On October 12 2022 04:16 Aristodemus wrote: an athlete doping wouldn't see a 5% gain.
An athlete doping makes the decision to dope (and they can get a much much higher gain than 5% when it's done to build the muscles in the off season).
A budget can go over by accident or from things that are well out of your control (You are not allowed to not show up for a race, so even if you see towards the end of the season that you're going to go over because you driver totalled 4 cars in the span of 2 races, there's not a lot you can do about it).
There's a reason FIA decided to make the distinction of minor breach. If that means every team goes over by 4.9% then so be it. It's not the end of the world or a massive scandal. All they risk is going even more over by accident and suddenly end up with a major breach.
More for the past few years, but this is enlightening. It's an incredibly simple system for the effect it has.
Kyle.Engineers is an amazing communicator of aero and racing tech. He used to work as an aerodynamicist in F1, has amazing knowledge of cars in general, and more importantly is really good at presenting complex ideas in detail in a way that is actually understandable
Minor Overspend breach (<5% Cost Cap) can result in Financial Penalties and/or Minor Sporting Penalties. Only a Material Overspend breach (>5% Cost Cap) if confirmed before the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel will result in a mandatory Constructors’ Championship points deductions and can result in additional Financial Penalties and/or Material Sporting Penalties.
From what I read on that website the rules and potential penalties were known in advance. If those teams now complaining didn't like the penalties they should've changed it beforehand not complain afterwards.
On October 12 2022 04:16 Aristodemus wrote: an athlete doping wouldn't see a 5% gain.
An athlete doping makes the decision to dope (and they can get a much much higher gain than 5% when it's done to build the muscles in the off season).
A budget can go over by accident or from things that are well out of your control (You are not allowed to not show up for a race, so even if you see towards the end of the season that you're going to go over because you driver totalled 4 cars in the span of 2 races, there's not a lot you can do about it).
There's a reason FIA decided to make the distinction of minor breach. If that means every team goes over by 4.9% then so be it. It's not the end of the world or a massive scandal. All they risk is going even more over by accident and suddenly end up with a major breach.
Some doping athletes claim ignorance and also that it was out of their control. The problem with saying everyone can decide to go over 4.9% is that only one team did.
As for potential penalties, many different independent media sources are stating that they could be far more than the ones you named. Namely, constructor and driver points deduction, and exclusion from future events. I'm not saying they will but many journalists are stating it as a possibility.
On October 11 2022 18:16 Penev wrote: The actual possible penalties Red Bull might face:
Minor Overspend breach (<5% Cost Cap) can result in Financial Penalties and/or Minor Sporting Penalties. Only a Material Overspend breach (>5% Cost Cap) if confirmed before the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel will result in a mandatory Constructors’ Championship points deductions and can result in additional Financial Penalties and/or Material Sporting Penalties.
From what I read on that website the rules and potential penalties were known in advance. If those teams now complaining didn't like the penalties they should've changed it beforehand not complain afterwards.
Yep. It's just Ferrari and Mercedes dirty politics. Absurd that you can just read this on the FIA website yourself and no media outlet is reporting on it and ask the proper questions isn't it?
Binotto equating lap times directly to the overspend breach is especially aggravating. It's disingenuous in itself but the hypocrisy is just of the charts. Remember how much slower they were after the illegal engine controversy from 2019? Ferrari is not in a position to criticize anyone for at least a decade imo.
On October 12 2022 04:16 Aristodemus wrote: an athlete doping wouldn't see a 5% gain.
An athlete doping makes the decision to dope (and they can get a much much higher gain than 5% when it's done to build the muscles in the off season).
A budget can go over by accident or from things that are well out of your control (You are not allowed to not show up for a race, so even if you see towards the end of the season that you're going to go over because you driver totalled 4 cars in the span of 2 races, there's not a lot you can do about it).
There's a reason FIA decided to make the distinction of minor breach. If that means every team goes over by 4.9% then so be it. It's not the end of the world or a massive scandal. All they risk is going even more over by accident and suddenly end up with a major breach.
