2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[Wil992]

I do think that 5% is too much to be minor, and this is something that should be changed for future seasons. Given what we’ve read the last couple of weeks about what teams spend on in season upgrades, it seems having 7 million or so extra is a massive advantage. Anything that gives a massive advantage can’t also be a minor breach can it?
I’m not in any way advocating for a retrospective change btw, but I do think it should be changed for the future.

[hollus]

I do think that 5% is too much to be minor

How much did inflation have to change before it was taken into account? Or was the cap always going to be inflation adjusted?

[Arcanum]

I can see the FIA trying to drag this out past the end of the season, then "solving" in January. That will vastly reduce the press coverage and leverage from teams that would occur within the '22 season, and whatever ruling will be confined to a few team principals complaining in press conferences as the '23 season gets started. Likely no one will be publicly happy with the outcome. And forums like this will get something else to fight about for the next century.

My guess is that the non Red Bull aligned team principals can see such an FIA stalling tactic coming, and are therefore going to kick up as much fuss as they can to try and force resolution within the '22 season.

As to what any of the unhappy teams can really do about it, I don't know. I've half wondered whether some of the teams whose championship positions aren't going to change, could decide not to contest some of the remaining GP's. If memory serves, you can miss up to three races in a season without penalty, though I'm sure there's lots of legal language that makes this more complex - legal language that will be interpreted selectively by the FIA, no doubt. Mercedes aren't going to overtake Ferrari for 2nd in the constructors, so they could miss Mexico and Brazil - hardly core markets for their products - pay off the sponsor for reduced coverage, save a load of costs they can push into next years car development, rest their people, and embarrass the FIA. It won't, of course, come to this. Yet unless Mercedes, Ferrari or one of the other teams did something as extreme as this, everything is just hot air in public, which can be ignored by the FIA.

Or maybe I'm too cynical!

[richardn]

I wonder if the issue is that the sick/maternity employees were replaced by contractors using Personal Services Companies and this taken them out of scope of the replacement employee rules.

[Sofa King]

They had a practice run in 2020, so what’s the excuse a year later when all other teams got it right? Intent is irrelevant when a penalty is committed and when the title is decided by mere seconds any unfair advantage can only be addressed by the removal of Max’s 2021 title.

[mwillems]

I do think that 5% is too much to be minor

How much did inflation have to change before it was taken into account? Or was the cap always going to be inflation adjusted?

Last years cap was not inflation adjusted.

This was before inflation got very very serious (2021), but I'm not sure whether Zak browns development budget are for 21 or 22. I'd assume he'd be as factual as possible and apply the numbers for 21, which suggests this years development budget is substantially lower than last.

Now your question wasn't asking if the rate of inflation has lowered the real development budget figures for the car from '21 to '22 (even after the budget increase) and does this in fact mean that any penalty is an even greater percentage of development costs than it was in '21, in which you could argue that it is?

It may be that was what you meant but it didn't read that way, sorry!

Edit: I mean to say that since the penalty applies to 2021 numbers, that due to inflation, that in '23 the real car development budget may be lower than in '21 and '22 unless it is altered again, due to non in season development costs increasing faster than the budget cap. Meaning the penalty is potentially stronger than intended. I suspect Zak knows this full well and is going in strong.

[mwillems]

In fact what makes this massively complex is that any punishment has to be metered out in conjunction with any changes applied to next years budget cap. Thanks to certain chancellors and PMs in the UK and a particular president in Russia, this is a very fluid situation for most teams and I don't think anyone can do any really economic planning that is much better than "finger in the air".

I'll be totally honest, I don't envy the FIA, this will be really hard to get right in terms of pure numbers. I like Zak's idea of restricting Tunnel and CFD time and I wonder if it would be better to focus the punishments here, outside of a outright fine.

[Just_a_fan]

In fact what makes this massively complex is that any punishment has to be metered out in conjunction with any changes applied to next years budget cap. Thanks to certain chancellors and PMs in the UK and a particular president in Russia, this is a very fluid situation for most teams and I don't think anyone can do any really economic planning that is much better than "finger in the air".

I'll be totally honest, I don't envy the FIA, this will be really hard to get right in terms of pure numbers. I like Zak's idea of restricting Tunnel and CFD time and I wonder if it would be better to focus the punishments here, outside of a outright fine.

A fine only works in this situation if it is taken from funds that are within the budget cap. If the fine can be paid without reducing the funds available for car design, production and development, it is not a punishment for a rich team.

A restriction on wind tunnel / CFD / simulator time is a much better punishment because it directly impacts car performance and affects all teams equally (more or less).

As for it being difficult to figure out what's going on because of external factors, 9 teams managed it so it's not really an excuse.

[dans79]

I'll be totally honest, I don't envy the FIA, this will be really hard to get right in terms of pure numbers. I like Zak's idea of restricting Tunnel and CFD time and I wonder if it would be better to focus the punishments here, outside of a outright fine.

