yeah, it's used quite a lot in motor-racing too 'balance of performance' in Endurance, GT and touring cars.
Weight penalty for cap breaches might be a good idea as that's more difficult to fiddle as the penalised team would just have say a 10kg heavier minimum weight limit. Actually I quite like that idea as it's a whole season punishment that will actually slow them down. Now all the FIA have to do is work out how to get to the results of the financial submissions quicker (ok so it's first year this year) so it doesn't take 2 seasons after the 'error' for the punishment to take effect.
I like this idea. Like the gee gees. The financial results for the past year have to be submitted after the spend is done. after final race thats that really, this year that is 18th November 2022 the next races is 31st march 2023 so there is a clear 4 months to get this certification. I would actually say to the teams they need to submit half year results at summer break and have those ticked off to help with the timing. BUT 4 months to certify. it seems ridiculous they cant certify in that time and no race license should be given prior to certification surely? Is that wrong thinking?
At least we know that Merc didn’t cheat to win last WDC. All hail Sir Lewis Hamilton, the first x8 World Drivers Champion.
Spoke to someone close to the sport today, who I thought had a interesting take on this cost cap saga. Their perspective was, that for a minor breach it only makes sense to sanction the team, because - should you choose to - for that level of overspend it would be pretty easy to meet the cap by deprioritising the second car significantly, which isn’t something the FIA is going to want to encourage. In light of that they said they couldn’t see it being viable to apply sporting penalties in the future either because again, whilst the teams are relatively spread, it’s going to steer the leading teams towards prioritising one car as the optimal approach to either championship. Their conclusion was that the end result will be a fine, because apparently the FIA needs money - and probably something relatively trivial, that sounds sporting like having to miss some FP1 sessions. They suggested the FIA could airbrush this by saying that in the first year the clarifications have meant their are mitigating circumstances, and that future penalties could be harsher. Their final thought was that RedBull hold quite a few cards in any negotiation because presumably, they are now on course to be in a similar situation this year given their accounting method put them below last year and the FIA method did not. As such they’d be wise to be saving costs with the championships effectively wrapped up and with a couple of high profile races still to come from Liberty’s perspective, the prospect of RedBull doing the bare minimum to meet their obligations, whilst saving money will cause further tensions between “the show” and “the regulator”. I don’t think they’d have any knowledge of the situation, so I don’t believe this is any more than insider speculation, but I found it interesting and it’s a take that hasn’t been in the press, so I figured I’d post for consumption here.
I can understand this cap is going to take time to bed in and Merc no doubt spent big for the World Championships they obtained. but there should be clarity and a clear road map to a more robust system of penalty once the accounting is established to be properly auditable. Much of what people feel is emotion which is understandable since that is the beauty of a sport, its ability to generate loyalty and emotion and tribal behaviour. Redbull are for many a fan Mr Nasty but they are as a consequence part of the entertainment. let's accept this is year 1 of a new rule for a sport that is seeking to grow its fan base. But let's not be complacent in getting to a better model and consequence. P.S. I hate Redbull but I don't see punitive punishing in the first year as appropriate and I recognise hating a team is part of the entertainment. I also admire them as a team, the others should learn from them, then we can have lots of baddies and goodies.
Under 5 and the FIA can get away with a meaningless penalty, but over 5 and the **** hits the fan. I thin they're well over 5 and this delay is the FIA trying to figure out how they can make it look like it's under.
This is the problem with setting a cap. If a small breach it considered say, $7 million, but other teams are staying within the cap, then that "small" breach could be the all the difference. Then if that breach is acceptable, the rich teams will all go to that limit, essentially setting a new hard cap. So if they want these caps, they should set a hard cap, and maybe offer incentives to come in below the cap. Honestly though, I think this is just nearly impossible to police and should be dropped, but if they insist on keeping it, they should let teams know (going forward) that if they break the cap or are found to be using creative accounting to get around it, the punishment is ejection from the competition. No exceptions.
If RBR used accounting practices to avoid a minor breach, that might in any event be major, and they are using the same principles this year, then the problem could be a lot worse. Last and this year. Is there also the threat of a legal challenge from Ferrari and Mercedes even if it is a minor breach? As everyone has mentioned, $7m is a lot of money and thereby improvements to the car. I try hard not to let my distaste for Horner sway my thinking but it is tough. If there is a major breach last year and another this year the sport has truely messed up. Brushing it under the carpet is not the answer long term but the Dutch fans and many others will be fuming. Redbull would threaten to depart the sport perhaps, which would not be a good result. It could be very very messy, damage all of Liberty's efforts to grow the popularity. There is potentially a lot at stake. I see a big chunk of fudge coming.
But they already knew the rules. I don’t get this, the teams are clever enough to ring a10th of a second out of the cars, but can’t add or subtract! It’s cheating for me, plain and simple. They could at any time ask for clarification whether certain costs can be excluded, but chose not to.
I think it boils down to interpretation same as technical rules. If the rules say that staff 'benefits' are excluded from the cost cap and you believe that free lunches are a staff 'benefit' then you submit your accounts in that way. If the FIA say that free lunches are not what they consider staff 'benefits' then that's down to a difference in interpretation! I'm not saying I like Red Bull or the budget cap but just that I can see how interpretation can differ. As for clarification, it's the first year of the budget cap and there was no trial year due to covid so any team breaching the cap would be ready to fight their own corner and argue that the rules were too open to interpretation. Sometimes it's easier to ask for forgiveness than permission!! Remember it's not just a sport it's business - Big business!
Sorry we will have to agree to disagree. I could accept your reasoning if more teams had struggled with these new financial rules, but only one team who have constantly moaned about the cap fell foul?!
No problem, always good to hear other peoples opinions. Personally I think Red Bull just pushed the limits and knew full well what they where doing!
Without more information it's hard to say, but the FIA have constant dialogue with the team, and any interpretation like this can be privately clarified. If Red Bull ask the FIA "are staff lunches included", and the FIA said yes at the time, but have said no since, then Red Bull are right to be annoyed. If they've been told no at the time, or haven't asked the question, then that's on Red Bull.
I don’t know whether I believe the whole free lunch and sick pay thing or not, but to be honest if it is true, then it just shows the rules aren’t ready for strict implementation. How can parts that don’t get fitted outside the car be ring fenced out, but then a staff member who can’t work, has to be budgeted for? Additionally, given half the teams have people working on “it’s not F1 related really” projects that develop/maintain F1 relevant skills which can be consulted in at market rates, why would you not just switch the sick person to one of those as needed to exclude them from being billed for those days?
There is now talk that Adrian is paid through his own company and therefore not one of the top 3 employed earners but red bull say he's employed! I just wish FIA would come clean and dish out a punishment, with no official news it seems like they could be negotiating with Red Bull what the punishment should be!!! Another of the FIA's way too long for a decision moments.....
