2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[rijtuig]

According to De Telegraaf journalist Erik van Haren, however, that press conference will not take place. Horner should first meet with the FIA president to discuss the situation again. The FIA would have made Red Bull an Accepted Breach Agreement, but Red Bull would therefore agree that it was wrong and the team does not want that.

I don't conclude this from the tweets you have shared. Is there maybe somewhere else an article?

[Mogster]

Well said. This fact needs to be highlighted more. There is one 'budget', one cost cap. It sounds innocent when the team says, for example, 'we went over because of some sick pay and catering costs.' No, that's not how a budget works. You spent too much money on the car/performance/engineering, and didn't have enough left for the other costs.

Agreed, A budget is a budget, and anyone who is a responsible person knows sticking to one takes work and planning.

Agreed.

However the FIA always seem to write rules that are open to interpretation, be they technical, sporting and, now financial.

A bit of a ----show, but if the latter is taken as a ‘hard’ limit (which it seemingly wasn’t planned to be - minor and major breaches were written in, even if the penalties for each were not nailed down); surely the penalties for the other rule-sets should be revisited for future seasons?

Hopefully after todays press conference there will be no more speculation, and I can lock the thread for the archives.

The first thing that needs to happen is the FIA moves away from these titles. A potential 7M overspend is not minor, the term doesn’t adequately describe the offense. Minor makes it sound insignificant which isn’t the case.

[CMSMJ1]

The fall out for FIA if (when?) they misread the room and get this so very wrong is going to make AD21* seem to be fair and legit.

If RB have to agree to have 'cheated' so they can attract a more manageable punishement is really two ends of the same shitty stick.

RB accept the lenient (how lenient) punishement - they have accepted they intended to cheat and were caught. mea culpa.
RB appeak - they risk more serious punishment (how serious) and they yet might lose the appeal. Would that attract the levels of McLaren 2007 punishments?

Such a mess



*very sorry for referencing this. I do know better but surely enough water has passed under the bridge..

[Stu]

The fall out for FIA if (when?) they misread the room and get this so very wrong is going to make AD21* seem to be fair and legit.




*very sorry for referencing this. I do know better but surely enough water has passed under the bridge..

…as a friend of mine accidentally mis-quoted once “it’s all just a bridge under water”…

[Stu]

The problem for Redbull is other teams had higher accident damage costs and still stayed under the cap not only that but accident damage is part and parcel of racing so if RB didn’t set enough budget aside, that is in them.

I think that a STATEMENT like that needs a link…

I thought this was pretty common knowledge
https://www.planetf1.com/news/driver-cr ... osts-2021/

A quick bit of mental maths puts them fairly high up the list.
However, I wonder where the figures came from (as opposed to Sky Germany deducing them using some algorithm or other).

[Wouter]

According to De Telegraaf journalist Erik van Haren, however, that press conference will not take place. Horner should first meet with the FIA president to discuss the situation again. The FIA would have made Red Bull an Accepted Breach Agreement, but Red Bull would therefore agree that it was wrong and the team does not want that.

.
I don't conclude this from the tweets you have shared. Is there maybe somewhere else an article?

.

However, according to De Telegraaf journalist, Erik van Haren, that press conference will not take place. Horner should first meet with the FIA president to discuss the situation once more. The FIA would have given Red Bull an Accepted Breach Agreement,
but Red Bull would thus agree that it was wrong and the team does not want that.

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/148346/r ... h-fia.html

[littlebigcat]

If RB have to agree to have 'cheated' so they can attract a more manageable punishement is really two ends of the same shitty stick.

RBR won’t be agreeing to having cheated, they’d be agreeing they breached the cost cap rules.

We know RBR haven’t cheated because that would be major breach not a minor one

[GrizzleBoy]

If RB have to agree to have 'cheated' so they can attract a more manageable punishement is really two ends of the same shitty stick.

RBR won’t be agreeing to having cheated, they’d be agreeing they breached the cost cap rules.

