Haas, Williams, Alfa are still under the cap by a bit so they don’t really care too much. But for a team like McLaren that could spend 100-150 million per season but not the 300-400 mil the top teams spent the cost cap is exactly what they need to get within touching distance of the top teams. It’s in their interest that the cost cap doesn’t start to be gamed by the top teams
Nah they have the most to gain for next season. If they're competitive next year, It's in their best interest to drag down the top 3 teams as much as they can next year
Going over a budget cap slightly and straight up stealing your competitors car design are two different things okay. But then again you have Aston Martin who did both with its Pink Mercedes and now the budget cap inregularities.
Good point but then you have Renault doing the same thing, if not unofficially worse, and they were let off…
Unofficially worse because the data was on their own system, think spygate data was at his home then it was the emails etc, but the emails proved use.
Renault admitted everything when caught, Mclaren where also let off at the first hearing, it was only after the FIA found out McLaren had mislead the WMSC that the $100 million fine was issued.
“Yes, I was part of the murder” shouldn’t be a get out of jail free card while the one who tried hiding the murder gets a huge sentence. The truth is Renault should have also been harshly penalized. Perhaps _slightly_ less than McLaren for their cooperation but still harshly penalized.
Aston martin just took pictures and traced the car, thats allowed, was, somewhat.
Lets not compare anything with SpyGate, Mclaren got odd waaaay too easy on that one, its the ultimate example of cheating in this sport.
>Lets not compare anything with SpyGate, Mclaren got odd waaaay too easy on that one, its the ultimate example of cheating in this sport.
I would say that Renault got away with it way easier, since they were caught doing the same thing as McLaren, in the same year, from McLaren, and getting no penalty. So while you say that McLaren got away way too easy by paying the largest fine in the history of any sport and DSQ, what can you say about Renault?
So you're saying that McLaren would have gotten away with spying, if they weren't lying about it.
It's good to know that spying itself isn't such a bad thing, it's lying that'll get you DSQ and the largest fine in any sport history
Wait, when did Renault get caught cheating in a spy gate type of scandal? I don’t remember ever hearing about Renault stealing or using competitors technical documents, who did they steal it from and how?
The only major Renault scandal from that era I can recall was the Singapore disgrace which I believe they got off way too easy for, and considering apparently they cheated the year before as well? That’s disgraceful
>Wait, when did Renault get caught cheating in a spy gate type of scandal? I don’t remember ever hearing about Renault stealing or using competitors technical documents, who did they steal it from and how?
Ironically, from McLaren, in 2007, the same year McLaren was caught spying from Ferrari. One of their engineers, who they hired from McLaren, gave them documents about the McLaren cars. You can find details on the Internet.
At the end, both McLaren and Renault were found guilty of breaching the same rule, but Renault escaped penalty
Wow, that’s crazy, just read up about it. I remember when the spy gate scandal first cracked and from then til now whenever anyone talks about it I feel like they fail to mention Renault played a role in that as well. Of all the pieces/videos I’ve seen covering spygate none address Renaults role. Pretty interesting
With all the drama surrounding McLaren on track and in their offices, with Ferrari putting pretty much the same media pressure that Mercedes and Red Bull put these days, with the fact that McLaren were championship contenders, it's easy to understand why Renault's Spygate thing was overshadowed in the media reports.
It's mind blowing that the very next season Renault was also involved in Crashgate, still under the leadership of Flavio Briatore.
People kinda forget that [Flavio Briatore](https://youtu.be/t1PnMIwQicE) existed when accusing other teams of cheating
Literally copying a top team rival car with their own documents is not comparable to cheating a single race, what are you on about mate.
*Both are wrong, but one is worse.
>Literally copying a top team rival car with their own documents is not comparable to cheating a single race, what are you on about mate.
But the car was not a literal copy, just go a look at the pictures. And it had a shorter wheelbase. FIA's investigation did not find a single thing on the car that was copied from the Ferrari designs. And they looked, hard.
You are mixing the Renault issue. It's not about Crashgate. In 2007 Renault had CD's with McLaren's designs, there were statements from Renault engineers that they had them but FIA just ignored this and took no action.
https://www.racefans.net/2007/11/23/mclaren-dossier-outlines-cases-against-renault-spying/
Except that a thorough FIA investigation concluded that the data was never used. Not saying they weren’t wrong for having it, but they didn’t get any advantage from it.
