Motorsport Off Topic Thread

Stumble Bum · 29 Oct 2022 at 14:08

bayo000 said:
I can apricate that but what's the point of having a cap if the big teams can still spent money on new engines as they wish. Take a grid penalty which they can easily recover from, if taken at track that suits them, then benefit from new power unit for next few races.

Think I'm going to stop looking into rules and go back to watching F1 just to see fast cars going round and fall asleep on the sofa.

Definitely, something that Mercedes abused quite a bit towards the end of the 2021 season. A la Brazil. etc. Must be nice spending all that money on new engines for a big performance boost every race. With Bottas the Guinea pig taking new parts every race. Yet people want to make out like £400k is some huge massive breach. It's not.

Kenai · 29 Oct 2022 at 14:09

bayo000 said:
I can apricate that but what's the point of having a cap if the big teams can still spent money on new engines as they wish. Take a grid penalty which they can easily recover from, if taken at track that suits them, then benefit from new power unit for next few races.

Think I'm going to stop looking into rules and go back to watching F1 just to see fast cars going round and fall asleep on the sofa.

Having just had a search, I think they're still trying to agree the regulations for engine costs because of how confused it all becomes, who counts as new (and so get extra budget for a few years) etc.

I can see why they decided to avoid trying to include engines in the standard financial regulations, given some teams apparently struggle to understand them as it is.

bayo000 · 29 Oct 2022 at 14:23

Kenai said:
Having just had a search, I think they're still trying to agree the regulations for engine costs because of how confused it all becomes, who counts as new (and so get extra budget for a few years) etc.

I can see why they decided to avoid trying to include engines in the standard financial regulations, given some teams apparently struggle to understand them as it is.

Yeah looks like they're working on it. Should be pretty simple, exclude any parts that are allowed under the rules and any additional parts fall within the cap. I mean FIA could set an amount for each part based on average cost from last couple of seasons, say $5m for each ICE unit. It may still favour bigger teams but would go long way to even things up until they can find a better solution.

Black Noir · 29 Oct 2022 at 14:25

Malt_Vinegar said:
It's an interesting point really, if you operate a team that does not have a different budget (parent company) to take the fine from, does that mean you have to pay out of the next year budget...

Hmm, I think they should pay out of the next 2 years budgets cap amounts.

The fine is exempt from the budget spending for next year.

Scam · 29 Oct 2022 at 14:37

bayo000 said:
I can apricate that but what's the point of having a cap if the big teams can still spent money on new engines as they wish.

It’s the same reason that it’s only a grid penalty for a new engine. It would be impossible for the teams to survive a season on just one engine, or a hard limit of engines. These things are running at the bleeding edge of peak performance, they expect them to blow every now and again. Having them included in the cost cap would be silly because if a team went through too many, they’d have a choice of breaching the cap and getting a severe penalty (well, more severe than a grid penalty on one race), or not being able to field a car at all. That wouldn’t exactly be great for the sport if you lose 2-3 teams by the end of the season because they’re out of engines!

Jono8 · 29 Oct 2022 at 15:02

Malt_Vinegar said:
It's an interesting point really, if you operate a team that does not have a different budget (parent company) to take the fine from, does that mean you have to pay out of the next year budget...

Hmm, I think they should pay out of the next 2 years budgets cap amounts.

Agreed. Not taking it out of next year's budget makes a fine pointless for the mega rich teams.

Greboth · 29 Oct 2022 at 15:19

Stumble Bum said:
Definitely, something that Mercedes abused quite a bit towards the end of the 2021 season. A la Brazil. etc. Must be nice spending all that money on new engines for a big performance boost every race. With Bottas the Guinea pig taking new parts every race. Yet people want to make out like £1.8 million is some huge massive breach. It's not.

FTFY.

Malt_Vinegar · 29 Oct 2022 at 15:23

Stumble Bum said:
Definitely, something that Mercedes abused quite a bit towards the end of the 2021 season. A la Brazil. etc. Must be nice spending all that money on new engines for a big performance boost every race. With Bottas the Guinea pig taking new parts every race. Yet people want to make out like £400k is some huge massive breach. It's not.

But it was not a spend outside of the rules...... The engines were not part of it, so it's not even close to the same thing.

bayo000 · 29 Oct 2022 at 15:30

Scam said:
It’s the same reason that it’s only a grid penalty for a new engine. It would be impossible for the teams to survive a season on just one engine, or a hard limit of engines. These things are running at the bleeding edge of peak performance, they expect them to blow every now and again. Having them included in the cost cap would be silly because if a team went through too many, they’d have a choice of breaching the cap and getting a severe penalty (well, more severe than a grid penalty on one race), or not being able to field a car at all. That wouldn’t exactly be great for the sport if you lose 2-3 teams by the end of the season because they’re out of engines!

Agreed the current limit is not fit for purpose. I always said the limit needs to be increased to 5 or 6 with the number of races we have now. At the same time the penalties for taking extra engines should be increased to prevent teams from gaining clear performance advantage from new engine when they still had working engine available.

DeliciousStorage · 29 Oct 2022 at 15:59

Mr Jack said:
Quite. I don't believe the overspend changed the result of last season. The fact is that Lewis and Max were so far ahead of anyone else at almost every race that while the overspend may have marginally improved the Red Bull, it don't believe the difference would have changed the overall result. It would still have come down to Masi blowing it at the last race.

We can only really go by what the teams and drivers say, and they believe it would have changed the outcome.

Hamilton:
"I remember last year in Silverstone, we had our last upgrade and fortunately it was great and we could fight with it," Hamilton explained to Sky Sports F1 ahead of the Japanese Grand Prix.