Points, Tunnel time, and cfd time, are the only way you can really penalize all the teams equally. Fines mean nothing to the big teams!

Even cfd time isn't truly equivalent, because in its infinite wisdom the FIA forgot to include IPC in it's calculations! This is why all the top teams upgraded their server centers right before the budget cap kicked in.

[mwillems]

In fact what makes this massively complex is that any punishment has to be metered out in conjunction with any changes applied to next years budget cap. Thanks to certain chancellors and PMs in the UK and a particular president in Russia, this is a very fluid situation for most teams and I don't think anyone can do any really economic planning that is much better than "finger in the air".

I'll be totally honest, I don't envy the FIA, this will be really hard to get right in terms of pure numbers. I like Zak's idea of restricting Tunnel and CFD time and I wonder if it would be better to focus the punishments here, outside of a outright fine.

A fine only works in this situation if it is taken from funds that are within the budget cap. If the fine can be paid without reducing the funds available for car design, production and development, it is not a punishment for a rich team.

A restriction on wind tunnel / CFD / simulator time is a much better punishment because it directly impacts car performance and affects all teams equally (more or less).

As for it being difficult to figure out what's going on because of external factors, 9 teams managed it so it's not really an excuse.

I think what I'm saying is it is extremely difficult to give a deduction from the budget cap that is proportionate in the next financial year, hence a fine now and then reduction in CFD and Tunnel, rather than any reduction in their budget.

[mwillems]

I'll be totally honest, I don't envy the FIA, this will be really hard to get right in terms of pure numbers. I like Zak's idea of restricting Tunnel and CFD time and I wonder if it would be better to focus the punishments here, outside of a outright fine.

Points, Tunnel time, and cfd time, are the only way you can really penalize all the teams equally. Fines mean nothing to the big teams!

Even cfd time isn't truly equivalent, because in its infinite wisdom the FIA forgot to include IPC in it's calculations! This is why all the top teams upgraded their server centers right before the budget cap kicked in.

Again I'm talking about reductions from the budget more than fines. Any reduction in their budget is really hard to keep proportionate. I'm happy with a fine, RB can afford to pay £20m if we asked it. But £2m development costs might have been 25% last year, 50% this year and 75% of next years total budget available for in season development. Or it may be something totally different!

But even if RB did not act fairly, the punishment must so I don't think taking money from the budget cap is an easy task to get right. I might be particularly strong or if the economy improves, it might get watered down.

[dxpetrov]

Reading through all the nonsense about alleged benefits that RB might have had with the budget breach, either from couch potato experts here on the forum or from the incompetent teams in the paddock, makes me laugh. As if more money equals more performance on face value. If so, we would have had the likes of Toyota, Ferrari winning championships all these years easily. It's only a reflection of bitternes and sour losers that need to show to their Board their worth, when they cannot compete with brain power by a mile. Zak "complaining" to FIA?! Give me a break, who TF is he at all to be given any space on any publication.

[codetower]

9 teams came under the budget last year, 1 went over.

the 1 and only team that went over, won the WDC, and barely lost the WCC by 28 points. That same 1 team that went over is running away with both titles this year. The 9 that came under are nowhere close. Whether it did or not, It's difficult to argue that the overspend didn't provide an unfair advantage in performance. ALL teams will raise a stink, and push for harsh penalties. But the damage is done. RB have an advantage now that will last them a year or two. Unlike the moves they made to stop Ferrari's loophole advantage in 2019, there's really nothing the FIA can do to remove RB's advantage.

[mwillems]

9 teams came under the budget last year, 1 went over.

the 1 and only team that went over, won the WDC, and barely lost the WCC by 28 points. That same 1 team that went over is running away with both titles this year. The 9 that came under are nowhere close. Whether it did or not, It's difficult to argue that the overspend didn't provide an unfair advantage in performance. ALL teams will raise a stink, and push for harsh penalties. But the damage is done. RB have an advantage now that will last them a year or two. Unlike the moves they made to stop Ferrari's loophole advantage in 2019, there's really nothing the FIA can do to remove RB's advantage.

So say both CFD and Wind Tunnel were reduced by 20% next year, both items that are much easier to police, do you think it would make no difference?

We all know RB is in the wrong, no one is disputing that or the severity of it.

Edit: Apart from some Die hard RB fans and Flat Earthers.

[chrisc90]

The wind tunnel time will go down for all teams this year onwards.

If we take RB for example they will see a 5% less deduction in tunnel time in 2023 compared to this year based on constructors standings. I think Zak is a bit stupid in saying a 20% reduction in CFD and tunnel time. I mean its simply just not realistic. 70% is 28 runs per week. I guess the standard is 40runs per week. So 50% of that is only 20runs per week of CFD/wind-tunnel.