2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[MadMax]

As I said, ifs and buts and we don't know the details.

If all the UK based teams are eligible for a tax break, and all got it except RB because RB themselves messed up the administration and due to that they breached the gap, I don't think you can say RB got a benefit out of that. And this is, to me, what the communications imply happened.

So you don't think 1.4 million added to any company's budget isn't an advantage?

If they spend, yes. But if it is sitting in the bank, then no.

Is that the budget cap version of Benetton's "yes, there is launch control on the car but we never use it" defence?

[TimW]

They did not correctly apply for the tax credit, so they did not get it. So the budget cap breach was 1.8 million. Period.

However, 1.4 million of that breach was due to making the mistake in the tax credit application. They did not get any competitive advantage for it.

So the breach amount to be whining about is the 400k. That is what got them a relative advantage compared to their rivals.

[Dee]

There is no proof they got the 1.4million credit. If there is then please post it.

As someone so elequently put it the other day, The FIA look for over and underspending. The told RB that they would have been 1.4 under due to a tax credit if they had filled it out correctly.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6.32_1.pdf

The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting
Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would
have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the
Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact
exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652 (0.37%).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notional

1) THEORETICAL, SPECULATIVE
2) existing in the mind only : IMAGINARY
3) given to foolish or fanciful moods or ideas

In other words, They currently haven't received a tax credit. If they had gotten the tax credit, or still had a good chance of it, I have no doubt in my mind that Horner would not have signed an ABA.

Reporting you for continuing to use a dictionary explanation rather than a TAX explanation. Good faith arguments in the thread, rather than using definitions that have nothing to do with Tax.

[Dee]

There is no proof they got the 1.4million credit. If there is then please post it.

As someone so elequently put it the other day, The FIA look for over and underspending. The told RB that they would have been 1.4 under due to a tax credit if they had filled it out correctly.

https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files ... 6.32_1.pdf

The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting
Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would
have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the
Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact
exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652 (0.37%).

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/notional

1) THEORETICAL, SPECULATIVE
2) existing in the mind only : IMAGINARY
3) given to foolish or fanciful moods or ideas

In other words, They currently haven't received a tax credit. If they had gotten the tax credit, or still had a good chance of it, I have no doubt in my mind that Horner would not have signed an ABA.

https://www.revenue.ie/en/companies-and ... ansfer.pdf

This is what companies fill out in Ireland for "Notional allocation of preliminary corporation tax"

Notional is a word that is connected to TAX. Just because you have no experience with Tax doesn't mean you can continue to misinform this forum by linking to a completey different definition

[mendis]

So you don't think 1.4 million added to any company's budget isn't an advantage?

If they spend, yes. But if it is sitting in the bank, then no.

Is that the budget cap version of Benetton's "yes, there is launch control on the car but we never use it" defence?

Red Bull gives you wings, i see you had a few cans.

[MadMax]

If they spend, yes. But if it is sitting in the bank, then no.

Is that the budget cap version of Benetton's "yes, there is launch control on the car but we never use it" defence?

Red Bull gives you wings, i see you had a few cans.

I prefer my caffeine from coffee rather than a strangely flavoured, carbonated syrup.

[draw73]

I take it that if you can apply a tax credit to your accounts, that the budget cap is based on NET spending and not on GROSS spending. If so the teams must have spent the money that they are claiming Tax Credits for. The Tax Man isn’t going to give you money for nothing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Dee]

I take it that if you can apply a tax credit to your accounts, that the budget cap is based on NET spending and not on GROSS spending. If so the teams must have spent the money that they are claiming Tax Credits for. The Tax Man isn’t going to give you money for nothing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is correct. What is also correct is that they messed up how they should have applied for the tax credit. That is why the FIA mentioned it in their statement.

If RB were never allocated a tax credit, the FIA would have never mentioned it.