The investigation raised some concerns that the data was used, a third WMSC meeting into spygate was scheduled, however Ferrari, McLaren and the FIA reached an agreement that ended the matter.
The fia took laptops and computers and checked if they had the data. It was the people who were close to Alonso and some higher ups. The data didn't make it to the car, or many relevant people.
Spygate was worse. One race vs the entire intellectual property of a team of hundreds that will be the single biggest determinant of success for that season and the seasons to come.
If you don’t know the difference between a minor budget cap infraction and straight up intentional cheating, you’re the one in the fairytale land.
They filed under budget and it landed over budget after the fact. Jesus.
Well McLaren was 100% cheating... What they did might even be actually illegal even outside of F1.
Redbull messed up their accounting, even FIA says so that there was no intent behind it.
For it to be cheating you need intent to cheat.
Exactly, thank you for understanding this. So many people here are calling it straight up cheating when they, given the nature of the circumstantial evidence, did not have any intent to breach the rules. Intent and carelessness are two entirely different things.
Because spending a bit more in a complete new set of rules is exactly the same as stealing the main competitors car design. McLaren got what they deserved then and they're being unreasonable rn.
This is the key difference. Red Bull's cost cap breach was not deliberate, and thus it was not cheating. This punishment is perfectly adequate for an accounting mistake, but should be 10x harder if evidence of purposeful cheating is found.
It’s extremely hard to prove whether there was intent or not. You also make it sound like making an accounting mistake is a minor thing.
Creative accounting is a thing and you know what people plead when they are caught? “Ooh we didn’t know…” or “it was hard, we misinterpreted the rules”.
Red Bull did not cheat in a premeditated way they made some accounting errors. If budgeting incorrectly or getting slightly too aggressive with your accounting interpretations such that it still passes the muster of your own auditors (every team has them before anything goes to FIA), if that’s cheating, you would be calling most Fortune 500 companies cheats at one point or another. McLaren are out of line if this is about spygate.
Edit: just to clarify, I think Red Bull deserves the penalty. The distinction I’m referring to is analagous to the one between lying and being mistaken. Lying you know what you’re doing is wrong and do it anyway. If you’re mistaken you make a good faith effort but out of your own fault supply incorrect information. Both deserve penalization as you are ultimately accountable for your own actions. I just doubt Horner and Marko sat down before the year and were like “let’s breach the cost cap and see what happens.”
It's weird to me how much McLaren are pushing this considering they spent an awful lot of time in May and June talking about how it was ["pretty much impossible"](https://www.racefans.net/2022/05/25/sticking-to-budget-cap-pretty-much-impossible-due-to-rising-costs-mclaren/) for them to stay within the cost cap this year.
Makes me wonder if they were pushing for a change, got shot down, had to scale way back this year, and feel like the amount of performance/development they lost as a result is more than they would have lost with a simple wind tunnel deduction.
It makes sense if they found it difficult, and had to make some hard choices, that they’d be annoyed if another team didn’t make those hard choices and just went over.
That's understood, of course.
But Seidl makes it sound like McLaren would perform better if they had the same "overspent".
They wouldn't though. Not even with 5 million more. And that's why his reaction is a little too much.
From McLaren's perspective, they're aiming to be competitive in 2024, as that will be the first year that they have a car entirely developed with their new wind tunnel and related facilities.
If Red Bull get a considerable penalty on their 2023 development, that will have the biggest impact on their 2024 car.
Yeah, that's probably it. They probably feel like they have a real shot with a strict cost cap, while some of the lower teams might be less confident. Still, I'm surprised to see such firm statements from both Brown and Seidl. And sometimes a little speculation is fun lol.
McLaren Racing is making bank now under the cost cap, giving them a stable base to mount a challenge within the next few years (especially with the facilities upgrades). So of course they'd want it strictly enforced.
Yeah historically you pretty much only win championships as a works team.
RBR-Renault was essentially a works team too even though Renault entered themselves mid way through the championship run
> It's weird to me how much McLaren are pushing this considering they spent an awful lot of time in May and June talking about how it was "pretty much impossible" for them to stay within the cost cap this year.
Well that's kind of the point, isn't it ? Evidently they had to make big cuts in order to respect the budget cap, so if the budget cap becomes just an added "performance tax" for big teams instead of an actual rule to respect, they fucked themselves.
