2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[dans79]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

It does matter - a lot of people are saying that RB could have used 1.8 or 2.0 million more (depending on currency) to develop their car. That's simply not true if it's a matter of a tax break they were eligible to but got rejected on administrative grounds.
All they did with that is make the same development as they had otherwise 1.4M pounds more expensive than it had to be. Dumb, not advantageous.

As i read it, they spent the money as they expected to get it, hence why the FIA listed 2 figures.

As Horner himself alluded to in Monaco, even a few hundred thousand extra could mean the difference between bring an update that shifts the balance of power, or not.

[diffuser]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

It does matter - a lot of people are saying that RB could have used 1.8 or 2.0 million more (depending on currency) to develop their car. That's simply not true if it's a matter of a tax break they were eligible to but got rejected on administrative grounds.
All they did with that is make the same development as they had otherwise 1.4M pounds more expensive than it had to be. Dumb, not advantageous.

You know, I don't really care what they did. I just wanted it presented in a plain fashion in one currency. I don't want to hear that if Horner had given his first born to the pope, blablah blah. The fact is they are there to present facts in a plain and understandable way, not if and or maybes. It all starts to sound like "if they would have started on softs, they would have won the race". Well they didn't start on softs, it doesn't matter who's fault it is either that they didn't start on softs, the actual results are what should be presented.

[diffuser]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

It does matter - a lot of people are saying that RB could have used 1.8 or 2.0 million more (depending on currency) to develop their car. That's simply not true if it's a matter of a tax break they were eligible to but got rejected on administrative grounds.
All they did with that is make the same development as they had otherwise 1.4M pounds more expensive than it had to be. Dumb, not advantageous.

As i read it, they spent the money as they expected to get it, hence why the FIA listed 2 figures.

As Horner himself alluded to in Monaco, even a few hundred thousand extra could mean the difference between bring an update that shifts the balance of power, or not.

Don't beleive anything Horner says on this matter. He's gonna do everything in his power to put RBR is the best light. He is really good at it too. That is why we need the FIA to put it plainly but they keep strange bed fellows.

[diffuser]

To be clear, I'm not rooting for any team in particular, and in this case maybe I'm just the Devil's Advocate ..

But as it stands according to the report there was a 400K+ overspend. Aside from hrs put in, CFD time, that get's you about at most a few wings and a slightly adapted floor, and well let's put in some weight reduction. That's it; it doesn't give you a whole new car platform with a 1s advantage. Even Merc back in the day (when they outspend everyone with at least 20m) couldn't make that happen.

And yet, that 400K gifted the 2021 title plus it gave the team an insane advantage for this year and the ones to come after that?
Like you say, 2021-2022 was the largest major aero change ever .. like ever. But still those 400K on upgrades were carried over as-is to a completely different platform philosophy, working perfectly fine.
Sorry .. I don't buy that, it's silly at minimum, and it's a kick in the face of all teams/engineers that work off their asses to get their package in shape (which some really have done).

Maybe, just maybe, maybe that RB18 was, together with Fer ofcourse, simply one of the best base-solutions towards the groundeffect philosophy? Little to no bouncing, great in riding kerbs etc. Well, maybe it was even better than Ferrari, as they were not hurt by TD39 where Fer most certainly did.
Merc absolutely stepped out of their box with the very unusual zero-pod concept, but they just cannot seem to tame the beast. They're progressing quite a bit, but it will take more time to unleash the potential they still feel is in there. Or maybe they'll switch (we'll learn in five months time).

Anyway, starting with a (very) good basepoint gives you the momentum to develop better and faster as you appear to be right on top of your concept. Merc knows this really well, they were in that same position for years; seasons where they could stop developing the current car by June, and move 90% of the resources to next year. Because of that (PU ánd aero)advantage Merc was able to for instance develop stuff like DAS, which was innovation-wise brilliant in itself ofcourse .. simple but yet so effective.

That said, all future progress will now be hindered a lot by the 10% windtunnel/cfd punishment. In a world without bias one could even think it's quite harsh ...
But as that world is non-existant, I will probably butchered.

Remember, Devil's Advocate ..

I really disliked that the overspend was presented in pounds and the penalty it dollars. It makes the penality look larger and the overspend smaller.

I also disliked that the comment added by the FIA about "Notional Tax Credit". If they would have filed, they make it sound like it was a given that they'd get it, while the Notional website has alot if and maybes on it. I find it hard to beleive that RBR has probably 50 guys that have written several technical papers or thesis longer than 100 pages but they can't find an accountant to read and understand a 52 page accounting manual or file someting as basic as Notional Tax Credit. If they didn't file, it probably cause they didn't get it or weren't eligable for whatever reason.

