No F1 thread?

[Swervin_Mervin]

Apparently the FIA were looking at a 25% reduction in aero time, but the "negotiations" have seen that trimmed down. The press release effectively suggests that the areas of the breach were grey areas that RB simply had a different interpretation. So they didn't set out to breach the cap. Righto. It's F1 - where the limits of all regs are constantly pushed up to and occasionally beyond the limit, and differences of interpretation are part of the game.

I'm sure that right now other teams are both considering whether to appeal, and at the same time doing the sums on whether it's worth breaching the cap.

[duncs500]

From my position of no actual knowledge I'd speculate that 25% would be a significant disadvantage. I dunno with 10%, but could still be a difference maker I suppose.

I suspect they will change the rules now anyway. I just don't like that these things can be negotiated though, it should have said what a breach penalty would be from the start and then stuck to it. Everybody knows where they stand then.

[DeskJockey]

Seems a bad outcome for all really. And, as said before, I think it'll taint Max's second title. Would he have been so dominant without the benefits he gained? Wonder if he'll manage a "clean" one.

[duncs500]

All Max can do is drive well and win I guess. I think he's been good this season so I don't begrudge him the title. Nobody deserves it more this year.

[Swervin_Mervin]

From my position of no actual knowledge I'd speculate that 25% would be a significant disadvantage. I dunno with 10%, but could still be a difference maker I suppose.

I suspect they will change the rules now anyway. I just don't like that these things can be negotiated though, it should have said what a breach penalty would be from the start and then stuck to it. Everybody knows where they stand then.

I certainly don't think there should be a negotiation of the ABA. It should work that you either take the ABA or go to appeal and risk the consequences, be they positive or negative when compared to the ABA.

Would be like being offered an FPN of 6pts and a £100 fine and somehow negotiating it down to 3pts and a £50 fine!

[Swervin_Mervin]

Seems a bad outcome for all really. And, as said before, I think it'll taint Max's second title. Would he have been so dominant without the benefits he gained? Wonder if he'll manage a "clean" one.

It may taint all his titles to some, given the advantage RB currently have.

[Mito Man]

Ha, so cheating was worth it. 10% ain’t much for them with the advantage they have.

[jamcg]

I think every team will go over next year.

The fia are looking like a joke at the mo, first last years season ender, then fernando getting his penalty overturned, and now a relatively minor punishment for this

As for it been a grey area, it was black and white enough for the other teams?

[jamcg]

Sky lost commentary in fp1. Someone tell them it wasn’t a bad thing loosing crofty

[MikeHunt]

Red bull have taken advantage of the cost cap and poached the staff other teams made redundant, wonder how many of the accountants were poached.

FIA not looking good, seems to be one thing after another.

[integrale_evo]

Horner
“ 7m is an enormous amount of money and the more draconian part is the sporting penalty which is a 10% reduction in our ability to use our wind tunnel and aerodynamic tools. That represents between 0.25secs and 0.5secs of lap time.”

Amazing that he can calculate a performance loss from the penalty, but said the overspend gave “no benefit”

[Gavin]

The £7M wasn't in an area that added specific performance though, from what has been said at least.

It should be relatively easy to calculate wind tunnel time v speed gained albeit by averaging out gains and possibly not taking non working parts that were discarded, assuming that happens now with CFD on computers prior to aero testing in the tunnel.

The trouble with penalties is that you rarely get a neutral view that is well informed, most of us are undoubtedly at least slightly influenced by drivers or teams we like or dislike and there does seem to be a fair bit of dislike for Horner and maybe still a bit for Max. A decade ago or less it was Lewis that got pelters regardless of what had happened.

The £7M was 0.35% of their overall budget so the fine is probably insignificant in context, but the 10% off tunnel time I reckon will hit them hard as I am sure they get less as Constructors champs this year for next anyway.

[Rich B]

The £7M wasn't in an area that added specific performance though, from what has been said at least.

It should be relatively easy to calculate wind tunnel time v speed gained albeit by averaging out gains and possibly not taking non working parts that were discarded, assuming that happens now with CFD on computers prior to aero testing in the tunnel.

The trouble with penalties is that you rarely get a neutral view that is well informed, most of us are undoubtedly at least slightly influenced by drivers or teams we like or dislike and there does seem to be a fair bit of dislike for Horner and maybe still a bit for Max. A decade ago or less it was Lewis that got pelters regardless of what had happened.

The £7M was 0.35% of their overall budget so the fine is probably insignificant in context, but the 10% off tunnel time I reckon will hit them hard as I am sure they get less as Constructors champs this year for next anyway.

what a ridiculous thing to say. If you have a single pot of money and you overspend, then you can't possibly say that it wasn't from the part that affected performance. It's one pot, if you've fucked up and spent too much on catering, then you should have allowed for and spent less for the other parts.

Maybe they need to allow a little more spend in their accountancy department budget (which yes, I'm sorry to say, may mean reducing budgets in other "performance adding" depts).

No sympathy - they had plenty of time to understand the budget rules.

[Gavin]

The £7M wasn't in an area that added specific performance though, from what has been said at least.

It should be relatively easy to calculate wind tunnel time v speed gained albeit by averaging out gains and possibly not taking non working parts that were discarded, assuming that happens now with CFD on computers prior to aero testing in the tunnel.

The trouble with penalties is that you rarely get a neutral view that is well informed, most of us are undoubtedly at least slightly influenced by drivers or teams we like or dislike and there does seem to be a fair bit of dislike for Horner and maybe still a bit for Max. A decade ago or less it was Lewis that got pelters regardless of what had happened.

The £7M was 0.35% of their overall budget so the fine is probably insignificant in context, but the 10% off tunnel time I reckon will hit them hard as I am sure they get less as Constructors champs this year for next anyway.

what a ridiculous thing to say. If you have a single pot of money and you overspend, then you can't possibly say that it wasn't from the part that affected performance. It's one pot, if you've fucked up and spent too much on catering, then you should have allowed for and spent less for the other parts.

Maybe they need to allow a little more spend in their accountancy department budget (which yes, I'm sorry to say, may mean reducing budgets in other "performance adding" depts).

No sympathy - they had plenty of time to understand the budget rules.

I tend to agree about it being a but daft pinpointing where the overspend occurred. It would be nice to know more detail in some ways but tbh I reckon the 10% loss of WTT will nit them so for a minor breach it seems fair enough.

Hopefully have RB, Merc, Fez, McL and Alpine closer at the front next year so if a fine helps I am all for it.

[Rich B]

It just sounds like more whining from Horner trying to justify their fuck up.

All his whining has made me rethink my take on overspends. I think there should be a hard rule for overspends, regardless of how much or little you go over and it should be something like overspend + £10m out of the following years budget.

I guarantee that would fix the problem.

[jamcg]

My thoughts on this- if I go to the shops and buy a new games console leaving me with only £10 in the bank, then go food shopping and spend £60 I am not overdrawn by £50 because I bought food. I’m overdrawn because I bought a PlayStation. This is no different, other than the amounts involved

[Mito Man]

Yep. the argument that the overspend didn't go on car performance is irrelevant as its from the same pot.

[MikeHunt]

This payday weekend, I blew £2000 on coke and hookers, but my £200 gas bill will be the reason Im in my overdraft next week.

[duncs500]

Whilst I'm sure it's open to manipulation, I don't think it's quite so simple. The rules have prescribed different amounts in different pots from the analysis I've seen. So the rules might give you a £2k hookers budget, and a £150 gas bill budget, then your breach would be on the gas bill and not the hookers.

[duncs500]

If it was just one pot, it would only be pay drivers on the grid, because you could do a lot of aero development with LHs wages!