2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[chrisc90]

@keiko - so your saying anything the team developed, but was later closed down in the regulations, is cheating. So Ferrari in 2019, Mercedes das and party mode… is a example of cheating?

[KeiKo403]

@keiko - so your saying anything the team developed, but was later closed down in the regulations, is cheating. So Ferrari in 2019, Mercedes das and party mode… is a example of cheating?

That’s a bigger leap than Neil Armstrong made for mankind.

Edit to make a more constructive response…
But also no. Well I can’t say for Ferrari 2019 but Mercedes DAS was developed in close collaboration with the FIA technical department to ensure they weren’t breaking the rules. Party modes were a thing for all PU manufactures. Just remember it was Red Bull asking Renault to develop cold blowing a few years back to assist with their EBD.
Then there are examples such as the F duct. Technical Innovation is 1 thing, spending more than allowed feels worse.

[chrisc90]

@keiko - so your saying anything the team developed, but was later closed down in the regulations, is cheating. So Ferrari in 2019, Mercedes das and party mode… is a example of cheating?

That’s a bigger leap than Neil Armstrong made for mankind.

But if you intent on finding a loophole in the regulations that enable you to do/design something that isn’t specifically mentioned in the rule book, that must come under cheating then?

Clearly It’s the intent part that you mention as cheating, so if you intend to do something that isn’t strictly in the rule books… your saying it’s cheating.

[Tvetovnato]

Is driving, in a regular road, over the speed limit, "cheating"? It fit into the above description... It is not so black and white. There are nuances, or at least there might be. Very imperfect information to judge on.

It depends. Simply driving over the speed limit, would not necessarily be considered cheating. But in a competition, lets assume that you have two cars trying to get from point A to point B in the shortest amount of time. Car A exceeds the same speed limit... and wins because of this, is that cheating?

In F1 today, what example would you use to signify cheating?

Personally id say that was something like actively running a car that is under weight. Gifted you are always going to get found out at the end of it. So the ‘cheating’ isn’t worth it. (Maybe they did run Perez underweight in Dubai ‘21 - hence the unexplained retirement)

But cheating in f1 terms is probably quite hard to do given the strict scrutiny at the end of a race…. Only thing I can thing of is a excessively flexible wing in the hope you don’t get found out.

Anything else falls under a loophole in the regulations, or isn’t strictly covered as being allowed or not in the rule book. DAS, party mode, flexi front wings… etc. none of that was in the rule book, and gained you a significant advantage in competing events, but was later closed for the following season of regulations.

If a team can find something that gives them a competitive advantage that isn’t specifically disallowed in the rules, then fair game in my opinion. Look at the party engine mode for example, Wasnt said it was banned in the rules at the time of being used, but it meant you could run your engine at 110% (example) in the effort to be much faster than your competitors in qualifying, who weren’t running their engine at 110% also.

Party mode was nowhere near cheating or bending the rules. It was banned since they wanted a closer competition because Mercedes developed their engine much better than everyone else. It was never mentioned in the rules that you could not do it.

What is mentioned in the rules is that a cost cap needs to be adhered to, something that all teams except for one managed to do. No grey areas for any team there bar one. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to twist it to be justified.

[Big Tea]

I think most cultures would have a way to distinguish between inadvertently crossing a boundary (physical or moral) and doing so deliberately.
I certainly do, as do most legal systems. If not in fact, then at least in terms of a reaction or punishment.
Even 'circumventing the rule' has a place as in the difference between tax avoidance and tax eversion, even though both are done deliberatly

[chrisc90]

It depends. Simply driving over the speed limit, would not necessarily be considered cheating. But in a competition, lets assume that you have two cars trying to get from point A to point B in the shortest amount of time. Car A exceeds the same speed limit... and wins because of this, is that cheating?

In F1 today, what example would you use to signify cheating?