Some doping athletes claim ignorance and also that it was out of their control. The problem with saying everyone can decide to go over 4.9% is that only one team did.
"The problem with the rules is that only one team made use of them"? Are you for real? Last season, only Mercedes made use of the fact that doing a bunch of engine changes means you'll get less grid penalties. I didn't see anyone clamouring for DQ or made it out to be a huge scandal back then. They made use of the rules; it's a core part of F1.
You can't just randomly change the penalties after the fact just because a team happened to fall within them, be it willingly or accidentally. Otherwise, what is the point in having preset penalties to begin with? Just punish everyone for anything in the way you feel like!
FIA made the distinction of a minor breach because they fully expected some teams to fall within it. If they wanted to DQ teams every season for budget breaches, they'd made the rules to reflect that. But they didn't, because they didn't. Whining about it like it's the decade's biggest scandal, like Toto and Binotto has been doing, is genuinely fucking insane. And the worst part is that a bunch of fans, in their continuous quest to make the sport as tribalist as possible, are swallowing it wholly. These two didn't have much of my respect to begin with, but at this point I'm starting to actively despise them
On October 12 2022 04:16 Aristodemus wrote: an athlete doping wouldn't see a 5% gain.
An athlete doping makes the decision to dope (and they can get a much much higher gain than 5% when it's done to build the muscles in the off season).
A budget can go over by accident or from things that are well out of your control (You are not allowed to not show up for a race, so even if you see towards the end of the season that you're going to go over because you driver totalled 4 cars in the span of 2 races, there's not a lot you can do about it).
There's a reason FIA decided to make the distinction of minor breach. If that means every team goes over by 4.9% then so be it. It's not the end of the world or a massive scandal. All they risk is going even more over by accident and suddenly end up with a major breach.
Some doping athletes claim ignorance and also that it was out of their control. The problem with saying everyone can decide to go over 4.9% is that only one team did.
"The problem with the rules is that only one team made use of them"? Are you for real? Last season, only Mercedes made use of the fact that doing a bunch of engine changes means you'll get less grid penalties. I didn't see anyone clamouring for DQ or made it out to be a huge scandal back then. They made use of the rules; it's a core part of F1.
You can't just randomly change the penalties after the fact just because a team happened to fall within them, be it willingly or accidentally. Otherwise, what is the point in having preset penalties to begin with? Just punish everyone for anything in the way you feel like!
FIA made the distinction of a minor breach because they fully expected some teams to fall within it. If they wanted to DQ teams every season for budget breaches, they'd made the rules to reflect that. But they didn't, because they didn't. Whining about it like it's the decade's biggest scandal, like Toto and Binotto has been doing, is genuinely fucking insane. And the worst part is that a bunch of fans, in their continuous quest to make the sport as tribalist as possible, are swallowing it wholly. These two didn't have much of my respect to begin with, but at this point I'm starting to actively despise them
The sad fact is that the FIA have and still do pick and choose what random punishment they dish out. The Ferrari engine of a couple years ago being a prime example. i would say its the worst aspect of F1.
I'd say the worst part of F1 is the dirty tactics Binotto and Wolff are practicing here and the incompetent and sometimes dishonest media that doesn't properly address it. If F1 really doesn't want the ridiculous outrage and tribalism we're witnessing constantly they should intervene and make sure team principles communicate to the public in a respectful manner and not instigate scandals where there aren't any.
You know, instead of the occasional video with drivers telling the public how to behave.
I don't usually just link to a Reddit thread, but this is an incredibly well articulated, researched and nuanced look at what is actually going on with the RBR budget mess. If anyone is still curious
To reiterate myself from earlier: The only scandal in this whole mess is the leaked un-audited budget findings, and Toto and Binotto fueling the fire with outrageous statements which are swallowed wholly by easily outraged fans
There could still be punishments for Red Bull, but they are likely to be incredibly small due to the nature of the overspending originating from procedural error.
Seems like RB are calling a press conference to discuss what the outcomes of the financial audit.
