2022 budget cap violations

[AR3-GP]

Is on topic at all possible?

You know us well

In any case, I'll have to be the bearer of potentially bad news:

TD45 isn't even applicable to 2022 IIRC. Wasn't that the one introduced just a few months ago?

So strictly speaking not on topic, AGAIN

True, the twitter account may have mistaken some 2023 comments for 2022

[peewon]

A test that had previously got authorisation from both the tyre manufacturer and FIA.

It was approved with the condition that the opportunity was extended to other teams as well if it was to be done with current cars. This was not done. Coincidently, Pirelli has now twice in 3 years introduced tyres mid season after which Mercedes tyre performance has gotten way better.

Ooh, conspiracy!

Twice the FIA has implemented changes which helped Red Bull - engine modes and floor edge changes. Ooh, conspiracy!

Floor edge changes were not mid season. They were pre-agreed to by all the teams.

[kptaylor]

Has anyone seen/heard any updates on this topic? Haven't seen much mention of it since the initial news broke.

[AR3-GP]

Has anyone seen/heard any updates on this topic? Haven't seen much mention of it since the initial news broke.

The wrong teams are under suspicioun

[Stu]

The news is that there is no news, so people are making stuff up to get traffic on their channels.

Helmet Marko’s comment about having some budget in reserve will be related to 2023 budget (as the TD was back-dated to January 1st).

[denyall]

https://racingnews365.com/red-bull-pena ... f1-ferrari

Saw this about 2021 and thought was interesting and relevant to the 2022 discussion, specifically the following:

"If you have a budget of $135 million, $80 million of that already goes to personnel, another $20 million to race costs, materials, brakes and so on.

"Making four chassis at the beginning of the season also costs about $20 million. Then you already arrive at about $120-125 million. This is about the same for everyone.

"That leaves about $10 million to develop.

"If you go a few million over your budget, then you should not look at the total $135 million, as has been said. We should collectively not shove this under the rug, because then you risk it being discussed at the table.

If every team's fixed costs are similar as he says, and the development budget is around $10 million, an overspend of anything in the millions is much more significant of an advantage than when compared to the overall budget. Obviously there will be differences in efficiency/effectiveness team to team but it is an interesting point IMO that the "major breach" threshold being based on the overall cap is probably not the best metric. Especially considering every dollar saved in fixed costs can go directly to development and we see teams try and place their fixed costs into non-cap buckets because doing so gives them more development budget.

This then leads to the situation where a tax credit and catering accounted as non-cap when they should have been in-cap result in overspend, and the dollar value to development is obfuscated by the internal accounting, and the percentage benefit of that spend is compared against the total budget rather than as a 10-70% overspend in the hypothetical $10 million development budget.

Overspend penalties should at least be partially based on a teams internal development budget.

Not trying to go rounds on 2021...

[AR3-GP]

https://racingnews365.com/red-bull-pena ... f1-ferrari

Saw this about 2021 and thought was interesting and relevant to the 2022 discussion, specifically the following:

"If you have a budget of $135 million, $80 million of that already goes to personnel, another $20 million to race costs, materials, brakes and so on.

"Making four chassis at the beginning of the season also costs about $20 million. Then you already arrive at about $120-125 million. This is about the same for everyone.

"That leaves about $10 million to develop.

"If you go a few million over your budget, then you should not look at the total $135 million, as has been said. We should collectively not shove this under the rug, because then you risk it being discussed at the table.

If every team's fixed costs are similar as he says, and the development budget is around $10 million, an overspend of anything in the millions is much more significant of an advantage than when compared to the overall budget. Obviously there will be differences in efficiency/effectiveness team to team but it is an interesting point IMO that the "major breach" threshold being based on the overall cap is probably not the best metric. Especially considering every dollar saved in fixed costs can go directly to development and we see teams try and place their fixed costs into non-cap buckets because doing so gives them more development budget.

