Ramifications and speculation around TD045 and how it affects team operations

[TFSA]

Their is a big difference between someone bring knowledge attained during the course of their career, and teams trying to intentionally circumvent the budget cap by putting people on very technically relevant projects that live outside the cap.

Not when the teams can't bring anything from those projects into F1.

If someone working on a hypercar project, then that counts as "knowledge attained during the course of their career" too. In fact, i would like for you to explain how it doesn't. Working on a Hypercar-project isn't a part of your career or what?

As long as you can't bring in any concrete data or designs from these projects, then the only thing teams are doing then is essentially training their staff outside of the cost cap. And in that case, i fail to see the distinction. Any expertise you impart on any individual, including via training, belongs to that individual. It doesn't belong to the team. It's the individuals expertise. And it doesn't really matter where that experience comes from. I fail to see how improving the expertise of engineers is any different than hiring someone who has, say, previous experience working in F1 (typically for previous teams), beyond the fact that it's potentially more expensive:
- You still have to pay them a wage that matches their level of expertise
- They can take their expertise elsewhere if they like (which is always a risk teams have to deal with).
- Anything they do outside of F1 doesn't help the F1 team at the given moment. If an engineer is working 50% in F1 and 50% elsewhere, that's 50% of the time he isn't contributing to the F1 project.

Så unless you would like to argue that you believe that teams are actually sneaking data into the F1 projects in clear violation of the rules, then i don't think you've made a compelling case to why these side projects are an issue.

[Sieper]

It is also a nice way to keep people you had otherwise had to fire keep a fulfilling job.

[mzso]

Their is a big difference between someone bring knowledge attained during the course of their career, and teams trying to intentionally circumvent the budget cap by putting people on very technically relevant projects that live outside the cap.

Not when the teams can't bring anything from those projects into F1.

If someone working on a hypercar project, then that counts as "knowledge attained during the course of their career" too. In fact, i would like for you to explain how it doesn't. Working on a Hypercar-project isn't a part of your career or what?

As long as you can't bring in any concrete data or designs from these projects, then the only thing teams are doing then is essentially training their staff outside of the cost cap. And in that case, i fail to see the distinction. Any expertise you impart on any individual, including via training, belongs to that individual. It doesn't belong to the team. It's the individuals expertise. And it doesn't really matter where that experience comes from. I fail to see how improving the expertise of engineers is any different than hiring someone who has, say, previous experience working in F1 (typically for previous teams), beyond the fact that it's potentially more expensive:
- You still have to pay them a wage that matches their level of expertise
- They can take their expertise elsewhere if they like (which is always a risk teams have to deal with).
- Anything they do outside of F1 doesn't help the F1 team at the given moment. If an engineer is working 50% in F1 and 50% elsewhere, that's 50% of the time he isn't contributing to the F1 project.

Så unless you would like to argue that you believe that teams are actually sneaking data into the F1 projects in clear violation of the rules, then i don't think you've made a compelling case to why these side projects are an issue.

I'm fuzzy about the details, does the FIA plan to include these outside F1 activities within the budget cap?

[Cs98]

Their is a big difference between someone bring knowledge attained during the course of their career, and teams trying to intentionally circumvent the budget cap by putting people on very technically relevant projects that live outside the cap.

Only if you assume there is direct data transfer from these "technically relevant projects" and the F1 team. Otherwise it's exactly the same as gathering knowledge in another team, or in another motorsport. But this sort of encapsulates this entire argument. If you presume people are going to break the rules then you should worry. But if you assume teams are going to break the rules then you always need to worry, about every aspect of the sport. Financial, technical, sporting, everything.

Or what would be your solution? Forbid the parent companies from having commercial car projects? Might be an issue to tell Merc and Ferrari they can't build hypercars, especially if they have the dreaded ground effect.

[dans79]

If someone working on a hypercar project, then that counts as "knowledge attained during the course of their career" too. In fact, i would like for you to explain how it doesn't. Working on a Hypercar-project isn't a part of your career or what?