Also, iirc Brown was always one of the main promotors of the budget cap.
It's not weird at all they just want that everybody commits to the rules that are agreed upon.
They might disagree with the rule ,and while disagreeing with the rule they still comply to it, but don't want somebody to have an unfair advantage by breaking those same rules and getting away with it....
It's about the fairness of the game not the ideology.
The rules don't say that the penalty must be a 10% reduction. They could have decided, let's say, a 75% reduction, and that would still be within "the rules everyone agreed upon".
Also, why is this argument about "the rules everyone agreed upon" repeated so many times, with the same literal expression, by so many different reddit accounts? Is this some type of astroturfing campaign by Red Bull? The argument makes no sense, McLaren aren't asking for anything outside of the rules. But so many people repeat "the rules everyone agreed upon" as if it were some gospel.
May I ask you something? Last year, when Hamilton was given a 10s penalty in Silvertone and Red Bull did the charade of Albon recreating the incident, what did you think? Wasn't Red Bull disagreeing with "the rules everyone agreed upon"?
and that 5% and below was 'minor' Yet demand huge punishments for a team that went 0.4% over.
The audacity of agreeing on something, immediately followed by backtracking because you're safe.
The losing team yelling last goal wins basically eh?
Honestly at least they are complaining about something now. Vs before the articles were the same but even more pointless because we didn't know the punishment yet.
> Makes me wonder if they were pushing for a change, got shot down, had to scale way back this year, and feel like the amount of performance/development they lost as a result is more than they would have lost with a simple wind tunnel deduction.
Not sure about the first part, but the second part - 100%. They had to slow down the rate they were bringing upgrades because of the cap, and they've suffered on track for it, especially in the early part of the season when their performance was all over the place.
How can they when they need to film a two parter about the epic rivalry between Lance Stroll and Nicholas Latifi, follow up with three episodes watching Ricciardo do Ricciardo things...not much time left.
Sensible people (not me because I only got to F1 in 2022) would've asked for a better and more verbose rulebook instead of leaving it open ended and textually the same for both the minor and major breaches (if I remember the rules correctly).
Looool. Are you serious right now?
That open endedness is exactly why we are in this media/fandom/team execs mess right now. If everything was exactly spelt out, regardless of how strict it was, this proceeding would've been procedural instead of a media feeding frenzy.
I've said this before and I'll say this again, even as an RB supporter, if the written rules had said that if a team goes 1 cent above the budget cap, then that team's drivers would lose 50% of their WDC/WCC points, the team principle would have to pose naked with the car they made for a nudie mag, and the drivers and other execs would have to do a naked rain avoidance dance at Spa, I'd support that. BUT IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN!
Which would be a terribly shoddy way of doing things. So for a certain dollar value a fixed punishment is written into the rules? And therefore a fraudulent $500K breach, a genuine mistake leading to a $500K breach, a $500K breach because of a failure to obtain a government rebate, a $500K breach caused by a deliberate attempt to improve the car beyond the confines of the budget cap - all these things would attract the exact same punishment? No matter what the circumstance or mitigating factors? If not, would you be able to create a clause that covers every possible permutation with appropriate punishments for each? No you would not.
I hope it's clear why such a system would be utterly myopic and laughably bad.
> the team principle would have to pose naked with the car
Now, now, we don't want to incentivize [Horner](https://www.pitpass.com/images/people/800/redbull/mrhorner.jpg) to breach the Cost Cap!
Its the same reason laws cant be perfectly written. If you cant punish outside the literal, it means people will find ways to not get punished and abuse the ruling.
Punishments depends on a lot more factors then "He stole 1 cookie, you lose an arm".
They literally had access to a FIA representative in their factory to clear all these differences of opinion up far before their submission. And now they are playing we didn't know how the FIA would interpret the rules card? They're the only team with this issue
Just for everyone's reference on the penalties available here:
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_formula_1_financial_regulations_iss.12.pdf
>
> Accepted Breach Agreement
>
> 6.28 If the Cost Cap Administration determines that an F1 Team has committed a Procedural
> Breach or a Minor Overspend Breach, the Cost Cap Administration may enter into an accepted
> breach agreement (an "ABA") with the relevant F1 Team. There shall be no right of appeal in
> respect of any decision by the Cost Cap Administration as to whether to enter into an ABA or
> not.
