2022 budget cap violations

[codetower]

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.

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.

No no, what I'm saying is assuming RB's initial breach was 1.6% over the cap. They got 7mil and 10% reduction. If in 2022 say Mercedes or Ferrari go over by 1.6%. They cant, or rather, shouldn't change the punishment and give them a 15mil fine, 10% tunnel reduction and take away constructors points. I can see it increasing for repeat offenders... so if RB goes over 1.6% again, or if Merc/Fer go over 1.6 in 2022 and another 1.6 in 2023, then sure, harsher punishment. But you can't just move the goalpost.

[Big Tea]

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.

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.

No no, what I'm saying is assuming RB's initial breach was 1.6% over the cap. They got 7mil and 10% reduction. If in 2022 say Mercedes or Ferrari go over by 1.6%. They cant, or rather, shouldn't change the punishment and give them a 15mil fine, 10% tunnel reduction and take away constructors points. I can see it increasing for repeat offenders... so if RB goes over 1.6% again, or if Merc/Fer go over 1.6 in 2022 and another 1.6 in 2023, then sure, harsher punishment. But you can't just move the goalpost.

There could be a case for suspended penalties, as in had a team got 'done' for 7 million and 10% with 10 million and a further 5% suspended for 4 years they would be sure not to do it again for at least 4 years or the suspended part would automatically be added to any standard penalty. It would have to be a universal levee though as it could possibly be seen as favouritism or victimisation in other cases

[Cs98]

No no, what I'm saying is assuming RB's initial breach was 1.6% over the cap. They got 7mil and 10% reduction. If in 2022 say Mercedes or Ferrari go over by 1.6%. They cant, or rather, shouldn't change the punishment and give them a 15mil fine, 10% tunnel reduction and take away constructors points. I can see it increasing for repeat offenders... so if RB goes over 1.6% again, or if Merc/Fer go over 1.6 in 2022 and another 1.6 in 2023, then sure, harsher punishment. But you can't just move the goalpost.

I agree they shouldn't change the punishment if the breach is the same.

Though I'm quite certain the FIA didn't treat it as an effective 1,6% breach due to the tax circumstances. At least my read based on the FIA's insistence on mentioning it in press releases etc. And by "effective breach" I mean the amount of extra money over the cap that team would've spent if they had done all their financial reporting correctly (according to the FIA). But it will be interesting to see if they take into account circumstances (both mitigating and aggravating) or if they just focus on the headline number, presuming there is in fact a breach for 2022.

[AR3-GP]

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.

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.

No no, what I'm saying is assuming RB's initial breach was 1.6% over the cap. They got 7mil and 10% reduction. If in 2022 say Mercedes or Ferrari go over by 1.6%. They cant, or rather, shouldn't change the punishment and give them a 15mil fine, 10% tunnel reduction and take away constructors points. I can see it increasing for repeat offenders... so if RB goes over 1.6% again, or if Merc/Fer go over 1.6 in 2022 and another 1.6 in 2023, then sure, harsher punishment. But you can't just move the goalpost.

Are you asking for consistency from the FIA? Don't hold your breath.

Countless examples of lack of consistency.

2019 Monaco GP, Verstappen gets 5 second time penalty for unsafe release.
2019 German GP, Ferrari gets a 5000 euro fine for Leclerc unsafe release.


If anything, the penalties will be less severe this year for the same infractions.

[chrstphrln]

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.

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.

No no, what I'm saying is assuming RB's initial breach was 1.6% over the cap. They got 7mil and 10% reduction. If in 2022 say Mercedes or Ferrari go over by 1.6%. They cant, or rather, shouldn't change the punishment and give them a 15mil fine, 10% tunnel reduction and take away constructors points. I can see it increasing for repeat offenders... so if RB goes over 1.6% again, or if Merc/Fer go over 1.6 in 2022 and another 1.6 in 2023, then sure, harsher punishment. But you can't just move the goalpost.

Are you asking for consistency from the FIA? Don't hold your breath.

Countless examples of lack of consistency.

2019 Monaco GP, Verstappen gets 5 second time penalty for unsafe release.
2019 German GP, Ferrari gets a 5000 euro fine for Leclerc unsafe release.