Several factors come into play. Did the employee in question request the transfer, or did management dictate the move. If Management was driving it, then intent becomes a key factor and it why the FIA has been questioning lots of individuals in none F1 projects.

As long as you can't bring in any concrete data or designs from these projects, then the only thing teams are doing then is essentially training their staff outside of the cost cap. And in that case, i fail to see the distinction.

Data by itself is useless without staff who have enough knowledge to understand and deploy it. Not to mention when it comes to aerodynamic design, you can learn a lot when you aren't constrained by CFD and Tunnel time.

For example Team A dictates an employee transfers to a side projects to work on XXX design. While working on the side project the employee has unlimited access to CFD & wind tunnel simulations. While working on XXX design simulations he learns concepts and methodologies that would take much longer to learn working directly for team A under the CFD & Tunnel limitations.

When the the employee returns to the team the concepts and methodologies related to XXX design are immediately valuable to the teams as it allows them to develop faster and avoid dead end development paths.

The above is trying to work around the rules and what the FIA is looking for.

[dans79]

Or what would be your solution? Forbid the parent companies from having commercial car projects? Might be an issue to tell Merc and Ferrari they can't build hypercars, especially if they have the dreaded ground effect.

A simple one of the top of my would be some kind os review process by the FIA when certain types of employees transfer internally. Most likely, the FIA will have to come up with new ways of classifying members of the team, so they can apply restrictions to them.

Something like Major league baseballs DFA concept would prevent a lot of grey areas.

[Cs98]

Or what would be your solution? Forbid the parent companies from having commercial car projects? Might be an issue to tell Merc and Ferrari they can't build hypercars, especially if they have the dreaded ground effect.

A simple one of the top of my would be some kind os review process by the FIA when certain types of employees transfer internally. Most likely, the FIA will have to come up with new ways of classifying members of the team, so they can apply restrictions to them.

Something like Major league baseballs DFA concept would prevent a lot of grey areas.

What would they review? What would be the restrictions?

[dans79]

Or what would be your solution? Forbid the parent companies from having commercial car projects? Might be an issue to tell Merc and Ferrari they can't build hypercars, especially if they have the dreaded ground effect.

A simple one of the top of my would be some kind os review process by the FIA when certain types of employees transfer internally. Most likely, the FIA will have to come up with new ways of classifying members of the team, so they can apply restrictions to them.

Something like Major league baseballs DFA concept would prevent a lot of grey areas.

What would they review? What would be the restrictions?

If the FIA classified anyone involved with design or production of the car as part of the team, then they could apply rules to them (sporting or otherwise), and limit what a team can dictate an employee do.

for example

• The FIA could mandate that someone transferred off the team cannot be held to contractual agreements related to gardening leave thats was signed when they worked for the race team.
• the FIA could limit the number of times they could be transferred out of the team and back in.
• the FIA could mandate maximum and minimum duration of the transfer.
• The FIA could probably mandate salary constraints as well.

just like with baseball, the governing body could create a rules structure that prevents gaming the system.

[chrisc90]

I mean another way round it is to just offer training days to employees at a outside company.

Outside company does all the investigating and digging around learning what works. Employees of F1 team can drop onto a 3-5 days course looking at all the material that the training company offers and bring it back to base.

No transfer of staff - can stick it down to very minimal expenditure on the budget - all whilst the training camp filled of employees of the former race team do all the homework with no budget and simply pass the knowledge onto the staff inside the team.

[dans79]

I mean another way round it is to just offer training days to employees at a outside company.

Outside company does all the investigating and digging around learning what works. Employees of F1 team can drop onto a 3-5 days course looking at all the material that the training company offers and bring it back to base.

No transfer of staff - can stick it down to very minimal expenditure on the budget - all whilst the training camp filled of employees of the former race team do all the homework with no budget and simply pass the knowledge onto the staff inside the team.

