Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
I start this thread because I feel as a fan that the current rules are not completely fair.
Disclaimer: I am not a RB fan.
What I found unfair is to have the costs of accidents caused by others (like Bottas/Russel Verstappen/Hamilton Bottas and the rest in Hunagry) counted against the cap. Yes, when you do your budget you should provision for accidents, but I feel total loses etc are very hard to predict.
The second point is about the engines. Again, we see 2 drivers (MV, SP) to have issues with their engine because of accidents caused by others.
It's not fair to them to have a penalty because someone ram into them.
In terms of a cost, no, I think it's fine, and I am an RB fan. All teams need to account for a certain amount of damage each year. It is what it is.
What may need some thought is whether there should be rules to make another party accountable for repair costs in case there is clear proof of intent - such cases will likely happen very rarely (if ever), but it's good to have clear procedures in place in case it does happen. Although a driver disqualification in itself (as has happened in the past with intentional crashes) should be a sufficient deterrent...
I do hope that with the cost cap firmly in place, penalties on replacement of certain parts are removed. The cost cap itself already provides the penalty - teams need to choose whether they want to spend more budget on engine replacement or aero development for example - there's no longer a need for an additional punishment on frequent part replacement.
I start this thread because I feel as a fan that the current rules are not completely fair.
Disclaimer: I am not a RB fan.
What I found unfair is to have the costs of accidents caused by others (like Bottas/Russel Verstappen/Hamilton Bottas and the rest in Hunagry) counted against the cap. Yes, when you do your budget you should provision for accidents, but I feel total loses etc are very hard to predict.
The second point is about the engines. Again, we see 2 drivers (MV, SP) to have issues with their engine because of accidents caused by others.
It's not fair to them to have a penalty because someone ram into them.
I’ve said this since the start of the season that like for like replacement parts minus engine should be exempt from the cost cap, if it can be policed effectively.
That said, all the teams knew what they were signing up and it’s the same rules for everyone, for so it seems a bit disingenuous for anyone in the sport to now moan about it when they are on the wrong end. Yes I’m talking both RBR AND MERCEDES.
It’s motor racing. There’s a huge element of chance, risk of damage and if you have bad luck you have bad luck.
I start this thread because I feel as a fan that the current rules are not completely fair.
Disclaimer: I am not a RB fan.
What I found unfair is to have the costs of accidents caused by others (like Bottas/Russel Verstappen/Hamilton Bottas and the rest in Hunagry) counted against the cap. Yes, when you do your budget you should provision for accidents, but I feel total loses etc are very hard to predict.
The second point is about the engines. Again, we see 2 drivers (MV, SP) to have issues with their engine because of accidents caused by others.
It's not fair to them to have a penalty because someone ram into them.
I believe that a fourth or a fifth engine, suspension parts and spare bodywork are under the teams budget, no need to refund. I think it's fair change an engine or gearbox without a penalty when it is damaged by collision caused by other driver.
but seriously. The teams agreed to the current rules. Whenever it looks like they might be confronted with their own decisions they claim it's unfair, they have a disadvantage, etc etc. Like they hope it happens to the other guy and not to them.
I think that it's much less difficult then Wolff, Horner and some fans are suggesting. After all, both Wolff and Horner said yes to these rules.
but seriously. The teams agreed to the current rules. Whenever it looks like they might be confronted with their own decisions they claim it's unfair, they have a disadvantage, etc etc. Like they hope it happens to the other guy and not to them.
I think that it's much less difficult then Wolff, Horner and some fans are suggesting. After all, both Wolff and Horner said yes to these rules.
Exactly. They will all lay it on thick when it suits them. Currently it’s Horner. At Imola it was Wolff. Where were Horner’s concerns when they were picking up bits of Bottas’ car and where are Wolf’s now? Says all you need to know.
I start this thread because I feel as a fan that the current rules are not completely fair.
Disclaimer: I am not a RB fan.
What I found unfair is to have the costs of accidents caused by others (like Bottas/Russel Verstappen/Hamilton Bottas and the rest in Hunagry) counted against the cap. Yes, when you do your budget you should provision for accidents, but I feel total loses etc are very hard to predict.
The second point is about the engines. Again, we see 2 drivers (MV, SP) to have issues with their engine because of accidents caused by others.
It's not fair to them to have a penalty because someone ram into them.
From the engine perspective this could easily devolve into - I got tapped but oops my engine had some small amount of damage. Guess I get to rebuilt it completely w/o penalty. Oh look since a piston was damaged I cant just replace it as the others are worn more and Ill be at a dis-advantage....Oh and the crank needs replaced too as the pistons bedded in with it... Fresh engine every other race!
And there is no way a team should ever be liable for another teams damage, as everyone signed up to race.
You would just have a constant stream of appeals because everyone is trying to get the other team to spend money and be at a disadvantage for the smallest tap.
I agree though that it seems hard to budget for how much damage you may take in a year. But even small budget limited teams now seem to have no problem. I mean look at HAAS... they have to have the most damage of any team this year!
And even on their small budget are not having problems.
Part of me feels like you just look at your replacement cost history (which every team has) and budget to lose something based on the max repair cost seen in a single year over the last 10 years or something. If you choose not to then TFB as you wanted to get an edge by trading safety of repair for more development which should have given you an advantage. If you can get more points with X million in development than competing in an event then good call, if not your bad.
After all each team is in the same predicament, so whoever is more efficient with their budget should have an advantage.
