2022 budget cap violations

[AR3-GP]

I'm all for basing the punishments on what the team principals and drivers stated the penalties should have been last year.

Here's where the FIA messed up, IMO. You can't now go and give a harsher punishment than RB received last year. Lets say Mercedes or McLaren breach. You can't go and dock points, or take a way podiums, or take away 30% of tunnel time. And you can't fine them 20M Euro. This will make last year's punishment even more controversial. They set the bar with the punishments last year. Now repeat offenders, yes, then they should go more harsh.

10% WT time reduction is a substantial penalty.

Why do people imagine that the penalties are capable of being much worse for a minor breach?

If a breach is classified as major, that is unprecedented and there wouldn't be any benchmark punishment to reference.

[RaceFan1]

I'm all for basing the punishments on what the team principals and drivers stated the penalties should have been last year.

Here's where the FIA messed up, IMO. You can't now go and give a harsher punishment than RB received last year. Lets say Mercedes or McLaren breach. You can't go and dock points, or take a way podiums, or take away 30% of tunnel time. And you can't fine them 20M Euro. This will make last year's punishment even more controversial. They set the bar with the punishments last year. Now repeat offenders, yes, then they should go more harsh.

10% WT time reduction is a substantial penalty.

Why do people imagine that the penalties are capable of being much worse for a minor breach?

If a breach is classified as major, that is unprecedented and there wouldn't be any benchmark punishment to reference.

After last years comments and input from teams and drivers, this year's offenders should be hit with the harsh punishment put forth by their own comments.

It's year two, they should know better. If the cap was broken by more than Red Bull last year, it was most likely on purpose.

[ringo]

Redbull may well do it again but in a smarter way that they think either goes undetected or uses a loop hole. But maybe the fia have really smart people to detect such things.
Their penalty from last year as far as i see has not impacted them in any tangible way.
It cannot be harsh if you are not affected on track like ferrari were with their engine penalty in 2019.

[AR3-GP]

Redbull may well do it again but in a smarter way that they think either goes undetected or uses a loop hole. But maybe the fia have really smart people to detect such things.
Their penalty from last year as far as i see has not impacted them in any tangible way.
It cannot be harsh if you are not affected on track like ferrari were with their engine penalty in 2019.

There are many people who are not satisfied with the penalty, because it hasn't cost them WCC positions. That's not how the penalty system works for minor breaches.

[Tiny73]

I think that’s the point though. There shouldn’t be minor or major breaches, just breaches.

We’ve heard how £180k (quoted from Zak Brown IIRC?) can make a difference on upgrades so any transgression should be punished and not have a sliding scale. A breach is a breach. The FIA have set the precedent that a minor is just a slap on the wrist and “oooh naughty scamps”.

[Wouter]

I think that’s the point though. There shouldn’t be minor or major breaches, just breaches.

We’ve heard how £180k (quoted from Zak Brown IIRC?) can make a difference on upgrades so any transgression should be punished and not have a sliding scale. A breach is a breach.
The FIA have set the precedent that a minor is just a slap on the wrist and “oooh naughty scamps”.

.
Oh, now I understand why people always get the same fine for all violations during the race weekends.

Going 1 km too fast in the pit lane, causing a crash, ignoring a blue flag during an FP, crossing track limits three times, etc.
You always get the same penalty for that because "A breach is a breach". Okay.

[Cs98]

Here's where the FIA messed up, IMO. You can't now go and give a harsher punishment than RB received last year. Lets say Mercedes or McLaren breach. You can't go and dock points, or take a way podiums, or take away 30% of tunnel time. And you can't fine them 20M Euro. This will make last year's punishment even more controversial. They set the bar with the punishments last year. Now repeat offenders, yes, then they should go more harsh.

You can absolutely give a harsher punishment if the breach is more severe. The potential penalties are laid out and not limited to 10% WT time. That was the penalty that the FIA deemed appropriate for what was an effective 400k breach. But if someone commits a more severe breach they would get a more severe punishment. This is not a difficult concept to understand.

[FW17]

Funny this comes up just as the new team tender is concluding

[clownfish]

I think that’s the point though. There shouldn’t be minor or major breaches, just breaches.

We’ve heard how £180k (quoted from Zak Brown IIRC?) can make a difference on upgrades so any transgression should be punished and not have a sliding scale. A breach is a breach. The FIA have set the precedent that a minor is just a slap on the wrist and “oooh naughty scamps”.

This just says that if you think you might have gone over the cap by even £1, you might as well go full-on Wolf of Wall St and start throwing money around, since the penalty will be the same.

