2021 Cost Cap Rumours and Speculation

[101FlyingDutchman]

Continued breaches or really severe ones should result in a points deduction for the constructors, since I dont think its fair to punish the drivers for the teams wrong doing.

The thing is, the driver is part of the team. You cannot win a Constructors Championship without the driver, and you cannot win a Driver's Championship without the Constructor. Yes we have two separate championships, but they are intrinsically linked. The driver cannot win the drivers championship if they didn't have a car that performed well. And if that performance is founded on illegitimate advantages then surely the driver should also be penalised because the driver wouldn't have won the points they did if the car was not performing illegitimately better. I think if they are going to deduct championship points, it needs to be from both championships.

In cycling, if the authorities find a bike with mechanical doping, the rider is disqualified (not just the team). Authorities need to take a very hard stance on any form of cheating, otherwise, there is no point in competing.

Yep,
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 1Uy9c.html

Was only constructor points if you read the article Dans

[dans79]

The thing is, the driver is part of the team. You cannot win a Constructors Championship without the driver, and you cannot win a Driver's Championship without the Constructor. Yes we have two separate championships, but they are intrinsically linked. The driver cannot win the drivers championship if they didn't have a car that performed well. And if that performance is founded on illegitimate advantages then surely the driver should also be penalised because the driver wouldn't have won the points they did if the car was not performing illegitimately better. I think if they are going to deduct championship points, it needs to be from both championships.

In cycling, if the authorities find a bike with mechanical doping, the rider is disqualified (not just the team). Authorities need to take a very hard stance on any form of cheating, otherwise, there is no point in competing.

Yep,
https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 1Uy9c.html

hmm, i thought i remember it being per driver!

Was only constructor points if you read the article Dans

[hollus]

Plus that is a perfect example of the risk vs reward thing. 15 points once, a better car 20 times over times 2. Like the illegal passes in lap 5 that net a 5 seconds penalty but avoid a snowball blockage, get you into a nicer pit window and gain you 30 seconds by the end of the race. Only this has larger stakes, so we’ll see how the FIA reacts.

[Just_a_fan]

Mercedes are ready to 'cheat'...

http://www.gptoday.com/full_story/view/ ... _sanction/

.
Exactly what you said was the right thing to do. You should be glad to see them suggest it.

After all, if cheating is ok, within certain limits, then why not?

We could call it the "Red Bull margin" or the "Red Bull allowance" or something similar.

.
Toto Wolff is playing pure politics here.
He is threatening the FIA to also go above the BC if they give RBR a minor penalty.
"Do you hear that FIA? Then we will do the same!!!"
With this, he hopes RBR will be punished harshly. Pure politics, as we know it from Toto.

Not politics. Simple "punish them or we'll all do it".

Which is perfectly acceptable based on other RBR fan opinions.

[Just_a_fan]

Probably a poor thing for toto to say really, it’s one thing accidentally going over budget, it’s another to do it with intent.

Toto shouldn’t even know what the disagreement is between RB and the FIA.

It could be a absolutely brilliant move from RB, spend a bit more and pay a small penalty for doing so. I don’t blame Toto really, if the penalty is small, then it shows it’s worth the risk/overspend.

Red Bull cheated.

Accidental my arse.

[Just_a_fan]

Red Bull Racing are one of the most competitive and detail-orientated businesses on the planet.

Getting basic maths wrong is possible, even in an F1 team.
Not running it past the FIA to be sure (there's no downside to running everything past the FIA beforehand) is possible.
But it's not likely. Unless...human's are fallible.

I agree, but also disagree there. If a team seeks a clarification, that clarification gets distributed to all teams. So if one team has found a loophole they are neigh on certain they can get away with, that means every other team knows about it and can also use it.

My strong belief is that they will impose a hefty fine AND dock constructors points... but not enough to affect any outcome (last year or this), but enough to deter teams from breaching the cap. It's a win win for everyone.

I dont think there will even be a deduction of points this time around. I feel there will be a hefty fine (makes no difference in reality) and probably a re-worked budget for 2023. RB will be constructors champions come next sunday, so will already have the lowest wind tunnel time on the grid, which is probably another factor why the FIA wont go that route.

If the FIA is not ready to penalize cheaters, then those having been cheated will absolutely do the same. You know why? Because then it’ll mean that cheating is allowed.

Yeah, could get totally out of hand. All the teams could just agree not to respect the budget (very unlikely given the low budget smaller teams) but if they did then the penalty will be the same for everyone.

Summary: cheating pays.

[Just_a_fan]

It could be a absolutely brilliant move from RB, spend a bit more and pay a small penalty for doing so. I don’t blame Toto really, if the penalty is small, then it shows it’s worth the risk/overspend.

It's brilliant to cheat? Is that a general Red Bull fan position or just your own?

Im not even going to bother going round in circles with my comments in regards to that. It will add no value to the thread. Risk vs Reward.....

Risk vs reward is a way of saying cheating is ok. OK.

[Zynerji]

.
Exactly what you said was the right thing to do. You should be glad to see them suggest it.

After all, if cheating is ok, within certain limits, then why not?

We could call it the "Red Bull margin" or the "Red Bull allowance" or something similar.