This then leads to the situation where a tax credit and catering accounted as non-cap when they should have been in-cap result in overspend, and the dollar value to development is obfuscated by the internal accounting, and the percentage benefit of that spend is compared against the total budget rather than as a 10-70% overspend in the hypothetical $10 million development budget.

Overspend penalties should at least be partially based on a teams internal development budget.

Not trying to go rounds on 2021...

The problem in this thinking is assuming that fixed cost between the teams was the same and that's just nonsense. Team's have different levels of staffing and suffer from different amounts of crash damage each year.

Even if you have excess cost in one area relative to another team, you still have to fit under the windtunnel and CFD restrictions. There is no 1:1 benefit.

Without knowing the individual finances of each team, you can't determine who spent more than who where. Who is to say a team doesn't have superflous activity that they could have simply cut back on. Or who is to say a direct rival is not directly responsible for 1-2 million in crash damage according to the stewards. Why assume that any overspend, correlates dollar per dollar to some amount above the development budget of another team? Of course that's the "evil Team X" perception, to assume the worst case scenario where we assume that any excess of the cap directly correllates to an excess of car development and therefore a punishment of car development is required by way of windtunnels, ballast, points, or otherwise.

Reality doesn't work like that. Only running imaginations do.

We can speak conceptually about this idea without discussing 2021. It will be relevant for '22.

What the FIA should be doing currently is defining a development budget cap. As Vasseur pointed out, there are many superfluous fixed cost associated with travel, and operations, crashing, which are included in the cap which only serve to introduce ambiguity if and when a team breaches the budget cap. If you were to implement a cap for development cost, then you could directly understand how a team benefits from breaching that area of the cap. As it were, we have no idea who spent more than who on development. There's only a more ambiguous overall cap.

[denyall]

The problem in this thinking is assuming that fixed cost between the teams was the same even though there is great variation in staffing. To think this way would cause you to assume every dollar over for a team who has breached the cap, went towards car development. it doesn't make sense to think this way except only to paint the biggest villain narrative possible.

What many fail to remember is that even if you exceed the budget cap (and no one should....), you still have to fit under the windtunnel and CFD restrictions which just makes the benefit even more ambiguous.

Without knowing the individual finances of each team, you can't actually determine "where" the overspend of X relative to another team, meant they spent X more on car development. Who is to say a team doesn't have some sort of superflous activity that they could have simply cut back on. Why assume that any overspend, correlates dollar per dollar to some amount above the development budget of another team? Of course that's the "evil Team X" perception, to assume the worst case scenario where team X must have spent precisely the amount of the breach on development only, and that the development budget of Team X, was the budget of team Y + breach.

Reality doesn't work like that. Only running imaginations do.

We can speak conceptually about this idea without discussing 2021. It will be relevant for '22.

I am attempting to hypothesize a way to measure the benefit of an overspend on development at a team that is fully utilizing the cost cap.

We as fans do not have the privileged data, but the FIA do, and I'm wondering/hoping there is a better way to establish when an overspend aids in performance so that penalties can be applied more accurately.

I've made the argument before that any overspend is inherently to the benefit of performance, however I do not believe that it is the case anymore. Errors in accounting that are not planned or expected can't have a benefit to performance because they were unplanned. This kind of breach should be based on overall budget and have non-sporting penalties.

On the other hand making choices or playing games in the gray areas on expense classification that makes more money available for performance obviously is a benefit and deserves sporting penalties. I think every team does some of this but leaves little on the table for mistakes. Depending on the size and scope the mistake find might not be big enough.

Since every case is unique, it's up to the FIA to decern intent, good luck with that. Obviously the transparency isn't there to satiate the fans or other teams.

[AR3-GP]

The problem in this thinking is assuming that fixed cost between the teams was the same even though there is great variation in staffing. To think this way would cause you to assume every dollar over for a team who has breached the cap, went towards car development. it doesn't make sense to think this way except only to paint the biggest villain narrative possible.

