2022 budget cap violations

[Just_a_fan]

Great post!
As in all aspects of the sport, the FIA are massively under resourced compared with the teams!

Which is why the punishment in the regs should have been very heavy e.g. DSQ. Make the outcome of messing up a "nuclear option" so that the teams wouldn't risk it.

[Stu]

Great post!
As in all aspects of the sport, the FIA are massively under resourced compared with the teams!

Which is why the punishment in the regs should have been very heavy e.g. DSQ. Make the outcome of messing up a "nuclear option" so that the teams wouldn't risk it.

There are two ‘levels’ of breach, minor & major; we have not been informed of where the line is, hopefully the teams have not either.
A true penalty does not need to be DSQ though, a simple budget reduction would have a massive impact (although it could only occur for the season following the investigation).
What we have seen in operation this year is the result of what the FIA considers to be a MINOR breach (the FIA taking a similar line to that taken with track limit’s violations) - which seems sensible from a governance perspective.
I’m not sure how a retrospective penalty could be sensibly applied.

[Just_a_fan]

Great post!
As in all aspects of the sport, the FIA are massively under resourced compared with the teams!

Which is why the punishment in the regs should have been very heavy e.g. DSQ. Make the outcome of messing up a "nuclear option" so that the teams wouldn't risk it.

There are two ‘levels’ of breach, minor & major; we have not been informed of where the line is, hopefully the teams have not either.
A true penalty does not need to be DSQ though, a simple budget reduction would have a massive impact (although it could only occur for the season following the investigation).
What we have seen in operation this year is the result of what the FIA considers to be a MINOR breach (the FIA taking a similar line to that taken with track limit’s violations) - which seems sensible from a governance perspective.
I’m not sure how a retrospective penalty could be sensibly applied.

My comment was in response to you saying that the FIA doesn't have the resources compared to the teams. If you make the punishment for breaking the rules big enough, people won't break them. The budget cap should be like the treatment of track limits - you're over then you lose big time. If the result of being over the budget cap limit was DSQ then the teams wouldn't risk going over or using clever methods of accounting for fear of being DSQ.

That way, the FIA doesn't need to have the same resources as the teams - they can take their time with the resources they have because no team is going to risk DSQ for a few thousand over budget.

[f1jcw]

Which is why the punishment in the regs should have been very heavy e.g. DSQ. Make the outcome of messing up a "nuclear option" so that the teams wouldn't risk it.

There are two ‘levels’ of breach, minor & major; we have not been informed of where the line is, hopefully the teams have not either.
A true penalty does not need to be DSQ though, a simple budget reduction would have a massive impact (although it could only occur for the season following the investigation).
What we have seen in operation this year is the result of what the FIA considers to be a MINOR breach (the FIA taking a similar line to that taken with track limit’s violations) - which seems sensible from a governance perspective.
I’m not sure how a retrospective penalty could be sensibly applied.

My comment was in response to you saying that the FIA doesn't have the resources compared to the teams. If you make the punishment for breaking the rules big enough, people won't break them. The budget cap should be like the treatment of track limits - you're over then you lose big time. If the result of being over the budget cap limit was DSQ then the teams wouldn't risk going over or using clever methods of accounting for fear of being DSQ.

That way, the FIA doesn't need to have the same resources as the teams - they can take their time with the resources they have because no team is going to risk DSQ for a few thousand over budget.

The FIA had the perfect opportunity last year and also have ability to have closer racing this year, for some reason they failed to do so.

[chrisc90]

I thought there was a line between the minor and major? 7.5m wasn't it from memory?

Thing is though.... Are we really going to go back and strip a title off someone over a year ago and hand it out to someone else? just doesn't seem viable in the slightest really. DSQ from the current season (which would be 1/2 way through 2023 in the case of the 2022 budgeting reports) also becomes a bit stupid. Sponsorship issues, entry fees to race in the current season, the races would become less exciting, driver contracts, Fan base not attending races. DSQ from a previous season or current season just wont realistically work.
I mean if you disqualify team X from 2023, then presumably their 2023 budget cannot be counted as they aren't racing/competing, so technically they could throw unlimited resources at projects and wind tunnel time for next year when they are allowed to race. No rules as they aren't competing in that season.

