2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[mendis]

Sure, but maybe Ferrari in order to be close enough needs to push up to 110% making errors while for RBR is enough been 95% with no risks..... are you sure that going over the budget cap didn't give to RBR that GAP to race safe while the others have to stress more???

RBR cheated, and won by cheating, that's a fact

If you have knowledge that we do not have, please do share those facts.
Otherwise the only thing that we know is that the FIA has judged RB breached the cap, but lacking details as to why they judged that, it's not a fact that they cheated.

Breaching the cap is cheating. This is binary. The point of a cap is to put a ceiling on spending. 9 teams did it and it's very stinky when the team that won the last two WDC's, and whom people have been making noise about bringing lots of updates for two years now, is the one over the CAP.

I didn't know F1Technical was hosting the 2022 Olympic Mental Gymnastic games this year.

Quite a participation I must say. Howz the experience?

The thread name lays down the cursor for the kind of discussion that would follow. If we are posting here, even criticising others, we are participating. I am enjoying both sides of the fight here.

[Just_a_fan]

(d) All costs of Consideration provided to the three individuals (other than any individual
in respect of whom all costs of Consideration are excluded pursuant to any other subArticle of this Article 3.1) in respect of whom the highest aggregate amount of
Consideration has been recognised in Total Costs of the Reporting Group during the
Reporting Period (the "Excluded Persons"), or to a Connected Party of any Excluded
Person, in each case in exchange for that Excluded Person providing services to or for
the benefit of the F1 Team, together with associated employer’s social security
contributions and all travel and accommodation costs in respect of each Excluded
Person"

The word employee doesn't appear in this paragraph. Is says an individual or a connected party providing services. Their employment status is irrelevant.

If the FIA are saying there is a breach on these grounds i'm honestly not surprised RB are adamant they're right.

It mentions "employer's social security contributions" which suggests that the person has to be an employee. A contractor working through his own limited company and the contracting firm wouldn't pay these costs for the contractor. Red Bull wouldn't be paying any social security payments for Newey as a contractor and thus Newey wouldn't be considered an employee by the FIA.

[DChemTech]

Sure, but maybe Ferrari in order to be close enough needs to push up to 110% making errors while for RBR is enough been 95% with no risks..... are you sure that going over the budget cap didn't give to RBR that GAP to race safe while the others have to stress more???

RBR cheated, and won by cheating, that's a fact

If you have knowledge that we do not have, please do share those facts.
Otherwise the only thing that we know is that the FIA has judged RB breached the cap, but lacking details as to why they judged that, it's not a fact that they cheated.

Breaching the cap is cheating. This is binary. The point of a cap is to put a ceiling on spending. 9 teams did it and it's very stinky when the team that won the last two WDC's, and whom people have been making noise about bringing lots of updates for two years now, is the one over the CAP.

I didn't know F1Technical was hosting the 2022 Olympic Mental Gymnastic games this year.

As stated a gazzilion times, since there is a dispute between the team and the FIA considering whether certain costs should be accounted within the gap, it matters what those costs were. So far the FIA has judged RB to breach the gap, but a judgement is not a fact in itself. And, before we can make any definitive judgement on whether the team was cheating (which insinuates malice), there was a genuine misunderstanding from the side of RB, or whether the rules were worded poorly and the FIA tries to penalize Red Bull for their own flaws in setting up the rules, more information needs to be provided about what happened. Transparancy is going to be key here. Until then, any claim about malice is speculative.

[Just_a_fan]

Transparancy is going to be key here. Until then, any claim about malice is speculative.

Until Red Bull are able to get the FIA to change their mind, they are guilty of malice.

[chrisc90]

RB probably moved a lot of the people over to the PU department.

I mean which employees do you consider part of the team under the cost cap.

There is a lad who is the senior PU technician, but he also helps to do the pit stops. Should his time as being a PU tech be included in the team budget because he assists with the pit stops?

I can really see how there is a ‘disagreement’ here. Who works where and where should the cost be.

Maybe you could have a whole team of employees in PU, who volunteer their time in the race team. Sharp gets complicated.

[DChemTech]

Transparancy is going to be key here. Until then, any claim about malice is speculative.

Until Red Bull are able to get the FIA to change their mind, they are guilty of malice.

I disagree. the FIA can judge RB to have breached the cap on grounds of something that was a genuine misinterpretation of the rules. That would be incompetence or ignorance, but not malice. As mentioned hyperbolically before, under most circumstances killing someone is wrong, but it is not always premedidated murder.

[dans79]

RB probably moved a lot of the people over to the PU department.

I mean which employees do you consider part of the team under the cost cap.

There is a lad who is the senior PU technician, but he also helps to do the pit stops. Should his time as being a PU tech be included in the team budget because he assists with the pit stops?

I can really see how there is a ‘disagreement’ here. Who works where and where should the cost be.

Maybe you could have a whole team of employees in PU, who volunteer their time in the race team. Sharp gets complicated.

To me, anything like that would be a blatant attempt to skirt the rules!

[chrisc90]

I know you probably meaning a much wider audience of staff when you replied to that.

If you have a PU technician, employed by power trains, working in the garage, but doubles up as the pit crew… what budget are they working under?

Technically you could say they are working for the race team which comes under the cap. But that guys wage is paid directly by the power trains business

[djones]

I know you probably meaning a much wider audience of staff when you replied to that.

