, it's almost dereliction of duty.
It is a battleground of value, which is what it was always going to be.
So we have a situation where Mercedes have done something legitimately and within the rules, but you want the FIA to have a closer look and police because of potential wrongdoing. Ok to have this opinion, I still haven't seen a plausible explanation how fiscal staff would add anything.
Yet I notice you are ok with actual wrongdoing from "catering departments" shooting overbudget. I checked your replies...
That's quite a large discrepancy.

Why would you risk breaking the cap? You just said in your previous comment they know precisely what things cost before even starting development. So where's this risk coming from that 50 bean counters will solve all of a sudden?

Yes, I want the FIA to have a closer look at cost cap exempt areas. They are ripe for abuse and F1 teams are not exactly known for following "the spirit of the regulations". They'll use any grey area, any loophole. External projects was an obvious one, I think financial departments need to be looked at too.

Yet I notice you are ok with actual wrongdoing from "catering departments" shooting overbudget. I checked your replies...
That's quite a large discrepancy.
You're free to link where I've said that.

And isn't it quite obvious Merc aren't the only team with a ballooning financial department. It's not a Merc issue, it's a big vs small team issue.

[Just_a_fan]

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

It's classic dead cat tactics. And to be expected.

[Puffpirat]

Why would you risk breaking the cap? You just said in your previous comment they know precisely what things cost before even starting development. So where's this risk coming from that 50 bean counters will solve all of a sudden?

Not sure you understand how big corporations work. Yes at the beginning of a project you make estimations for development efforts, resources, costs, etc. but these need to be tracked and compared to actuals. That's the job of controlling. An important, but time consuming and not technically helpful task that you want outsourced of your tech department, hence outside the budget cap.

Plus the development of the car itself is only a fraction of the total budget. All other aspects of the endeavor need to be supervised financially too.

[ValeVida46]

Why would you risk breaking the cap? You just said in your previous comment they know precisely what things cost before even starting development. So where's this risk coming from that 50 bean counters will solve all of a sudden?

Precisely?
Nope. I did not write that word. It's nuance rhetoric like this that can be misleading. I said they would know very well.
And they would know very well, because they're now accustomed to working under budgetary confines for the last 2 and a half seasons. Of course, there is the outside chance that you know better than Pat Fry who very well knows what the costs would entail for certain items.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/alpin ... /10307932/

The purpose of a financial department is not solely to count beans. Or, to tell the tech team how many beans can be spent where. Procurement is a fiscal duty, and one that is the most time consuming of all for industry.
Yet here we are debating that Mercedes may have hired 50 beancounters to covertly operate as engineers when nobody is looking. You still haven't explained how they would do this.
The FIA have mainframe access to each teams datacentre, with as far as I'm aware, the ability to check who's on site, whos logged in etc. This runs along side the spot checks too.

Are they writing things on paper and passing them on to the tech team?

You're free to link where I've said that.

And isn't it quite obvious Merc aren't the only team with a ballooning financial department. It's not a Merc issue, it's a big vs small team issue.

That's the thing, you have said zero on actual rule breaking. Why would a superfluous conspiracy based on unfounded assertions be more postworthy than actual cheating? I checked and found you had no view on it. Which is interesting when viewed in the context of having issue with Mercs finance team operating well within the rules.
So perhaps I jumped the gun in trying to reconcile those points, perhaps you could clarify.

[Cs98]

Why would you risk breaking the cap? You just said in your previous comment they know precisely what things cost before even starting development. So where's this risk coming from that 50 bean counters will solve all of a sudden?

Not sure you understand how big corporations work. Yes at the beginning of a project you make estimations for development efforts, resources, costs, etc. but these need to be tracked and compared to actuals. That's the job of controlling. An important, but time consuming and not technically helpful task that you want outsourced of your tech department, hence outside the budget cap.

Plus the development of the car itself is only a fraction of the total budget. All other aspects of the endeavor need to be supervised financially too.

Yes at the beginning of a project you make estimations for development efforts, resources, costs, etc. but these need to be tracked and compared to actuals.
I agree.

Plus the development of the car itself is only a fraction of the total budget. All other aspects of the endeavor need to be supervised financially too.
True, but it was only after the institution of the BC (which is targeted towards car development budget) that financial departments got this big.

[Cs98]

Why would you risk breaking the cap? You just said in your previous comment they know precisely what things cost before even starting development. So where's this risk coming from that 50 bean counters will solve all of a sudden?

Precisely?
Nope. I did not write that word. It's nuance rhetoric like this that can be misleading. I said they would know very well.
And they would know very well, because they're now accustomed to working under budgetary confines for the last 2 and a half seasons. Of course, there is the outside chance that you know better than Pat Fry who very well knows what the costs would entail for certain items.
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/alpin ... /10307932/

The purpose of a financial department is not solely to count beans. Or, to tell the tech team how many beans can be spent where. Procurement is a fiscal duty, and one that is the most time consuming of all for industry.
Yet here we are debating that Mercedes may have hired 50 beancounters to covertly operate as engineers when nobody is looking. You still haven't explained how they would do this.
The FIA have mainframe access to each teams datacentre, with as far as I'm aware, the ability to check who's on site, whos logged in etc. This runs along side the spot checks too.

Are they writing things on paper and passing them on to the tech team?

You're free to link where I've said that.

And isn't it quite obvious Merc aren't the only team with a ballooning financial department. It's not a Merc issue, it's a big vs small team issue.