Max said that RB were not allowed to change the budget once it had been submitted, hence, the 1.8 over instead of 0.4

[dxpetrov]

I take it that if you can apply a tax credit to your accounts, that the budget cap is based on NET spending and not on GROSS spending. If so the teams must have spent the money that they are claiming Tax Credits for. The Tax Man isn’t going to give you money for nothing!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That is correct. What is also correct is that they messed up how they should have applied for the tax credit. That is why the FIA mentioned it in their statement.

If RB were never allocated a tax credit, the FIA would have never mentioned it.

Max said that RB were not allowed to change the budget once it had been submitted, hence, the 1.8 over instead of 0.4

Not only that, but the correct allocation for the unused parts. It would've been even below the cap if they were allowed to resubmit.

[diffuser]

Of which they knew they could expect a (minor) punishment for, and which they rightfully did get. A typical form of a calculated risk ..

They potentially hold an advantage for the next several years especially seeing how much pace their current car has over the rest of the field.
...
That said, because Red Bull did it during a major rules change, this would put them at an advantage over any other team that decides to do this moving forward.

To be clear, I'm not rooting for any team in particular, and in this case maybe I'm just the Devil's Advocate ..

But as it stands according to the report there was a 400K+ overspend. Aside from hrs put in, CFD time, that get's you about at most a few wings and a slightly adapted floor, and well let's put in some weight reduction. That's it; it doesn't give you a whole new car platform with a 1s advantage. Even Merc back in the day (when they outspend everyone with at least 20m) couldn't make that happen.

And yet, that 400K gifted the 2021 title plus it gave the team an insane advantage for this year and the ones to come after that?
Like you say, 2021-2022 was the largest major aero change ever .. like ever. But still those 400K on upgrades were carried over as-is to a completely different platform philosophy, working perfectly fine.
Sorry .. I don't buy that, it's silly at minimum, and it's a kick in the face of all teams/engineers that work off their asses to get their package in shape (which some really have done).

Maybe, just maybe, maybe that RB18 was, together with Fer ofcourse, simply one of the best base-solutions towards the groundeffect philosophy? Little to no bouncing, great in riding kerbs etc. Well, maybe it was even better than Ferrari, as they were not hurt by TD39 where Fer most certainly did.
Merc absolutely stepped out of their box with the very unusual zero-pod concept, but they just cannot seem to tame the beast. They're progressing quite a bit, but it will take more time to unleash the potential they still feel is in there. Or maybe they'll switch (we'll learn in five months time).

Anyway, starting with a (very) good basepoint gives you the momentum to develop better and faster as you appear to be right on top of your concept. Merc knows this really well, they were in that same position for years; seasons where they could stop developing the current car by June, and move 90% of the resources to next year. Because of that (PU ánd aero)advantage Merc was able to for instance develop stuff like DAS, which was innovation-wise brilliant in itself ofcourse .. simple but yet so effective.

That said, all future progress will now be hindered a lot by the 10% windtunnel/cfd punishment. In a world without bias one could even think it's quite harsh ...
But as that world is non-existant, I will probably butchered.

Remember, Devil's Advocate ..

I really disliked that the overspend was presented in pounds and the penalty it dollars. It makes the penality look larger and the overspend smaller.

I also disliked that the comment added by the FIA about "Notional Tax Credit". If they would have filed, they make it sound like it was a given that they'd get it, while the Notional website has alot if and maybes on it. I find it hard to beleive that RBR has probably 50 guys that have written several technical papers or thesis longer than 100 pages but they can't find an accountant to read and understand a 52 page accounting manual or file someting as basic as Notional Tax Credit. If they didn't file, it probably cause they didn't get it or weren't eligable for whatever reason.

“the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of their Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,438” and therefore they would have exceeded the cap by $432,652 or 0.37%.

$432,652 is £377,218
So really
£1,431,438
+ £377,218
=========
£1,808,656 or $2,074,444 THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE OVER.
#################################################

Pretty close to £1,864.000, they were 52K from a major breach.
£1,808,656 is probably enough for a major upgrade.

