Costcappen

Chappy112 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1585995323457110016

Seems about right considering the size of the overspend, was never going to be points with it being on the low end of the minor overspend bracket. Reduction in wind tunnel time is damaging for them.
Click to expand...
So Red Bull weren't 'well under' the cap as protested by Christian Horner?

Wonder if he's still pursuing legal action for those 'deflammatory' comments.
 
BoroFur said:
So Red Bull weren't 'well under' the cap as protested by Christian Horner?

Wonder if he's still pursuing legal action for those 'deflammatory' comments.
Click to expand...
Red Bull believe they were and the FIA have said they've misinterpreted some stuff but that Red Bull never acted in bad faith or hid anything it was just a difference of interpretation as to what should be included and what shouldn't. Red Bull felt they were $4m under and the FIA think they were $2.2m over.
 
Chappy112 said:
Red Bull believe they were and the FIA have said they've misinterpreted some stuff but that Red Bull never acted in bad faith or hid anything it was just a difference of interpretation as to what should be included and what shouldn't. Red Bull felt they were $4m under and the FIA think they were $2.2m over.
Click to expand...
Like I say, how did the other 9 teams manage to avoid a misinterpretation of the regulations yet a group of global companies under the Red Bull banner with CFOs coming out of their ears somehow couldn't understand the regulations?
 
Chappy112 said:
Red Bull believe they were and the FIA have said they've misinterpreted some stuff but that Red Bull never acted in bad faith or hid anything it was just a difference of interpretation as to what should be included and what shouldn't. Red Bull felt they were $4m under and the FIA think they were $2.2m over.
Click to expand...
It's called plausible deniability and a whitewash
 
BoroFur said:
Like I say, how did the other 9 teams manage to avoid a misinterpretation of the regulations yet a group of global companies under the Red Bull banner with CFOs coming out of their ears somehow couldn't understand the regulations?
Click to expand...
We don't know if they did avoid a misinterpretation though, we just know that they didn't go over. If Red Bull had left a $6.2m buffer rather than $4m then we wouldn't know that Red Bull misinterpreted anything either.

Edit - Even less if they had applied a tax rebate correctly the fukn idiots :ROFLMAO:
 
Chappy112 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1585995323457110016

Seems about right considering the size of the overspend, was never going to be points with it being on the low end of the minor overspend bracket. Reduction in wind tunnel time is damaging for them.
Click to expand...
Why does size of the overspend matter? If you breach a technical regulation you breach it. Even by 0.1mm.

Why is financial doping different?

Ross Brawn said the cost cap regulations would have teeth. I guess he lied
 
Regardless of your allegiances it doesn’t look good for the sport does it, team wins two championships both of which can been seen as tainted.

Why introduce a rule/law that if broken results in an almost incidental punishment, seems absolutely bonkers to me.

The FIA are the organisation that are in the wrong here, not Red Bull, just another nail in the coffin of F1.
 
SmallTown said:
Why does size of the overspend matter? If you breach a technical regulation you breach it. Even by 0.1mm.

Why is financial doping different?

Ross Brawn said the cost cap regulations would have teeth. I guess he lied
Click to expand...
Because there is a list of potential punishments, surely those punishments should scale with the overspend or possibly if you did it in bad faith. Even Toto said the same thing, if it’s 1 or 2 million then it’s not realistic to deduct points because that is on the upper end of the minor sporting penalties.

I do think that the penalties should be way clearer than they are but as they stand I think they got the punishment about right. It should be automatic wind tunnel time reduction or points depending on the amount spent.

The FIA leave far too much open to interpretation and debate.
 
SmallTown said:
Why does size of the overspend matter? If you breach a technical regulation you breach it. Even by 0.1mm.

Why is financial doping different?
Click to expand...
I think the issue here and I see it a lot in football is that you’re saying what you think should happen based on how you believe the sport should be regulated whereas I say what should happen based on having read the rules.

We probably don’t disagree on what the rules should be.

It’s like in football where someone will say “that’s not handball” what they mean is that shouldn’t be handball. I look at the rules and then decide if it’s handball or not.

I like to see rules applied correctly, that’s why Abu Dhabi really ***ed me off because the rules were completely ignored for that last lap. I said I wouldn’t watch F1 again after that but I got hooked at the start of the season.
 
Chappy112 said:
Because there is a list of potential punishments, surely those punishments should scale with the overspend or possibly if you did it in bad faith. Even Toto said the same thing, if it’s 1 or 2 million then it’s not realistic to deduct points because that is on the upper end of the minor sporting penalties.

I do think that the penalties should be way clearer than they are but as they stand I think they got the punishment about right. It should be automatic wind tunnel time reduction or points depending on the amount spent.

The FIA leave far too much open to interpretation and debate.
Click to expand...
I don’t see the difference: a 0.1mm breach of technical regulations will give the same penalty as a 10mm breach but I presume the 10mm breach would give a faster car?
 
SmallTown said:
I don’t see the difference: a 0.1mm breach of technical regulations will give the same penalty as a 10mm breach but I presume the 10mm breach would give a faster car?
Click to expand...
Yep but that's how the technical regulations work, if you do not comply with the technical regs then it is an automatic disqualification as far as I'm aware. This is different to the financial regulations. You can argue that it should be the same in that if you break the financial regulations then it should be an automatic disqualification and I wouldn't disagree with that to be honest but as it stands that is not how the rules are written unfortunately.

1666986457847.png

The FIA could only punish them with one or more of the top group of punishments and like I said because they were on the low end of it with them being 1.6% or 0.37% over then I think a fine and development limitations is about right.

Again I think the rules and penalties here are utter garbage and should be crystal clear rather than a selection of punishments but going by their rules I think they've done okay.
 
Chappy112 said:
https://twitter.com/x/status/1585995323457110016

Seems about right considering the size of the overspend, was never going to be points with it being on the low end of the minor overspend bracket. Reduction in wind tunnel time is damaging for them.
Click to expand...
What's the point of it being called a cap if you can overspend and effectively get away with it? £1 overspend should trigger effective penalties to ensure compliance.
FFP is just as bad if clubs overspend in the championship and get promoted. EFL need to grow a pair and anyone who does this goes straight to non-league if they get relegated from PL.
 
How good is max? At the start of the season when their car was new Perez had the better of max for a few races.

It was evident the car is designed a tailored to max driving style when gasly was in the garage with him.

If the put equal amount of effort into parts for both drivers do you think Perez could be closer to max?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top