2022 Discussion Thread

[mario]

I wonder if Porsche's sudden change of direction was informed by the cost cap speculation?

If a team were heavily penalised for a significant breach of the cost regulations it would have a material impact of their competitiveness over the coming years, the team's material value, and the kind of reputational damage that would cause engineering talent to leave.

It would also call into question whether the historic achievements of any such team were valid and whether they should stand. Imagine if team X had all their constructor and driver points removed for the 2021 season, and that the points across the season were then reallocated in a manner which changed the outcome of, say, the WDC, even if the former winning driver's team was not guilty of any cost cap breach?

Yikes!

It is creating a difficult situation for the FIA, because the scale of the alleged breach - over $10 million - would, if proven to be true, require the FIA to impose the more severe range of sanctions. Those options start with the team having money deducted from their future budget cap allowance, scaling up to having points deducted, being suspended from races and ultimately up to the scale of being excluded from the championship.

Now, given the events of the 2021 season, it seems extremely likely that the FIA will not want to go down the route of any form of retrospective punishment - indeed, in general the FIA has been very reluctant to ever issue retrospective penalties. However, when making the point about considering the budget cap seriously, Ross Brawn said about the budget cap rules that "This has teeth. If you fraudulently breach the financial regulations, you will be losing your championship. It has serious consequences if teams breach these regulations.". How far might the FIA be prepared to go with any penalty if there was a major breach of the financial regulations?

[IceG]

The benchmark penalty must be that applied to McLaren in 2007: $100million fine, loss of all points, and exclusion from the championship.

Whilst there was a lots of sound and fury around that incident, and there were other teams involved, there was little evidence that it significantly contributed to the McLaren performance and results on track.

A $10million overspend on the other hand would directly reduce lap-time and, for a front-running team, increase competitiveness...

[Spectoremg]

Somebody please give me a good reason for a one hour delay? Apart from race control having to get their act together? There's always safety cars here so we're probably heading for a shortened race.

[Spectoremg]

Going to China and Saudi for starters while at the same time punishing Putin/Russia is hipocracy off the scale. F1 needs to have a conscience with one set of rules.

[noiceinmydrink]

Somebody please give me a good reason for a one hour delay? Apart from race control having to get their act together? There's always safety cars here so we're probably heading for a shortened race.

In fairness delaying it by an hour allowed the 3 hour timer to be delayed (I think?) - I'm kinda glad they committed to a time rather than doing an "ooh if when how what should we could we" at the initial 8pm start time

[Spectoremg]

Fair point.

[Wallio]

becoming the first country since 1982 to host three races(that was the US too)

While I know what you meant, 2020 saw Italy have 3.

[IceG]

So:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10379852/

If the certificates were issued/denied today that would distract from the whole wekend and could put any transgressors in the hot seat during an active F1 weekend. Delay until Monday and they would have 12 days to sort out the messaging and get their defences lined up.

Not a good look from a governance standpoint but good media management.

But it does indicate that all is not well in the state of Denmark (or possibly Austria).

[Row Man Gross-Gene]

So:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10379852/

If the certificates were issued/denied today that would distract from the whole wekend and could put any transgressors in the hot seat during an active F1 weekend. Delay until Monday and they would have 12 days to sort out the messaging and get their defences lined up.

Not a good look from a governance standpoint but good media management.

But it does indicate that all is not well in the state of Denmark (or possibly Austria).

It's understandable. The trophy's not going anywhere whether they release it now or Monday, I don't really care much about the timing. What I do care about is that they properly police the cost cap, that's going to be very important to the health and success of the smaller teams especially. If some teams have contravened the cap, they should be dealt with pretty harshly. That said, I don't think it should ever result in a driver losing a championship retroactively.

[mario]

So:

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fia- ... /10379852/

If the certificates were issued/denied today that would distract from the whole wekend and could put any transgressors in the hot seat during an active F1 weekend. Delay until Monday and they would have 12 days to sort out the messaging and get their defences lined up.

Not a good look from a governance standpoint but good media management.

But it does indicate that all is not well in the state of Denmark (or possibly Austria).

Benson has claimed that this is now the FIA's fourth date for issuing the certificates - having originally promised to publish them on the 30th September, that's since slipped to the 3rd, 5th and now the 10th October.

It's also been noted that the FIA seems to have intentionally chosen a timeslot that coincides with team personnel being in transit after the Japanese GP, suggesting that it's been chosen specifically to restrict teams from commenting until Monday at the earliest - I would agree that the repeated delays and the choice of timeslot don't paint a good picture from a governance standpoint.