If they ran out of gas on the out lap of qualifing after getting pole, the FIA wouldn't have said "Oh, if they had put enough fuel in the car, they would have finsihed on pole anyways."

As expected, people aren't reading the 1.8MIllion pounds that RBR are over, all they read is the 400K. It's so BS and it was written like that for that effect. RBR cheated and they are getting away with.

But I'm happy. I'm not a RBR fan, nor am I a Ferrari or Merc fan. I'm a F1 fan. So I'll fall back to what Jost Capito said " Atleast their not out spending us my hundreds of millions of dollars".

[101FlyingDutchman]

They potentially hold an advantage for the next several years especially seeing how much pace their current car has over the rest of the field.
...
That said, because Red Bull did it during a major rules change, this would put them at an advantage over any other team that decides to do this moving forward.

To be clear, I'm not rooting for any team in particular, and in this case maybe I'm just the Devil's Advocate ..

But as it stands according to the report there was a 400K+ overspend. Aside from hrs put in, CFD time, that get's you about at most a few wings and a slightly adapted floor, and well let's put in some weight reduction. That's it; it doesn't give you a whole new car platform with a 1s advantage. Even Merc back in the day (when they outspend everyone with at least 20m) couldn't make that happen.

And yet, that 400K gifted the 2021 title plus it gave the team an insane advantage for this year and the ones to come after that?
Like you say, 2021-2022 was the largest major aero change ever .. like ever. But still those 400K on upgrades were carried over as-is to a completely different platform philosophy, working perfectly fine.
Sorry .. I don't buy that, it's silly at minimum, and it's a kick in the face of all teams/engineers that work off their asses to get their package in shape (which some really have done).

Maybe, just maybe, maybe that RB18 was, together with Fer ofcourse, simply one of the best base-solutions towards the groundeffect philosophy? Little to no bouncing, great in riding kerbs etc. Well, maybe it was even better than Ferrari, as they were not hurt by TD39 where Fer most certainly did.
Merc absolutely stepped out of their box with the very unusual zero-pod concept, but they just cannot seem to tame the beast. They're progressing quite a bit, but it will take more time to unleash the potential they still feel is in there. Or maybe they'll switch (we'll learn in five months time).

Anyway, starting with a (very) good basepoint gives you the momentum to develop better and faster as you appear to be right on top of your concept. Merc knows this really well, they were in that same position for years; seasons where they could stop developing the current car by June, and move 90% of the resources to next year. Because of that (PU ánd aero)advantage Merc was able to for instance develop stuff like DAS, which was innovation-wise brilliant in itself ofcourse .. simple but yet so effective.

That said, all future progress will now be hindered a lot by the 10% windtunnel/cfd punishment. In a world without bias one could even think it's quite harsh ...
But as that world is non-existant, I will probably butchered.

Remember, Devil's Advocate ..

I really disliked that the overspend was presented in pounds and the penalty it dollars. It make sthe penality look larger and the overspend smaller.

I also disliked that the whole comment that was added by the FIA about Notional Tax Credit. IF they would have filed, they make it sound like it was a given that they'd get it, while the Notional website has alot if and maybes on it. I find it hard to beleive that RBR has probably 50 guys that have written several technical papers or thesis longer than 100 pages but they can't find an accountant to read and understand a 52 page accounting manual or file someting as basic as Notional Tax Credit. If they didn't file, it probably cause they didn't get it or wen't eligable for whatever reason.

“the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of their Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,438” and therefore they would have exceeded the cap by $432,652 or 0.37%.

$432,652 is £377218
So really
£1,431,438
+ £377,218
=========
£1,808,656 or $2,074,444 THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE OVER.
#################################################

If they ran out of gas on the out lap of qualifing after getting pole, the FIA wouldn't have said "Oh, if they had put enough fuel in the car, they would have finsihed on pole anyways."

As expected People aren't reading the 1.8MIllion pounds that RBR are over, all they read is the 400K. It's so BS and it was written like that for that effect.

