2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[dans79]

If we are willing to accept that any potential advantage gained has a carry on to following years (which I think it has to some extent) then it follows that the disadvantage from the penalty is not a one time thing, but it will also carry on to following years, it won’t be just “a one time thing”.

If you had less development scope available. Would you choose the at the start of a new development era, or at the end of a development era when progress has already being made and you now all you have to do is upgrades.

I know what my answer would be.

I'd want my time reduction at the start, because the further you get into a set of regulations it becomes more time consuming, more complicated, and more expensive to make gains!

[Mosin123]

Not for a team who is one of the heaviest on the grid, Marko said losing 10 KG will give them around 0.3 ms

A friendly word of advise, don't believe anything that comes out of Marko's moth when it comes to technical subject!

That is great advice thanks, i was understating though tbf, at tracks such as imola, 10 kg of fuel is worth near enough 0.5 sec, ofc tracks with a lot of braking and accelerating it would be higher, at tracks with a more constant speed would give less, but would improve tyre life, a lighter car can only be a good thing, cornering, acceleration, braking and tyre life is all improved just by being lighter.

We all know having 115% wind tunnle time doesnt mean williams have been able to jump Merc with its 75 %? wind tunnel tiem this season, if we assume 7 % wind tunnel time is woth no more than 0.3 Willaims should be 0.3 x 5 = 1.5 secs quicker than Merc, and that really isnt the case at all.

[RonMexico]

Sounds like Red Bull have outsmarted the field.

They abused the rules and came out well on the other side. Pretty genius move.

and yet is is supposed to be a sport, not a competition to see who can get a upperhand by ignoring the rules and getting away with it.

Have you played much sport yourself?

What you just said is very much at the center of what you do in competitive sports. Pushing the limits and blurring lines.

Athletes cheat straight up with PED all the time and have done so forever. That's sport

[dans79]

We all know having 115% wind tunnle time doesnt mean williams have been able to jump Merc with its 75 %? wind tunnel tiem this season, if we assume 7 % wind tunnel time is woth no more than 0.3 Willaims should be 0.3 x 5 = 1.5 secs quicker than Merc, and that really isnt the case at all.

The skill set of the staffs and the capabilities of the facilities aren't the same from team to team, so no correlation like that is possible.

[f1jcw]

Sounds like Red Bull have outsmarted the field.

They abused the rules and came out well on the other side. Pretty genius move.

and yet is is supposed to be a sport, not a competition to see who can get a upperhand by ignoring the rules and getting away with it.

Have you played much sport yourself?

What you just said is very much at the center of what you do in competitive sports. Pushing the limits and blurring lines.

Athletes cheat straight up with PED all the time and have done so forever. That's sport

I think you have the wrong idea about sports, cheating isn't to be appluaded.

[MadMax]

Pushing of the flexi wing limits is not breaking them and I can totally get behind their behaviour towards Renault.

Abu Dhabi 2014 says otherwise!
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/30167902

Officials found a spring concealed in both sides of the wing that allowed two flaps to move downwards when at speed.

Red Bull design chief Adrian Newey said the part had been designed to flex but said all teams did the same thing.

Still, the FIA has prescribed limits to what is allowed in terms of flex tolerance, and as long as you are within that tolerance, you are not breaking any rules. Which was the case for RB until the FIA decided to change the tolerance rules in the middle of an active season, after political pressure from competitors. But yeah, there is another topic for that discussion.

The issue there is that the wing was intended to flex which is a breach of the rule that things should be rigid. Designing it to flex after the test limit is deliberate action intended to get around a rule and thus is cheating (just as Brabhams BT49C's clever suspension got around the mandated minimum ride height rule). It amazes me that RB got away with it as lightly as they did.

[Mosin123]

We all know having 115% wind tunnle time doesnt mean williams have been able to jump Merc with its 75 %? wind tunnel tiem this season, if we assume 7 % wind tunnel time is woth no more than 0.3 Willaims should be 0.3 x 5 = 1.5 secs quicker than Merc, and that really isnt the case at all.

The skill set of the staffs and the capabilities of the facilities aren't the same from team to team, so no correlation like that is possible.

ofc, we all know staff makes a big difference, but how much aero you can get out of a car has a limit and Redbull have said its the best aero efficent car Neway has ever built, if its already at max or close to it max possible aero efficiency, you are not improving much with 7 % extra wind tunnel time, finding improvements in other areas would be more beneficial surely?