Unless a team is strait up willing to cook the books, I don't see that as likely, as you would have to find a 3rd party completely unrelated to the competition, that's willing to do work for you for well under market value, and never sell it to a competitor, or you will be in breach of the technical regulations.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... -04-25.pdf

17.3.2 A Competitor may only use LTC in its Formula One cars that it has designed (including, for the
avoidance of doubt, its three-dimensional shape and the evolution history leading to it, any
preliminary designs, simulations, wind tunnel tests, and analysis) and manufactured itself.
However, this does not prevent the Competitor Outsourcing any R&D, engineering and/or CAD design and/or the manufacture of any LTC to a third party (including, for the avoidance
of doubt, an Associate of such Competitor) provided that:

a. the Competitor retains the exclusive right to use the LTC in Formula One for so long as it
competes in Formula One;

b. the third party to whom manufacture of the LTC is Outsourced may not be another
Competitor or an Associate to another Competitor; and

c. the third party to whom design of the LTC is Outsourced may not be another
Competitor, an Associate to another Competitor, or a party that directly or indirectly
designs LTCs or TRCs for any other Competitor

[taperoo2k]

Yeah, they must have found something that was happening and decided to shut the door - so to speak. I wonder if that relates to rumours that some teams had staff working on other stuff and asked to clarify the roles of certain staff

I think it'll probably be a case of teams shuffling staff around F1 and outside projects, in other words a way to get around the cost cap in terms of wage bills and getting around the limits placed on R&D by the cost cap. I think one rumour had it that Newey was employed by Red Bull Advanced Technologies rather than by Red Bull Racing directly. Newey is currently listed as the chief technical officer for Oracle Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Advanced Technologies. While Christian Horner is the CEO of Oracle Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Advanced Technologies.

I guess we'll find out the truth of the matter in due course. I mean if Newey used the hypercar project to inform the
RB18 and RB19 in some way, say the 3D shapes used on the floor? Not sure how the FIA could handle that one, given you can't force Newey to forget anything he may have learned from the hypercar project (his designs after all, if he owns the IP rather than Red Bull then fun times I guess). I expect Mercedes and Ferrari have probably been upto similar things, it sounds like this is a gaping loophole the FIA should have probably realised and closed before the cost cap era came in. Same old thing in F1 though, teams see a loophole and exploit for all it's worth before the FIA closes the loophole.

[peewon]

FIA knows something like this is not enforceable. They're just creating another avenue for themselves to put the finger on the scales how and when they want. Lots of 'room for interpretation' and subjective rulings. At the end of the day its a business, and never more so than after liberty took over. Look at the calendar, tracks, etc.

[basti313]

Yeah, they must have found something that was happening and decided to shut the door - so to speak. I wonder if that relates to rumours that some teams had staff working on other stuff and asked to clarify the roles of certain staff

I think it'll probably be a case of teams shuffling staff around F1 and outside projects, in other words a way to get around the cost cap in terms of wage bills and getting around the limits placed on R&D by the cost cap. I think one rumour had it that Newey was employed by Red Bull Advanced Technologies rather than by Red Bull Racing directly. Newey is currently listed as the chief technical officer for Oracle Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Advanced Technologies. While Christian Horner is the CEO of Oracle Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Advanced Technologies.

Well that was one of the issues with the cost cap breach, right?

I guess we'll find out the truth of the matter in due course. I mean if Newey used the hypercar project to inform the
RB18 and RB19 in some way, say the 3D shapes used on the floor? Not sure how the FIA could handle that one, given you can't force Newey to forget anything he may have learned from the hypercar project (his designs after all, if he owns the IP rather than Red Bull then fun times I guess). I expect Mercedes and Ferrari have probably been upto similar things, it sounds like this is a gaping loophole the FIA should have probably realised and closed before the cost cap era came in. Same old thing in F1 though, teams see a loophole and exploit for all it's worth before the FIA closes the loophole.