A reminder for the penalties:


Some of them just aren't really feasible.

[Big Tea]

I thought there was a line between the minor and major? 7.5m wasn't it from memory?

Thing is though.... Are we really going to go back and strip a title off someone over a year ago and hand it out to someone else? just doesn't seem viable in the slightest really. DSQ from the current season (which would be 1/2 way through 2023 in the case of the 2022 budgeting reports) also becomes a bit stupid. Sponsorship issues, entry fees to race in the current season, the races would become less exciting, driver contracts, Fan base not attending races. DSQ from a previous season or current season just wont realistically work.
I mean if you disqualify team X from 2023, then presumably their 2023 budget cannot be counted as they aren't racing/competing, so technically they could throw unlimited resources at projects and wind tunnel time for next year when they are allowed to race. No rules as they aren't competing in that season.

A reminder for the penalties:
https://e2.365dm.com/22/09/768x432/skys ... 0930163832

Some of them just aren't really feasible.

The only sensible way, other than cash fines (to cover extra policing) would be disqualification or removal of X points from the next season. The complaint could be, OK, so they don't turn up, but they then get hit by sponsors for not showing the adverts during the race. Taking part would have to be included or there would be no payments from FIA/F1 ontop of the loss.

[Tiny73]

If the penalties aren’t punitive then what’s the point of the cap at all? DSQ or points being docked from the previous season is feasible given the transgression happened within that season and had a positive impact on the results from that season. Fines carried forward don’t reflect that the benefit has been taken from a previous transgression.

[chrisc90]

If the penalties aren’t punitive then what’s the point of the cap at all? DSQ or points being docked from the previous season is feasible given the transgression happened within that season and had a positive impact on the results from that season. Fines carried forward don’t reflect that the benefit has been taken from a previous transgression.

The FIA has already said they wont strip titles of anyone though. So removing someone from a previous year isnt going to work.

[f1jcw]

If the penalties aren’t punitive then what’s the point of the cap at all? DSQ or points being docked from the previous season is feasible given the transgression happened within that season and had a positive impact on the results from that season. Fines carried forward don’t reflect that the benefit has been taken from a previous transgression.

The FIA has already said they wont strip titles of anyone though. So removing someone from a previous year isnt going to work.

I've not heard them say that. But if true, that what they are saying, go ahead and cheat, we won't punish you.

[Tiny73]

If the penalties aren’t punitive then what’s the point of the cap at all? DSQ or points being docked from the previous season is feasible given the transgression happened within that season and had a positive impact on the results from that season. Fines carried forward don’t reflect that the benefit has been taken from a previous transgression.

The FIA has already said they wont strip titles of anyone though. So removing someone from a previous year isnt going to work.

I've not heard them say that. But if true, that what they are saying, go ahead and cheat, we won't punish you.

Which mitigates the point of the cap. If the punishment isn’t punitive then why bother?

[Just_a_fan]

I thought there was a line between the minor and major? 7.5m wasn't it from memory?

Thing is though.... Are we really going to go back and strip a title off someone over a year ago and hand it out to someone else? just doesn't seem viable in the slightest really. DSQ from the current season (which would be 1/2 way through 2023 in the case of the 2022 budgeting reports) also becomes a bit stupid. Sponsorship issues, entry fees to race in the current season, the races would become less exciting, driver contracts, Fan base not attending races. DSQ from a previous season or current season just wont realistically work.
I mean if you disqualify team X from 2023, then presumably their 2023 budget cannot be counted as they aren't racing/competing, so technically they could throw unlimited resources at projects and wind tunnel time for next year when they are allowed to race. No rules as they aren't competing in that season.

A reminder for the penalties:
https://e2.365dm.com/22/09/768x432/skys ... 0930163832

Some of them just aren't really feasible.

No, I don't think anyone would say go back a year and remove a title from someone - it would have to be DSQ from the season they're in at the time it's shown to be a breach. Or just thrown out of the following year - that would be the real "nuclear option" because it potentially kills a team. "So, Mr TP, do you want to risk going over the limit and then standing up in front your entire staff and telling them they're all unemployed? No, thought not, so don't breach the cap."

