[M3WC]

My guess the three teams that are being investigated(RB, AM, ?) will be within the 5% buffer for the budget. FIA is delaying announcement until after this race weekend, since championship will probably be clinched. Let the media squabble over 1-2mill during two week break. Italian media has always reported the overages as minor and within the 5%. If the Italian F1(Ferrari) tabloid media wasn't overstating the budget breach, then the British media was probably just click-baiting everyone.

[G30M]

Horner apparently does not know anything about other team's position

and apparently Toto is not supposed to know anything about RBR's finances

so ... Toto knows somebody who knows somebody ...

[MontyB1]

Its fairly easy to understand how any and all teams find out as there is SOO many personnel that switch from team to team.

So it its well know that Team A have been under investigation and they take someone from Team A its not hard for them to say they have been pushing back hard on not as they have pushed their interpretation to the absolutely limit. That is also why you get more clear view of ideas transferring between teams.

Those teams bosses that then find that info then want to do everything they can to punish those that have gamed the system that's just F1 politics since the dawn of time.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by MontyB1

So it its well know that Team A have been under investigation

But then the FIA was already investigating RB before Wolff started to speculate in the media. Is that true?

Of course if it turns out not to be true and there is hardly any cost cap breach to speak off, Wolff and others that speculated the cost cap breach would look like complete idiots.

[MontyB1]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

But then the FIA was already investigating RB before Wolff started to speculate in the media. Is that true?

They investigate them all, they effectively do a full audit on them and if you know anything about finance and accounts then that process is painful and complex and massively open to interpretation.

Let’s see what they have to say next week, who knows.

[Froz3n_M]

I wish they would get back to racing and not politics. AM overspent too (allegedly) and they have a horrific car this year, so its ok if they overspent and are doing horrible, right? If its winning ships though, SHAME! LOL

[E86Z4MC]

It's been said that the Mercedes Silverstone update in 2021 was worth 0.3 tenths per lap and cost less than a million dollars. So net, every bit of extra spending certainly can lead to meaningful improvements. Which have broad implications for both last year and this year's cars' development race.

Given the cloud already over last year's ending, if there is another any outage found, the FIA's credibility is going to come into (further) question if they can't fundamentally restore trust in the sport.

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by E86Z4MC

It's been said that the Mercedes Silverstone update in 2021 was worth 0.3 tenths per lap and cost less than a million dollars. So net, every bit of extra spending certainly can lead to meaningful improvements. Which have broad implications for both last year and this year's cars' development race.

Given the cloud already over last year's ending, if there is another any outage found, the FIA's credibility is going to come into (further) question if they can't fundamentally restore trust in the sport.

Hammy quote turned into another F1 tabloid article. Honestly they took his quote somewhat out of context. There is no validity to his statements anyways, he and his team could say anything really. No way to see if they are telling the truth. Lets not act like every update always brings positive gains. A lot of times they are tested on number two car and binned after practice 1.

What I can see is they are already moving goalposts. Last week it was "RB and AM went massively over budget". Some articles said in excess of 10 million. Now..switching to articles saying updates less than $500k could have given Merc the championship. Almost preemptively trying to argue RB small overage is a big deal.

Lewis did say in that interview, he believes in new president Mohammed and what ever the findings he will accept.

[E86Z4MC]

Originally Posted by MontyB1

They investigate them all, they effectively do a full audit on them and if you know anything about finance and accounts then that process is painful and complex and massively open to interpretation.

Let’s see what they have to say next week, who knows.

I agree we'll have to see where things net out. I almost think about this in a similar way to legal claims in manufacturing. For example, if you need to fill a can of soda to 16 oz, you can be sure that all production, quality testing, statistical process controls, and accounting methods err on the side of caution to overfill because the ramifications of underfilling have severe consequences. Obviously, you work to get as close to target as possible, but you still allow for that margin of error and chalk it up as the cost of business.

In this case, if the pros of overspending outweigh the cons, then it's toothless to begin with. Last year's WDC is likely worth hundreds of millions in marketing value, in addition to the second place finish in wdc payout. No one knows if there was an overspend, but if it turns out to be the case, there should be severe consequences that nullify all possibility of benefit (and send a very strong message to all others).

[M3WC]

Originally Posted by E86Z4MC

I agree we'll have to see where things net out. I almost think about this in a similar way to legal claims in manufacturing. For example, if you need to fill a can of soda to 16 oz, you can be sure that all production, quality testing, statistical process controls, and accounting methods err on the side of caution to overfill because the ramifications of underfilling have severe consequences. Obviously, you work to get as close to target as possible, but you still allow for that margin of error and chalk it up as the cost of business.

