$200 million budget cap agreed?

[mikeerfol]

So, if a team has a budget bigger than 200 million dollars, the penalty for that team will be 3 (!!) points??

[adrianjordan]

So, if a team has a budget bigger than 200 million dollars, the penalty for that team will be 3 (!!) points??

Yeah, exactly!!

With 50 points up for grabs in the final race...hardly a deterrent is it..!!

[Pup]

The team's best three results would be removed; not three points.

So, potentially 75 constructor points.

[beelsebob]

The team's best three results would be removed; not three points.

So, potentially 75 constructor points.

100 if they win the last race.

[gridwalker]

Wouldn't the TEAM'S best 3 finishes count for both cars? If they get 3 1-2 finishes, that would be 3 x (25 + 18) ...

A potential 129 points is a much bigger price to pay.

Edit : 172 points, if one of those 1-2 finishes is at the final race

[Pup]

Yes, I guess that's true.

[clipsy1H]

Im sure atleast it would reduce the budget, red bull spents 400m a year, thats no fair competition where force india spent only 130m...

They can go in GP2 or GP3 if they want similar cars. Life isn't fair so why should F1 be total fair? There's impossible to control such a rule because like someone said ... all teams have sponsors so no one can take bills for everything.

For example Daimler can produce parts under subsidiaries Smart. Tell me what Red Bull or Ferrari would do in this situation: "Last race of the year. both team are separated by 4 points and both already spent 200 millions but they need 1 more for traveling and new wings"

[FoxHound]

Its still messy as hell.

You could drive a bus through the gap in the rules.
Red bull have no desire for it, and are more concerned about "hidden abilities" manufacturers have within their production infrastructure.

The manufacturer's querie the existence of Red Bulls technologies entity.
Which can far more effectively circumvent a budget cap.

My opinion remains that if anyone wants to break the constraints they can do so....and with relative ease.

The only way to over come this?
Bank the 200million with the fia, and let them pay the invoices under a neutral scrutineering firm.

[flyboy2160]

and another thing that would complicate this egalitarian farce: how long would an appeal take? can you see a complaint being lodged and the appeal taking a year or 2 to wend it's way through the courts. (I can't imagine somebody who got caught not appealing to a legal system and involving accountants and lawyers out the wazoo.......)

the FIA are just a bunch of loser bureaucrats no longer attached to reality.

[flyboy2160]

and while I'm at it: marussia's boss recently whined that "skill," not money, should be the most import aspect of the engineering competition.

well, how come his 'poor team' guys didn't think up something clever like McLaren's rear suspension arms? how much would that have cost? How about brawn finding the double diffuser loophole a few years back? how come a 'poor' team didn't revive the blown diffuser idea?

more money won't necessarily make them winning engineering teams. just look the money Toyota threw away....

[tathan]

well, how come his 'poor team' guys didn't think up something clever like McLaren's rear suspension arms? how much would that have cost? How about brawn finding the double diffuser loophole a few years back? how come a 'poor' team didn't revive the blown diffuser idea?

more money won't necessarily make them winning engineering teams. just look the money Toyota threw away....

Does someone really have to point out the fact that if every man and his dog is working 18 hour days trying to get the basics in place they don't have much time to bluesky?

[langwadt]

and while I'm at it: marussia's boss recently whined that "skill," not money, should be the most import aspect of the engineering competition.

well, how come his 'poor team' guys didn't think up something clever like McLaren's rear suspension arms? how much would that have cost? How about brawn finding the double diffuser loophole a few years back? how come a 'poor' team didn't revive the blown diffuser idea?

more money won't necessarily make them winning engineering teams. just look the money Toyota threw away....

The poor team could just as well come up with the bright idea, though with less people I would guess they have less ideas.
The thing is if a rich team comes up with a great idea a poor teams might not have to money to copy it, if a poor comes
up with a great idea the rich teams do, double points for the last race just amplifies that

[Richard]

The issue about outsourcing should be trivial, it's simple to measure benefit in kind. After all that's how most companies account for their subsidiaries.

Any team filing accounts with silly numbers would be caught. That'd be like Starbucks saying the notional value of their logo wipes out the entire profits of their UK operations. Or Amazon claiming their Luxemborg office cost so much money that the huge UK warehouses dispatching millions of books don't earn a penny. Surely no one would be able to get away with filing accounts like that?????

Sarcasm aside, the budget cap would only with with agreed notional values, and an obligation of suppliers to deliver at those costs. As long as teams like Marussia have access to Renault engines for say £5m for a season, then it doesn't matter if Renault spend a billion. More to the point, Renault spending silly money actually subsidises the small teams who benefit from the research without having to pay for it. That principle could apply to the entire power train, control systems, and wind tunnel. Then it doesn't matter if McLaren or Red Bull develop the world's most expensive wind tunnel because they'd have to grant access to a small team.

With regard to parts that can't have an external supplier such as aero design they simply need a limit the inputs such as hours in a wind tunnel or CPU power.

[Cocles]

The issue about outsourcing should be trivial, it's simple to measure benefit in kind. After all that's how most companies account for their subsidiaries. Any team filing accounts with silly numbers would be caught. That'd be like Starbucks saying the notional value of their logo wipes out the entire profits of their UK operations. Or Amazon claiming their Luxemborg office cost so much money that the huge UK warehouses dispatching millions of books don't earn a penny. Surely no one would be able to get away with filing accounts like that?????

Have you heard of a place called Hollywood?

[iotar__]

and while I'm at it: marussia's boss recently whined that "skill," not money, should be the most import aspect of the engineering competition.

well, how come his 'poor team' guys didn't think up something clever like McLaren's rear suspension arms? how much would that have cost? How about brawn finding the double diffuser loophole a few years back? how come a 'poor' team didn't revive the blown diffuser idea?

more money won't necessarily make them winning engineering teams. just look the money Toyota threw away....

It's really hard to miss the point more than you did. Cherry picked examples that don't make sense: double diffuser loophole is a proof of what exactly in this context? That budgets guarantee innovations and in case of cap they'd disappear? No: 1. freakish loophole was not exactly that clever technically but legal mess by FIA. 2. It was used by Toyota/Williams and not by big teams - Ferrari/McLaren, Renault was perfectly aware of it as well 3. There are many innovations on small team's cars copied by big ones and vice versa. As for other random, unrelated reasons - let me point you (again) to arbitrary distribution of commercial money on "historic" ground. [About other post above] No, smaller teams can have every clever idea in the world but: 1. Can't run 6 programs simultaneously (that's NOT clever, just muscles) 2. Go for safer option because they can't afford failure - see parachute of extra money like McLaren after 2013. Also check FI's nose choice and general updates philosophy in 2013. Why do you think McL hired Sauber's chief designer and Ferrari top technical personnel from Lotus, presumably for their lack of talent or innovations in previous seasons?

Most importantly we're not talking about "clever ideas" but basics: Force India, Sauber don't have money for regular mid-season updates, choosing timing of switch to next season's car, choosing drivers based on talent only etc. Aren't you curious what FI could have done with strong second mid-season update or Lotus if they could run several optional programs? It's not about egalitarianism but about competitive (which means interesting) and healthy financially (pseudo) sport. If your choice is F1 DTM style with 3 cars and clones - fine but don't drag "innovations will be missing" argument into that. BTW cost cap doesn't give small teams extra money to throw away Toyota style.

[Edit:] You can find example for anything: where were clever ideas by big budget Ferrari or McLaren in 2009 when smaller Red Bull was setting design foundations for long domination? Currently it's not McLaren that is considered favourite but Merc/Ferrari on account of being engine manufacturers/reliability and not cleverness of their ideas.