If you have a PU technician, employed by power trains, working in the garage, but doubles up as the pit crew… what budget are they working under?

Technically you could say they are working for the race team which comes under the cap. But that guys wage is paid directly by the power trains business

If playing fair then you would simply take their FTE and split it as required. It's really very easy and only becomes complex if somebody is purposefully trying to hide things.

I do a similar thing at work where technical people also do some occasional work for the sales team. The time with sales needs to be under the sales budget.

[dans79]

I know you probably meaning a much wider audience of staff when you replied to that.

Yes and no, because a pit crew member can have a dramatic output on a race or championship. A botched pit stop could cost you a race or a championship, while a good one could do the inverse.

If you have a PU technician, employed by power trains, working in the garage, but doubles up as the pit crew… what budget are they working under?

Technically you could say they are working for the race team which comes under the cap. But that guys wage is paid directly by the power trains business

I assume for simplicity sake the FIA doesn't want any crossover. If they allow crossover, that's a giant can of worms.

Does the pit crew guy (as an example) work for both companies, does he work as a contractor for the race team? this alone is a large complex problem.

How much he is paid is an even bigger issue, as the FIA will be required to maintain a minimum salary list for every single position/task that might be performed.

[dans79]

I do a similar thing at work where technical people also do some occasional work for the sales team. The time with sales needs to be under the sales budget.

I've had something similar in the past as well. Even though i was a salaried employee, i had to log all my work accurate to 15 minute increments. This meant from day to day my salary game out of the budgets for multiple departments. It also meant it ended up being charged to multiple different clients!

[mendis]

I know you probably meaning a much wider audience of staff when you replied to that.

Yes and no, because a pit crew member can have a dramatic output on a race or championship. A botched pit stop could cost you a race or a championship, while a good one could do the inverse.

If you have a PU technician, employed by power trains, working in the garage, but doubles up as the pit crew… what budget are they working under?

Technically you could say they are working for the race team which comes under the cap. But that guys wage is paid directly by the power trains business

I assume for simplicity sake the FIA doesn't want any crossover. If they allow crossover, that's a giant can of worms.

Does the pit crew guy (as an example) work for both companies, does he work as a contractor for the race team? this alone is a large complex problem.

How much he is paid is an even bigger issue, as the FIA will be required to maintain a minimum salary list for every single position/task that might be performed.

It already is a problem that FIA cannot monitor. An aerodynamicist salaried under power trains or Formula E or Road Car might be working on F1 car and you cannot police that.

[dans79]

It already is a problem that FIA cannot monitor. An aerodynamicist salaried under power trains or Formula E or Road Car might be working on F1 car and you cannot police that.

They need to get a handle on it, or scrap the budget cap, as half measures are just going to lead to bad optics and strife!

[Wil992]

(d) All costs of Consideration provided to the three individuals (other than any individual
in respect of whom all costs of Consideration are excluded pursuant to any other subArticle of this Article 3.1) in respect of whom the highest aggregate amount of
Consideration has been recognised in Total Costs of the Reporting Group during the
Reporting Period (the "Excluded Persons"), or to a Connected Party of any Excluded
Person, in each case in exchange for that Excluded Person providing services to or for
the benefit of the F1 Team, together with associated employer’s social security
contributions and all travel and accommodation costs in respect of each Excluded
Person"

The word employee doesn't appear in this paragraph. Is says an individual or a connected party providing services. Their employment status is irrelevant.

If the FIA are saying there is a breach on these grounds i'm honestly not surprised RB are adamant they're right.

It mentions "employer's social security contributions" which suggests that the person has to be an employee. A contractor working through his own limited company and the contracting firm wouldn't pay these costs for the contractor. Red Bull wouldn't be paying any social security payments for Newey as a contractor and thus Newey wouldn't be considered an employee by the FIA.

Yes, it mentions social security costs, but it doesn’t say they have to be present, it just means if they exist they are also excluded. In the same sentence it mentions travel costs. Are you arguing that if an employee doesn’t travel they can’t be excluded? If not, how are you differentiating between those 2 clauses in the same sentence?

Next, it’s not correct that an employer wouldn’t pay these for a contractor. Since the introduction of IR35 regulations the employer is responsible for all employment costs arising, regardless of the use of personal service companies. So any such costs would be included in this exemption.

That doesn’t even slightly imply that the whole paragraph relates only to employees. In fact I’d hazard a guess that the word employee has deliberately been omitted from the wording because it muddies the water. It’s an individual, or a connected party, that’s all, regardless of employment status.

[LM10]

Sure, but maybe Ferrari in order to be close enough needs to push up to 110% making errors while for RBR is enough been 95% with no risks..... are you sure that going over the budget cap didn't give to RBR that GAP to race safe while the others have to stress more???

RBR cheated, and won by cheating, that's a fact

If you have knowledge that we do not have, please do share those facts.
Otherwise the only thing that we know is that the FIA has judged RB breached the cap, but lacking details as to why they judged that, it's not a fact that they cheated.

Breaching the cap is cheating. This is binary. The point of a cap is to put a ceiling on spending. 9 teams did it and it's very stinky when the team that won the last two WDC's, and whom people have been making noise about bringing lots of updates for two years now, is the one over the CAP.

I didn't know F1Technical was hosting the 2022 Olympic Mental Gymnastic games this year.

Summed it up perfectly.