In this case, if the pros of overspending outweigh the cons, then it's toothless to begin with. Last year's WDC is likely worth hundreds of millions in marketing value, in addition to the second place finish in wdc payout. No one knows if there was an overspend, but if it turns out to be the case, there should be severe consequences that nullify all possibility of benefit (and send a very strong message to all others).

Or like any motorsports there are grey areas, where teams will try to exploit. Whether in the rules and/or on the car.

Can anyone blame RB or AM for breaching the budget, knowing there is a 5% buffer that likely will result in a slap on the wrist? Just another area in the rule book where teams found a loophole.

I am actually amazed at F1 fans that actually think some teams would not try to take advantage of the 5% material breach rule.

[E86Z4MC]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Or like any motorsports there are grey areas, where teams will try to exploit. Whether in the rules and/or on the car.

Can anyone blame RB or AM for breaching the budget, knowing there is a 5% buffer that likely will result in a slap on the wrist? Just another area in the rule book where teams found a loophole.

I am actually amazed at F1 fans that actually think some teams would not try to take advantage of the 5% material breach rule.

Exactly why I think FIA's ultimate decision here will have large implications. Do driver points change, along with last year's standing, if points adjustment determines such? Do they remain, but an official asterisk is placed in the record books on the would be title winner because the car /team did not get their certificate of compliance? Do you let it stand regardless of the audit and despite no certificate (due to minor or major overspending)?

Largely these manufacturers (and especially rbr, Ferrari and Mercedes) ultimately care about their brands. So yes, they can skirt the rules. But in doing so, without appreciating the branding impact either way, imho is foolish. No one wants qualified statements made about their championship winning efforts to the bad. Especially 2X. This is a different level of risk vs under fueling a car and getting disqualified at end of race as a result. If the teams are able to approach the two scenarios as though they are the same, it's a reflections on lack of authority of the FIA.

[TheBingoBalls]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Or like any motorsports there are grey areas, where teams will try to exploit. Whether in the rules and/or on the car.

Can anyone blame RB or AM for breaching the budget, knowing there is a 5% buffer that likely will result in a slap on the wrist? Just another area in the rule book where teams found a loophole.

I am actually amazed at F1 fans that actually think some teams would not try to take advantage of the 5% material breach rule.

That's the issue. It isn't so much who went over the budget, it's how the FIA is going to sanction those who exceed budget. You don't know what those extra dollars provided - it could be a simple as a gurney flap that unlocks performance.

Just because one team goes over and doesn't have the performance to match the spending, doesn't mean another team gets a pass because they spent less than 1%. If the FIA is going to promote lower cost racing, you better be enforcing these budget rules. If it's a slap on the wrist, then everyone is going to do it. I spend 1 million over the cap, I get fined 10 million but I finish top 3 in constructors so I'm getting paid anywhere from $30-60 million, my net is $19-49 million in winnings - I'm taking that trade any day of the week.

Also each dollar spent is not equal amongst manufacturers. $1 to Williams means barely trying to keep up with mid-tier teams. $1 to Red Bull/Mercedes/Ferrari means more performance to stay above the rest.

[G30M]

Originally Posted by M3WC

Lewis did say in that interview, he believes in new president Mohammed and what ever the findings he will accept.

If one person has the final say in such serious matters I won't have any confidence in that organization, I mean dictatorship.

[M3WC]

Looks like everyone may have been clickbaited.


F1 cost cap: Red Bull’s ‘major breach’ rumour a result of ‘mischief making’

A report from Sportsmail said that private claims from teams that Red Bull could have exceeded the budget cap by as much as £10m are wide of the mark, with their report citing that the overspend – if any – is more likely to be in the region of £1m, and would likely be filed under a ‘procedural breach’ rather than a sporting one

Alongside Sportsmail’s report, Sky Sports F1’s Ted Kravitz said separately that talk around possible overspends for Red Bull and Aston Martin, the other team rumoured in Singapore to have breached the budget cap, has been “watered down”, and could be a result of “mischief making” in the paddock.

“I wonder if there was a bit of mischief making, something between the ongoing soap opera saga between Mercedes and Red Bull."

[MontyB1]

I'm sure the final announcement / rule break will be played out as minor as anything starts to cause issues for the sport.