What many fail to remember is that even if you exceed the budget cap (and no one should....), you still have to fit under the windtunnel and CFD restrictions which just makes the benefit even more ambiguous.

Without knowing the individual finances of each team, you can't actually determine "where" the overspend of X relative to another team, meant they spent X more on car development. Who is to say a team doesn't have some sort of superflous activity that they could have simply cut back on. Why assume that any overspend, correlates dollar per dollar to some amount above the development budget of another team? Of course that's the "evil Team X" perception, to assume the worst case scenario where team X must have spent precisely the amount of the breach on development only, and that the development budget of Team X, was the budget of team Y + breach.

Reality doesn't work like that. Only running imaginations do.

We can speak conceptually about this idea without discussing 2021. It will be relevant for '22.

I am attempting to hypothesize a way to measure the benefit of an overspend on development at a team that is fully utilizing the cost cap.

We as fans do not have the privileged data, but the FIA do, and I'm wondering/hoping there is a better way to establish when an overspend aids in performance so that penalties can be applied more accurately.

I've made the argument before that any overspend is inherently to the benefit of performance, however I do not believe that it is the case anymore. Errors in accounting that are not planned or expected can't have a benefit to performance because they were unplanned. This kind of breach should be based on overall budget and have non-sporting penalties.

On the other hand making choices or playing games in the gray areas on expense classification that makes more money available for performance obviously is a benefit and deserves sporting penalties. I think every team does some of this but leaves little on the table for mistakes. Depending on the size and scope the mistake find might not be big enough.

Since every case is unique, it's up to the FIA to decern intent, good luck with that. Obviously the transparency isn't there to satiate the fans or other teams.

I edited my post a little bit, and I agree with points in your post. I would say if the goal is police development expenses, then put a cap on development expenses. Exclude travel, exclude crash damage, exclude operations, exclude all employees (this will be contentious). That way you actually can police what you are hoping to police and it's much more obvious how to punish an offending team for outspending others on development. You could deduct from next seasons development budget for minor breaches, and DSQ for major breaches because the breach could be directly attributed to the potential for a performance advantage (assuming you had intelligent people using the money).

[organic]

Didn't all the teams agree prior to the budget cap that up to $5m would be a "minor" breach, even if that constitutes 50% of the season's development budget?

However I am certain Vasseur has a significant political angle at play with what he says in these recent article since there is belief that teams have violated the cap and presumably he's pushing for a harsh sentence for any teams that violated in 2022 as they're likely to be ferrari's direct competitors.

[AR3-GP]

Didn't all the teams agree prior to the budget cap that up to $5m would be a "minor" breach, even if that constitutes 50% of the season's development budget?

However I am certain Vasseur has a significant political angle at play with what he says in these recent article since there is belief that teams have violated the cap and presumably he's pushing for a harsh sentence for any teams that violated in 2022 as they're likely to be ferrari's direct competitors.

He's now reverted to covering Ferrari's rear for the mistakes that were made before he arrived. It's all he can do. This while ignoring that Ferrari is only 4th in the WCC, regardless of how much RB spent...Likewise his comments about the budget cap not letting Ferrari catch up, even though Ferrari hadn't won a title or anything close to it in over a decade of unlimited spending.

[denyall]

Didn't all the teams agree prior to the budget cap that up to $5m would be a "minor" breach, even if that constitutes 50% of the season's development budget?

However I am certain Vasseur has a significant political angle at play with what he says in these recent article since there is belief that teams have violated the cap and presumably he's pushing for a harsh sentence for any teams that violated in 2022 as they're likely to be ferrari's direct competitors.

Definitely posturing from Fred and Ferrari.

I'd just love to see a better way of allocation and auditing of costs that allows for more transparency in sanctions to other teams and the fans. Secret F1 deals should not be part of the sport, maybe Fred can let us know the 2017 engine trick!