“the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of their Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,438” and therefore they would have exceeded the cap by $432,652 or 0.37%.

$432,652 is £377,218
So really
£1,431,438
+ £377,218
=========
£1,808,656 or $2,074,444 THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE OVER.
#################################################

If they ran out of gas on the out lap of qualifing after getting pole, the FIA wouldn't have said "Oh, if they had put enough fuel in the car, they would have finsihed on pole anyways."

As expected, people aren't reading the 1.8MIllion pounds that RBR are over, all they read is the 400K. It's so BS and it was written like that for that effect.

It's the FIA that did not allow RB to resubmit their budget.

This is what forced them into including that information about the tax credit.

Yeah, you keep dreaming that the FIA are preventing anyone from filing thier taxes.

[diffuser]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

It does matter - a lot of people are saying that RB could have used 1.8 or 2.0 million more (depending on currency) to develop their car. That's simply not true if it's a matter of a tax break they were eligible to but got rejected on administrative grounds.
All they did with that is make the same development as they had otherwise 1.4M pounds more expensive than it had to be. Dumb, not advantageous.

As i read it, they spent the money as they expected to get it, hence why the FIA listed 2 figures.

As Horner himself alluded to in Monaco, even a few hundred thousand extra could mean the difference between bring an update that shifts the balance of power, or not.

It doesn't strike you as strange that they can get everything else done better than any other team except for this ?

[draw73]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

As i read it, they spent the money as they expected to get it, hence why the FIA listed 2 figures.

As Horner himself alluded to in Monaco, even a few hundred thousand extra could mean the difference between bring an update that shifts the balance of power, or not.

This is how I see it they they went over by x amount and expected the tax credit to bring them in below the cap limit. Which it didn’t.
But they still spent that money and I don’t like the fact that any team can do this and also that the FIA are reporting the fact so that the overspend does not look as bad.

Who knows maybe next year the Italian gov could award an Italian team a £100 million tax credit and then that team could overspend by that much. Doesn’t seem fair to me.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[dans79]

It doesn't strike you as strange that they can get everything else done better than any other team except for this ?

I'm not sure what you are asking me, are you asking if i think its odd they messed up filling stuff?

[hollus]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

This so simply not true. I get the point why some people want a punishment to turn into losing, but in all sports so often it does not turn into losing…

In soccer, you cock it up, say a handball, and you get a penalty kick against.
You cock it up playing a non-eligible player, you lose one game 3-0.
You break the cost cap by signing too many 60M€ players like Barcelona or PSG did, you are banned from signing new players for a year.

In basket you cock it up, say an intentional fragrant foul, you get a technical foul, essentially 1-2 points equivalent against you.

In tennis, you break time limits, you might get a game docked, not even a set.

In cycling, you get food in the wrong area, which can prevent losing 30 minutes, you cannot win that stage, maybe get a money fine, but you start the next stage just fine.
You draft a car at a key moment, you might get docked 1 minute.
You compete with a technically illegal bike, you get DSQ from that one event only.

In track and field, you cut a cm, DSQ. Buy you get pushed and cut 1 cm, that’s OK.

It goes on and on. Breaking a rule very rarely is punished with losing, certainly not with losing a season, and not automatically, in almost all sports.

You do something huge and outrageous or you do it again and again, yes, then you lose a season or in soccer a category. But it is the exception.

[dans79]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

This so simply not true. I get the point why some people want a punishment to turn into losing, but in all sports so often it does not turn into losing…

In soccer, you cock it up, say a handball, and you get a penalty kick against.
You cock it up playing a non-eligible player, you lose one game 3-0.
You break the cost cap by signing too many 60M€ players like Barcelona or PSG did, you are banned from signing new players for a year.

In basket you cock it up, say an intentional fragrant foul, you get a technical foul, essentially 1-2 points equivalent against you.

In tennis, you break time limits, you might get a game docked, not even a set.

In cycling, you get food in the wrong area, which can prevent losing 30 minutes, you cannot win that stage, maybe get a money fine, but you start the next stage just fine.
You draft a car at a key moment, you might get docked 1 minute.
You compete with a technically illegal bike, you get DSQ from that one event only.

In track and field, you cut a cm, DSQ. Buy you get pushed and cut 1 cm, that’s OK.

It goes on and on. Breaking a rule very rarely is punished with losing, certainly not with losing a season, and not automatically, in almost all sports.

You do something huge and outrageous or you do it again and again, yes, then you lose a season or in soccer a category. But it is the exception.

I think it's worth noting that other than the cost cap violation, all the others are events happening over a few seconds involving one or 2 people.

Breaking a cost cap in any sport is something that happens over months intentionally or otherwise, and involves dozens or hundreds of individuals depending on the sport. Hence why they almost always carry extreme penalties.