No. You’re reading something that just isn’t there in the FIA report. I’m sorry. I promised not to write again here but as an independent living in the UK, I can’t let that slide. A tax rebate was due in the tax year but they cocked it up. Simple as that.

I still would have liked a stiffer penalty for the 400k overspend to really make it apparent to teams that this game carries serious consequences.

[Dee]

They potentially hold an advantage for the next several years especially seeing how much pace their current car has over the rest of the field.
...
That said, because Red Bull did it during a major rules change, this would put them at an advantage over any other team that decides to do this moving forward.

To be clear, I'm not rooting for any team in particular, and in this case maybe I'm just the Devil's Advocate ..

But as it stands according to the report there was a 400K+ overspend. Aside from hrs put in, CFD time, that get's you about at most a few wings and a slightly adapted floor, and well let's put in some weight reduction. That's it; it doesn't give you a whole new car platform with a 1s advantage. Even Merc back in the day (when they outspend everyone with at least 20m) couldn't make that happen.

And yet, that 400K gifted the 2021 title plus it gave the team an insane advantage for this year and the ones to come after that?
Like you say, 2021-2022 was the largest major aero change ever .. like ever. But still those 400K on upgrades were carried over as-is to a completely different platform philosophy, working perfectly fine.
Sorry .. I don't buy that, it's silly at minimum, and it's a kick in the face of all teams/engineers that work off their asses to get their package in shape (which some really have done).

Maybe, just maybe, maybe that RB18 was, together with Fer ofcourse, simply one of the best base-solutions towards the groundeffect philosophy? Little to no bouncing, great in riding kerbs etc. Well, maybe it was even better than Ferrari, as they were not hurt by TD39 where Fer most certainly did.
Merc absolutely stepped out of their box with the very unusual zero-pod concept, but they just cannot seem to tame the beast. They're progressing quite a bit, but it will take more time to unleash the potential they still feel is in there. Or maybe they'll switch (we'll learn in five months time).

Anyway, starting with a (very) good basepoint gives you the momentum to develop better and faster as you appear to be right on top of your concept. Merc knows this really well, they were in that same position for years; seasons where they could stop developing the current car by June, and move 90% of the resources to next year. Because of that (PU ánd aero)advantage Merc was able to for instance develop stuff like DAS, which was innovation-wise brilliant in itself ofcourse .. simple but yet so effective.

That said, all future progress will now be hindered a lot by the 10% windtunnel/cfd punishment. In a world without bias one could even think it's quite harsh ...
But as that world is non-existant, I will probably butchered.

Remember, Devil's Advocate ..

I really disliked that the overspend was presented in pounds and the penalty it dollars. It makes the penality look larger and the overspend smaller.

I also disliked that the comment added by the FIA about "Notional Tax Credit". If they would have filed, they make it sound like it was a given that they'd get it, while the Notional website has alot if and maybes on it. I find it hard to beleive that RBR has probably 50 guys that have written several technical papers or thesis longer than 100 pages but they can't find an accountant to read and understand a 52 page accounting manual or file someting as basic as Notional Tax Credit. If they didn't file, it probably cause they didn't get it or weren't eligable for whatever reason.

“the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of their Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,438” and therefore they would have exceeded the cap by $432,652 or 0.37%.

$432,652 is £377,218
So really
£1,431,438
+ £377,218
=========
£1,808,656 or $2,074,444 THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE OVER.
#################################################

If they ran out of gas on the out lap of qualifing after getting pole, the FIA wouldn't have said "Oh, if they had put enough fuel in the car, they would have finsihed on pole anyways."

As expected, people aren't reading the 1.8MIllion pounds that RBR are over, all they read is the 400K. It's so BS and it was written like that for that effect.

It's the FIA that did not allow RB to resubmit their budget.

This is what forced them into including that information about the tax credit.

[diffuser]

To be clear, I'm not rooting for any team in particular, and in this case maybe I'm just the Devil's Advocate ..

