Formula 1-2022 Season

adam525i said:

Alonso back to seventh at the US GP.

Basically Haas complained during the race as they should, Race Control told them they could file a protest up to an hour after the race so they did protest 54 minutes after the race...but the rule is actually only 30 minutes so Alpine protested that the protest was not valid so the protest of the protest was validated and the penalty was removed lol.

Glad race control has their E36 M3 together 

The part that really bothers me is that Red Bull got away with their car falling apart on track.  Haas should turn in every car that dangles parts of given the number of times they were forced to replace a front wing.  Or as Haas has suggested, they should make their wings more delicate so the parts just fall off instead of dangle.

BTW, this isn't against RBR specifically, but that Haas seems to get singled out when being forced to replace loose parts- other teams stall until the parts fall off.  And that last part is when they are actually dangerous.   Seems to me that if a team has parts fall off after they knew the part was broken- they should be forced to take a time penalty AND replace the part.  Parts falling off these cars is really dangerous.

Funnily enough the overage was on catering costs to feed the factory workers. I hate RBR, but this whole thing is bogus. The other team went over more and got no penalty.  Add in HAAS getting screwed every time a part of their car so much as wiggles while other teams get no penalty and the ridiculousness with filing protests and I almost miss the days of Ferrari International Assistance. 

To be fair, here's the list of the items that Red Bull has admitted in over spending in- or accounting wrong to over spend:  The catering was just one of the 13 items.  Some of them directly related to salaries and workers.

In accordance with the findings of the Cost Cap Administration, RBR has acknowledged that the Reporting Documentation submitted by it included the following incorrectly excluded and/or adjusted costs:

1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning catering services);
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), as those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group;
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and associated employer’s social security contributions);
5. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make the necessary upwards adjustment;
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies);
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units);
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations (concerning use of inventories);
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs re-charged to it by Red Bull Power Trains Limited;
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1(r) of the Financial Regulations;
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations.

And further that consequently its Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £1,864,000 (1.6%). RBR has therefore accepted that it has breached: (i) Article 8.2(e) of the Financial Regulations due to its failure to file accurate Full Year Reporting Documentation in respect of the 2021 Full Year Reporting Period, and (ii) Article 8.10(b) of the Financial Regulations due to its failure to keep its Relevant Costs under the 2021 Cost Cap.

Anyone know why Pietro Fitipaldi is driving in FP1 this weekend?  There are a number of young drivers that have a future in F1 which would be a better choice.  

In reply to alfadriver :

Right, so catering costs and social security contributions that were categorized incorrectly. And what exactly did they gain by this 0.67% accounting flub? Spygate this is not. 

Javelin said:

Funnily enough the overage was on catering costs to feed the factory workers. I hate RBR, but this whole thing is bogus. The other team went over more and got no penalty.  Add in HAAS getting screwed every time a part of their car so much as wiggles while other teams get no penalty and the ridiculousness with filing protests and I almost miss the days of Ferrari International Assistance. 

Which other team went over?  From everything I've read Williams and Aston Martin had "procedural" breaches, not overspends.  That means they didn't do the paperwork properly, or didn't get forms filled out in time, or whatever.

To my mind, the amount of the overspend is irrelevant.  $450K is much more likely to influence the outcome of a championship than a rear wing that's 0.2mm too wide, or a car with half a liter too little fuel.  Both of those violations last year resulted in cars being excluded from the results of the session in which they occured, and rightfully so.  There are hard numerical limits, you can go right up to those limits and it's fine, but step over even a tiny bit and the car is excluded -- that's how racing works.  I haven't seen any justification for why this rule should be different other than whining about the bad PR from taking away a championship.

As for catering and social security costs, that's a red herring.  Presumably the other teams also had catering and social security costs, accounted for them correctly, and as a result had $450K less to spend on the car than RBR did.  It's a performance advantage.

Javelin said:

In reply to alfadriver :

Right, so catering costs and social security contributions that were categorized incorrectly. And what exactly did they gain by this 0.67% accounting flub? Spygate this is not. 