I mean this is from the Exclusion section of the rules.

All costs Directly Attributable to Human Resources Activities, Finance Activities or
Legal Activities;

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... iss.11.pdf

A team could drop 20 million if they wanted to on accountants and layers to ensure they get every ounce of benefit then can while staying under the cap!

[hollus]

Football Club Barcelona overspent, season over, for Spanish cost cap rules. Penalty: reduced player buying capability.
PSG overspent, season after season, according to UEFA rules. Penalty? Financial (it does not seem to hurt them).
Manchester city signed dozens and dozens of teenagers in what later turned to be against-the-rules conditions. Penalty: signing limitations.
I goes on and on…

NBA luxury tax: costs money.

I mean, sometimes it is a DSQ, but most often not. Same applies to F1. And only the worst doping turns into a season DSQ, how many first offenses in doping turn into a 6 month suspension, mostly served in the off competition season?

[dans79]

I mean, sometimes it is a DSQ, but most often not. Same applies to F1. And only the worst doping turns into a season DSQ, how many first offenses in doping turn into a 6 month suspension, mostly served in the off competition season?

MLB is pretty strict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Major_Lea ... Discipline

[diffuser]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

This so simply not true. I get the point why some people want a punishment to turn into losing, but in all sports so often it does not turn into losing…

In soccer, you cock it up, say a handball, and you get a penalty kick against.
You cock it up playing a non-eligible player, you lose one game 3-0.
You break the cost cap by signing too many 60M€ players like Barcelona or PSG did, you are banned from signing new players for a year.

In basket you cock it up, say an intentional fragrant foul, you get a technical foul, essentially 1-2 points equivalent against you.

In tennis, you break time limits, you might get a game docked, not even a set.

In cycling, you get food in the wrong area, which can prevent losing 30 minutes, you cannot win that stage, maybe get a money fine, but you start the next stage just fine.
You draft a car at a key moment, you might get docked 1 minute.
You compete with a technically illegal bike, you get DSQ from that one event only.

In track and field, you cut a cm, DSQ. Buy you get pushed and cut 1 cm, that’s OK.

It goes on and on. Breaking a rule very rarely is punished with losing, certainly not with losing a season, and not automatically, in almost all sports.

You do something huge and outrageous or you do it again and again, yes, then you lose a season or in soccer a category. But it is the exception.

Well the original quote was that they cocked up the notional tax credit. Either they got it or they didn't. Plain simple and factual. None of this "If they would have gotten it, if they would gotten it right ,etc,etc,etc blah,blah,blah, never ending reasons or excuses".

You cock it up, you loose it! That was my point. It's no different than starting the race on the wrong tire, you can't go back and change it. The result stands. We don't go around saying he finish 7th when he really finished dead last cause he started on the wrong tire.

So it was 1.8 Million pounds that they went over by, with just as many excuses why.

[mendis]

Is that the budget cap version of Benetton's "yes, there is launch control on the car but we never use it" defence?

Red Bull gives you wings, i see you had a few cans.

I prefer my caffeine from coffee rather than a strangely flavoured, carbonated syrup.

FYI. With regards to Benetton situation, just because there is a piece of code sitting in my software doesn't mean it's active. Unless someone proves there is another piece of code that is activating it. Most software engineers don't instantly remove all pieces of code belonging to a feature when it is deprecated for the fear of inducing instability. It's covered off with a few configuration parameters and let the code sit there with surrounding workflows skip that piece. Usual suspects of code smell. I don't know the exact details of what happened in Benetton's case.

[MadMax]

Red Bull gives you wings, i see you had a few cans.

I prefer my caffeine from coffee rather than a strangely flavoured, carbonated syrup.

FYI. With regards to Benetton situation, just because there is a piece of code sitting in my software doesn't mean it's active. Unless someone proves there is another piece of code that is activating it. Most software engineers don't instantly remove all pieces of code belonging to a feature when it is deprecated for the fear of inducing instability. It's covered off with a few configuration parameters and let the code sit there with surrounding workflows skip that piece. Usual suspects of code smell. I don't know the exact details of what happened in Benetton's case.

Yeah, if only Benetton hadn't been caught actually trialling and setting up the system in a pre-season test then that might have been a reasonable answer. S'funny how no one else seemed to have a problem not having launch control code in their cars, nor a button push combination that allowed it to be activated even though it was banned.

[littlebigcat]

If aero engineers stuffing it up in design cause you to lose time on the track then accounts stuffing up you tax exemptions should lose you cost cap reductions. RBR, because of their staff, were incapable of applying for the tax rebate so they should have never spent the money in the first place.

The overspend was £1.8m.