Probly wings and bodywork for that kind of cost range. Could be spares they brought along but never used as a new spec came along quicker.
But yeah still they made them and there was resources around making them.
Spare Parts (F1 odds and ends)
- Thread starter Masanari
- Start date
-
Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
-
Probly wings and bodywork for that kind of cost range. Could be spares they brought along but never used as a new spec came along quicker.
But yeah still they made them and there was resources around making them.
The only way a team can be legally and ethically suspicious of red bull by half way point of season is through seeing number of upgrades brought to table compared to their own.
The paper work is submitted preface every race of every change made to race car specs so teams should have an idea of how much each change would cost compared to what they had done.
Plus add in how many cars verstapen busted up etc.
If red bull are saying its 200k and that's what it is then we really need to know for sure.
Sounds like Red Bull have agrees to an 'Acceptance Breach Agreement' and as such will receive a fine and 25% reduction aero testing!
There is to be a press statement from RB at 11:30 Mexico time on Friday!
I really hope the statement, that I think FIA approved will not be some bull about 'not our fault they changed rules' cop out.
I do wonder if they are also going to breach the 2022 cap and if so the punishment should be more severe and be sorted a lot earlier in the season.
There is to be a press statement from RB at 11:30 Mexico time on Friday!
I really hope the statement, that I think FIA approved will not be some bull about 'not our fault they changed rules' cop out.
I do wonder if they are also going to breach the 2022 cap and if so the punishment should be more severe and be sorted a lot earlier in the season.
I'd want crystal clarity here. How much and what process error.
Red Bull have been hit with a $7m (£6.07m) fine and a 10% reduction in permitted aerodynamic research for breaking Formula 1's budget cap.
Governing body the FIA said that Red Bull had overspent by £1.86m in 2021, when Max Verstappen won his first title.
So this is bbc report.
a) horner found to be lying through his teeth. he said very clearly at austin is was a matter of a couple hundred thousand.
b) the number was leaked to the paddock before austin. 1.8mil was known but not confirmed.
c) 1.86million cannot be "free lunches" its pretty clear.
7mil fine and 10% less wind tunnl.. is it enough?
Governing body the FIA said that Red Bull had overspent by £1.86m in 2021, when Max Verstappen won his first title.
So this is bbc report.
a) horner found to be lying through his teeth. he said very clearly at austin is was a matter of a couple hundred thousand.
b) the number was leaked to the paddock before austin. 1.8mil was known but not confirmed.
c) 1.86million cannot be "free lunches" its pretty clear.
7mil fine and 10% less wind tunnl.. is it enough?
Considering they have two teams and they can funnel their R&D through that, It's a slap on the wrist.
The fine is irrelevant to them, so that's just a little bonus for FIA.
As for the 10% reduction in wind tunnel runs I think is very lenient but it is the first year of the budget cap so I can understand a bit of lenience.
I do think the FIA should have stated they gave a lenient punishment as it was first year in the hope of deterring other teams.
Looks like Red Bull will now only get 25 aero runs (not 28), Ferrari 30, and Merc 32 (2nd and 3rd in constructors) and who ever is last gets 46 runs.
As for the 10% reduction in wind tunnel runs I think is very lenient but it is the first year of the budget cap so I can understand a bit of lenience.
I do think the FIA should have stated they gave a lenient punishment as it was first year in the hope of deterring other teams.
Looks like Red Bull will now only get 25 aero runs (not 28), Ferrari 30, and Merc 32 (2nd and 3rd in constructors) and who ever is last gets 46 runs.
Apologies for the amateur question- but if they were £1.86m over last season, is there a likely chance they are over this season as well? Hence a second punishment surely due for higher severity.
I want to say that the punishment is not enough. That a breach of the cap is simply not acceptable.
Yet it appears, again, that the FIA are incapable of creating a rule book that sets out black and white expectations.
There are references here to redundancy, sick pay and catering, as well as spare parts. Now forgive me for being a simpleton, but I thought the cost cap really was all about evening the DEVELOPMENT field. As in, technological development….worth LAP TIME.
For me, spare parts ought to be taken out of the cap- no team should be in a position where they haven’t enough parts to run their best car. Ridiculous. As for catering, I couldn’t care less what bloody sandwiches you’re serving your staff!! Redundancy and sick pay are employment terms, surely that cannot be something we worry about?!
As usual, the whole thing sounds like a complicated mess, open to abuse by smart people and as a result, we’ve seen the 3 richest teams finish 1-2-3 by a distance.
What a ****ing useless rule, and useless season.
Should be the most spectacular sport in the world, but is totally nerfed by greed and corruption.
Its like telling the drunk that he can’t have the final beer at the end of the evening. Completely worthless punishment.
It gets more interesting:
Summary of ABA terms and sanctions
In accordance with the findings of the Cost Cap Administration, RBR has acknowledged that the Reporting Documentation submitted by it included the following incorrectly excluded and/or adjusted costs:
1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning catering services);
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), as those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group;
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and associated employer’s social security contributions);
5. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make the necessary upwards adjustment;
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies);
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units);
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations (concerning use of inventories);
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs re-charged to it by Red Bull Power Trains Limited;
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1(r) of the Financial Regulations;
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations.
