• ℹ️ Heads up...

    This is a popular topic that is fast moving Guest - before posting, please ensure that you check out the first post in the topic for a quick reminder of guidelines, and importantly a summary of the known facts and information so far. Thanks.

Formula One

WillPS said:
No drivers championship would ever truly be won until 6-10 months after the fact when their audit was accepted or rejected.
Click to expand...

You can think it's nonsense, but that is literally how they have designed the rules, they specifically allow for significant points deductions for breaking the cost cap and the timeframe for this process is as published.

It's not dissimilar to the relatively frequent occurance in F1 of race placements being removed days after a grand prix die to the discovery of some technical infringement.

It's pretty standard in sport too. It could be considered similar to drugs cheats subsequently being discovered and disqualified months/years after an olyimpics, tour de France etc. It's a performance advantage gained by cheating.

The title won't be decided much later if the team doesnt cheat!

Having said that I fully expect them not to point deduct RB with the breach being in the minor range by their definition.
 
pluk said:
You can think it's nonsense, but that is literally how they have designed the rules, they specifically allow for significant points deductions for breaking the cost cap and the timeframe for this process is as published.

It's not dissimilar to the relatively frequent occurance in F1 of race placements being removed days after a grand prix die to the discovery of some technical infringement.

It's pretty standard in sport too. It could be considered similar to drugs cheats subsequently being discovered and disqualified months/years after an olyimpics, tour de France etc. It's a performance advantage gained by cheating.

The title won't be decided much later if the team doesnt cheat!

Having said that I fully expect them not to point deduct RB with the breach being in the minor range by their definition.
Click to expand...
Drug testing is done during the competition though, isn't it - if you fail any test along the way you are disqualified immediately after the test. Tour fans watch each stage and the daily drug testing results are part of the drama of the modern competition (or were 10-20 years ago anyway).

That's a world away from applying penalties many months down the line for administrative issues; particularly for the first season those cost caps applied and they had no precedent in terms of what would and would not practically be excluded.

Call me old fashioned but I like to watch a race and understand who is winning and who is losing based on what I see happening, not what some creative accountant is deemed to have done 18 months prior.

Alastair said:
How about you remove your branded cap and think about the precedent applying a penalty that has absolutely no consequence would set?

A fine? Every team will then spend 5% over the cap going forward and pay it.
A measly WCC points deduction, a year after the fact and when the team didn't even win it? Who cares?

Every single team except one managed to stay under the cap (non-procedurally). That team won the WDC in the year they breached it. Nothing other than a points deduction to take that away (as Ross Brawn so famously said years ago) would be suitable to deter future breaches.
Click to expand...
I have no branded cap, I'm a neutral interested in racing drama.

If you're going to quote Brawn you should probably find what he actually so famously said rather than what your teal-tinted memory has stored.
 
WillPS said:
Drug testing is done during the competition though, isn't it - if you fail any test along the way you are disqualified immediately after the test. Tour fans watch each stage and the daily drug testing results are part of the drama of the modern competition (or were 10-20 years ago anyway).

That's a world away from applying penalties many months down the line for administrative issues; particularly for the first season those cost caps applied and they had no precedent in terms of what would and would not practically be excluded.

Call me old fashioned but I like to watch a race and understand who is winning and who is losing based on what I see happening, not what some creative accountant is deemed to have done 18 months prior.


I have no branded cap, I'm a neutral interested in racing drama.

If you're going to quote Brawn you should probably find what he actually so famously said rather than what your teal-tinted memory has stored.
Click to expand...
Clearly not a neutral interested in the rules being properly and consistently applied! Drama leading to race victories and championship titles that stems from blatant rule breaking is what has lead to these last two "titles" for Max.
 
Alastair said:
Clearly not a neutral interested in the rules being properly and consistently applied! Drama leading to race victories and championship titles that stems from blatant rule breaking is what has lead to these last two "titles" for Max.
Click to expand...
lol

Not bothered about Max winning, but it is nice to have enjoyed teams other than Merc at the front as 8 years of dominance does rather eat away at the feeling it's an even playing field.

Cling on to it if you like though, no doubt it helps validate your own tribal view.
 
Accounts can be fiddled, money can be buried.
For example, how many teams now have unpaid interns, sponsored by university departments, doing hot research for "local" teams.
You will never know my friend.
Top notch, top secret unfunded research is easy to bury on "commercially sensitive" cost reports.
I learnt a lot about dodgy funding of staff when I heard of a park becoming a learning facility, so it could offer students "cost of living support payments" to duck the minimum wage...by as much as fifty percent allegedly.
Student placements are an accountants joy.
 
WillPS said:
Drug testing is done during the competition though, isn't it - if you fail any test along the way you are disqualified immediately after the test. Tour fans watch each stage and the daily drug testing results are part of the drama of the modern competition (or were 10-20 years ago anyway).

That's a world away from applying penalties many months down the line for administrative issues; particularly for the first season those cost caps applied and they had no precedent in terms of what would and would not practically be excluded.

Call me old fashioned but I like to watch a race and understand who is winning and who is losing based on what I see happening, not what some creative accountant is deemed to have done 18 months prior.
Click to expand...

The statute of limitations for the Olympics is 8 years, there were still disqualifications occurring for the 2012 Olympics in 2019! Try and find Lance Armstrong on a list of Tour de France winners. If you have won by cheating you haven't won. I agree, I'd like a clearly defined winner at the end of a given race, but if we are going to follow such a technologically complex sport we are going to have to accept that isn't always going to be the case.

The other option is to have far fewer rules, but that's not the way they have gone and they have introduced the cost cap rule with very clear repercussions for breeching. The rules weren't a secret, you have invested your interest in the sport with that knowledge, it shouldn't then be a surprise that they uphold that rule.
 