Maybe be able to trade points for extra cost cap money to cover repairs or repairs are exempt if you have no points and are out of budget.
I'm super-impressed by how quickly the cash value of a car seems to inflate. According to Matthew Carter, an entire car minus engine was c.$250k. According to Wolf, it's around $1.3m. According to Horner, it's around $1.8m.
Obviously a team has to prove that an engine or a chassis is beyond repair.
FIA now days has the technical background that is required to do that.
<lawyer on>
Any part that is damaged is beyond repair, as it will never be the exact same specification as it was before it was damaged.
Any system comprised of multiple parts that are designed to work together and wear together will need to have all wearing parts replaced to get back to the desired specification.
</lawyer off>
When you talk about engine repair your mostly talking about the full replacement of moving parts that generate performance and wear items like rings, seals, and gaskets. No one cares about the spark plugs, wires, pipe, etc (as long as they are all ok).
If you have to "repair" an engine its easy to say you have to replace all the seals and gaskets, etc. The wearable parts all need to have the same amount of wear (like pistons and cylinders, also likely valves etc) or you are not back to a "reliable" configuration.
I would bet no-one throws a whole engine + ancillaries out unless its burned to nothing.
But its likely rebuilt from the block up replacing anything that is a wear item, and anything additionally that is damaged.
But that is my guess.
I'm super-impressed by how quickly the cash value of a car seems to inflate. According to Matthew Carter, an entire car minus engine was c.$250k. According to Wolf, it's around $1.3m. According to Horner, it's around $1.8m.
I would rather impose a 'penalty system' where if teams don't stay within the Cost Cap,
then they need to show where this cost came from and if they can defend it by having 'uncalculated ' accident damage, they get 'leeway'.
In other words, let's concider the teams have a cost cap of 145 million for a single season.
let the FIA mandate that 5% of this needs to uphold replacement parts due to sustained damage.
in other words, 7,25 million needs to be reserved for covering damage. ( so let's say 137,25 million budget for the cars, 7,25 for repairs ).
if the team however exceeds 145 million, and this is for example due to extreme uncalculable damage,
like for example, Max getting punted out of silverstone resulting in 1,8 million of damage, then getting punted out by Bottas in Hungary resulting in 0,5 million of damage,
this is 2,3 million of damage. this still falls well within the 5% damage window, and as such, is not really welcome and beneficial, but within the budget.
no team will experience any 'hamper' from this in regards to the budget then.
another option would be to have the teams have a budget of 145 million, and then all the accumilated damage costs need to be accounted for.
in other words, let's say, 145 million for development, car, etc. and if you just have 100.000 of damage, then not so great, but it won't make any difference for the budget.
if you have 5 million of damage in a single season, yeah, pretty darn awful, but it still won't have an impact on the budget - as it is calculated outside of the budget.
i would however really question big-time on how this can be -fairly- investigated.
for example:
Let's say Haas doesn't make a single thing in-house, but they import EVERYTHING.
And let's say Ferrari makes everything in-house.
Haas crashes their car, they can't make things themselves, so their 'supplier' delivers. That supplier asks 1 million in material. then, the staff of haas puts things together.
let's say they're not as formidable and fast as Ferrari employees, so they need more time to put things together: 250..000 in labour.
so 1,25 million for Haas to have a completely wrecked car back in one piece.
Now we have Ferrari. Ferrari makes everything in house, except for base material to make carbon fiber, but they have a discount from their supplier that Haas doesn't.
Also, Ferrari's staff is very experienced and fast, so need less time to put things together.
Let's say Ferrari's material costs them 0,5 a million, and the labour costs them 175.000 since they're done faster and things are paid by the hour.
net result: Ferrari's totaled car cost them 675.000 euro's.
meanwhile, Haas, a small team, totaled car cost them 1.275.000 euro's, a whopping 650.000 euro more, despite having a slower car.
you see the unfairness in this?
Also, let's take labour into account.
The budget cap is 145 million.
Minimum wage in the UK is about 8,72 pounds per hour.
Minimum wage in China is what, 15 yuan an hour.
converting this to Euro's - as an example means:
Staff in the UK costs 10,22 euro an hour.
Staff in China costs 1,96 euro an hour.
it's all minimum wage, and minimum wage employees aren't the type of people that build an F1 car, i know.
But i would argue that even then, an engineer on a level that can make F1 quality parts, will still be paid less in china,
then in the UK.
Very simply put:
A British F1 team, with a staff of 100 people, would be able to spend 141.878 hours on their contender.
A Chinese F1 team, with a staff of 100 people, would be able to spend 739.796 hours on their contender.
that means essentially, that the Chinese team can spend 5 times more on their contender than the Brits can.
In other words, they can -theoretically- put 5 years worth of development in that year's contender,
where the British team must do fit with 1 year of development on their contender.
On paper, this means the Brits don't stand a single chance against the Chinese team.
I would argue that this is a problem anyway though.
It just shows that the Budget cap has a lot of flaws.
"Explain the ending to F1 in football terms"
"Hamilton was beating Verstappen 7-0, then the ref decided F%$& rules, next goal wins
while also sending off 4 Hamilton players to make it more interesting"
The minnows of the sport have been living with this issue for decades - being forced to make a choice between further development costs vs repair costs after a shunt. It's funny that now the bigger and richer teams are having to make that choice it's something we should all care about. The teams knew what they were signing up for with the cost cap, and if they didn't envisage this situation then it shows how naïve they are. It absolutely shouldn't change just because Horner has had a moan about it in the press.