If anything, the penalties will be less severe this year for the same infractions.

Bad example. Because the weather forecast predicted changing conditions, the team managers expected chaotic scenes in the pit lane. Therefore, the reins were loosened a bit and Leclerc got away better.
That's what Masi said at the time.

But of course I know what you wanted to express.
And you are right.

[Tiny73]

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.

Fair point about the pregnancy not a total straw man but I take the point. I think race infractions (and penalties) relate to different infractions though, whereas there should really only be 1 cost cap, otherwise it becomes a game of risk/reward as to how far you want to go over. “Fine of £1m (that doesn’t come out of the cost cap budget) vs 1 second of lap time, hmmm which shall I choose”. The idea was to level the playing field not create a situation where teams can choose a fine to gain an advantage.

I think 2022 may see punitive punishments or the cost cap dropped for good.

[Willy]

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?

I find it amusing that people think the penalty wasn't enough. The continued success of a team shouldn't qualify if the punishment was enough. If Red Bull had lost advantage, would we then have assumed 10% was enough? What is the guarantee that 20% could have been enough or even 30% for that matter?

Imagine if Aston Martin breaches cost cap in 2022 and gets 10% wind tunnel penalty and then goes right back to being a back marker. Would we then say, it was too much? That's why rule making and penalties cannot be subjective.

[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”.

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?

.
I find it amusing that people think the penalty wasn't enough. The continued success of a team shouldn't qualify if the punishment was enough. If Red Bull had lost advantage, would we then have assumed 10% was enough? What is the guarantee that 20% could have been enough or even 30% for that matter?

Imagine if Aston Martin breaches cost cap in 2022 and gets 10% wind tunnel penalty and then goes right back to being a back marker. Would we then say, it was too much? That's why rule making and penalties cannot be subjective.

Spot on!

[Alexf1]

What people tend to forget or overlook is that RBs penalty was much more about RB trying to f#ck the FIA with their non cooperative approach. They did not participate in the dry run and barely asked any questions. The FIA in return did not give RB any feedback on their mid year submission where most of the errors could already be found. By doing this they deliberately took away RBs opportunity to correct things that could be amended like spare parts and catering. In the end the FIA just rejected instead of amended these items of the submission which is just childish cause spare parts rule was only clarified in May 2022 and catering could easily have been detected in the mid year submission and be solved by taking the % of personnel working under the cap (50% if you go by their turnover numbers) or a bit more instead of the ttl £ 1.4m. Spare parts was rejected in total too which wrongfully took about £ 1.2m of genuine spare parts under the cap. With a breach of £ 1.8m amending these 2 items alone takes them under the cap (£ 1.8m - £ 1.2 - £ 0.7). So there were 12 procedural breaches which comes awfully close to an attempt to cheat (as Zak suggested) but there was no overspend in reality. The outcome as presented in the FIA press release just doesn't make any sense. It's to protect RB from reputational damage (as Toto suggested). I therefore don't think the RB case can be used one on one for BC violations this year.

[Cs98]

otherwise it becomes a game of risk/reward as to how far you want to go over.

I don't see it that way. If you base your penalty on the severity of the breach that should deter risk/reward hunters.

“Fine of £1m (that doesn’t come out of the cost cap budget) vs 1 second of lap time, hmmm which shall I choose”.

Maybe you should start by presenting a realistic scenario instead of whatever that is.

[Just_a_fan]

What people tend to forget or overlook is that RBs penalty was much more about RB trying to f#ck the FIA with their non cooperative approach. They did not participate in the dry run and barely asked any questions. The FIA in return did not give RB any feedback on their mid year submission where most of the errors could already be found. By doing this they deliberately took away RBs opportunity to correct things that could be amended like spare parts and catering. In the end the FIA just rejected instead of amended these items of the submission which is just childish cause spare parts rule was only clarified in May 2022 and catering could easily have been detected in the mid year submission and be solved by taking the % of personnel working under the cap (50% if you go by their turnover numbers) or a bit more instead of the ttl £ 1.4m. Spare parts was rejected in total too which wrongfully took about £ 1.2m of genuine spare parts under the cap. With a breach of £ 1.8m amending these 2 items alone takes them under the cap (£ 1.8m - £ 1.2 - £ 0.7). So there were 12 procedural breaches which comes awfully close to an attempt to cheat but there was no overspend in reality.