.
Toto Wolff is playing pure politics here.
He is threatening the FIA to also go above the BC if they give RBR a minor penalty.
"Do you hear that FIA? Then we will do the same!!!"
With this, he hopes RBR will be punished harshly. Pure politics, as we know it from Toto.

Not politics. Simple "punish them or we'll all do it".

Which is perfectly acceptable based on other RBR fan opinions.

This kind of stuff was always expected by some of us. I don't agree with any angle on it as it was always going to be a sh*t show.

My only surprise is the surprise of the members here.

[hardingfv32]

The thing is, the FIA isn't the one doing the work, independent firms are.

2.11 The F1 Team should seek clarification from the Cost Cap Administration if it is uncertain
whether an entity should be included in its Reporting Group.

1) Independent auditors are interpreting the rules and them applying them to the data provided by the teams. You cannot state that their interpretation is any better that the FIA and/or teams. Again use the shortened race points rule set as an example of how things can go wrong with a pretty simple rule application.

2) This is my favorite rule/statement used by most governing bodies, 'if it is uncertain or in doubt'. I can guarantee you that teams have NO uncertainty when they decide to follow a certain rule interpretation. I never have any doubt in my mind, and stand ready to defend my interpretation. Until this goes to the FIA court of appeals, this whole thread is just a lot of fan boy babble.

Brian

[ringo]

Fines and future handicaps make no sense without dq for the offending year.
If this is a sport the win must be taken away.

Imagine an olympic medal won with cheating leading up to the event that gave an unfair advantage or rule breaking during the event itself.
An athelet just doesnt get to keep the medal for the offense. It's just not fair to all competitors.
In fact even losing a position isnt fully correct.

If redbull lost the wdc and Max ended up second. It still would be unfair to Bottas and Leclerc or Norris that Perez and Max are ahead of them. They all raced on the same track to compete.
The only sensible punishment is disqualification from both championships. And im not being provacative, but it's only logical that this is done to respect the spirit of competition.

But knowing formula 1 they will not do this.

They have limited choices to fines, points deductions and dq. But somehow they may do some back door deal between RB and themselves and the other teams.

fines will be a joke and points deductions and dq are feared by FIA because of backlash from the fans. But it would make good to survive viewing

[ispano6]

The offense so far is deemed a "minor" overspend. Yet all the Mercs fans are asking for maximum penalty.
So what is the penalty for a "major" breach?

The car was NOT illegal. The bitter people here need to put away their bias and look at the real issue at hand - what and what doesn't apply toward the cost cap.

Lewis didn't lose to Max last year due to the cost cap breach, they lost because they didn't put Lewis on softs and opted for track position. Lewis' car was superior to Max's in Abu Dhabi and that has nothing to do with the cost cap.

[xaero]

Lewis didn't lose to Max last year due to the cost cap breach, they lost because they didn't put Lewis on softs and opted for track position. Lewis' car was superior to Max's in Abu Dhabi and that has nothing to do with the cost cap.

HAM lost because rule was changed at the last moment to benefit a certain driver/team. Yes, cost cap had noting to do at that point of time but now that everyone knows, it played a role as well.

[hardingfv32]

The outside auditors have made a judgement based on their interpretation of the rules. Why are they assumed to have gotten it right? This has to be presented to the FIA appeals court and defended by both sides.

Again, look how wrong everyone was about the shortened race points rule.

The statement about doubt not doing something that is 'uncertain', is pointless in any rule set. It is a matter of personal opinion if something is considered uncertain. In this case RB has complete faith in their position.

I hope you guys can tolerate the long wait before this is resolved.

Brian

[Tvetovnato]

The offense so far is deemed a "minor" overspend. Yet all the Mercs fans are asking for maximum penalty.
So what is the penalty for a "major" breach?

The car was NOT illegal. The bitter people here need to put away their bias and look at the real issue at hand - what and what doesn't apply toward the cost cap.

Lewis didn't lose to Max last year due to the cost cap breach, they lost because they didn't put Lewis on softs and opted for track position. Lewis' car was superior to Max's in Abu Dhabi and that has nothing to do with the cost cap.

Another deflection attempt. Overspending the budget cap can make your car faster without a single doubt. Even the kind of overspend that would be considered minor. Throwing in AD 21 wont help since that was another rule breach by FIA themselves to spice up the show.

What does Lewis car pace in Abu Dhabi has to do with RB breaching the cost cap? If RB didn’t overspend, they might have been even further back and not even on the same points as Lewis come Abu Dhabi, given their car would have slower without all of the updates they brought.

[LM10]

The offense so far is deemed a "minor" overspend. Yet all the Mercs fans are asking for maximum penalty.
So what is the penalty for a "major" breach?

The car was NOT illegal. The bitter people here need to put away their bias and look at the real issue at hand - what and what doesn't apply toward the cost cap.

Lewis didn't lose to Max last year due to the cost cap breach, they lost because they didn't put Lewis on softs and opted for track position. Lewis' car was superior to Max's in Abu Dhabi and that has nothing to do with the cost cap.

RedBull cheated last year and enjoyed the possibilities of overspending by millions which put them in a comfortable position of not only gaining an illegal performance advantage with the RB16B last year, but also the RB18 this year. Even if they’re not cheating the cost cap this season anymore (which I doubt), the fact they cheated last year gave them an important head start with the RB18.