I'm not surprised other TP's are calling for blood. Horner is no different than any of the other TP's, if it was a competitor he would be sharpening his axe for the execution.
- 800k sick and gardening leave - This cost applies to every team, and is well known. I would show zero mercy here, gardening leave especially, they chose to hire somebody and then had to pay gardening leave and didn't account for it?
- 1.4M Tax Rebate that didn't materialize - This is unfortunate, and what turns it from a "small" amount over to a relatively "large" amount. Without knowing the specifics, it's hard to say whether they were justified in thinking they qualified.
- Catering Costs - 1.2M - Appears to be some disagreement on whether employee benefits count towards the cap. If it is free/subsidized, it is functionally part of the employees compensation.
- A clarification over 2021 spec parts that were manufactured, but not used on a car. I believe this should be part of the cap as it can provide a performance advantage. Take a front wing for example. If you manufacture 10, and they come in at a tiny variance of +-0.5% of weight(carbon layup is liable to have higher variance than this due to inconsistencies in the resin amount used), that is potentially 300g of difference at the front of the car. Or something with the same weight, but 0.5% higher stiffness, or any other potentially advantageous attributes.
On October 22 2022 02:34 Amui wrote: - A clarification over 2021 spec parts that were manufactured, but not used on a car. I believe this should be part of the cap as it can provide a performance advantage. Take a front wing for example. If you manufacture 10, and they come in at a tiny variance of +-0.5% of weight(carbon layup is liable to have higher variance than this due to inconsistencies in the resin amount used), that is potentially 300g of difference at the front of the car. Or something with the same weight, but 0.5% higher stiffness, or any other potentially advantageous attributes.
The important thing about this is that the rules were changed way after 2021. In fact they were changed in June this year. I don't mind changing rules to make them more reasonable, but you can't retroactively change rules for last years budget and start punishing teams for it.
That said, everything here is still in the rumor department. Nothing official has been released yet. So we should take everything we read with a small grain of salt. While I'm seeing a wide agreement about which posts have gone over, the actually numbers vary quite a lot. And it's especially true with Racingnews365, who is widely known for clickbait, presenting rumors as facts, and twisting words
It's also worth mentioning that RB used the same auditing company as Ferrari, which confirmed both of their budgets (Including the gardening and sick leaves). Just further cements how frikkin' hypocritical Binotto is. It could so easily have been them in this situation
On October 22 2022 02:34 Amui wrote: - A clarification over 2021 spec parts that were manufactured, but not used on a car. I believe this should be part of the cap as it can provide a performance advantage. Take a front wing for example. If you manufacture 10, and they come in at a tiny variance of +-0.5% of weight(carbon layup is liable to have higher variance than this due to inconsistencies in the resin amount used), that is potentially 300g of difference at the front of the car. Or something with the same weight, but 0.5% higher stiffness, or any other potentially advantageous attributes.
The important thing about this is that the rules were changed way after 2021. In fact they were changed in June this year. I don't mind changing rules to make them more reasonable, but you can't retroactively change rules for last years budget and start punishing teams for it.
That said, everything here is still in the rumor department. Nothing official has been released yet. So we should take everything we read with a small grain of salt. While I'm seeing a wide agreement about which posts have gone over, the actually numbers vary quite a lot. And it's especially true with Racingnews365, who is widely known for clickbait, presenting rumors as facts, and twisting words
It's also worth mentioning that RB used the same auditing company as Ferrari, which confirmed both of their budgets (Including the gardening and sick leaves). Just further cements how frikkin' hypocritical Binotto is. It could so easily have been them in this situation
I don't see the hypocrisy the same way tbh. By using the same auditing company, they play by the same rules, and one went over, and one didn't. There are 9 principals calling for RB to be punished, and 1 proclaiming innocence. Every single team boss advocates for their team, and if the situation was reversed you can bet that Horner would be racing to the media pen to slander Ferrari.
I get that every team wants to exploit the rules, and as such, without the future clarification those parts potentially wouldn't have counted against the cap.
