If they could somehow take the championship off Max without awarding it to Lewis then.. well… then I’d be very entertained.
That would be amazing, I think some people here would explode. I seriously want to see that
If they could somehow take the championship off Max without awarding it to Lewis then.. well… then I’d be very entertained.
No one expects integrity from the FIA or Red Bull either.That's what I was thinking. Red Bull is saying their submission came in under the cap and apparently it didn't take FIA much research to find the issue. To me, that sounds like Red Bull thought they found a loophole or have a different interpretation of a specific budget item(s) (i.e., that it/they don't count towards the cap), and that FIA disagrees. That would mean Red Bull is counting the same way this year, and would have to cut costs quickly to not end up over the cap again. But it probably also means legal action, as Red Bull will have been convinced of their interpretation ahead of their submission and are unlikely to just accept FIA's interpretation and whatever penalty comes with it. (Except if FIA offers a soft penalty as a one-off compromise - which they might if there really is some grey area in the rules.)
In any case, all the reactions in here about Red Bull being fraudsters and FIA being corrupt seem rather premature - but then of course no-one expects nuance from this thread.
I mean, F1 is the wrong sport to have a conversation about interpreting rules differently. Look at each time there is a regulations change and the grey areas 1 or 2 teams will exploit within them.
I'd be happy with that.That would be amazing, I think some people here would explode. I seriously want to see that
Every time I've heard of it the team went to the FIA before hand and were told that it didn't break the rules only to have the rule strengthened the next season.I mean, F1 is the wrong sport to have a conversation about interpreting rules differently. Look at each time there is a regulations change and the grey areas 1 or 2 teams will exploit within them.
How dare Red Bull over spend on *checks notes* catering and paying ill employees.
I guess they must have dominated due to their drivers being so well fed.
Do you understand how a budget works? If other teams have the same catering and sick pay and kept under budget that means they had $1m less to spend on other things.
Difference between Leclerc's and Perez tires
His two biggest "mistakes" this season came in the same situation when he was expected to cope with quicker opposition on terrible tires. The narrative that he doesn't have what it takes to win the championship is ridiculous.
Max is different level to anyone else this year(but even he's made some mistakes), but Leclerc was easily second best driver this year.
Btw I'd say Alonso was easily third too, he's had a very good season.
Those are Max's tyres, you can see the number 1, but I heard Perez's didn't look much different.
Difference between Leclerc's and Perez tires
His two biggest "mistakes" this season came in the same situation when he was expected to cope with quicker opposition on terrible tires. The narrative that he doesn't have what it takes to win the championship is ridiculous.
Max is different level to anyone else this year(but even he's made some mistakes), but Leclerc was easily second best driver this year.
Btw I'd say Alonso was easily third too, he's had a very good season.
This may have been discussed in the thread but regarding the Red Bull cost cap breach, the budget was $145m according to Sky, so the "minor" breach of less than 5% means any amount less than $7,250,000.
Seems to me that you could hire a shed load of really good engineers for that extra money.
That's barely enough to pay sick pay or Horners mums bus pass, apparently.This may have been discussed in the thread but regarding the Red Bull cost cap breach, the budget was $145m according to Sky, so the "minor" breach of less than 5% means any amount less than $7,250,000.
Seems to me that you could hire a shed load of really good engineers for that extra money.
No one expects integrity from the FIA or Red Bull either.
Max is different level to anyone else this year(but even he's made some mistakes), but Leclerc was easily second best driver this year.
Btw I'd say Alonso was easily third too, he's had a very good season.
Agreed.And that is the problem isn't it. F1 and the FIA keep preaching that they have to be transparent.
But few if any believe that.
I don't believe in conspiracy theories. But Red Bull do seem to be on the right end of recent decisions.
The issue is whether the overspend was an error. Or a conscious decision to deceive. And only the Chief Financial Officer will actually know that.
To me, it doesn't matter if it was RB or Williams for example. The other 9 teams must not be put at any disadvantage.
And that boils down to the FIA getting absolute clarity from RB and taking the correct course of action.
Am I confident of that. Highly unlikely.
Alonso has had a weird season, good but not amazing and he does trail Ocon in the standings. Plenty of life in the old dog yet, his timing at changing teams continues to be impeccably bad.
That's Leclerc and Super Max, I believe - not Perez.
As to who the second best driver is, the scoreboard says Checo
Those are Max's tyres, you can see the number 1, but I heard Perez's didn't look much different.
Funnily enough they have hired a bunch of people from other teams and have paid them big wages / joining bonus .This may have been discussed in the thread but regarding the Red Bull cost cap breach, the budget was $145m according to Sky, so the "minor" breach of less than 5% means any amount less than $7,250,000.
Seems to me that you could hire a shed load of really good engineers for that extra money.
Source: https://www.sportingnews.com/us/motorsport/news/f1-cost-cap-breaches-punished-red-bull-budget-cap/What does the F1 cost cap apply to?
As you can imagine in a sport that is so technical such as Formula One, the cost cap covers a wide array of different expenditures.
The main ones include, in essence, anything that is related to car performance so any car parts, any equipment needed to run the cars, most of the team personnel, any garage equipment plus spares and any transport costs.