Personally id say that was something like actively running a car that is under weight. Gifted you are always going to get found out at the end of it. So the ‘cheating’ isn’t worth it. (Maybe they did run Perez underweight in Dubai ‘21 - hence the unexplained retirement)

But cheating in f1 terms is probably quite hard to do given the strict scrutiny at the end of a race…. Only thing I can thing of is a excessively flexible wing in the hope you don’t get found out.

Anything else falls under a loophole in the regulations, or isn’t strictly covered as being allowed or not in the rule book. DAS, party mode, flexi front wings… etc. none of that was in the rule book, and gained you a significant advantage in competing events, but was later closed for the following season of regulations.

If a team can find something that gives them a competitive advantage that isn’t specifically disallowed in the rules, then fair game in my opinion. Look at the party engine mode for example, Wasnt said it was banned in the rules at the time of being used, but it meant you could run your engine at 110% (example) in the effort to be much faster than your competitors in qualifying, who weren’t running their engine at 110% also.

Party mode was nowhere near cheating or bending the rules. It was banned since they wanted a closer competition because Mercedes developed their engine much better than everyone else. It was never mentioned in the rules that you could not do it.

What is mentioned in the rules is that a cost cap needs to be adhered to, something that all teams except for one managed to do. No grey areas for any team there bar one. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to twist it to be justified.

So if red bull have found something that wasn’t mentioned in the rules, that could could exclude it from the budget cap it’s ok then.

I imagine this is where RB we falling ‘foul’ of, excluding something that specifically isn’t mentioned in the rules.

You simply can’t say that because there is no grey areas, the cap needs to be adhered to. That’s the exact opposite of what you initially said.

It was never mentioned in the rules, so you could do it. Probably the exact case in this cost cap speculation.

[Just_a_fan]

Hell, even to deliberately overspend 6 million would not be "plain cheating" as there is an accompanying penalty in the rules.

In what system of morals is deliberately breaking the rules in order to gain an advantage anything other than cheating?

An athlete takes performance enhancing drugs. The rules include a penalty - disqualification and/or bans from competition - but by your statement you wouldn't consider that athlete a cheat.

Interesting and somewhat enlightening.

[Big Tea]

Personally id say that was something like actively running a car that is under weight. Gifted you are always going to get found out at the end of it. So the ‘cheating’ isn’t worth it. (Maybe they did run Perez underweight in Dubai ‘21 - hence the unexplained retirement)

But cheating in f1 terms is probably quite hard to do given the strict scrutiny at the end of a race…. Only thing I can thing of is a excessively flexible wing in the hope you don’t get found out.

Anything else falls under a loophole in the regulations, or isn’t strictly covered as being allowed or not in the rule book. DAS, party mode, flexi front wings… etc. none of that was in the rule book, and gained you a significant advantage in competing events, but was later closed for the following season of regulations.

If a team can find something that gives them a competitive advantage that isn’t specifically disallowed in the rules, then fair game in my opinion. Look at the party engine mode for example, Wasnt said it was banned in the rules at the time of being used, but it meant you could run your engine at 110% (example) in the effort to be much faster than your competitors in qualifying, who weren’t running their engine at 110% also.

Party mode was nowhere near cheating or bending the rules. It was banned since they wanted a closer competition because Mercedes developed their engine much better than everyone else. It was never mentioned in the rules that you could not do it.

What is mentioned in the rules is that a cost cap needs to be adhered to, something that all teams except for one managed to do. No grey areas for any team there bar one. No matter how hard you try, you will never be able to twist it to be justified.

So if red bull have found something that wasn’t mentioned in the rules, that could could exclude it from the budget cap it’s ok then.

I imagine this is where RB we falling ‘foul’ of, excluding something that specifically isn’t mentioned in the rules.

You simply can’t say that because there is no grey areas, the cap needs to be adhered to. That’s the exact opposite of what you initially said.

It was never mentioned in the rules, so you could do it. Probably the exact case in this cost cap speculation.