It works a bit differently. They do not "learn" from these projects. You use the nonsense projects to get more efficiency.
Example:
- You could put one engineer on the aero of the F1 car at 40h per week.
- You could put two engineers on the aero of the F1 car at 20h each and the other 20h they do some boat or supercar without pressure.

In the cost cap you get two engineers for the cost of one. They can work 120% in the 4h per day on the F1 project and drink coffee and recreate in the other 4h. Generally you can only count 90% productive hours...so one would try to put non productive hours to the other project. So the second option is in the end much more efficient and gives you a broader range of smart engineers, thus, ideas.

This is why ALL top teams have their side projects. So it is nonsense to discuss cars like the Valkyrie or AMG One. This does not matter and the tech is simply different. It is just the possibility to pay double loan with some non-profit projects to keep more engineers busy.

[Cs98]

A simple one of the top of my would be some kind os review process by the FIA when certain types of employees transfer internally. Most likely, the FIA will have to come up with new ways of classifying members of the team, so they can apply restrictions to them.

Something like Major league baseballs DFA concept would prevent a lot of grey areas.

What would they review? What would be the restrictions?

If the FIA classified anyone involved with design or production of the car as part of the team, then they could apply rules to them (sporting or otherwise), and limit what a team can dictate an employee do.

for example

• The FIA could mandate that someone transferred off the team cannot be held to contractual agreements related to gardening leave thats was signed when they worked for the race team.
• the FIA could limit the number of times they could be transferred out of the team and back in.
• the FIA could mandate maximum and minimum duration of the transfer.
• The FIA could probably mandate salary constraints as well.

just like with baseball, the governing body could create a rules structure that prevents gaming the system.

I think some of those make sense. For example you wouldn't want to have them work in F1 for a few years at a reduced salary and then it be part of their deal they work on a hypercar at a huge salary for a few years to "make up for lost money".

But in reality I don't think any of these suggestions will stop people taking knowledge and experience in their heads from one job to another. That's the nature of experience. As long as there's no data or CFD work exchanged between the two entities you can't stop people moving within a company.

[TFSA]

It works a bit differently. They do not "learn" from these projects. You use the nonsense projects to get more efficiency.
Example:
- You could put one engineer on the aero of the F1 car at 40h per week.
- You could put two engineers on the aero of the F1 car at 20h each and the other 20h they do some boat or supercar without pressure.

In the cost cap you get two engineers for the cost of one. They can work 120% in the 4h per day on the F1 project and drink coffee and recreate in the other 4h. Generally you can only count 90% productive hours...so one would try to put non productive hours to the other project. So the second option is in the end much more efficient and gives you a broader range of smart engineers, thus, ideas.

This is why ALL top teams have their side projects. So it is nonsense to discuss cars like the Valkyrie or AMG One. This does not matter and the tech is simply different. It is just the possibility to pay double loan with some non-profit projects to keep more engineers busy.

Sorry for being blunt, but the real world doesn't work like that. People can't just go at 120% at their job in exchange for downtime, especially not if it's a job that requires thinking (for physical labor you might get some benefit). You can't just think at 120% speed. And similarly, trying to work 120% power at a computer isn't gonna be more efficient. Rather, it's more likely to introduce mistakes and you have to spend time finding and correcting those mistakes.

Now, you could get your team more relaxation/downtime with what you're proposing at the other project, and that can have some benefits, but that's still gonna lose you efficiency. Why?
- Because most tasks require coordination and exchange of knowledge, and you'll now have two people spending time having to get each other up to speed every time they swap, rather than having one person focused on the task. Also swapping can introduce mistakes if not all relevant knowledge is imparted in the swap.
- Because people differ in expertise and skill, you'll now have the person with the most expertise giving half his workload to someone with less expertise, compared to simply hiring the more experienced person and having him work full time on his task.

What you're suggesting may sound great in theory, but it doesn't work on practice. You'll be paying two wages instead of one (even if only half goes on the cost cap), and you won't be getting your moneys worth. You're gonna be worse off.