That's the thing, you have said zero on actual rule breaking. Why would a superfluous conspiracy based on unfounded assertions be more postworthy than actual cheating? I checked and found you had no view on it. Which is interesting when viewed in the context of having issue with Mercs finance team operating well within the rules.
So perhaps I jumped the gun in trying to reconcile those points, perhaps you could clarify.

So you found no view on it, and then took the liberty of writing that I'm ok with it, which would be a view. Fascinating. I think you'll find I didn't post anything from about end of september-december of last year. But maybe I should have taken the time out of my busy schedule to make my views known on F1T, just in case someone decided to creepily go through my post history looking for cost cap dirt. But if you must know I fully agree with the penalty.

Why would a superfluous conspiracy based on unfounded assertions be more postworthy than actual cheating?
Would you have said boat divisions and such were a superfluous conspiracy before the TD came out last week too?

[ValeVida46]

So you found no view on it, and then took the liberty of writing that I'm ok with it, which would be a view. Fascinating. I think you'll find I didn't post anything from about end of september-december of last year. But maybe I should have taken the time out of my busy schedule to make my views known on F1T, just in case someone decided to creepily go through my post history looking for cost cap dirt. But if you must know I fully agree with the penalty.

Why would a superfluous conspiracy based on unfounded assertions be more postworthy than actual cheating?
Would you have said boat divisions and such were a superfluous conspiracy before the TD came out last week too?

It's public forum, and a facility available to all members, which I checked to see if you have expressed any misgivings regarding the biggest and most controversial story of 2022.
That's not creepy, it's due diligence. Just a bit of respect please, as I have been toward you.

Unfortunately you did not express any misgivings regarding the biggest and most controversial story of 2022.
So when making insinuations of wrongdoing because a team wants to scrutinize it's costings to a nut and bolt level, I check to see if you're consistent in making these allegations fairly.
Red Bull were rumoured to have broken the budget cap well before September, and 1 full month before your hiatus, as these very threads indicate as well as stories from August 2022.
https://the-race.com/formula-1/ferraris ... ll-rumour/

So there is a discrepancy in how you view rumours, depending on teams. And I am glad you support actionable sanction against cheating, just concerned that there may be a heavy bias in your suggestions of unsubstantiated wrongdoing.

[mendis]

And I am glad you support actionable sanction against cheating, just concerned that there may be a heavy bias in your suggestions of unsubstantiated wrongdoing.

Did FIA term 'cost cap breach' as 'cheating'? Opinion and facts should be differentiated.

[denyall]

And I am glad you support actionable sanction against cheating, just concerned that there may be a heavy bias in your suggestions of unsubstantiated wrongdoing.

Did FIA term 'cost cap breach' as 'cheating'? Opinion and facts should be differentiated.

The cost cap is a rule, violation of rules in sport is cheating. Whatever political spin RB or the FIA put on things to keep the big $$ happy is irrelevant.

[214270]

Speaking of ProjectOne.

[ValeVida46]

And I am glad you support actionable sanction against cheating, just concerned that there may be a heavy bias in your suggestions of unsubstantiated wrongdoing.

Did FIA term 'cost cap breach' as 'cheating'? Opinion and facts should be differentiated.

The cost cap is a rule, violation of rules in sport is cheating. Whatever political spin RB or the FIA put on things to keep the big $$ happy is irrelevant.

Correct, especially as there was a sporting (cuts to CFD and wind tunnel time) and financial sanction (7 million dollar fine). Really not sure why this is being contested as an opinion when it's clearly a fact they broke the rules(cheating) and got sanctioned.

I wonder if the implications of those actions are why this thread suffers with weird conspiratorial theories and dubious intimations of wrongdoing.
Like if Mercedes turn up with an upgrade, suddenly a clutch of posts regarding how they manage this miraculous change within the budget cap and surely that should be it for their upgrades this season.
Of course setting up the foundations for any further upgrade to be met with allegations of a potential breach of the budget cap. Meanwhile other directly comparable teams are turning up with new floors and pods.

Or 50 financial staff on a mass savings and efficient procurement initiative (every nut and bolt as Wolff said).
Suddenly this must be a nefarious act of gamesmanship.
If there is a theory regarding wrongdoing here, it is constructive to show which rule it contravenes, and how the benefit is gained.
Instead it's a clunky hint that maybe Mercedes are throwing 50 engineers into finance to get an advantage.
All F1 teams finance departments have engineer savvy staff. It's a prerequisite to know the names, uses and costs of tooling, equipment and materials. The alternative does not bear thinking about. But if you could, you'd see staff being gamed by suppliers, paying over the odds for what's needed and worse, paying for items they don't need at all.
So by deductive means the issue must be the numbers(50) or that Mercedes are utilising these tech staff to bypass the FIA mandated safeguards on system log-ins, CCTV and spot checks.

For the numbers, it's all within the rules.

For Mercedes actively gaming the system and cheating...how are they beating the FIA system? Unless to validate the view is that the FIA are in on this nefarious plot. At which point I believe Occam's razor should be invoked.

[AR3-GP]

Speaking of ProjectOne.

Good timing

I have wondered why it's painted in Petronas colors...

[vorticism]

In an alternate timeline F1 wasn't gaslit into oil-petrol hybrids and the AMG One ended up with a NA ≥10 cylinder engine while weighing a few hundred kilos less.