But, of course, that would never happen in F1 because losing a team would potentially affect the viability of the whole thing. Losing two or three teams probably would kill F1.

Yes DSQ is in the rules, but I just don't see it happening. And that's why the teams will push and risk a breach - the reward outweighs the penalty.

But I do strongly think that a team that breaches twice in a row should get a very thorough kicking, not just a deduction of some wind tunnel time and a fine. Otherwise where's the incentive to abide by the rules?

[Just_a_fan]

If the penalties aren’t punitive then what’s the point of the cap at all? DSQ or points being docked from the previous season is feasible given the transgression happened within that season and had a positive impact on the results from that season. Fines carried forward don’t reflect that the benefit has been taken from a previous transgression.

The FIA has already said they wont strip titles of anyone though. So removing someone from a previous year isnt going to work.

I think something like "100 points deducted from each of the drivers (and thus 200 from the team's points) for each million (or part thereof) over the limit" for the next season, but your wind tunnel and CFD time will be determined on the actual positions your drivers finish - so still get hit for that. That would certainly focus minds.

Whilst penalising the drivers is harsh - they didn't do anything to put the team over the cap - it prevents a team from deciding that they won't care about the WCC and just support a driver to be WDC. Everyone gets knocked back. There is precedent for this already - drivers get penalised all the time for team decisions - unsafe release, for example, or a part that isn't legal. The drivers get penalties / DSQ for those.

In reality, there will just be some fines and a little WT/CFD time lost.

[chrisc90]

Exactly. So when you look at the realistic penalties of the rules you end up with:

Minor:
* Deduction of driver and constructor championship points
* Limitations to aero CFD and WT testing
* Reduction of the cost cap

Major:
* Deduction of driver and constructor championship points
* Reduction of the cost cap

The effective penalties of a major breach are 'less' on paper than those of the minor.

What I would see happening, and if would tie in with the exclusion of a stage(s) ban, would be a deduction in the points. If you have a points deduction of say 25pts or 50points, it is effectively a 1 or 2 'race ban' for a winning team. That would maintain the integrity of sponsorship contracts, fanbase going to see their team/drivers etc.

Which is probably why there is no points deduction tally for the breach. So for example a 10million breach is worth 50points. Then you get teams saying its only 50points, we can easily get them back through the season. Back to the risk/reward scenario. It works, but it just doesn't work - especially for the top teams. (when you consider RB has over double the points to Mercedes; 208 difference and Max has a 99 point lead over Checo/P2.) (just using RB and this year as a example since its a dominant season and no bearing on earlier cost cap breaches).

Your just looking at CFD/WT reductions and a reduction in the cost cap for the following year. (which in itself doesn't really work given the results are out over 1/2 way through the following season). That would be better applied to the season following the ruling of the previous years cost cap findings. A sliding scale of the allowance is far easier/better to use. It just hurts the leading teams more than a lower team, given the already existing sliding scale of aero.

The fines dont even come out the budget, so they are completely irrelevant.

Which is why the penalties

[Stu]

I thought there was a line between the minor and major? 7.5m wasn't it from memory?

…

A reminder for the penalties:
https://e2.365dm.com/22/09/768x432/skys ... 0930163832

Some of them just aren't really feasible.

I can see sense in most of the penalties.
Teams could be excluded from taking part in sprint events, or from qualifying or from Scot constructors points for the following year.
Aero testing penalties (as we have seen for this year), we don’t know how much of a handicap that would have been if RB were being genuinely challenged for race victories.
Budget reduction (by an amount equal to the 5% ‘minor’ boundary) or by the amount of the breach (if higher than that boundary), should also be enough to dissuade teams.

If not, the FIA do have DSQ in their pocket (along with a return of prize money). Presumably this could be applied to either WDC or WCC (or both).
This is a fairly nuclear option, reserved for repeated infractions (and should not be done to award any other team with either championship retrospectively - much as nobody is credited with TdF wins that were removed from Mr Armstrong).

[organic]

Current rumour from French media is that RB is being investigated over Marko's exclusion from the cost cap.

French media also suggest AMR are more seriously in trouble