It's not, but don't forget that Red Bull has admitted that they are guilty of this.  They gained enough to get a $7M penalty and a reduction in testing- as negotiated by Red Bull.  It probably would have been worse if Red Bull denied it.

The raw amount can be easily directed as extra number of employees doing work - so just calling them catering and social security isn't really correct- since the items should have been part of the budget, given the ruling.

Here's an explanation: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/red-bull-f1-cost-cap-penalty-the-13-errors-listed-by-the-fia/10391662/

Some of it is pretty serious- the apparently under budgeted the power unit, since they got it for "free" from Honda (#8), and this gets pointed out similar to a challenge rule- they had to put in fair market value for the power units.

And the one that is supposedly the largest was the reallocation of unused parts to the heritage department.  And since the cars were of the current year- how do they instantly become heritage?  Apparently, this is also the biggest one, as it was suggested in Austin that this was a 7 figure amount.

Especially the last part- they made extra parts and didn't account for them.  Since it's being called a 7 figure number, that would be very  much the most of the over spend.  

And it's REALLY funny that Horner calls this Draconian, when he actually negotiated this penalty.  

Regarding "catering" not being a performance advantage, I saw this oversimplification example that seems to make sense to me.

Cost cap is $10 million dollars.  Each team, as part of running an F1 empire, needs an on track office.  For simplification, let's assume one of those offices has a standard cost of $2 million.  HaaS, to stay under the cap, spends $8 million on development to account for the $2 million they will need to spend on the office.  RedBull assumed the office wasn't under the cap, so they spent the full $10 million on development and tacked the $2 million on top for the office.

I agree, the office does NOT improve the performance of the car.  However, being able to spend $10 million on development (because you don't account for the office) vs. $8 million (to account for the office) IS a performance advantage.

Again, this is a total oversimplification. 

Furthermore, I do think there is a bit of RedBull getting caught and probably other teams not getting caught.  I found it interesting/funny/questionable that after the cost cap was implemented, Mclaren increased their ownership to a 75% stake in the IndyCar team and announced a $25 million investment in a development facility for the IndyCar team.  If the IndyCar engineers developed some new "thing" that improves their car and gives it to the F1 team for free (or just happens to have the data laying on a table at the headquarters when the F1 engineers are there.....), how does that work with the cost cap?  In theory, it would fall under the cap, but if an F1 engineer and an IndyCar engineer go out for beers after work and discuss work, is the FIA managing that discussion?  I assume no.

-Rob

alfadriver said:

adam525i said:

Alonso back to seventh at the US GP.

Basically Haas complained during the race as they should, Race Control told them they could file a protest up to an hour after the race so they did protest 54 minutes after the race...but the rule is actually only 30 minutes so Alpine protested that the protest was not valid so the protest of the protest was validated and the penalty was removed lol.

Glad race control has their E36 M3 together 

The part that really bothers me is that Red Bull got away with their car falling apart on track.  Haas should turn in every car that dangles parts of given the number of times they were forced to replace a front wing.  Or as Haas has suggested, they should make their wings more delicate so the parts just fall off instead of dangle.

BTW, this isn't against RBR specifically, but that Haas seems to get singled out when being forced to replace loose parts- other teams stall until the parts fall off.  And that last part is when they are actually dangerous.   Seems to me that if a team has parts fall off after they knew the part was broken- they should be forced to take a time penalty AND replace the part.  Parts falling off these cars is really dangerous.

Somebody noted the timing of when the parts broke on the Haas and when they were given a meatball and in all cases they were out on track for more laps than the Redbull this past weekend before it fell off so it wasn't totally unfair. I don't know what the regulations say but there should be some consistency to it from when the damage is noted and when the meatball is shown (but that is probably asking for too much).

I think we can be sure that every team following a damaged car has and will be making sure race control knows about it as they stand to benefit. With how little performance seems to be lost losing a front wing end plate I think the only logical conclusion is to design them to come off right away if there is contact.