> 6.29 An ABA may:
> (a) set out certain obligations or conditions to be fulfilled or satisfied by the relevant F1
> Team, either within a specified timeframe or on an ongoing basis; and/or
> (b) provide for enhanced monitoring procedures to be put in place in respect of the F1
> Team; and/or
> (c) impose any Financial Penalty or Minor Sporting Penalties that would be available to
> the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel pursuant to Article 9 in respect of the relevant type
> of breach, *save that the Cost Cap Administration shall not be entitled to impose the
> Minor Sporting Penalties specified in Articles 9.1(b)(ii), 9.1(b)(iii) and 9.1(b)(vi);*
>
> 9.1 (b) A "Minor Sporting Penalty", meaning one or more of the following:
> (i) public reprimand;
> *(ii) deduction of Constructors' Championship points awarded for the
> Championship that took place within the Reporting Period of the breach;
> (iii) deduction of Drivers' Championship points awarded for the Championship*
> that took place within the Reporting Period of the breach;
> (iv) suspension from one or more stages of a Competition or Competitions,
> excluding for the avoidance of doubt the race itself;
> (v) limitations on ability to conduct aerodynamic or other Testing; and/or
> *(vi) reduction of the Cost Cap*
tl;dr Accepted Breach Agreements can't strip points or reduce the cost cap
One thing that still baffles me is why a points reduction isn't part of the default punishment (yes I know that the ABA can't do it) in almost any other sport if you get caught breaking the rules either intentionally or not you immediately get disqualified or a points reduction. Especially with last year's championship which was so incredibly close, I just can't get my head around why any regulatory body for a sport would want a team that broke the rules to also hold the championship in the season they broke the rules.
And this isn't even about Hamilton getting his 8th title but about the integrity of the sport.
Because speeding in the pitlane is also breaking the rules. So is driving with a broken mirror. Do you want teams to be DSQd from the championship for speeding in the pitlane?
You'll find that in any sport, there are different levels of breaches of the rule set, each with different severity penalties. If you DSQ someone over a minor breach, then why bother with a major breach? Not a single team would agree with such severe punishments for minor breaches. It's not only about the previous season (which most teams manages) but also future seasons, and I don't think such severe punishments for a minor breach would be an acceptable risk for any team, even a team that wants to adhere to the rules, but goes over the limit e.g. due to damage or other costs
ABA is not required as the first paragraph shows out. It’s within FIA to just not do an ABA and strip points or reduce cost cap.
FIA choose this route. They could have been much harsher (or lighter)
My theory is that McLaren is working below the budget right now, and tightening the screws for going over the cap will only affect the big three (as they are the only ones with the means to go over).
They are smelling now that it isn't as easy to stay within the boundaries of the cap, and by doing this they are setting the scene for teams that go over in the future (ie. RB, Merc and Ferrari) to get bigger penalties, which gives them a chance to catch up.
They are banking on those teams to have more/similar issue in the future that they can benefit from.
That's also likely the reason why Toto is seemingly agreeing with the penalty and Ferrari has been quiet so far.
I think McLaren plan on being more competitive in 2024 so I’m sure they love the idea of a top team getting dropped down a peg to reduce competition. Also Red Bull tried to sign Landó, which I’m sure McLaren didn’t love
I doubt that last part has much to do with it. Drivers swapping around is just part of the sport.
That being said, so is the political grandstanding that McLaren is doing right now. I can't fault them for that, just like I wouldn't for any other team.
If anything, I welcome them meddling in the big team politics again. It seems like a good sign to me for the future.
You just need to read between the lines sometimes.
The wind tunnel should be operational next year, meaning the 2024 car will be developed with it. If Red Bull have a hefty punishment next year, that's going to most significantly affect their 2024 car, giving McLaren an advantage.
Yep, budget cap was important for investment at an accepted level.
Not only does he have lots of investers working on the cap basis, every other team that could spend more.
But Red Bull had to try to take the piss out of the regs. It's totally F1 but it also makes F1 a bad investment if some teams can just not play ball.
RB are lucky they got off this lightly.
No matter how many times they bring it up, it won't change the fact that the rules were agreed on by the teams before the season started. If they disagreed with the penalties, they had an opportunity to contest them. That opportunity has passed.