It's understandable. The trophy's not going anywhere whether they release it now or Monday, I don't really care much about the timing. What I do care about is that they properly police the cost cap, that's going to be very important to the health and success of the smaller teams especially. If some teams have contravened the cap, they should be dealt with pretty harshly. That said, I don't think it should ever result in a driver losing a championship retroactively.

I suppose the question, though, is whether that attitude would potentially incentivise teams to push the limits, or to break them, if they felt the FIA wouldn't be prepared to take retrospective action and allow them to continue to cash in on that title.

[Wallio]

Man, it's almost like many fans, drivers, team principals, insiders, and pretty much ANYONE who wasn't the FIA said years ago that this would be impossible to police. It's not like there are dozens of loopholes and exceptions for teams to hide money under or anything. And what will the FIA do on Monday? Not a damn thing. A fine at best, but much more certainly a "secret deal" like Ferrari and their engines.

[Row Man Gross-Gene]

I suppose the question, though, is whether that attitude would potentially incentivise teams to push the limits, or to break them, if they felt the FIA wouldn't be prepared to take retrospective action and allow them to continue to cash in on that title.

Yeah, you're right Mario, those types of punishments should be on the table. I guess I'm just hoping that no team breaches the rules in such a way as to deserve such a punishment.

[Paul Hayes]

Nice to see Vettel have a good qualifying for a change!

[dinizintheoven]

If Seb's going to miss Suzuka as much as he said on his last qualifying lap, why doesn't he sign for Super GT and drive there twice?

It's not as if a certain Mr J. Button didn't also have the same idea... and it scored him another championship.

Banzai!

[mario]

If Seb's going to miss Suzuka as much as he said on his last qualifying lap, why doesn't he sign for Super GT and drive there twice?

It's not as if a certain Mr J. Button didn't also have the same idea... and it scored him another championship.

Banzai!

From his public statements, I would guess that, although there are fewer races per season in that series compared to F1, it would still likely involve him having to spend extended periods of time away from him family. I get the impression that he is at a point in his life where he does want to be around with his family more, and that competing in SuperGT might not appeal if it involved having to spend extended periods of time away from his family.

[Spectoremg]

Can we start ROTR early especially for race control. Why didn't they have them start on full wets?

[Alextrax52]

Don’t think we even need a ROTR thread today. Race Control are going to slam dunk it:

No adaptability to try and hold the race earlier because TV
A standing start on Intermediates
Inevitable big crash happens
A crane is sent out when cars are on track. This on the circuit where a similar situation cost a life only 8 years ago.

Londoner was right. The cavalier attitude to safety has become an utter joke

[Spectoremg]

I'm thinking Spa last year...

[Spectoremg]

The way commentators minds stray from waffle to fantasy - how about a tyre between intermediate and wet

[Har1MAS1415]

Don’t think we even need a ROTR thread today. Race Control are going to slam dunk it:

No adaptability to try and hold the race earlier because TV
A standing start on Intermediates
Inevitable big crash happens
A crane is sent out when cars are on track. This on the circuit where a similar situation cost a life only 8 years ago.

Londoner was right. The cavalier attitude to safety has become an utter joke

Has nothing been learned from the Bianchi tragedy?

[Jocke1]

I was perplexed seeing the drivers all being wary of the water, hopping and skipping over puddles in the pits
during the red flag and having to have the soles of their shoes being wiped before
entering their cars again.



Is it considered not glamorous and not "Formula One-y" enough to wear something simple like this?



Just have some team sponsor logos on them if they're considered to be embarrasing looking or whatever
the issue is that they're not wearing them during rain stoppages.

It's all about safety first and slipping even a tiny bit with the shoe on the pedals due to a moist sole
could mean ending up in the wall (as mentioned by Jolyon Palmer during the red flag today on F1TV).
Even though they wipe the sole with that towel I'd imagine it would still be a tiny bit moist.

[mario]

So, the FIA has now finally released the results of their audit, which has confirmed that "Oracle Red Bull Racing is considered to be in Procedural and Minor Overspend Breaches of the Financial Regulations". Aston Martin, meanwhile, has been found guilty of a "Procedural Breach" of the financial regulations - indicating that they have not necessarily overspent, but may have breached the rules in a different area - whilst Williams were found guilty of a procedural breach (relating to the previously mentioned issue of missing the original submission deadline).

