Grand Prix Rejects

IceG wrote: ↑01 Oct 2022, 12:10 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!

Spectoremg wrote: ↑02 Oct 2022, 12:17 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.

MyHamsterRacedAnOnyx wrote: ↑21 Sep 2022, 20:18 becoming the first country since 1982 to host three races(that was the US too)

IceG wrote: ↑05 Oct 2022, 16:31 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).

IceG wrote: ↑05 Oct 2022, 16:31 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 wrote: ↑05 Oct 2022, 18:05It'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 wrote: ↑06 Oct 2022, 19:33 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.

dinizintheoven wrote: ↑08 Oct 2022, 19:23 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!

Freeze-O-Kimi wrote: ↑09 Oct 2022, 05:34 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

IceG wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 07:00 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...

Wallio wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 18:27 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 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 20:39 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 wrote: ↑11 Oct 2022, 21:19I'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.

IceG wrote: ↑19 Oct 2022, 16:49 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?

IceG wrote: ↑22 Oct 2022, 17:40 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.

IceG wrote: ↑28 Oct 2022, 16:02 Wrist slapped:

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

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

IceG wrote: ↑28 Oct 2022, 16:02 Wrist slapped:

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

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

Barbazza wrote: ↑28 Oct 2022, 16:43

IceG wrote: ↑28 Oct 2022, 16:02 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!