2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[selvam_e2002]

They have the car to win next 3 years. I don't think deduction of 25% of wind tunnel will make RB week.

RB and Max will get next 3 WDC and WCC. It is already decided in 2021 itself. Horner mentioned cost breach several times from 2021 itself. So, RB will create some drama then accept it.

Well planned executed script by FIA and Liberty.

This is not trying to fit punishment to the crime, this is trying to make them lose.
If a 1.5% extra budget for one year creates an advantage that cannot be eroded for years, that is a very magical 1.5%. It had an effect in 2021 most likely, it had an effect on 2022 probably, but the carry on must diminish over time. I mean, the car has a lot of carry on for 2023-24-25, but it is not the 1.5% that creates most of that carry on.

still I don't think other teams have a chance to beat RB from 2023 with this punishment. I don't see the team(RB in t his case) who has advantage in rule change(2022 rule change) never beat by other teams till another rule change. correct me if I am wrong.

[dxpetrov]

They have the car to win next 3 years. I don't think deduction of 25% of wind tunnel will make RB week.

RB and Max will get next 3 WDC and WCC. It is already decided in 2021 itself. Horner mentioned cost breach several times from 2021 itself. So, RB will create some drama then accept it.

Well planned executed script by FIA and Liberty.

This is not trying to fit punishment to the crime, this is trying to make them lose.
If a 1.5% extra budget for one year creates an advantage that cannot be eroded for years, that is a very magical 1.5%. It had an effect in 2021 most likely, it had an effect on 2022 probably, but the carry on must diminish over time. I mean, the car has a lot of carry on for 2023-24-25, but it is not the 1.5% that creates most of that carry on.

How exactly the 21 had effect on 22?!!! There is no single part of this year's cars that had any resemblance on last year's!

[GrizzleBoy]

If its true that RB went over last year and the FIA are giving then a fine and 25% reduction of wind tunnel time.....

Well unless they knew damn well what they did in 2021 was wrong, they'd have done it all just the same for 2022, surely?

It could be the case that there are multi penalties stacking u,p, officially and unofficially.

Officially as in if they've spent in a similar fashion this year then they'd have breached in the same way and therefore be looking at another punishment next year.

Unofficially as in if they KNOW theye done a 2021 for their spending in 2022, they'll be stuck in development since the rumors came out or at least have to cut back.

Either way, it all needs to be completely transparent as to what has happened I. E. any amounts, clarifications, tricks etc used.

Clamp down hard in 2022 and make it work properly in future or p*ss around with it (like they usually do) and have discontent from fans and teams dragging on season after season.

*sigh* but is the FIA after all.

How exactly the 21 had effect on 22?!!! There is no single part of this year's cars that had any resemblance on last year's!

They didn't research, build, test and manufacture their 2022 car in 2022 lol.

Most of that was done in years prior, which would include 2021.

[dxpetrov]

Except that they didn't have a larger development budget than other top teams, so this is futile perception. All the contested points of last year's budget had nothing to do with cars development.

<personal stuff removed>

[Xwang]

On the subject of punishments.

I like @Stu’s suggestion that testing should be curtailed, but I would include practice sessions.

I would implement it by setting a quota of testing and practice sessions for a period, perhaps the whole season. The team would need to be ready to start any and all sessions but would only be told which, if any, car(s) are allowed to take part at the start of the session. This means that:

• They have to commit all of their budget for a session, including employment for all the personnel involved. So no cost cap benefit and no collateral damage for employees.
  
  It inconveniences the team in a way they can’t avoid.
  
  It serves as a reminder to everyone that the team are being punished for a transgression every time there is a test or practise session.
  
  It would restrict their ability to develop and operate the car.

Some rules would be needed to manage consumables, tyres, PUs, gearboxes etc to make sure there is no benefit to accrue from not running. And probably some allowance for shake down and safety checks.

Depending on the severity of the overspend this might operate in conjunction with other punishments, reduced cost cap, reduced wind tunnel and CFD etc.

The objective should be clear, to hurt the team in both performance and reputation. No-one should want to experience this.

I have bolded the part I am replying to:
The part about reminding everyone of the breach every week is why that would not happen. The show must look pristine. A weekly accusation-victimism session will not help. Every time they lose it would be because of the punishment, every time they win they would be heroes.
The 25 % wind tunnel reduction looks large enough to hurt, and it can be ignored by Average Joe. I sort of like it.

Then maybe we will discover in a pair of years that the additional trucks, the ones they will bring to the GPs in order to officially give food for free to everyone, are instead filled with not declared CFD pcs to run more CFD computation then admitted for every team?
They cheat on budget cup, so they can cheat also on CFD limitations.
Is really FIA able to police these outside of track events limitations (budget cup, CFD and wibd tunnel)?