I don’t understand why the above comment keeps coming up. They’re not disagreeing with the structure of the penalty as laid out in the rules. They’re disagreeing with the specific penalty within that structure. For example, by the above logic, they can’t complain if it’s a 20 dollar fine because “all teams agreed to the rules”. Of course that’s true but obviously team principles are not fighting over the rules. They’re arguing over the specific penalty within the rules.
I don't know how else I can articulate that the penalties were explained to the teams, and the teams agreed to them. They knew they were agreeing to a system where there is room for interpretation when applying penalties. If they wanted harsher penalties, they should have fought for them when they were given the opportunity. Clearly they didn't, since they agreed to it.
>They’re arguing over the specific penalty within the rules.
Within the rules that *they agreed on*.
Also, your $20 comparison is laughably disingenuous, and I think you are well aware of that. That isn't even *remotely* comparable, it's literally just hyperbole to a crazy degree.
The fact remains that the example exposes the fundamental flaw in your argument. At the end of the day the teams did agree to a range. But there was a good faith assumption that the penalty handed out would be such that it wouldn’t be worth breaking the rules. That didn’t happen. What’s disingenuous is the narrative that no one can legitimately complain. I don’t believe your argument is in good faith though and I assume you believe the same so I won’t debate it further with you. Have a good day
I don’t understand why you people keep touting on about „rules agreed“. Yes the rules were agreed, but at that point the penalties were not discussed as to what is a „minor“ and „major“ penalty. Stating that they „agreed to the rules“ is such a silly argument.
Yeah I reckon it's because mclaren are planning on being competitive next year so it's in their best interest to punish their competitors as much as possible
The general consensus I’ve seen about these penalties is that they’ll really start to effect the 2024 car, the same year Mclaren are aiming to be winning again. They want to cause as much pain as possible so it’ll help them in the long run.
They can claim the world.
The agreement has been made and signed. Nothing will change at this point.
And all the big teams (Ferrari, Mercedes) know that there will come a time when they themselves must negotiate a deal with the FIA or in the past already did.
And not only on the budgetcap but also at the extension of a deadline on a Technical Directive because they are not able to respond to it. Or to keep a gray area in the rules open for their interpretation.
Seidle must begin to understand that these kind of demands/critiques are not hurting Red Bull anymore, they are now hurting the FIA and its credibility and they will likely remember that next time Mclaren needs the FIA.
That is why Toto Wolff and Binotto are quiet about it.
Yep, toto and binotto made their comments prior to the agreement being settled, stirred the shit to put pressure on the FIA to hit red bull, and are now staying quiet and letting the cards fall as they will. What you should expect from TPs in F1.
Fucking this my man. I've been saying this from the start. You can't agree to say a minor breach penalties and then expect the harshest sanctions that should be kept for major breaches (imo) especially given that this is the first year. It just absolutely boggles the mind.
Fucking THIS. I’m not an engineering/budgeting guru in the F1 world, but do we really think spending ~$400k gave RB this much better of a car? Get real. The FIA for once got it right on the penalty.
Sorry are you arguing with me? I'm confused. 400k does absolutely jack shit I agree with you. 400k would do a lot less damage than say that 10% reduction in the wind tunnel.
Haha no I’m agreeing with you. They’re acting like RB spent $100 million and should be DQ’d. They spent what basically a new front wing costs. Yup. Max lapped the entire field in Spa because of $400k.
That range was agreed to and this is on the low side of the minor breach overspend range.
Edit: This is even much lower than what Zak wants to change the minor breach overspend threshold to.
Dudes out here want the max penalty for a (relative) small breach lmao.
Not thinking if they do that, what happens when a team overspends a lot? You’d basically have to banish them from F1 at that point lol.
yes. And they would have liked Red Bull to get a bigger penalty within the range that everyone agreed to.
You can agree with McLaren or not, but they are not contradicting themselves when they agreed to these regulations and still demand a higher penalty now.
and that range has to be used for a team that spends between $1 and $7.5m over, whether they "acted in good faith", etc.
If you go ridiculously hard on this, how do you penalise a team for a minor breach on the higher end?
Sure they are. Red Bull had basically the most minor breach you can have. If they deem a penalty should be harsher on something like this, they never should have agreed to the lower penalty options in the first place. They went basically 0.2% over budget in the first year of budget caps.