In reply to adam525i :

Unless you are talking about the parts falling off as soon as they are hit- waiting for them to come off is really dangerous.  Which is why I think if you know the car is broken, do nothing, and then it comes off- there should be some penalty.  I know the CF isn't the same as a spring, but a spring almost killed Felipe Massa.  

The big parts have tethers, but the small parts just can go and fly away.

Still why did this take almost a year to figure out? They should have this done using some kind embedded accounting system. This should have been announced at the end of January. 

alfadriver said:

In reply to adam525i :

Unless you are talking about the parts falling off as soon as they are hit- waiting for them to come off is really dangerous.  Which is why I think if you know the car is broken, do nothing, and then it comes off- there should be some penalty.  I know the CF isn't the same as a spring, but a spring almost killed Felipe Massa.  

The big parts have tethers, but the small parts just can go and fly away.

Did you see how Landos upper front wheel deflector thingy was just obliterated by a piece of kicked up carbon fiber?  It was there, then it was obliterated.

What I'm saying is that I agree with you!  I'm not sure it's much less dangerous than metal.  It looked like if it hit his helmet or his torso, it would have done serious damage.

In reply to Tom1200 :

'a knock on effect' could happen. But weak enforcement makes for weak rules.

So, George takes Max out in turn 2, Lewis and Checo have a glorious battle for the win.

Streetwiseguy said:

So, George takes Max out in turn 2, Lewis and Checo have a glorious battle for the win.

I have no animosity towards Verstappen or Russel but I would enjoy that very much.

Tom1200 said:

Streetwiseguy said:

So, George takes Max out in turn 2, Lewis and Checo have a glorious battle for the win.

I have no animosity towards Verstappen or Russel but I would enjoy that very much.

I'd like that scenario but it's Lewis enacting revenge for last year. Russell/Checo battle for the win.

Well that was a big yawn fest.

 Might as well call it a yr and start fresh in the spring :)

This is what the Brits mean by "damp squib". It was shaping up to be a real battle but that never happened

Lol I agree, you could here the commentary say something like, "and it feels like we've made all the changes to set up for some action and we're on lap 49 of 71 so the action should be arriving soon but right now the gaps are not closing". Decent pass by Ocon, Riccardo make some clumsy moves then some good moves, VSC, done. 

You know it's a snoozer when Danny Ric is driver of the day for P10 or whatever he got after the 10 seconds.

Streetwiseguy said:

You know it's a snoozer when Danny Ric is driver of the day for P10 or whatever he got after the 10 seconds.

and he looked every bit the BRAT doing it as y'all like to point out when ever the opportunity presents itself ......BWaHhahahaaaa....yur killin me smallzyallz !!!!!!

alfadriver said:

Javelin said:

In reply to alfadriver :

Right, so catering costs and social security contributions that were categorized incorrectly. And what exactly did they gain by this 0.67% accounting flub? Spygate this is not. 

It's not, but don't forget that Red Bull has admitted that they are guilty of this.  They gained enough to get a $7M penalty and a reduction in testing- as negotiated by Red Bull.  It probably would have been worse if Red Bull denied it.

The raw amount can be easily directed as extra number of employees doing work - so just calling them catering and social security isn't really correct- since the items should have been part of the budget, given the ruling.

Is this a Red Bull F1 employee?

In reply to glyn ellis :

Funny,

But the biggest wrong expense was calling unused parts as part of the historic group for RBR.  Make them, not use them, and don't count them.  Which was apparently over $1M.   All of the other stuff were minor errors.  

And given their claim of being way under the budget, there were some huge expense items that were wrong to be that much over.

alfadriver said:

In reply to glyn ellis :

Funny,

But the biggest wrong expense was calling unused parts as part of the historic group for RBR.  Make them, not use them, and don't count them.  Which was apparently over $1M.   All of the other stuff were minor errors.  

And given their claim of being way under the budget, there were some huge expense items that were wrong to be that much over.

You could also claim that the value of a part is lower because the cost for 10 works out lower than 2 units.