However, the FIA has so far declined to release any figures confirming how much Red Bull exceeded the financial cap by - the only thing that seems to be confirmed is that it was less than the limit of 5% (equating to $7.25 million) if the FIA has only deemed it to be a "minor overspend" - and has only said that "The FIA Cost Cap Administration is currently determining the appropriate course of action to be taken under the Financial Regulations with respect to Aston Martin and Red Bull and further information will be communicated in compliance with the Regulations.".

[IceG]

So a 5% over-spend is a minor breach.

Does that mean only being able to provide 0.95 litres of fuel for testing is a minor breach?

Or the plank being worn so it is 0.5mm below the limit - is that a minor breach?

Or perhaps a wing gap being 0.3mm more than it should be - another minor breach?

Or perhaps managing the fuel flow mechanism so it is only compliant with the rules when the monitoring system is operational - another minor breach?

Each and every one of those examples have costs teams grid positions, race positions and/or points, and/or prize money.

One may argue that those are engineering breaches but it is the FIA who have linked engineering prowess to financial acumen, and they must therefore apply equivalent penalties.

Perhaps we will go the other way? Each $1m overspend is 0.1 secs of lap-time (per Benotti) so can we expect every team to invest in that extra 0.7 secs and every team to take the same financial and/or sporting penalty for the minor breach, a zero sum game which destroys the principles of the cost-cap.

Retrospective penalisation for 2021 and 2022 hurts the sport, the fans and the drivers, and would call into question Verstappen's double championships. The only solution is to make Red Bull hurt in 2023 and possibly 2024, as happened with the dubious Ferrari engine fix. Future penalties opens the racing up, provides opportunities for under-spending teams (i.e. those that obeyed the rules!) to be more competetive, and may make senior engineers and drivers look for roles at teams who demonstrate financial proberty.

What a mess...

[mario]

So a 5% over-spend is a minor breach.

Does that mean only being able to provide 0.95 litres of fuel for testing is a minor breach?

Or the plank being worn so it is 0.5mm below the limit - is that a minor breach?

Or perhaps a wing gap being 0.3mm more than it should be - another minor breach?

Or perhaps managing the fuel flow mechanism so it is only compliant with the rules when the monitoring system is operational - another minor breach?

Each and every one of those examples have costs teams grid positions, race positions and/or points, and/or prize money.

One may argue that those are engineering breaches but it is the FIA who have linked engineering prowess to financial acumen, and they must therefore apply equivalent penalties.

Perhaps we will go the other way? Each $1m overspend is 0.1 secs of lap-time (per Benotti) so can we expect every team to invest in that extra 0.7 secs and every team to take the same financial and/or sporting penalty for the minor breach, a zero sum game which destroys the principles of the cost-cap.

Retrospective penalisation for 2021 and 2022 hurts the sport, the fans and the drivers, and would call into question Verstappen's double championships. The only solution is to make Red Bull hurt in 2023 and possibly 2024, as happened with the dubious Ferrari engine fix. Future penalties opens the racing up, provides opportunities for under-spending teams (i.e. those that obeyed the rules!) to be more competetive, and may make senior engineers and drivers look for roles at teams who demonstrate financial proberty.

What a mess...

It's a particular problem given it's the team that is seen as having the most developed and fastest car on track that is the one that is facing the complaints about overspending, as well as having been the one that was most vocal earlier this season about having the budget cap raised - i.e. it immediately raises the question about whether that performance has come about through subverting the cap, and the pressure on having it raised raises the question of whether they've overspent significantly this year as well.

Retrospective penalisation may be seen as problematic, but on the other hand it then raises the question of whether the FIA basically should allow teams to continue to compete with a car that has been developed by breaching the financial regulations, when a car that had broken the technical regulations would likely face greater scrutiny and penalty.

As you say, it then creates the problem that, if the FIA is too lenient, then other teams will inevitably see the overspending as a strategic option, pushing the system potentially to breaking point. On the other hand, the FIA and Liberty Media will not want to have to deal with the backlash from any Red Bull fans who complain that any penalty against their team or their driver is "too harsh".

[Row Man Gross-Gene]

I'm curious what people think would be an appropriate penalty for this situation? Mario convinced me that some significant penalties should be on the table, but I'd like to know what people think will work. Obviously with the caveat that we don't know yet by how much Red Bull exceeded the cap. They could have gone anywhere from 0 to $7.5million over. In addition to procedural errors.

[Wallio]

The one interesting thing in this whole cost cap malarky is that both the FIA and Red Bull actually agree that there is no hidden funny business. The numbers are the numbers and there is no backchannel cloak-and-dagger stuff.