We know RBR haven’t cheated because that would be major breach not a minor one

Whether it is major or minor is dependent on the amount overspent, not intent.

Both minor and major breaches are capable of being classed cheating if shown to be and have mostly similar punishments.

[ME4ME]

The fall out for FIA if (when?) they misread the room and get this so very wrong is going to make AD21* seem to be fair and legit.

If RB have to agree to have 'cheated' so they can attract a more manageable punishement is really two ends of the same shitty stick.

RB accept the lenient (how lenient) punishement - they have accepted they intended to cheat and were caught. mea culpa.
RB appeak - they risk more serious punishment (how serious) and they yet might lose the appeal. Would that attract the levels of McLaren 2007 punishments?

Such a mess



*very sorry for referencing this. I do know better but surely enough water has passed under the bridge..

Questionable process if this is how it works (Appeal leads to greater punishment).

The FIA should do:
- Discuss with team behind close doors before ANY announchement is made or certificates hand out.
- Announce officially the breach categorization, the exact details of the breach, and the punishment.
- Meet the team in some kind of court if they appeal. Let the court decide if there was indeed a breach and if punishment was indeed correct.

[rijtuig]

According to De Telegraaf journalist Erik van Haren, however, that press conference will not take place. Horner should first meet with the FIA president to discuss the situation again. The FIA would have made Red Bull an Accepted Breach Agreement, but Red Bull would therefore agree that it was wrong and the team does not want that.

.
I don't conclude this from the tweets you have shared. Is there maybe somewhere else an article?

.

However, according to De Telegraaf journalist, Erik van Haren, that press conference will not take place. Horner should first meet with the FIA president to discuss the situation once more. The FIA would have given Red Bull an Accepted Breach Agreement,
but Red Bull would thus agree that it was wrong and the team does not want that.

https://www.gpblog.com/en/news/148346/r ... h-fia.html

Not sure who wrote that - because the tweets from Erik do not mention anything like that - only that RBR wants to discuss this further with the FIA before bringing anything out during the press conference.

[organic]

https://racingnews365.com/red-bulls-f1- ... main-areas

This is worth a read.

RacingNews365.com also understands that a chunk of the overspend was caused by spare parts and a rules re-classification on them.

Parts designed for the 2021-spec of cars that could not be carried over to the new breed were previously exempt, but in June of this year, the rule was changed so these parts were included in the budget total.

This part in particular... How does that make any sense? They changed how it worked retroactively?

[rijtuig]

https://racingnews365.com/red-bulls-f1- ... main-areas

This is worth a read.

RacingNews365.com also understands that a chunk of the overspend was caused by spare parts and a rules re-classification on them.

Parts designed for the 2021-spec of cars that could not be carried over to the new breed were previously exempt, but in June of this year, the rule was changed so these parts were included in the budget total.

This part in particular... How does that make any sense? They changed how it worked retroactively?

Wasn't this one debunked a few pages back?

[organic]

https://racingnews365.com/red-bulls-f1- ... main-areas

This is worth a read.

RacingNews365.com also understands that a chunk of the overspend was caused by spare parts and a rules re-classification on them.

Parts designed for the 2021-spec of cars that could not be carried over to the new breed were previously exempt, but in June of this year, the rule was changed so these parts were included in the budget total.

This part in particular... How does that make any sense? They changed how it worked retroactively?

Wasn't this one debunked a few pages back?

Yeah seems so

[littlebigcat]

There is a Reddit post doing the rounds claiming to have found the change but I think they’ve misread the rules.

[mendis]

Just to summarize:
1. FIA announced a cost cap breach by Red Bull.
2. Red Bull believe they are well under the cost cap according to their understanding and will work with FIA to understand the matter further.
------------------------------------
3. Writers on websites and social media need to do something for a living and each one has created a fictional branch of information that can represent the area of breach.
4. So far, we have gone on with 84 pages of beating each other on this thread on the basis of above information.

Did I miss anything?