"But then we would see Red Bull every weekend or every other weekend bring in upgrades. They had, I think, at least four more upgrades from that point.

"If we had if we spent £300,000 on a new floor or an adapted wing it would have changed the outcome of the championship, naturally, because we would have been in better competition in the next race you had it on.

I do think it's unlikely it affected the 2022 championship outcome but rules are rules, if they gained any advantage their championship is illegitimate in my view. You never know, if Ferrari were a little bit closer maybe they wouldn't have run the engines so hard and would still be in contention.

Malt_Vinegar said:
I also find it laughable that they claimed to be coming in 3 million under... In what world would they leave that on the table when fighting for a championship?!

That's a good point, it would be extraordinary if Red Bull had deliberately underspent by £3m for a safety margin. It's far more likely that they knew they had overspent and tried several ways to fudge the books hoping that a few of them would stick.

Stumble Bum · 29 Oct 2022 at 15:59

Malt_Vinegar said:
But it was not a spend outside of the rules...... The engines were not part of it, so it's not even close to the same thing.

Didn't say it was but it's the pot calling the kettle black when people moan about £400k yet are perfectly happy to ignore Merc burning through new engines for performance gains, just because it's not YET in the cost cap rules.

When it comes to making a difference in the championship, you can't choose to chastise one and ignore the other.

Stumble Bum · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:02

Greboth said:
FTFY.

You still haven't understood that the total is £400k then. You can cherry pick the £1.8 mil figure all you want. Doesn't make it true.

Feek · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:11

Stumble Bum said:
When it comes to making a difference in the championship, you can't choose to chastise one and ignore the other.

When one is within the rules and when one is outside the rules, there's a reason one can be chastised and one can't.

Stumble Bum · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:17

A £400k overspend in a season or far, far more spent on new fresh engines. I know what I'd rather in a title race.

DeliciousStorage · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:18

Stumble Bum said:
You still haven't understood that the total is £400k then. You can cherry pick the £1.8 mil figure all you want. Doesn't make it true.

The official overspend is £1,864,000 and Red Bull have accepted that. If the tax credit hasn't officially been applied to the 2021 accounting period, doesn't that mean they can apply it to the 2022 period? You can't say "oh but it's only really £400k" if they go on to use that tax credit for the 2022 budget and spend an extra £1.4m there.

Stumble Bum · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:32

DeliciousStorage said:
The official overspend is £1,864,000 and Red Bull have accepted that. If the tax credit hasn't officially been applied to the 2021 accounting period, doesn't that mean they can apply it to the 2022 period? You can't say "oh but it's only really £400k" if they go on to use that tax credit for the 2022 budget and spend an extra £1.4m there.

From the Accepted Breach Agreement

'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%) On that basis, RBR has accepted the imposition of the following sanctions....etc'

Where are you getting using this for 2022 from? It seems that the FIA have stated this 1.4m can be used in the 2021 submission and any breach agreement has been based upon that. Do you have anything to the contrary then?

Greboth · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:32

Stumble Bum said:
You still haven't understood that the total is £400k then. You can cherry pick the £1.8 mil figure all you want. Doesn't make it true.

FIA said:
Consequently, a Minor Overspend Breach committed by RBR under Article 8.10(b) of the Financial
Regulations because its Relevant Costs, as adjusted by the FIA, exeeded the 2021 Cost Cap of
£118,036,000 by less than 5%, namely by £1,864,000 (i.e., 1.6%).

Taken from https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/rbr_public_summary_aba_-_article_6.32_1.pdf

I'm sure the FIA got it wrong and you know better though. I welcome your retort with evidence that it was only £400k as your post that I correct suggested.

Please note, that I said was £400k and not that it could have been £400k.

Because if we're talking about what could have been, then I'm a millionaire as I won the lottery last night. I mean, I didn't but I could have, and that's the same thing according to you.

DeliciousStorage · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:38

Stumble Bum said:
From the Accepted Breach Agreement

'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%) On that basis, RBR has accepted the imposition of the following sanctions....etc'

Where are you getting using this for 2022 from? It seems that the FIA have stated this 1.4m can be used in the 2021 submission and any breach agreement has been based upon that. Do you have anything to the contrary then?

My understanding would be that they applied the tax credit to the 2022 accounting period. The tax credit has to be in the accounts somewhere, if it's not in the 2021 reporting period then it's in a different year. The FIA are saying that they could have applied it to 2021 period which would have brought the overspend down to £432,652, but they didn't, therefore the official overspend is £1,864,000.

Greboth · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:41

Stumble Bum said:
From the Accepted Breach Agreement

'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%) On that basis, RBR has accepted the imposition of the following sanctions....etc'

Where are you getting using this for 2022 from? It seems that the FIA have stated this 1.4m can be used in the 2021 submission and any breach agreement has been based upon that. Do you have anything to the contrary then?

English is obviously difficult for you so I’ll help you out.

Would
verb
indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation.

The imagined event, i.e. receiving the tax credit, could have happened but didn’t. Therefore Red Bull were in breach by £1.8million.

Stumble Bum · 29 Oct 2022 at 16:44

Greboth said:
English is obviously difficult for you so I’ll help you out.

Would
verb
indicating the consequence of an imagined event or situation.

The imagined event, i.e. receiving the tax credit, could have happened but didn’t. Therefore Red Bull were in breach by £1.8million.

And perhaps you should read..... see the bit where it says 'On that basis' therefore the penalty has been based upon now including the £1.4mil rebate.