Would that not depend on how the 'rule' was written?
For instance- (in legalese) we count everything you spend except what is on this list, would be a different case to we count everything on this list if you spend it.

There would be no grey area here though, as if it is not on the list, that is due to who ever compiled the list, and not the fault of the team.

I suspect if the latter we would never get to hear of it, but there would be a rule update.

[Just_a_fan]

Even 'circumventing the rule' has a place as in the difference between tax avoidance and tax eversion, even though both are done deliberatly

Tax avoidance is legal as it is using allowances, etc., in the tax legislation that reduce tax liability.

Tax evasion is illegal because it's basically lying to avoid tax liabilities.

[Just_a_fan]

@keiko - so your saying anything the team developed, but was later closed down in the regulations, is cheating. So Ferrari in 2019, Mercedes das and party mode… is a example of cheating?

If it is used after the regulations closed off that avenue, then yes, it's cheating.

If it used when the regulations allow it, then no, it isn't cheating.

[tpe]

.
Why do you put words in my mouth?
I have no clue and actually I don't care on which "code" they overspent.

.
Your own words: "At this point I believe that RB found more than one clever way to circumve the cost cap by some millions."

Who said they ( found more than one clever way to) circumvent the costcap?
RBR thinks Newey is an employee and the FIA thinks he isn't. So they have a disagreement about what an "employee" is.

To be fair, that's not really an "accusation" per se, tpe said "I believe" which implies that that's what he/she understands, not declaring that that's what RB did.

Exactly. And I didn't say anything about payroll or contacts or whatever.

[chrisc90]

@keiko - so your saying anything the team developed, but was later closed down in the regulations, is cheating. So Ferrari in 2019, Mercedes das and party mode… is a example of cheating?

If it is used after the regulations closed off that avenue, then yes, it's cheating.

If it used when the regulations allow it, then no, it isn't cheating.

Agreed, so if red bull have found an area in the rules that isn’t specifically covered, then it’s perfectly fine to do so and shouldn’t be classed as cheating or over the cap.


This was always going to happen, even after years and years of technical regs on the cars, teams find a area they can exploit.

[tpe]

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.

How IR35 is related to an international sport?
I mean, do they provision the relevant tax/employment laws that exist in Switzerland? Or Italy?

Why is the UK laws involved in this discussion? Is there a provision in the rules that any dispute will be ruled by UK courts/laws?

[Just_a_fan]

@keiko - so your saying anything the team developed, but was later closed down in the regulations, is cheating. So Ferrari in 2019, Mercedes das and party mode… is a example of cheating?

If it is used after the regulations closed off that avenue, then yes, it's cheating.

If it used when the regulations allow it, then no, it isn't cheating.

Agreed, so if red bull have found an area in the rules that isn’t specifically covered, then it’s perfectly fine to do so and shouldn’t be classed as cheating or over the cap.


This was always going to happen, even after years and years of technical regs on the cars, teams find a area they can exploit.

If they can demonstrate to the FIA that they haven't broken the rules, then they should be given a clean bill of health.

I think that their problem is that they have tried to effectively "double count" something. If it is Newey's remuneration that is the issue and they pay him as other than an employee, i.e. off-book, then they can't then use his remuneration as a "top 3 employee" because, well, he isn't. Off-booking him is fine and legal and saves them and him a lot of lost money but it does mean that he isn't an employee. Can't have it both ways.

[Wil992]

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.

How IR35 is related to an international sport?
I mean, do they provision the relevant tax/employment laws that exist in Switzerland? Or Italy?

Why is the UK laws involved in this discussion? Is there a provision in the rules that any dispute will be ruled by UK courts/laws?

It was a specific response to a specific point. Someone stated that if a company is paying “social security payments” for an individual, that means they are definitely an employee. IR35 means that’s not correct, according to the laws of the country in which RB operates its f1 team and which newey is resident for tax purposes. That’s all.