If Redbull need 60 % to find 0.2 ms for next season to be even more aero efficient, making the car lighter for 0.3 ms is more beneficial than having an extra 7 % wind tunnel time, either way it isnt going to improve much on the aero side of things.

[RonMexico]

and yet is is supposed to be a sport, not a competition to see who can get a upperhand by ignoring the rules and getting away with it.

Have you played much sport yourself?

What you just said is very much at the center of what you do in competitive sports. Pushing the limits and blurring lines.

Athletes cheat straight up with PED all the time and have done so forever. That's sport

I think you have the wrong idea about sports, cheating isn't to be appluaded.

You're just extremely naïve to the reality.

I bet you never played sport at a competitive level

[MadMax]

If we are willing to accept that any potential advantage gained has a carry on to following years (which I think it has to some extent) then it follows that the disadvantage from the penalty is not a one time thing, but it will also carry on to following years, it won’t be just “a one time thing”.

The important question is whether the punishment "resets" the advantage gained from any alleged wrongdoing. If they gained, for example, 0.5s from the wrongdoing but the punishment limits their potential gain over the next 12 months to 0.3s, the other teams would need to be able to gain 0.8s over the next 12 months to be back at level with them. That would be a big gain to find for those other teams in one season. So the original gain is more than the punishment removes and the team have a nett benefit from their financial misdemeanour. If the other teams can easily find 1s over the next 12 months then the punishment would be just that - a punishment.

[DChemTech]

Abu Dhabi 2014 says otherwise!
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/30167902

Still, the FIA has prescribed limits to what is allowed in terms of flex tolerance, and as long as you are within that tolerance, you are not breaking any rules. Which was the case for RB until the FIA decided to change the tolerance rules in the middle of an active season, after political pressure from competitors. But yeah, there is another topic for that discussion.

Could have been worse, Could have changed it for the last lap of the final race...

Indeed, arbitrary deviations by the stewards from point 27.3 of the 2021 sporting regulations during a race weekend and even alterations thereof during a race did affect the outcome of one race. Shame that it's seemingly not possible to set up one set of regulations and role with it for the season, accepting that if a team comes up with a creative interpretation that pushes (but does not breach) the limits, that's simply to be accepted and fixed for the next season, like they did with DAS for example.

More in line with this topic, I do not necessarily agree that changing a sporting regulation during a race is worse than changing a technical regulation during the season: the effects carry through the season (not just one race), and the team loses resources twice: first for the original design (which is now flawed because it did not meet criteria that were not originally communicated), and second for the time and material required to redesign. And that is even more critical in a year with a cost cap - so the introduction of technical directives that fix an omission of the FIA and that hits teams asymmetrically is really to be avoided.

[DChemTech]

Abu Dhabi 2014 says otherwise!
https://www.bbc.com/sport/formula1/30167902

Still, the FIA has prescribed limits to what is allowed in terms of flex tolerance, and as long as you are within that tolerance, you are not breaking any rules. Which was the case for RB until the FIA decided to change the tolerance rules in the middle of an active season, after political pressure from competitors. But yeah, there is another topic for that discussion.

The issue there is that the wing was intended to flex which is a breach of the rule that things should be rigid. Designing it to flex after the test limit is deliberate action intended to get around a rule and thus is cheating (just as Brabhams BT49C's clever suspension got around the mandated minimum ride height rule). It amazes me that RB got away with it as lightly as they did.

I'd happily (for the 100th time) share my thoughts on why "must be rigid" is not a physically realizable rule in the topic that is dedicated to wing flexing, if that is a can of worms that you want to open, but let's not do that here.

[RonMexico]

If we are willing to accept that any potential advantage gained has a carry on to following years (which I think it has to some extent) then it follows that the disadvantage from the penalty is not a one time thing, but it will also carry on to following years, it won’t be just “a one time thing”.

The important question is whether the punishment "resets" the advantage gained from any alleged wrongdoing. If they gained, for example, 0.5s from the wrongdoing but the punishment limits their potential gain over the next 12 months to 0.3s, the other teams would need to be able to gain 0.8s over the next 12 months to be back at level with them. That would be a big gain to find for those other teams in one season. So the original gain is more than the punishment removes and the team have a nett benefit from their financial misdemeanour. If the other teams can easily find 1s over the next 12 months then the punishment would be just that - a punishment.

