2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[tpe]

So far I understand this:
1. RB is clearly over the budget cap, either by a few 100000s or 1.8 mil
2. Their excuses are lame to say the least
3. They designed this, if we believe Zak Brown that they were on the limit.
4. There is an active campaign from RB fanboys, media etc to direct the discussion to "that was not for development".
5. This campaign is successful so far
6. RB will accept the ABA, as long as it doesn't heart them a lot.

The "changed the rules" mantra is completely B.S.. Because they would have mentioned that from day 1. They didn't. Even RB officials said completely different things just a few days ago!
To me it looks like they had a list of predetermined excuses. Since most of them didn't get them to were they wanted, started playing the rule thingy to make FIA look as the bad actor.

In any case, unless FIA get' s pissed off, I don't see any harsh punishment...

[Wouter]

[wesley123]

Shocking. It will get to the point when drivers wont bother to go to events like this on race weekends.

Can also see future cost cap stuff being sorted out behind closed doors to stop things like that

.
Or teams could try and not going over the cost cap

.
You know for 100% sure that is the case? Lets see what the outcome is from the talks between the FIA and RBR.
They aren't finished yet.

Well, considering how it was confirmed that Red Bull broke the cost cap, yes we do know 100% for certain.

The rationales Red Bull and its supporters have been throwing around has been some of the most creative I have ever seen. Many politicians would be jealous of these statements made.

[littlebigcat]

Shocking. It will get to the point when drivers wont bother to go to events like this on race weekends.

Can also see future cost cap stuff being sorted out behind closed doors to stop things like that

.
Or teams could try and not going over the cost cap

.
You know for 100% sure that is the case? Lets see what the outcome is from the talks between the FIA and RBR.
They aren't finished yet.

It’s disgraceful the rules aren’t being followed. And by that I mean there is any discussion. There is no pre arbitration prior to an ABA being issued to a license holder. If RBR don’t agree with being sanctioned they take it to the panel.

Regardless of whether rules were followed or not, the answer isn’t to ignore the rules.

[TimW]

It is not uncommon that disagreements occur between the FIA and a team on the interpretation of the rules. Sometimes it even occurs that a team submits their interpretation beforehand to the FIA to check, but in the end the FIA still change their opinion a deems it illegal. E.g.

https://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/for ... uegel-fia/

And yes of course this is on a different level. And of course their should be penalties if rules are broken. But a witch hunt....

Edit: the AMUS article explains that Merc submitted the CAD data is that new front wing to the FIA to check, and thought they were OK. But they still deemed the final wing illegal.

[Zynerji]

The blind leading the blind.

Its like no-one ever thought that it would end like this. F1 car design has been about creative interpretation of the rules forever, and the Championships go to those best at bending them.

Only the people blinded by innocence could have possibly thought this was going to go any other way.



The F1 world when there was a problem in the first year of the cost-cap....

[RZS10]

I just realized something funny - when Horner was interviewed in Singapore three weeks ago he said:

You have to look at how regulations have been applied, now we know one team has, for example, had a change in its accounting process of how it deals with heritage parts for example that was different to the regulations, so of course in the first year in a set of very complicated regulations like this there is always going to be different interpretations.

This was said just after he claimed they have no knowledge of details about the audit of other teams but it sounded like he was talking about another team which seemed weird - but in hindsight he was just talking about Red Bull and admitting this was one point of contention, yet no one caught on to it.

[Jolle]

Horner is excellent in playing the naive victim, especially when doing something fishy.

[Unc1eM0nty]

@RSZ10 Good spot, he's been in damage limitation mode for a while now, he should offer his services to the next UK Prime Minister as a spin doctor, god knows they'll need it

In the interview above he mentions that the amount in dispute is around $200K, I wouldn't be suprised if this is more smoke and mirrors, something like RB belive its $200K bit the FIA say no your wrong it's $1.2 m

[GrizzleBoy]

Horners BS has stopped me being an RB fan since Vettels era.

As I said in another thread his behaviour is signature narcissistic Gaslighting.

"The problem is not that I did something wrong, it's that you're making me feel bad about it, even though I'm still denying any wrong doing and lying right to your face about it".

[west52keep64]

One of those lessons, Horner says, is on communication - and what is included as a cost in the spending limit. The cost cap was new for 2021.

"We expected certain things to be potentially challenged or clarified," he explained.

"It's a new process. We made an interim submission in 2021, there was no feedback or suggestion we were doing anything that was contrary to any regulations.

"Then of course the submission made in March, again we didn't hear anything from that until the latter part of September. There's also duty from the regulations to guide to have effective compliance."

He continued: "Unused inventory treated [in the cap] was in our view a change to the regulation... a clarification came out in June that changed the application of that, that had a seven-digit effect on our submission.

"Of course, retrospectively we were not allowed to change the submission."

If the change he references is the removal of "Transitional Carry Over Inventories" from the regulations then this is where he is wrong, because even though "Transitional Carry Over Inventories" was removed from the regulations in June, even if it had been left in Red Bull still couldn't have defined their spare parts as such without the FIA agreement.





Unless Red Bull have an official written determination that their spare parts were allowed to be carried forward as spares for their show cars i.e. not counted in the budget, they don't have a leg to stand on. They appear to have made an assumption in their submission, and that was their error. They must now face the consequences.

[Wouter]

Erik van Haren
@ErikvHaren
Horner and Newey now visit the FIA president again. #F1

Red Bull will hope that the matter will be resolved quickly, especially now that the constructors' title can also be won tomorrow. If there is a deal with the FIA, the team will be open.

Then team wants to show how it is possible that it is about $4 million below the cap when it submits figures in March, and now about 1.8 million above it. 1.4 million of that is possible tax refund. That's why Horner spoke today about 'a few hundred thousand dollars above cap'

[the poster below]

Horners BS has stopped me being an RB fan since Vettels era.

As I said in another thread his behaviour is signature narcissistic Gaslighting.

"The problem is not that I did something wrong, it's that you're making me feel bad about it, even though I'm still denying any wrong doing and lying right to your face about it".

Feels like a very similar story in UK/US (and perhaps other) politics in recent times.

As an aside, since an incentive for any team to overspend is commercial return, what about a more radical penalty that hurts indirectly - if you overspend by X, then for Y number of races you aren't allowed any commercial branding on your cars, team kit... Yes I can imagine this would clash with existing commercial contracts in an almighty way, but if your sponsors don't get the exposure they want/are due, they won't want to fund your future development, which is painful in its own way, which disincentivises overspending...

Edit: and now Mr Mateschitz has apparently died according to Jennie Gow's Twitter, you have to imagine this will delay/soften any action.

[GrizzleBoy]

It had better not soften anything.

Delay, maybe.

Soften? Nope.

[west52keep64]

Edit: and now Mr Mateschitz has apparently died according to Jennie Gow's Twitter, you have to imagine this will delay/soften any action.

Delay, yes. Soften? It certainly shouldn't. Although you have to wonder if RB's future is now in question...