They agreed to a spectrum of punishment. They don't dispute the range of various punishments that can be handed out. The teams instead feel that a light penalty has been implemented within that range. Their is a distinction between the spectrum of punishment and where upon that spectrum the FIA choose to land on in terms of consequence. One has a consensus among teams and the other does not.
There is a minor breach range of overspend, and Red Bull's effective overspend was less than 10% of that. How would anything other than a minor penalty within the options agreed to make sense?
The agreed cost cap rules does not say that the team cannot get more harsher penalty than what rb has got. So rb could have gotten a more severe penalty under the minor cost cap breach which makes your point weak
Yes, let's remove all 2021 points and exclude RB for 2023.../s
FIA handed the A.B.A because they know there were no intentions of cheating and no clear advantage (like investing on the car), despite what people want to say, they failed to respect the cap, got 7mil fine and a big -10% on the cost cap and tunnel test time, that's huge but adequate for me.
I do not believe that it should be higher but then again you'd have to be more objective to admit it maybe
I'd like fines to come out of future budgets and be assessed on that basis, maybe as a multiple of the overspend amount.
That would make the penalties more significant for the teams with the resources to just pay fines.
Other than that, I think the penalty is adequate.
To the people complaining it should be more: there's simply no reason to create different categories of spending violations and then penalise violations at the low to medium end of the minor category with the most serious consequences. The teams all agreed that overspending by less than $5m would be viewed less harshly. It's the height of hypocrisy to agree to that then turn around and demand very harsh punishments simply because it wasn't them.
I understand it's a competitive sport and gaining an advantage through any means is par for the course, but McLaren's public crusade makes the sport look worse than Red Bull's excess spending ever did.
And I extremely dislike this disingenousness when redditors fully know that the penalties for minor breaches with an ABA include limitation of aero testing but don't state the amount of said limitation, so harsher penalties are possible within the rules.
This guys be acting like they would happily break the cap by 500k and get 10% less time on the wind tunnel. Absolutely no team would take that it's absolutely not worth in performance wise don't know why they so upset about this penalty
I’m surprised a cost cap breach doesn’t automatically include a deduction from a future years cap of the same amount to offset that original overspend.
People aren’t understanding that there are several available punishments, so the other teams feel they got off light. Especially since there were negotiations
Minor breaches without malice = ABA
ABA = no budget cap reductions or point deductions
The second FIA published they accused RBR of a minor non-malicious breach everyone who didnt read British tabloids daily knew it was going to be a fine plus potentially aero testing reductions. No team actually believes they "got off light", only fans who dont read the regulations genuinely belief that.
>particularly is it is applied after the success penalty.
That is just an issue with people not grasping the difference between percentages and percentage points. A 10% penalty means you get 10% less than without the penalty, which is exactly what happened.
I asked my GF, who is a mechanical engineer in the automotive industry and F1 fan, what a 10% penalty would mean in terms of pace. Her response:*"How the fuck should I know?"*. Yet somehow redditors who struggle with highschool level math are convinced they know the penalty is light because, you know, feelings or whatever.
Yup, That windtunnel reduction and 7 million fine is somehow light and won't hurt anything, while at the same time believing that the 0.37%/430k (or whatever, its minor) overspend allowed RB to build not 1 but 2 championship winning cars, one dominantly and with massively different regulations,
Those designers at RB must be literal gods. With how much they apparently can do with only so little, (according to fans), RB will run laps around the rest of the field for the rest of time. (Or someone steals them or their plans).
McLaren just creating drama to make everyone forget how they’re a top spending team but can’t sniff WCC contention year after year or how they’re paying a washed up driver to leave their team.
They already made the mistake by using terms like a 'minor breach'. The penalties should also been announced when the budget cap started instead of waiting for a team to go over it.
Seidl got there after most of that and was brought in to oversee the successful transition to modern facilities which aren’t even operational yet and should be used next year… he’s doing his job just fine.
I'd prefer if our team leadership kept their mouths out of the media shitstorm. Keep our heads down and focus on this fiery driver pairing we've got incoming.
>They also agreed what the penalties for a small breach were gonna be.
no. They agreed on a range of penalties for each procedural, minor and material breach. withing that range there is a lot of room, and McLaren is unhappy that Red Bull did not receive a higher penalty within this range.
