Motorsport Off Topic Thread

DeliciousStorage · 28 Oct 2022 at 15:53

Stumble Bum said:
'The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652 (0.37%).'

Is that it??? They only went over by £430k. wow, hardly crime of the century, what a load of noise over very little.

Mercedes said if they had been able to spend £300k on a new floor it would have changed the outcome of the championship.

Stumble Bum · 28 Oct 2022 at 15:54

DeliciousStorage said:
Mercedes said if they had been able to spend £300k on a new floor it would have changed the outcome of the championship.

Of course they would say that.

Armageus · 28 Oct 2022 at 15:57

DeliciousStorage said:
Mercedes said if they had been able to spend £300k on a new floor it would have changed the outcome of the championship.

And equally they may well of had the budget to do so - other than knowing that Mercedes were "compliant", I'm not sure how far under the cost cap they were has been published?

Not saying it's definitely the case, but possible that other teams were a lot more conservative in terms of making sure they came well under the cost cap for fear of the penalties.

omnomnom · 28 Oct 2022 at 15:58

Armageus said:
Seems fair enough - yes the $7m is a joke for companies of this size, but the 10% wind tunnel/CFD time likely will have as much effect on performance going forward as the $1.8m overspend did.

But of course because it's Red Bull, the majority here won't be happy unless it's an immediate and total disqualification from both championships from 2021-2025.

I dont really follow F1 but imo they should be made to do next seasons qualifiers in a Fiat 500.

Am i doing it right?

Kenai · 28 Oct 2022 at 15:58

bayo000 said:
10% reduction is quite a bit. Don't they also get less than other teams for winning this year's constructor championship? Both together they'll have quite a bit less than their competitors

In simplistic terms for wind tunnel testing, the standard allowance is 320 runs totalling 80 hours of 'wind on time' - so effectively on average 320 runs at 15 minutes wind on time each.

For winning the constructors, this gets reduced to 70% - so they'd get 224 runs at 15 minutes (56 hours). With this 10% penalty, they effectively get 63%, so 202 runs at 50.5 hours.

The second place finishers will get 75%, so 240 runs, 60 hours total wind on time.

So by winning the title and receiving this punishment they're getting about 5 hours less 'wind on' time than they otherwise would and 10 hours less than whoever finishes 2nd.

Similar applies for CFD usage.

(Complication to be added - I don't know off hand when the coefficients reset between championships etc. so they will obviously be calculated based on different championships at different parts of the year, whereas as this 10% punishment is 1 calendar year from now)

Mesai · 28 Oct 2022 at 15:59

Stumble Bum said:
Of course they would say that.

Yea, this is coming from the team who forgot to put sidepods on their car this year.

mattx4 · 28 Oct 2022 at 15:59

Armageus said:
Eh? How would that help - the penalty is 10% regardless of where you finish in the constructors

If you finish 1st you get 70% If you finish 3rd you get 80%. If you were a naughty team principal and wanted to overspend and win the drivers title you could offset any reduction in cfd time by aiming to finish lower in the constructors

Nick1881 · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:00

Seems a total joke to punish an overspend with a fine. What a farce this sport is.

el_dazza · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:01

mattx4 said:
If you finish 1st you get 70% If you finish 3rd you get 80%. If you were a naughty team principal and wanted to overspend and win the drivers title you could offset any reduction in cfd time by aiming to finish lower in the constructors

Nobody in their right mind would do that. Have a word with yourself.

mattx4 · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:02

el_dazza said:
Nobody in their right mind would do that. Have a word with yourself.

Because the cfd time isn't a big deal

Mesai · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:02

Nick1881 said:
Seems a total joke to punish an overspend with a fine. What a farce this sport is.

Suppose you missed the part about the wind tunnel and CFD reduction?

Armageus · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:03

mattx4 said:
If you finish 1st you get 70% If you finish 3rd you get 80%. If you were a naughty team principal and wanted to overspend and win the drivers title you could offset any reduction in cfd time by aiming to finish lower in the constructors

Except no team is ever going to do that. You aren't going to deliberately tell your 2nd driver to finish further down (nor is he going to listen).

Nick1881 said:
Seems a total joke to punish an overspend with a fine. What a farce this sport is.

Ah another one who seems to be selectively ignoring things... 10% Wind Tunnel/CFD Time reduction as well as the fine.

Stumble Bum · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:03

Nick1881 said:
Seems a total joke to punish an overspend with a fine. What a farce this sport is.

The fine is only one part of the punishment.... did you read the statement?

mattx4 · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:07

Armageus said:
Except no team is ever going to do that. You aren't going to deliberately tell your 2nd driver to finish further down (nor is he going to listen).

Just hire Perez you don't have to tell him to finish further down the order

Mesai · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:08

Armageus said:
Ah another one who seems to be selectively ignoring things... 10% Wind Tunnel/CFD Time reduction as well as the fine.

Stumble Bum said:
The fine is only one part of the punishment.... did you read the statement?

Literacy isn't a requirement to join #TeamLH

DeliciousStorage · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:10

Worth noting that £1,864,000 was equivalent to $2,448,736 on the March 31st submission deadline, not $2.2m.

bayo000 · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:13

mattx4 said:
If you finish 1st you get 70% If you finish 3rd you get 80%. If you were a naughty team principal and wanted to overspend and win the drivers title you could offset any reduction in cfd time by aiming to finish lower in the constructors

Lol. You do realise teams make money based on constructor championship standing? It's much better for a team to win constructor's championship but not win driver's as they won't have to pay any bonuses their drivers might have in their contracts for winning drivers championship.

Slam62 · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:15

Seems fair enough to me , 10% reduction in cfd and w/t is significant, presumably they will be very careful not to go over next year.

Stumble Bum · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:15

FIA "there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in a fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information from the Cost Cap Administration."

bayo000 · 28 Oct 2022 at 16:19

Kenai said:
In simplistic terms for wind tunnel testing, the standard allowance is 320 runs totalling 80 hours of 'wind on time' - so effectively on average 320 runs at 15 minutes wind on time each.

For winning the constructors, this gets reduced to 70% - so they'd get 224 runs at 15 minutes (56 hours). With this 10% penalty, they effectively get 63%, so 202 runs at 50.5 hours.

The second place finishers will get 75%, so 240 runs, 60 hours total wind on time.

So by winning the title and receiving this punishment they're getting about 5 hours less 'wind on' time than they otherwise would and 10 hours less than whoever finishes 2nd.

Similar applies for CFD usage.

(Complication to be added - I don't know off hand when the coefficients reset between championships etc. so they will obviously be calculated based on different championships at different parts of the year, whereas as this 10% punishment is 1 calendar year from now)

Thanks. So they effectively lose 30hrs of wind tunnel time. Can't see many teams breaking the rules on purpose in this case. I'm quite happy with this, though I do think the rules need to be updated and Minor Breach should be around a 1% mark (2% tops) and not 5%.