My personal view is that

1) 10% reduction was not enough as a deterrent

2) the penalty should have been applied 'flat' i.e. 10% deduction should have taken Red Bulls wind tunnel allocation from 70% to 60% not 70% to 63%. Why should a team at the front have their number of runs reduced by a smaller amount than a team at the back if they'd committed the same infraction?

[Cs98]

My personal view is that

1) 10% reduction was not enough as a deterrent

Its effectiveness as a deterrent can only be judged by the outcome of the 2022 season, which isn't know.

[Just_a_fan]

2) the penalty should have been applied 'flat' i.e. 10% deduction should have taken Red Bulls wind tunnel allocation from 70% to 60% not 70% to 63%. Why should a team at the front have their number of runs reduced by a smaller amount than a team at the back if they'd committed the same infraction?

Agreed. That was simply indefensible by the FIA. The 10% should have been a straight 10% not 10% of whatever it is the team was going to get by virtue of their title-race position.

The title winner gets a 7% reduction but the last place team gets an 11.5% reduction for the same offence. That's obviously wrong.

[Tiny73]

I think that’s the point though. There shouldn’t be minor or major breaches, just breaches.

We’ve heard how £180k (quoted from Zak Brown IIRC?) can make a difference on upgrades so any transgression should be punished and not have a sliding scale. A breach is a breach.
The FIA have set the precedent that a minor is just a slap on the wrist and “oooh naughty scamps”.

.
Oh, now I understand why people always get the same fine for all violations during the race weekends.

Going 1 km too fast in the pit lane, causing a crash, ignoring a blue flag during an FP, crossing track limits three times, etc.
You always get the same penalty for that because "A breach is a breach". Okay.

Totally different things but great straw man argument nonetheless.

[Tiny73]

I think that’s the point though. There shouldn’t be minor or major breaches, just breaches.

We’ve heard how £180k (quoted from Zak Brown IIRC?) can make a difference on upgrades so any transgression should be punished and not have a sliding scale. A breach is a breach. The FIA have set the precedent that a minor is just a slap on the wrist and “oooh naughty scamps”.

This just says that if you think you might have gone over the cap by even £1, you might as well go full-on Wolf of Wall St and start throwing money around, since the penalty will be the same.

My personal view is that

1) 10% reduction was not enough as a deterrent

2) the penalty should have been applied 'flat' i.e. 10% deduction should have taken Red Bulls wind tunnel allocation from 70% to 60% not 70% to 63%. Why should a team at the front have their number of runs reduced by a smaller amount than a team at the back if they'd committed the same infraction?

Surely that’s the point of a cost cap? Not “cost cap plus a bit. It is/should be a binary outcome. You’re over or you’re not. It’s like saying you’re a little bit pregnant, only a bit though.

[Cs98]

I think that’s the point though. There shouldn’t be minor or major breaches, just breaches.

We’ve heard how £180k (quoted from Zak Brown IIRC?) can make a difference on upgrades so any transgression should be punished and not have a sliding scale. A breach is a breach. The FIA have set the precedent that a minor is just a slap on the wrist and “oooh naughty scamps”.

This just says that if you think you might have gone over the cap by even £1, you might as well go full-on Wolf of Wall St and start throwing money around, since the penalty will be the same.

My personal view is that

1) 10% reduction was not enough as a deterrent

2) the penalty should have been applied 'flat' i.e. 10% deduction should have taken Red Bulls wind tunnel allocation from 70% to 60% not 70% to 63%. Why should a team at the front have their number of runs reduced by a smaller amount than a team at the back if they'd committed the same infraction?

Surely that’s the point of a cost cap? Not “cost cap plus a bit. It is/should be a binary outcome. You’re over or you’re not. It’s like saying you’re a little bit pregnant, only a bit though.

Pregnancy Ironic you brought that up considering your previous comment. No, you can't be a bit pregnant. It's binary in the purest sense of the word. But with a cost cap you can be a bit over, or a lot over. Naturally the punishment should fit the severity of the breach. Or maybe you think someone who failed to pay $2 in taxes should receive the same punishment as someone who failed to pay $2 million. It's binary after all, right? They both failed to pay taxes.

[Big Tea]

The severity of the financial penalty is magnified if it comes out of the cost cap. No team would blink at a million for overspend and consider it a good deal if it was just what would have been spent anyway, but a million out of the cost cap can not be recovered and would reflect the severity better as the bigger the penalty the more actual influence it has on the car rather than on the team gains.