That being said, I think that there are very good arguments that it should count though, and should've counted from the start, irrespective of when that clarification was issued. Let's say there was a QC failed part(2021 spec). Do you get to deduct the wages of the technician who spent hours making that part, the hours of the inspectors, the thousands of dollars of material stock, and the cost of the autoclave and machining time, just because it never made it to the QC pass shelf? The work put into the part is every bit the same as that of a passed part, it just went into the QC fail stock instead of the QC pass stock. Those unused parts are no different than a QC fail part in my eyes. Work and resources still went into a part that could potentially have been used for a 2021 car.
You could simply put the tolerances for a part very tight, and then make 50 parts and pick the best one otherwise, which is completely against what the cost cap was supposed to prevent.
Oh jeez Giovinazzi crashed Magnussen's Haas out of FP1 with under 5 laps done while being Haas's practice driver (and I'm assuming being compared to Mick for next year). That probably doesn't help Antonio's chances of landing a seat.
On October 22 2022 02:34 Amui wrote: - A clarification over 2021 spec parts that were manufactured, but not used on a car. I believe this should be part of the cap as it can provide a performance advantage. Take a front wing for example. If you manufacture 10, and they come in at a tiny variance of +-0.5% of weight(carbon layup is liable to have higher variance than this due to inconsistencies in the resin amount used), that is potentially 300g of difference at the front of the car. Or something with the same weight, but 0.5% higher stiffness, or any other potentially advantageous attributes.
The important thing about this is that the rules were changed way after 2021. In fact they were changed in June this year. I don't mind changing rules to make them more reasonable, but you can't retroactively change rules for last years budget and start punishing teams for it.
That said, everything here is still in the rumor department. Nothing official has been released yet. So we should take everything we read with a small grain of salt. While I'm seeing a wide agreement about which posts have gone over, the actually numbers vary quite a lot. And it's especially true with Racingnews365, who is widely known for clickbait, presenting rumors as facts, and twisting words
It's also worth mentioning that RB used the same auditing company as Ferrari, which confirmed both of their budgets (Including the gardening and sick leaves). Just further cements how frikkin' hypocritical Binotto is. It could so easily have been them in this situation
I don't see the hypocrisy the same way tbh. By using the same auditing company, they play by the same rules, and one went over, and one didn't. There are 9 principals calling for RB to be punished, and 1 proclaiming innocence. Every single team boss advocates for their team, and if the situation was reversed you can bet that Horner would be racing to the media pen to slander Ferrari.
I get that every team wants to exploit the rules, and as such, without the future clarification those parts potentially wouldn't have counted against the cap.
That being said, I think that there are very good arguments that it should count though, and should've counted from the start, irrespective of when that clarification was issued. Let's say there was a QC failed part(2021 spec). Do you get to deduct the wages of the technician who spent hours making that part, the hours of the inspectors, the thousands of dollars of material stock, and the cost of the autoclave and machining time, just because it never made it to the QC pass shelf? The work put into the part is every bit the same as that of a passed part, it just went into the QC fail stock instead of the QC pass stock. Those unused parts are no different than a QC fail part in my eyes. Work and resources still went into a part that could potentially have been used for a 2021 car.
You could simply put the tolerances for a part very tight, and then make 50 parts and pick the best one otherwise, which is completely against what the cost cap was supposed to prevent.
You could make the argument it should've counted from the start, but the problem is it didn't.
You can't change the rules and then retroactively apply them. There is 0 justification for it.
You know, honestly, the budget for the 2021 season should have been half of what it was. Why doesn't FIA just go back and retroactively slash the budget in half, disqualifying every team on the grid?
Safety car. Hugely beneficial for Leclerc, Vettel, Alpine, and for the Haas cars since they hadn't pitted yet.
McLaren really needs to work on their pit stops. Ricciardo got completely boned by a slow stop. He had a 4 second stop and ended up coming out right behind Zhou. He would have been comfortably ahead had they not messed up.
EPT