Where are punishments ever equal to the indiscretion exactly?

Just in F1 you constantly see large, race ending incidents being punished with a minute time penalty that often has zero bearing on the finishing position of the driver at fault.

On a macro level you see large corps getting little fines for causing chaos on a global level.

[Mosin123]

Still, the FIA has prescribed limits to what is allowed in terms of flex tolerance, and as long as you are within that tolerance, you are not breaking any rules. Which was the case for RB until the FIA decided to change the tolerance rules in the middle of an active season, after political pressure from competitors. But yeah, there is another topic for that discussion.

Could have been worse, Could have changed it for the last lap of the final race...

Indeed, arbitrary deviations by the stewards from point 27.3 of the 2021 sporting regulations during a race weekend and even alterations thereof during a race did affect the outcome of one race. Shame that it's seemingly not possible to set up one set of regulations and role with it for the season, accepting that if a team comes up with a creative interpretation that pushes (but does not breach) the limits, that's simply to be accepted and fixed for the next season, like they did with DAS for example.

More in line with this topic, I do not necessarily agree that changing a sporting regulation during a race is worse than changing a technical regulation during the season: the effects carry through the season (not just one race), and the team loses resources twice: first for the original design (which is now flawed because it did not meet criteria that were not originally communicated), and second for the time and material required to redesign. And that is even more critical in a year with a cost cap - so the introduction of technical directives that fix an omission of the FIA and that hits teams asymmetrically is really to be avoided.

I dissagree, changing a sporting contest to remove the rights of some to contest isnt a sport, it goes against the sporting regulations and the international sporting code. Changing regulations because some one has found a way around them is not the same as excluding 8 of 10 teams and 18 of 20 drivers form competing for the last lap of the last race of a champioship, no matter how you look at it.

If a team found a loophole in the regs and know they shouldnt go their but do because they gain performance, when they eventually lose that advantage, its levelling the playing feild, not excluding most of it. Its " Sporting " not unsporting.

[diffuser]

If we are willing to accept that any potential advantage gained has a carry on to following years (which I think it has to some extent) then it follows that the disadvantage from the penalty is not a one time thing, but it will also carry on to following years, it won’t be just “a one time thing”.

The important question is whether the punishment "resets" the advantage gained from any alleged wrongdoing. If they gained, for example, 0.5s from the wrongdoing but the punishment limits their potential gain over the next 12 months to 0.3s, the other teams would need to be able to gain 0.8s over the next 12 months to be back at level with them. That would be a big gain to find for those other teams in one season. So the original gain is more than the punishment removes and the team have a nett benefit from their financial misdemeanour. If the other teams can easily find 1s over the next 12 months then the punishment would be just that - a punishment.

Not sure you can do that. What teams get from every xtra $ they spend will vary from team to team, upgrade to upgrade, and season to season. I think the penalty just needs to be VERY painful and be included as part of the CAP. Any penalty outside the CAP isn't gonna be an equal penalty to every team. A non CAP $7 million penalty to a team that used to spend $300m on cars, like Ferrari, Merc and RBR, is incentive to do it again.

[diffuser]

If we are willing to accept that any potential advantage gained has a carry on to following years (which I think it has to some extent) then it follows that the disadvantage from the penalty is not a one time thing, but it will also carry on to following years, it won’t be just “a one time thing”.

The important question is whether the punishment "resets" the advantage gained from any alleged wrongdoing. If they gained, for example, 0.5s from the wrongdoing but the punishment limits their potential gain over the next 12 months to 0.3s, the other teams would need to be able to gain 0.8s over the next 12 months to be back at level with them. That would be a big gain to find for those other teams in one season. So the original gain is more than the punishment removes and the team have a nett benefit from their financial misdemeanour. If the other teams can easily find 1s over the next 12 months then the punishment would be just that - a punishment.

Where are punishments ever equal to the indiscretion exactly?

Just in F1 you constantly see large, race ending incidents being punished with a minute time penalty that often has zero bearing on the finishing position of the driver at fault.

On a macro level you see large corps getting little fines for causing chaos on a global level.

You're right, In present day F1, There is too much of a speed difference between the front for the field to the back. If you're starting from the back, then a penalty of 20 positions is no penalty at all. Also if you are one of the fastest cars and replacing a PU cause you to start from the back but you still finish 3rd, what's the penalty in that? It's only really relevant to the midfield as it MIGHT find them out of the points.