If you mess around with the system, the system bites you. This isn't new.

RB have no one but themselves to blame for their breach. Everyone else managed to be under the cap - everyone else played the game. RB tried to be clever/hard-arsed and got bitten. Ain't no one else's fault.

[Alexf1]

What people tend to forget or overlook is that RBs penalty was much more about RB trying to f#ck the FIA with their non cooperative approach. They did not participate in the dry run and barely asked any questions. The FIA in return did not give RB any feedback on their mid year submission where most of the errors could already be found. By doing this they deliberately took away RBs opportunity to correct things that could be amended like spare parts and catering. In the end the FIA just rejected instead of amended these items of the submission which is just childish cause spare parts rule was only clarified in May 2022 and catering could easily have been detected in the mid year submission and be solved by taking the % of personnel working under the cap (50% if you go by their turnover numbers) or a bit more instead of the ttl £ 1.4m. Spare parts was rejected in total too which wrongfully took about £ 1.2m of genuine spare parts under the cap. With a breach of £ 1.8m amending these 2 items alone takes them under the cap (£ 1.8m - £ 1.2 - £ 0.7). So there were 12 procedural breaches which comes awfully close to an attempt to cheat but there was no overspend in reality.

If you mess around with the system, the system bites you. This isn't new.

RB have no one but themselves to blame for their breach. Everyone else managed to be under the cap - everyone else played the game. RB tried to be clever/hard-arsed and got bitten. Ain't no one else's fault.

Sure but I don't have the impression other teams tried to play the game the way RB did. Only thing that can be questioned is why the FIA did not provide any feedback on the mid year submission. The dry run was not mandatory so if this is the first submission from that team why not provide any feedback?

[RonMexico]

Teams that have overspent in year 2 of the cap should get harsher penalties IMV

[AR3-GP]

What people tend to forget or overlook is that RBs penalty was much more about RB trying to f#ck the FIA with their non cooperative approach. They did not participate in the dry run and barely asked any questions. The FIA in return did not give RB any feedback on their mid year submission where most of the errors could already be found. By doing this they deliberately took away RBs opportunity to correct things that could be amended like spare parts and catering. In the end the FIA just rejected instead of amended these items of the submission which is just childish cause spare parts rule was only clarified in May 2022 and catering could easily have been detected in the mid year submission and be solved by taking the % of personnel working under the cap (50% if you go by their turnover numbers) or a bit more instead of the ttl £ 1.4m. Spare parts was rejected in total too which wrongfully took about £ 1.2m of genuine spare parts under the cap. With a breach of £ 1.8m amending these 2 items alone takes them under the cap (£ 1.8m - £ 1.2 - £ 0.7). So there were 12 procedural breaches which comes awfully close to an attempt to cheat but there was no overspend in reality.

If you mess around with the system, the system bites you. This isn't new.

RB have no one but themselves to blame for their breach. Everyone else managed to be under the cap - everyone else played the game. RB tried to be clever/hard-arsed and got bitten. Ain't no one else's fault.

Sure but I don't have the impression other teams tried to play the game the way RB did. Only thing that can be questioned is why the FIA did not provide any feedback on the mid year submission. The dry run was not mandatory so if this is the first submission from that team why not provide any feedback?

The FIA wasn't staffed. They still aren't. Mercedes has more people doing accounting for a single team, than the FIA does to monitor 10 teams. Go figure.

[ValeVida46]

If you mess around with the system, the system bites you. This isn't new.

RB have no one but themselves to blame for their breach. Everyone else managed to be under the cap - everyone else played the game. RB tried to be clever/hard-arsed and got bitten. Ain't no one else's fault.

It's the details though.

The whole behind closed door thing reeks. Fans deserve some transparency, all we get is an FIA statement and Red Bull PR spin about sandwiches.
For instance, if Mercedes get a budget cap transgression in the coming weeks, they could also yield and equally feeble story if there is no FIA detail.