The dispute seems to arise over what was actually submitted. Red Bull claims that its books were under the cap, but the FIA says they were not. So with this important (and frankly underreported) distinction noted, and with the FIA stating that despite what Toto claims there is NOT an ongoing investigation into Red Bull, in fact, the FIA praised all ten teams for working with the new board overseeing the cost cap throughout 2022, so thus, this all can only mean that the breach is down to an interpretation of the exception rules.

Clearly then, RBR has submitted expenses that they claim are exempted but the FIA disagrees. This could actually get very interesting, as there are MANY loopholes and grey areas in the cost cap rules, and teams will no doubt begin to push against them in the same way they push against the technical regs. That could get VERY fun very fast.

[mario]

The one interesting thing in this whole cost cap malarky is that both the FIA and Red Bull actually agree that there is no hidden funny business. The numbers are the numbers and there is no backchannel cloak-and-dagger stuff.

The dispute seems to arise over what was actually submitted. Red Bull claims that its books were under the cap, but the FIA says they were not. So with this important (and frankly underreported) distinction noted, and with the FIA stating that despite what Toto claims there is NOT an ongoing investigation into Red Bull, in fact, the FIA praised all ten teams for working with the new board overseeing the cost cap throughout 2022, so thus, this all can only mean that the breach is down to an interpretation of the exception rules.

Clearly then, RBR has submitted expenses that they claim are exempted but the FIA disagrees. This could actually get very interesting, as there are MANY loopholes and grey areas in the cost cap rules, and teams will no doubt begin to push against them in the same way they push against the technical regs. That could get VERY fun very fast.

The thing is, if it is for the reason that AMus have suggested, it might not necessarily be in Red Bull's interests to start pushing things too far given that HMRC might start entering the picture as an interested third party.

Under the cost cap system, teams are allowed to exempt the salaries of the three highest paid members of staff of the team from the cost cap system. According to AMuS, Red Bull have claimed that Adrian Newey is one of those three members of staff whose salary should be exempted from the cost cap, and based their submission around that position. However, it would seem that the FIA did not agree with Red Bull's assertion that Newey is a member of staff, and this is where things get more complicated.

It seems to go all the way back to 2014, when Red Bull announced that there was a change in Newey's role within Red Bull Technologies, where he would be employed on a consultancy basis and "advise and mentor" Red Bull's employees. At the time, that change was linked to Newey's desire to get involved in non-motorsport activities, such as the America's Cup. However, that also seems to mean that Newey changed from being an employee of Red Bull to being categorised as a self-employed consultant.

The claim by AMuS is that, when Red Bull presented their accounts to the FIA, the FIA rejected Red Bull's attempt to have Newey's salary exempted from the cost cap. The FIA's position is that Red Bull has hired Newey on a long term contract as a self-employed consultant, not a direct employee for the team, so those consultancy fees must be included under the budget cap.

Now, we have to acknowledge the speculative nature of those claims, so a pinch of salt needs to be taken here. However, if the issue did revolve around Red Bull trying to classify Newey as an employee, rather than a self-employed external consultant - which would fit the theory that this is around certain exemptions - then that might start opening up questions about Newey's status for taxation purposes if one set of accounts for Red Bull lists Newey as a "self-employed consultant", whilst another listed him as an "employee".

[Wallio]

The thing is, if it is for the reason that AMus have suggested, it might not necessarily be in Red Bull's interests to start pushing things too far given that HMRC might start entering the picture as an interested third party.

Under the cost cap system, teams are allowed to exempt the salaries of the three highest paid members of staff of the team from the cost cap system. According to AMuS, Red Bull have claimed that Adrian Newey is one of those three members of staff whose salary should be exempted from the cost cap, and based their submission around that position. However, it would seem that the FIA did not agree with Red Bull's assertion that Newey is a member of staff, and this is where things get more complicated.

It seems to go all the way back to 2014, when Red Bull announced that there was a change in Newey's role within Red Bull Technologies, where he would be employed on a consultancy basis and "advise and mentor" Red Bull's employees. At the time, that change was linked to Newey's desire to get involved in non-motorsport activities, such as the America's Cup. However, that also seems to mean that Newey changed from being an employee of Red Bull to being categorised as a self-employed consultant.

The claim by AMuS is that, when Red Bull presented their accounts to the FIA, the FIA rejected Red Bull's attempt to have Newey's salary exempted from the cost cap. The FIA's position is that Red Bull has hired Newey on a long term contract as a self-employed consultant, not a direct employee for the team, so those consultancy fees must be included under the budget cap.