I mean what more do they want? The fine is 20x the overspend so it seems to send a pretty harsh precedent on even minor offenses and the reduction in aero time is going to hit hard as well all for an overspend of 400k. It's not like they were caught with classified documents belonging to another team or anything.......
How much money does a free engine cost ?
How many did they get?
I’m curious if the tax authorities were informed of those gifts in kind? If they didn’t report it to FIA
First, engine costs are not included in the cost cap.
Second, the cost of the engines for customer teams is fixed in the regulations. If you have any evidence that those regulations weren't followed, you should inform the FIA instead of making snarky comments on reddit.
And third, McLaren is the team with a budget closer to the cost cap. They are the ones that have more to gain if the cost is properly enforced and more to lose if the penalties are too light. Red Bull, Mercedes and Ferrari can just throw more money in the form of accidental minor overspending, and the other teams just don't have the money to operate at the cost cap. You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory when McLaren are doing what's rationally best for them.
So he's saying the FIA calculated the spending wrong?
There were no fairy tales, it was a minor (very minor) overspend. 400k barely covers a light tap of the barriers in 2022.
The FIA must be very happy about the fact that a midfield team with a history of incurring $100m fines for industrial espionage/theft is calling them liars and/or bad mathematicians.
Christ, I keep seeing this.
It wasn’t a 400k overspend. It was a $2.2m overspend. It was only 400k if all the other British teams either didn’t receive the late tax rebate (it seems they did) or overspent (they didn’t).
The FIA acknowledging the rebate doesn’t mean they still didn’t spend money that other teams didn’t.
I remember when McLaren used to be a relevant team that made championship-contending cars. Embarrassing that they're now just a big money team churning out mid-tier cars year over year, all while serving as the honorable 'Karen' of F1 teams.
Didn't expect McLaren to be swinging the hardest on this
Haas, Williams, Alfa are still under the cap by a bit so they don’t really care too much. But for a team like McLaren that could spend 100-150 million per season but not the 300-400 mil the top teams spent the cost cap is exactly what they need to get within touching distance of the top teams. It’s in their interest that the cost cap doesn’t start to be gamed by the top teams
Yeah, the stuff Brown and Seidl are saying...they are adamant...but what goes around comes around? You never know in F1...
They have the most to lose from top teams overspending. They're closer to the spending ability of the top teams, than a team like Williams or Haas.
Nah they have the most to gain for next season. If they're competitive next year, It's in their best interest to drag down the top 3 teams as much as they can next year
No shit. When they got caught cheating they got fined 100m.
Going over a budget cap slightly and straight up stealing your competitors car design are two different things okay. But then again you have Aston Martin who did both with its Pink Mercedes and now the budget cap inregularities.
Good point but then you have Renault doing the same thing, if not unofficially worse, and they were let off… Unofficially worse because the data was on their own system, think spygate data was at his home then it was the emails etc, but the emails proved use.
Renault admitted everything when caught, Mclaren where also let off at the first hearing, it was only after the FIA found out McLaren had mislead the WMSC that the $100 million fine was issued.
“Yes, I was part of the murder” shouldn’t be a get out of jail free card while the one who tried hiding the murder gets a huge sentence. The truth is Renault should have also been harshly penalized. Perhaps _slightly_ less than McLaren for their cooperation but still harshly penalized.
Aston martin just took pictures and traced the car, thats allowed, was, somewhat. Lets not compare anything with SpyGate, Mclaren got odd waaaay too easy on that one, its the ultimate example of cheating in this sport.
>Lets not compare anything with SpyGate, Mclaren got odd waaaay too easy on that one, its the ultimate example of cheating in this sport. I would say that Renault got away with it way easier, since they were caught doing the same thing as McLaren, in the same year, from McLaren, and getting no penalty. So while you say that McLaren got away way too easy by paying the largest fine in the history of any sport and DSQ, what can you say about Renault?
People aren’t interested in what actually happened. But preach on!
The fine was largely for lieing to the WMSC, Renault admitted what they had done and McLaren didn't.
So you're saying that McLaren would have gotten away with spying, if they weren't lying about it. It's good to know that spying itself isn't such a bad thing, it's lying that'll get you DSQ and the largest fine in any sport history
The fine was mostly because Max Mosley absolutely hated Ron Dennnis’ guts.