I'd also love to see changes that would allow a team like Williams to up the infrastructure and facilities game without the cap being a hindrance. Teams that are new or had previously been underinvested in are at an extreme disadvantage under the current cap rules.

I guess we'll see what the story is in a few months

[dialtone]

Didn't all the teams agree prior to the budget cap that up to $5m would be a "minor" breach, even if that constitutes 50% of the season's development budget?

However I am certain Vasseur has a significant political angle at play with what he says in these recent article since there is belief that teams have violated the cap and presumably he's pushing for a harsh sentence for any teams that violated in 2022 as they're likely to be ferrari's direct competitors.

He's now reverted to covering Ferrari's rear for the mistakes that were made before he arrived. It's all he can do. This while ignoring that Ferrari is only 4th in the WCC, regardless of how much RB spent...Likewise his comments about the budget cap not letting Ferrari catch up, even though Ferrari hadn't won a title or anything close to it in over a decade of unlimited spending.

Technically you aren’t wrong but I’m old enough to remember people whining about Ferrari having unlimited testing and how that was unfair, don’t even need to be that old. Removing from Ferrari all of their strengths, with their agreement in the end but what could they really do, and now patting each other on the back for being good.

Difference is: the UK teams control a massive chunk of political power in the sport, and have since the beginning.

We all know Ferrari made and makes several mistakes every year, but this holier than thou attitude is so irritating… everyone in this sport is at minimum dirty and whines like pigs whenever something doesn’t go their way, give it a rest.

[AR3-GP]

Didn't all the teams agree prior to the budget cap that up to $5m would be a "minor" breach, even if that constitutes 50% of the season's development budget?

However I am certain Vasseur has a significant political angle at play with what he says in these recent article since there is belief that teams have violated the cap and presumably he's pushing for a harsh sentence for any teams that violated in 2022 as they're likely to be ferrari's direct competitors.

He's now reverted to covering Ferrari's rear for the mistakes that were made before he arrived. It's all he can do. This while ignoring that Ferrari is only 4th in the WCC, regardless of how much RB spent...Likewise his comments about the budget cap not letting Ferrari catch up, even though Ferrari hadn't won a title or anything close to it in over a decade of unlimited spending.

Technically you aren’t wrong but I’m old enough to remember people whining about Ferrari having unlimited testing and how that was unfair, don’t even need to be that old. Removing from Ferrari all of their strengths, with their agreement in the end but what could they really do, and now patting each other on the back for being good.

Difference is: the UK teams control a massive chunk of political power in the sport, and have since the beginning.

We all know Ferrari made and makes several mistakes every year, but this holier than thou attitude is so irritating… everyone in this sport is at minimum dirty and whines like pigs whenever something doesn’t go their way, give it a rest.

The two teams you are accusing of patting themselves on the back, were Honda and Jaguar at the time . They had nothing to do with it.

[dialtone]

He's now reverted to covering Ferrari's rear for the mistakes that were made before he arrived. It's all he can do. This while ignoring that Ferrari is only 4th in the WCC, regardless of how much RB spent...Likewise his comments about the budget cap not letting Ferrari catch up, even though Ferrari hadn't won a title or anything close to it in over a decade of unlimited spending.

Technically you aren’t wrong but I’m old enough to remember people whining about Ferrari having unlimited testing and how that was unfair, don’t even need to be that old. Removing from Ferrari all of their strengths, with their agreement in the end but what could they really do, and now patting each other on the back for being good.

Difference is: the UK teams control a massive chunk of political power in the sport, and have since the beginning.

We all know Ferrari made and makes several mistakes every year, but this holier than thou attitude is so irritating… everyone in this sport is at minimum dirty and whines like pigs whenever something doesn’t go their way, give it a rest.

The two teams you are accusing of patting themselves on the back, were Honda and Jaguar at the time . They had nothing to do with it.

Lmao. This answer tells me everything