The engine, which is a complex matter given the fact that some teams buy theirs whilst others make their own, is excluded from this list, though it does have its own cost regulations.
Perhaps surprisingly, drivers wages do not fall under the cost cap whilst neither do the wages of the team's three highest paid members of staff.
Other areas that are not covered by the cost cap include; travel budgets, marketing spend, legal and property costs, employee bonuses, sick leave and staff medical benefits and other staff related costings.
It's very simple really, if they were 2% over, then next year they should have a cost cap of 98% of everyone else's. It doesn't matter whether it's an honest mistake or intentional really, either way they would have gained an advantage. How they cut back to that 98% would be up to them, could sack people, ask people to take a pay cut, spend less on the car. Each of those courses of action would have its own risks and that's their problem to manage.
If you think it's intentional then you could hand them a fine as well, but the main thing is that it's clear the only fair course of action would be to reduce their cap.
It's very simple really, if they were 2% over, then next year they should have a cost cap of 98% of everyone else's. It doesn't matter whether it's an honest mistake or intentional really, either way they would have gained an advantage. How they cut back to that 98% would be up to them, could sack people, ask people to take a pay cut, spend less on the car. Each of those courses of action would have its own risks and that's their problem to manage.
If you think it's intentional then you could hand them a fine as well, but the main thing is that it's clear the only fair course of action would be to reduce their cap.
I think this is a bit simplistic. Firstly in your example there has been 0 punishment, 2% over spend last year, 2% under spend this year, its a wash and teams will start to pick and chose when to overspend. For example last year Merc could have said "sod it, spend another million or two" because a hugely increased chance of a title this year is better than being able to spend the full amount next year when you have no idea what the other teams might do. Secondly, if the extra punishment for intentional is just a fine, then the cost cap has failed and richer teams wouldn't care.It's very simple really, if they were 2% over, then next year they should have a cost cap of 98% of everyone else's. It doesn't matter whether it's an honest mistake or intentional really, either way they would have gained an advantage. How they cut back to that 98% would be up to them, could sack people, ask people to take a pay cut, spend less on the car. Each of those courses of action would have its own risks and that's their problem to manage.
If you think it's intentional then you could hand them a fine as well, but the main thing is that it's clear the only fair course of action would be to reduce their cap.
Fair play to Seb there. Kept his calm and controlled the wheel spin with way worse tyres.
Shame we didn't get to see that happen on the broadcast.
If they could somehow take the championship off Max without awarding it to Lewis then.. well… then I’d be very entertained.
Did Japanese GP ended a lap too early? Didn't Max cross the finish line before the timer ended? If yes shouldn't there have been one more lap?
They'd only take it beyond an ABA if they were absolutely certain the FIA were not following their own rulebook.
It'll be a case of haggling to exclude some of these expenses RB thought wouldn't count to the cap, and "paying" for that with a more robust looking penalty, probably wind tunnel reduction.
Alledgely one of the main sticking points of disagreement between FIA and RedBull is around the £10mil a year Adrian Newey is paid. He wasn't listed as one of the 3 people at the team exempt from the budget cap. RB paid him as a contractor, therefore the £10mil he gets paid isnt in the budget cap as RB see it. FIA see it differently and that he should be a part of the budget cap.This is absolutely horrendous by FIA again, they set the rules to even the game but again it´s been shown they don´t know how to follow their own rules.
Brawn said it best at the time these caps were implemented that any breaking would need to have big consequences otherwise everyone would go over it if the penalty wasn´t severe.
Once I agree with Toto that over 5m spend makes a huge difference when it comes to part development. The penalty should of course be more then a fine because all the big teams can easily overspend and then just pay a fine.
Newey is an integral part of Red Bull's development team. The idea that his salary should not be part of the budget cap is ridiculous.Alledgely one of the main sticking points of disagreement between FIA and RedBull is around the £10mil a year Adrian Newey is paid. He wasn't listed as one of the 3 people at the team exempt from the budget cap. RB paid him as a contractor, therefore the £10mil he gets paid isnt in the budget cap as RB see it. FIA see it differently and that he should be a part of the budget cap.
Agree the optics for FIA look bad on this.
Newey is an integral part of Red Bull's development team. The idea that his salary should not be part of the budget cap is ridiculous.
Its another FIA fiasco really.Alledgely one of the main sticking points of disagreement between FIA and RedBull is around the £10mil a year Adrian Newey is paid. He wasn't listed as one of the 3 people at the team exempt from the budget cap. RB paid him as a contractor, therefore the £10mil he gets paid isnt in the budget cap as RB see it. FIA see it differently and that he should be a part of the budget cap.
Agree the optics for FIA look bad on this.
Actually it's not.
Your top 3 paid employees are exempt from the cost cap
Allegedly Red Bull are saying he counts as top 3 as he is an integral part of the team and is in the top 3 paid.
However the rumour is as Newey is officially a contractor that he doesn't count as an employee and is therefore not exempt. Although I read the rules and it says contractors can qualify so not sure if AMUS got this rumour wrong.
(Top engineers in the industry often set themselves up as a consultant as you make a lot more money not being tied down)
Then the question becomes what happened in the dry run last season? Was he allowed to be counted as a top 3 exemption?
So at Merc Toto plus two others wouldn't count for them for example.