But as it stands according to the report there was a 400K+ overspend. Aside from hrs put in, CFD time, that get's you about at most a few wings and a slightly adapted floor, and well let's put in some weight reduction. That's it; it doesn't give you a whole new car platform with a 1s advantage. Even Merc back in the day (when they outspend everyone with at least 20m) couldn't make that happen.

And yet, that 400K gifted the 2021 title plus it gave the team an insane advantage for this year and the ones to come after that?
Like you say, 2021-2022 was the largest major aero change ever .. like ever. But still those 400K on upgrades were carried over as-is to a completely different platform philosophy, working perfectly fine.
Sorry .. I don't buy that, it's silly at minimum, and it's a kick in the face of all teams/engineers that work off their asses to get their package in shape (which some really have done).

Maybe, just maybe, maybe that RB18 was, together with Fer ofcourse, simply one of the best base-solutions towards the groundeffect philosophy? Little to no bouncing, great in riding kerbs etc. Well, maybe it was even better than Ferrari, as they were not hurt by TD39 where Fer most certainly did.
Merc absolutely stepped out of their box with the very unusual zero-pod concept, but they just cannot seem to tame the beast. They're progressing quite a bit, but it will take more time to unleash the potential they still feel is in there. Or maybe they'll switch (we'll learn in five months time).

Anyway, starting with a (very) good basepoint gives you the momentum to develop better and faster as you appear to be right on top of your concept. Merc knows this really well, they were in that same position for years; seasons where they could stop developing the current car by June, and move 90% of the resources to next year. Because of that (PU ánd aero)advantage Merc was able to for instance develop stuff like DAS, which was innovation-wise brilliant in itself ofcourse .. simple but yet so effective.

That said, all future progress will now be hindered a lot by the 10% windtunnel/cfd punishment. In a world without bias one could even think it's quite harsh ...
But as that world is non-existant, I will probably butchered.

Remember, Devil's Advocate ..

I really disliked that the overspend was presented in pounds and the penalty it dollars. It make sthe penality look larger and the overspend smaller.

I also disliked that the whole comment that was added by the FIA about Notional Tax Credit. IF they would have filed, they make it sound like it was a given that they'd get it, while the Notional website has alot if and maybes on it. I find it hard to beleive that RBR has probably 50 guys that have written several technical papers or thesis longer than 100 pages but they can't find an accountant to read and understand a 52 page accounting manual or file someting as basic as Notional Tax Credit. If they didn't file, it probably cause they didn't get it or wen't eligable for whatever reason.

“the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of their Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,438” and therefore they would have exceeded the cap by $432,652 or 0.37%.

$432,652 is £377218
So really
£1,431,438
+ £377,218
=========
£1,808,656 or $2,074,444 THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE OVER.
#################################################

If they ran out of gas on the out lap of qualifing after getting pole, the FIA wouldn't have said "Oh, if they had put enough fuel in the car, they would have finsihed on pole anyways."

As expected People aren't reading the 1.8MIllion pounds that RBR are over, all they read is the 400K. It's so BS and it was written like that for that effect.

No. You’re reading something that just isn’t there in the FIA report. I’m sorry. I promised not to write again here but as an independent living in the UK, I can’t let that slide. A tax rebate was due in the tax year but they cocked it up. Simple as that.

I still would have liked a stiffer penalty for the 400k overspend to really make it apparent to teams that this game carries serious consequences.

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

[DChemTech]

Doesn't matter, you cock it up in any sport and you loose!

It does matter - a lot of people are saying that RB could have used 1.8 or 2.0 million more (depending on currency) to develop their car. That's simply not true if it's a matter of a tax break they were eligible to but got rejected on administrative grounds.
All they did with that is make the same development as they had otherwise 1.4M pounds more expensive than it had to be. Dumb, not advantageous.

[chrisc90]

1.8million is NOWHERE NEAR the threshold for 5% or 7.25million