Now, we have to acknowledge the speculative nature of those claims, so a pinch of salt needs to be taken here. However, if the issue did revolve around Red Bull trying to classify Newey as an employee, rather than a self-employed external consultant - which would fit the theory that this is around certain exemptions - then that might start opening up questions about Newey's status for taxation purposes if one set of accounts for Red Bull lists Newey as a "self-employed consultant", whilst another listed him as an "employee".

I'm grabbing my popcorn, because F1 has figured out how to make bloody accounting fascinating. This is all doubly funny if true, because a few races ago, the F1TV crew during a lull in Free Practice had a lengthy discussion where they were openly asking "whatever happened to the boat?" when discussing Newey stepping away....then coming back. Would be pretty funny if that is indeed what this all is about.

[mario]

I'm grabbing my popcorn, because F1 has figured out how to make bloody accounting fascinating. This is all doubly funny if true, because a few races ago, the F1TV crew during a lull in Free Practice had a lengthy discussion where they were openly asking "whatever happened to the boat?" when discussing Newey stepping away....then coming back. Would be pretty funny if that is indeed what this all is about.

Well, we will have to wait and see for a bit longer - as an aside, it is noticeable that, according to Companies House, both Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Technologies were meant to have submitted their accounts by now, but both are listed as "overdue" for submission.

[IceG]

Nine days since the announcement about the breaches and no sign yet of any consequences.

There are going to be a couple of team principles being asked a lot of embarrassing questions this weekend. Will be interesting to see how they stonewall and delay.

Perhaps the FIA could maybe do their job too?

[Har1MAS1415]

Nine days since the announcement about the breaches and no sign yet of any consequences.

There are going to be a couple of team principles being asked a lot of embarrassing questions this weekend. Will be interesting to see how they stonewall and delay.

Perhaps the FIA could maybe do their job too?

Fat chance of that regarding that last sentence.

[IceG]

That team principal's press conference was brutal.

Christian Horner "We have done nothing wrong. The FIA should have put more resources into the audit. The rules are so complicated. Zak called me a cheat. Boo, hoo, it is so unfair".

Zak Brown "Cheating is bad. I did not call anyone a cheat. But if you cheated that is bad. Also you overspent and that is cheating".

Jost Capito "We managed to get it right but mainly because we have no money".

But somehow the incredible animosity and barbed exchanges were so polite compared with the UK House of Commons during prime minister's question time. Some lessons to be learnt there.

[Har1MAS1415]

That team principal's press conference was brutal.

Christian Horner "We have done nothing wrong. The FIA should have put more resources into the audit. The rules are so complicated. Zak called me a cheat. Boo, hoo, it is so unfair".

Zak Brown "Cheating is bad. I did not call anyone a cheat. But if you cheated that is bad. Also you overspent and that is cheating".

Jost Capito "We managed to get it right but mainly because we have no money".

But somehow the incredible animosity and barbed exchanges were so polite compared with the UK House of Commons during prime minister's question time. Some lessons to be learnt there.

Sounds like "brutal" is an understatement.

[Wallio]

Zak is such a shite stirrer.

"You named Red Bull in your letter."

"No I didn't. I named a team who breached the cost cap."

"Yes and there was only one. Red Bull."

"What a coincidence."


I love it.

[Har1MAS1415]

At least the decent thing was done and the issue was dropped for a moment after the passing of Red Bull's founder.

[Har1MAS1415]

Look what Motorsport History has just uncovered regarding Volkswagen.
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/arch ... f1-project

[IceG]

Wrist slapped:

"Red Bull: F1 team receive $7m fine & 10% aero research reduction"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/63430407

[Har1MAS1415]

Wrist slapped:

"Red Bull: F1 team receive $7m fine & 10% aero research reduction"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/63430407

Still seems a bit lenient but can't argue with that.

[Barbazza]

Wrist slapped:

"Red Bull: F1 team receive $7m fine & 10% aero research reduction"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/63430407

Pathetic. But pretty much exactly what I expected. I'll carry on ignoring F1 then!

[Har1MAS1415]

Wrist slapped:

"Red Bull: F1 team receive $7m fine & 10% aero research reduction"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/63430407

Pathetic. But pretty much exactly what I expected. I'll carry on ignoring F1 then!

I don't know why I am still paying attention to F1. Suppose it's not an easy habit to break when it's something you've followed from the age of 3!