[LM10]

Except that they didn't have a larger development budget than other top teams, so this is futile perception. All the contested points of last year's budget had nothing to do with cars development. Cut the crap that's been spinned by jealous, incompetent teams and team leaders.

The good Samaritans should even get a bonus wind tunnel time for providing free food for which they even risked harsh penalties. Good thing they’re making clear that of course they’ve not used any penny of that exceeded budget for development. I believe the good Samaritans.

[morefirejules08]

Without an equivalent lose of CFD time I don’t think a 25% reduction in wind tunnel time will make a huge difference

[littlebigcat]

If I was Horner I’d offer a 10m fine knowing full well it costs me anything in the cost cap

[torpor]

I don‘t think 10m is a realistic number In 2007 McLaren got 100m for a much more harmless offense.

[Big Tea]

If I was Horner I’d offer a 10m fine knowing full well it costs me anything in the cost cap

I think a fine would be secondary as it is almost a bribe to FIA without punishment. Next year all teams would offer it

[fourmula1]

On the subject of punishments.

I like @Stu’s suggestion that testing should be curtailed, but I would include practice sessions.

I would implement it by setting a quota of testing and practice sessions for a period, perhaps the whole season. The team would need to be ready to start any and all sessions but would only be told which, if any, car(s) are allowed to take part at the start of the session. This means that:

• They have to commit all of their budget for a session, including employment for all the personnel involved. So no cost cap benefit and no collateral damage for employees.
  
  It inconveniences the team in a way they can’t avoid.
  
  It serves as a reminder to everyone that the team are being punished for a transgression every time there is a test or practise session.
  
  It would restrict their ability to develop and operate the car.

Some rules would be needed to manage consumables, tyres, PUs, gearboxes etc to make sure there is no benefit to accrue from not running. And probably some allowance for shake down and safety checks.

Depending on the severity of the overspend this might operate in conjunction with other punishments, reduced cost cap, reduced wind tunnel and CFD etc.

The objective should be clear, to hurt the team in both performance and reputation. No-one should want to experience this.

I have bolded the part I am replying to:
The part about reminding everyone of the breach every week is why that would not happen. The show must look pristine. A weekly accusation-victimism session will not help. Every time they lose it would be because of the punishment, every time they win they would be heroes.
The 25 % wind tunnel reduction looks large enough to hurt, and it can be ignored by Average Joe. I sort of like it.

I would assume part of this hypothetical agreement would include no discussion of it from either party next year win or lose. RB cant reference it as a reason for lack of performance, or as something they’ve overcome if they win?

[littlebigcat]

I don‘t think 10m is a realistic number In 2007 McLaren got 100m for a much more harmless offense.

Horner has been playing political game this entire and it appears to be working

[Zynerji]

I don‘t think 10m is a realistic number In 2007 McLaren got 100m for a much more harmless offense.

Much more harmless!?!!

Its not even in the same universe as stealing the entire data stack of a competitors car!

[Mosin123]

I don‘t think 10m is a realistic number In 2007 McLaren got 100m for a much more harmless offense.

Much more harmless!?!!

Its not even in the same universe as stealing the entire data stack of a competitors car!

Would cheating 9 teams other just 1 not be more harmfull?

I mean, Williams surely wasnt affected by it, Or any other team at the time, Its hard to even say it directly affected Ferrari who was the victim.

[west52keep64]

So I was quite interested about this whole "the FIA changed the rules on spare parts" thing that RN365 are running with, and decided to take a look at the rules myself, here's what I found.

The whole thing comes down to the removal of "Transitional Carry Over Inventories" from the financial regulations, so lets take a look at those before they were removed from the regs.



So that's pretty clear, anything that falls in to the definition of "Transitional Carry Over Inventories" does not get counted towards the cost cap. But what falls in to that definition? Lets take a look at the definition in the regs.



So this suggests to me that even though the team can "elect" to treat something as "Transitional Carry Over Inventories", the Cost Cap Administration has a say in what and how much is allowed via "Determination". And just to close the loop, what does "Determination" mean?



So it's a very specific written communication to the team(s).

So here's my take on what happened. Red Bull knew at the end of 2021 they were over the cost cap, so asked their accounts team to look at every possibly option in the regs to bring them under. They found this and decided to classify every unused part from the 2021 car as "Transitional Carry Over Inventories" citing that the parts would be used on show cars in 2022 and beyond i.e. not relevant to the 2021 cost cap.

However, presumably the FIA had never issued any determinations to the teams classifying what could be included in "Transitional Carry Over Inventories" and actually decided to remove the definition entirely from the regs, most likely to simplify them. Red Bull are now claiming the FIA changed the rules, but unfortunately it seems they misunderstood this area of the rules, or understood them but were hoping they could convince the FIA to issue a determination that included their "spare" parts.