But 'if its Redbull' and even if it is only £1m anyone that thinks it doesn't further taint things and cause roll on concerns for this season is on crystal meth quite frankly.

Are they all pushing it, sure, have some maybe been caught a little with their hand in the till, well who knows all conjecture at the moment.

I will leave it with this, if it was the same rule in place and Mercedes were found to have the same breach of only £1m and they still won the title back to back would everyone be ok with that as Redbull, Max fans, no complaints, would all be fine? No didn't think so.

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

The same type of rumours went around when RB allegedly was using an illegal floor that was flexing too much and that the new rules would greatly hamper RB's performance.
Result was of course that nothing was true and if any, RB got even faster than the rest.
And with seeing both MERC and Ferrari developing new floors as if that's nothing (especially MERC), I wonder who really spends the most money...

There should be point penalties for those (Toto and Russell) who perpetuating, substantiated, and spread such rumors (i.e. illegal floor which was so blatantly false).
They should also click-down into why Toto seems to spout off "secret" information. If he is being fed info from someone inside (who used to work for him) they should both be removed from positions and MB removed from contention for the next 3-5 years.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by HeelToeShift

There should be point penalties for those (Toto and Russell) who perpetuating, substantiated, and spread such rumors

I totally agree but I doubt the FIA will be punishing slander, so I'm afraid that Toto will think of few other things to blab around when the FIA concludes that there is no real cost cap breach to speak of at RB. The man has no integrity imho.

[HeelToeShift]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I totally agree but I doubt the FIA will be punishing slander, so I'm afraid that Toto will think of few other things to blab around when the FIA concludes that there is no real cost cap breach to speak of at RB. The man has no integrity imho.

Russell sounded like the biggest puppet when he went around saying RB was cheating. Now look…his car got slower and ever since his performances have gotten worse. His grace period is over…and his results show it. He should focus on his driving skills rather than his misinformation skills.
Toto is the single most toxic and corrupt person in F1. I am sure his team found ways to push the boundaries in the past. As far as how he’s getting the info, it needs to be stopped and those individuals out of F1 for good.

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by MontyB1

They investigate them all,

I understand that they investigate them all, but are they doing that constantly?
Are they doing that now?
Or are they doing that at the end of the year?

My point is: was the FIA doing an audit at RB before Toto's speculation in the media. So my question is about the timeline, not about the procedure or how hard it is or how open for interpretation it is.

[MontyB1]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

I understand that they investigate them all, but are they doing that constantly?
Are they doing that now?
Or are they doing that at the end of the year?

My point is: was the FIA doing an audit at RB before Toto's speculation in the media. So my question is about the timeline, not about the procedure or how hard it is or how open for interpretation it is.

Its pretty simple. They ALL have to submit an audited signed off set of accounts in March. So they have already been signed off by external auditors then the FIA look over them who then use Deloitte so ensure they have all followed the same interpretation.

Its weird to the fans as it seems to take so long but the reality is the process is fairly normal. Its the same in the UK for football clubs who have to comply with FFP rules in the Premiership as an example.

I think the challenge is the 54pages or rules on what's in, what's out and how you should include or exclude costs is silly complex as most other things are in F1. It seems some of the teams seem to think that one or two teams have pushed things too far and should pay the price, how far we don't know yet. Have some teams had people working in the F1 team but actually tried to exclude the costs, Redbull I believe has 6 different limited companies they are moving funds around on, other teams are probably similar, so its VERY tough to police, I wouldn't want to be the FIA.

To give people a view of how much some of the top teams have had to cut back and why they are cross if some have gamed it - give this a read.

Mercedes financial numbers reflect painful f1 cost cap

[GuidoK]

Originally Posted by MontyB1

Its pretty simple. They ALL have to submit an audited signed off set of accounts in March. So they have already been signed off by external auditors then the FIA look over them who then use Deloitte so ensure they have all followed the same interpretation.

So Toto is complaining/speculating about numbers from a reference date in March of this year?
So basically 6 months old nubers of which Deloitte hasn't come around to check, but Toto has?

[MontyB1]

Originally Posted by GuidoK

So Toto is complaining/speculating about numbers from a reference date in March of this year?
So basically 6 months old nubers of which Deloitte hasn't come around to check, but Toto has?

No, the numbers are set in stone and when they have been audited and they published as public record at least in an abridged version. Could Merc have hired someone who said they are all over the books because they are well over sure. I see no mention on Binotto and Ferrari saying similar things, no.

Let’s see what Monday looks like.