2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[dans79]

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.

Anyone who's ever had a job knows more money is always better, as long as you don't spend if frivolously!

[mwillems]

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.

But why is that not realistic? I'm just trying to understand your perspective but you're not adding too much reasoning to it, not disagreeing at this point, just trying to understand.

[dans79]

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.

A reduction in CFD and/or tunnel time will prevent them from being able to build on top of what they already have!

[mwillems]

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.

Well from pretty much everyone except RB and RB die hard fans, I don't see RB having any allies at all on this.
I've never seen F1 so united against a team. Even Merc in their dominance didn't generate this kind of a response.

"Zak "complaining" to FIA?! Give me a break, who TF is he at all to be given any space on any publication." - Well he ran several of them, so probably more likely than most.

Incidentally, can you qualify why most of the teams and most fans is nonsense? As in, a technical response not a "trumpism"?

[Stu]

Pre-season testing ban?

[dans79]

Pre-season testing ban?

I could see that if the overage was small, but if its a % or two they will quickly negate the lack of testing!

[ArcticWolfie]

Pre-season testing ban?

I could see that if the overage was small, but if its a % or two they will quickly negate the lack of testing!

A cost cap exceeding can also mean just 1 or 2% advantage... maybe RBR only overspend the budget by 50.000 euro and gained nothing, maybe they gained a lot... but compared to what?

To be honest, I think this can't be solved with a penalty/fine... you can't measure the advantage a team got of could've gotten compared to the other teams.
That's the shitty downside of a cost cap.. and of course all teams are circumventing the cost cap the best they can. Too bad RBR got caught by an accounting mistake (or at least.. what the FIA thinks it is).

I think the conclusion of this debacle is the removal of a cost cap rule and a hefty fine for RBR.

[mwillems]

Pre-season testing ban?

Potentially in addition to another punishment. Some testing is required for safety and because the punishment would then target the drivers more than a CFD and Wind Tunnel ban. But is another facet we hadn't considered for sure.

Most important fact is will it reduce any perceived advantage and testing alone I think can be clawed back. If they chose to forgo that '23 season could they then use their FPs to do testing? Spend their full budget and keep their advantage into '24. For me that doesn't sound like a good scenario. But in conjunction with other punishments it seems a good option as it tackles the issue on multiple fronts and is harder to negate.

[the poster below]

I've been reading this topic for the last couple of weeks, but there's a lot to go through so apologies if this is duplicating anything.

Assuming Red Bull's interpretation doesn't get adopted, and so they are treated as having breached the budget cap, I think there is the question of how to restore "balance" in terms of (a) putting them into the position they would have been without the interpreted overspend, and (b) whether there is a punitive element to discourage future breaches (by any team).

I think it's uncontroversial to say that if a team breaches the budget cap, then it should be penalised at least under (a). I hope it's uncontroversial anyway.

Whether there's a punitive measure is about intent. I think that they genuinely thought their interpretation would hold up to scrutiny. It doesn't make sense for them to risk it otherwise. The question for me is whether the intent to push the rules deserves "punishment". I tend to agree with the comparison made earlier between tax avoidance and tax evasion, so on that basis I would have thought that they will not be penalised on a punitive basis (again assuming that they are interpreted to have breached the cost cap by way of a final and unappealable decision).

As for (a): they have accounting records of what spend was made when. They have the means to work out an average spend per week. They have the numbers regarding the alleged overspend. They have the details of the car specs at each race. Should Red Bull be forced to run the spec of their entire car that they had at the last point in time they were under the budget cap? For a period of time that corresponds to the time it would take to "re-spend" the overspend, plus a bit extra?

This is similar in a way to what Zak Brown suggests, but turns the clock back rather than stopping it moving forwards, as it were. Possible issue with that is if the decision is not final for a number of months / years of course.

For transparency, I don't like Horner / Red Bull / Marko much at all, but hopefully this hasn't poisoned my view as expressed above - I think the same should apply for any team that breaches it.

[codetower]

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.

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.

A reduction in CFD and/or tunnel time will prevent them from being able to build on top of what they already have!

These would hamper further progress, but shouldn't you try and remove the advantage a team gained by breaking the rules? The solutions above would have been similar to the FIA saying, Ferrari, you can keep the fuel flow thingy (or whatever it was), but we'll going to limit your engine bench testing time, or reduce your future engine funds by 10%.

They would have still had a significant advantage and possibly still the fastest car on the grid for 2019,2020 and 2021. The onus would have been on the other teams to catch up to the Ferrari.

[dans79]

These would hamper further progress, but shouldn't you try and remove the advantage a team gained by breaking the rules?

You can't really undo what they have gained, as you can't erase what they have learned, all you can do is hinder their ability to continue to benefit from it. The only other option is embarrassing them my taking points/titles away.

I'd personally do a little of both, but that's just me!

[mwillems]

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.

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.

A reduction in CFD and/or tunnel time will prevent them from being able to build on top of what they already have!

These would hamper further progress, but shouldn't you try and remove the advantage a team gained by breaking the rules? The solutions above would have been similar to the FIA saying, Ferrari, you can keep the fuel flow thingy (or whatever it was), but we'll going to limit your engine bench testing time, or reduce your future engine funds by 10%.

They would have still had a significant advantage and possibly still the fastest car on the grid for 2019,2020 and 2021. The onus would have been on the other teams to catch up to the Ferrari.

It's different in that it was a rule around a particular piece of technology, so that tech could be targeted.

This is a broader more vague advantage. What would you take away? In this case you remove progress that other teams are still able to make.

I like the idea of also losing a pre season testing week as this also then ensures that their is an advantage loss from the start of the season and then throughout the season and onto next years car. Whereas just CFD and Wind Tunnel means they will have just a strong a start to next year.

What would propose as a means to negate their advantage?

[Big Tea]

Pre-season testing ban?

I could see that if the overage was small, but if its a % or two they will quickly negate the lack of testing!

If they want a penalty that will last all season it it would have to be something like-

Less practice time.
Reduced tyre allocation
reduced fuel limit/flow
Extra weight

Any other?

[mwillems]

These would hamper further progress, but shouldn't you try and remove the advantage a team gained by breaking the rules?

You can't really undo what they have gained, as you can't erase what they have learned, all you can do is hinder their ability to continue to benefit from it. The only other option is embarrassing them my taking points/titles away.

I'd personally do a little of both, but that's just me!

Yeah there is a side of me that would like to see the RB drivers and team lose points from last year, but I don't want to suggest it as I'm not sure this stems from bias, or not. I wouldn't be upset if it happened, put it that way. Thought that is unlikely.

[mwillems]

Pre-season testing ban?

I could see that if the overage was small, but if its a % or two they will quickly negate the lack of testing!

If they want a penalty that will last all season it it would have to be something like-

Less practice time.
Reduced tyre allocation
reduced fuel limit/flow
Extra weight

Any other?

That damages their season but they can easily then keep their development advantage, for me that doesn't work, unless it is added to developmental reductions.