My head is now cold from removing all those caps!

I would be very surprised if RB were deducted any points from the '21 season. I think the FIA need to be more proactive on spends and do more checks throughout the year.
 
Surely if its just a minor overspend of 5% the punishment should simply be a minor points deduction of 5% to the team and both drivers.
 
John_P said:
Surely if its just a minor overspend of 5% the punishment should simply be a minor points deduction of 5% to the team and both drivers.
Click to expand...
Indeed, it's only a "minor" breach after all, so a "minor" points deduction would certainly be fair, in addition to obvious reductions in the cap for the following two seasons (to account for them having likely breached the cap this year as well as for 2022 given their incorrect interpretation of the rules).
 
Knowing the FIA I am not expecting any meaningful sanction. Especially if there is a reasonable argument that they "miss assigned" exceptional spends.

I wouldn't be surprised to see constructor points docked. If in 21 it is a non issue as RB don't need the prize money. If in 22 it likely won't impact the championship anyway.

I am sure they will be sat trying to work out what the most aggressive penalty they can apply is that saves face and doesn't alter any championship.
 
pluk said:
The statute of limitations for the Olympics is 8 years, there were still disqualifications occurring for the 2012 Olympics in 2019! Try and find Lance Armstrong on a list of Tour de France winners. If you have won by cheating you haven't won. I agree, I'd like a clearly defined winner at the end of a given race, but if we are going to follow such a technologically complex sport we are going to have to accept that isn't always going to be the case.

The other option is to have far fewer rules, but that's not the way they have gone and they have introduced the cost cap rule with very clear repercussions for breeching. The rules weren't a secret, you have invested your interest in the sport with that knowledge, it shouldn't then be a surprise that they uphold that rule.
Click to expand...
Sure, I accept there are exceptional cases where retrospective disqualifications are neccessary. For example, Flavio Briatorre sending Piquet Jr in to the wall in 2008, which was outrageous and dangerous. Worth noting that even in that case it was the team rather than the driver who were punished, and that's how it should be.

Falling foul of a financial auditing regulation in the first year applied when there is no precedent for what is and isn't acceptable, by a definitively minor amount... it's nuts that people think a driver should be penalised for such a thing.

Of course it's all a big conspiracy etc etc, FIA in love with Max and hate Merc... have they forgotten about DAS, and what an utter runaway that made the 2020 Merc despite being against the spirit of the regs? The FIA are not a perfect organisation by any means but honestly it seems they tick off all the teams equally to me.

And anyone who dares to say such a thing is obviously a RBR/Max fanboy because why wouldn't they be?
 
WillPS said:
Sure, I accept there are exceptional cases where retrospective disqualifications are neccessary. For example, Flavio Briatorre sending Piquet Jr in to the wall in 2008, which was outrageous and dangerous. Worth noting that even in that case it was the team rather than the driver who were punished, and that's how it should be.
Click to expand...
But that's literally nothing like this, whatsoever. The cost cap has never existed before. Only one team have breached it meaningfully and they won the title. Their overspend meant that their car was superior to other teams, and therefore their driver had an unfair advantage.

How you can conclude there should be no penalty for the driver (especially equivocating it to random, unrelated occurrences 15 years ago) in these circumstances is beyond me.
 
Alastair said:
But that's literally nothing like this, whatsoever. The cost cap has never existed before. Only one team have breached it meaningfully and they won the title. Their overspend meant that their car was superior to other teams, and therefore their driver had an unfair advantage.

How you can conclude there should be no penalty for the driver (especially equivocating it to random, unrelated occurrences 15 years ago) in these circumstances is beyond me.
Click to expand...
The key detail which you're choosing to gloss over is that it has feck all to do with the driver.

The reason I had to go back 15 years is because it is (rightly!) such a rare occurrence. There was something similar the year before with McLaren and spygate. Again, teams were punished, not drivers.
 
Mercedes had the fastest car last year (That’s why the won the Team Championship).

Disqualification from last years result is not a penalty that can be applied as it is not in the rules. They could have all their points removed, but I suspect that would only be the case where it was a major breach and the team tried to hide it.

If they do have points removed, which knocks them down to third or fourth. What happens to the teams Wind Tunnel allowance who get moved up the championship? Does Ferrari lose some and what if they have already used it? Do the rules allow the penalty to strip RedBull of points without impacting the teams who get moved up? Would you have to give RedBull a additional penalty for the extra wind tunnel time they would gain from being promoted down?

The punishment is going to be determined by a independent panel of judges. They will have all the facts and figures and will apply the penalty they feel is appropriate. No one will be happy with the outcome. If they are deducted points, Red Bull will have no one but themselves to blame. It would certainly ensure no team overspends again. I just with the FIA had set out a time frame for it.
 
geo4chg said:
Sorry but how can you know this? We don’t know the amount by which RB overspent or in what areas.
Click to expand...
It doesn't matter. They overspent. This farcical "it was on catering and sick pay" is frankly hilarious. If they overspent there that's because they used more money than they should've in other areas - i.e. car dev.
 
There is zero point trying to discuss anything with will. It's pure internet point scoring, it's a sport to people like that.
 
WillPS said:
The key detail which you're choosing to gloss over is that it has feck all to do with the driver.

The reason I had to go back 15 years is because it is (rightly!) such a rare occurrence. There was something similar the year before with McLaren and spygate. Again, teams were punished, not drivers.
Click to expand...
The driver is a major part of the team.
The team overspent.
The driver has joint liability, because he is a major part of the team.
It has everything to do with the driver.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top