And further that consequently its Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £1,864,000 (1.6%). RBR has therefore accepted that it has breached: (i) Article 8.2(e) of the Financial Regulations due to its failure to file accurate Full Year Reporting Documentation in respect of the 2021 Full Year Reporting Period, and (ii) Article 8.10(b) of the Financial Regulations due to its failure to keep its Relevant Costs under the 2021 Cost Cap.
The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652 (0.37%).
So it seems it wasn't just 1 little cost error but 13 broken rules!!!
Summary of ABA terms and sanctions
In accordance with the findings of the Cost Cap Administration, RBR has acknowledged that the Reporting Documentation submitted by it included the following incorrectly excluded and/or adjusted costs:
1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning catering services);
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), as those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group;
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and associated employer’s social security contributions);
5. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make the necessary upwards adjustment;
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies);
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units);
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations (concerning use of inventories);
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs re-charged to it by Red Bull Power Trains Limited;
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1(r) of the Financial Regulations;
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations.
And further that consequently its Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £1,864,000 (1.6%). RBR has therefore accepted that it has breached: (i) Article 8.2(e) of the Financial Regulations due to its failure to file accurate Full Year Reporting Documentation in respect of the 2021 Full Year Reporting Period, and (ii) Article 8.10(b) of the Financial Regulations due to its failure to keep its Relevant Costs under the 2021 Cost Cap.
The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652 (0.37%).
So it seems it wasn't just 1 little cost error but 13 broken rules!!!
**** me drunk.
If I was Mercedes I’d develop the engine and everything next season, spend about £500m on making the best car, get DQd for 2023 and then dominate 24,25
As I said though- it’s clear some accounting tricks were tried here. Proper **** that is.
so... as i read this
a) they overstated "exclusion" costs regarding catering (free lunches)
b) they put some employees (nots sure if this is one person or 3 people) social security and bonus in as excluded
c) they tried to exluced costs already reported by thier reporting group by marking them as non f1.
d) they tired to understate the costs incurred when selling off some asset (so the gain looked bigger than it was)
e) they tired to exlcude apprenticeship costs
f) they understated the cost of engines (this one is serious)
g) they also tried to understate costs of intenroies whatever that means (sotrage or whatever i dunno)
In short their accounts would seem to be transparent enough in terms of the "reliability of numbers" but they have a consistent theme of trying to write those costs out of the budget
the final line is crucial and the get out of jail card. "The FIA acknowledges" that if some osrt of tax credit has been correctly then the breach would have been far smaller (432k) and i suppose thats then ok?????
It seems red bull's accountants were that incompetent that they couldn't properly apply the tax dodge but could incorrectly deduct several expenses t make itself look under the cap.
It seems to me a fudge has taken place here that the FIA want to say that well it was 1.8mil over but guess what the idiots forgot some tax thing and its "not so bad"
Will Mercedes Sue?
It's odd how. 02mm is punishable by disqualification, but 2 million quid is a slap on the wrists. F1 is great! 
Aston Martin have been fined $450,000 for 'procedural breaches' but no overspend!
Aston Martin summary of inaccurately filed documentation
1. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning costs in respect of the new F1 Team headquarters);
2. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of the provision set forth by Article 4.1(b)(ii) (concerning R&D tax credit);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost in respect of the new F1 simulator);
4. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(o) of the Financial Regulations (concerning wind tunnel additional fees);
5. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning certain signing bonus cost);
6. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(ii) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the use of Transferable Components);
7. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provision set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations (concerning Used Inventories);
8. Cost pursuant to Articles 3.1(h)(i) and 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning service desk costs);
9. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost of catering services provided to personnel at its factory headquarters);
10. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost of desks and chairs);
11. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(h) of the Financial Regulations (concerning unrecorded costs and losses in respect of the cost of services rendered by sponsors);
12. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(j) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost of services rendered by outsourced personnel)
Aston Martin summary of inaccurately filed documentation
1. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning costs in respect of the new F1 Team headquarters);
2. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of the provision set forth by Article 4.1(b)(ii) (concerning R&D tax credit);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost in respect of the new F1 simulator);
4. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(o) of the Financial Regulations (concerning wind tunnel additional fees);
5. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning certain signing bonus cost);
6. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(ii) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the use of Transferable Components);
7. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provision set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations (concerning Used Inventories);
8. Cost pursuant to Articles 3.1(h)(i) and 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning service desk costs);
9. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost of catering services provided to personnel at its factory headquarters);
10. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost of desks and chairs);
11. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(h) of the Financial Regulations (concerning unrecorded costs and losses in respect of the cost of services rendered by sponsors);
12. Cost pursuant to Article 3.1(j) of the Financial Regulations (concerning cost of services rendered by outsourced personnel)
Combining the penalty with the WCC based handicap, Mercedes will have about 20% more windtunnel and CFD time than Red Bull next season.
Still think the penalty is soft, but it will be interesting to see how much this effects things.
Still think the penalty is soft, but it will be interesting to see how much this effects things.
The money fine probably doesn't mean much. Will pay for the end of season gala.
The 10% development time reduction is a big one. That is quite a hard penalty
The 10% development time reduction is a big one. That is quite a hard penalty
Probably not going to have a ton of influence on next year's car... Maybe later in the season or in to 2024.