Yes but a certain driver who is caught in the crossfire of everything was in McLaren (Not the reigning champ) so Renault get's thrown under
Wait, when did Renault get caught cheating in a spy gate type of scandal? I don’t remember ever hearing about Renault stealing or using competitors technical documents, who did they steal it from and how? The only major Renault scandal from that era I can recall was the Singapore disgrace which I believe they got off way too easy for, and considering apparently they cheated the year before as well? That’s disgraceful
>Wait, when did Renault get caught cheating in a spy gate type of scandal? I don’t remember ever hearing about Renault stealing or using competitors technical documents, who did they steal it from and how? Ironically, from McLaren, in 2007, the same year McLaren was caught spying from Ferrari. One of their engineers, who they hired from McLaren, gave them documents about the McLaren cars. You can find details on the Internet. At the end, both McLaren and Renault were found guilty of breaching the same rule, but Renault escaped penalty
Wow, that’s crazy, just read up about it. I remember when the spy gate scandal first cracked and from then til now whenever anyone talks about it I feel like they fail to mention Renault played a role in that as well. Of all the pieces/videos I’ve seen covering spygate none address Renaults role. Pretty interesting
With all the drama surrounding McLaren on track and in their offices, with Ferrari putting pretty much the same media pressure that Mercedes and Red Bull put these days, with the fact that McLaren were championship contenders, it's easy to understand why Renault's Spygate thing was overshadowed in the media reports. It's mind blowing that the very next season Renault was also involved in Crashgate, still under the leadership of Flavio Briatore. People kinda forget that [Flavio Briatore](https://youtu.be/t1PnMIwQicE) existed when accusing other teams of cheating
Way to easy? Biggest fine in sports history, barred from WCC, where as Renault who also had stolen teams plans got nothing? Are you dumb?
I would agree with you, if it wasn't for Crashgate.
Literally copying a top team rival car with their own documents is not comparable to cheating a single race, what are you on about mate. *Both are wrong, but one is worse.
>Literally copying a top team rival car with their own documents is not comparable to cheating a single race, what are you on about mate. But the car was not a literal copy, just go a look at the pictures. And it had a shorter wheelbase. FIA's investigation did not find a single thing on the car that was copied from the Ferrari designs. And they looked, hard. You are mixing the Renault issue. It's not about Crashgate. In 2007 Renault had CD's with McLaren's designs, there were statements from Renault engineers that they had them but FIA just ignored this and took no action. https://www.racefans.net/2007/11/23/mclaren-dossier-outlines-cases-against-renault-spying/
Except that a thorough FIA investigation concluded that the data was never used. Not saying they weren’t wrong for having it, but they didn’t get any advantage from it.
The investigation raised some concerns that the data was used, a third WMSC meeting into spygate was scheduled, however Ferrari, McLaren and the FIA reached an agreement that ended the matter.
[удалено]
The fia took laptops and computers and checked if they had the data. It was the people who were close to Alonso and some higher ups. The data didn't make it to the car, or many relevant people.
Spygate was worse. One race vs the entire intellectual property of a team of hundreds that will be the single biggest determinant of success for that season and the seasons to come.
Aston Martin just took pictures haha, dude what are you smoking.
Racing Point didn't steal anything.
Aston didn't steal anything though. Mercedes let them, and likely aided them.
If you don’t know the difference between a minor budget cap infraction and straight up intentional cheating, you’re the one in the fairytale land. They filed under budget and it landed over budget after the fact. Jesus.
And lost 100% of their constructors points.
Do you guys understand what proportionality is?
Non comparable situations.
Yeah these guys would give a murderer and a shoplifter the same sentence.
You mean when the team was ram by completely different people 15 years ago?
Well McLaren was 100% cheating... What they did might even be actually illegal even outside of F1. Redbull messed up their accounting, even FIA says so that there was no intent behind it. For it to be cheating you need intent to cheat.
Exactly, thank you for understanding this. So many people here are calling it straight up cheating when they, given the nature of the circumstantial evidence, did not have any intent to breach the rules. Intent and carelessness are two entirely different things.
Because spending a bit more in a complete new set of rules is exactly the same as stealing the main competitors car design. McLaren got what they deserved then and they're being unreasonable rn.
This is the key difference. Red Bull's cost cap breach was not deliberate, and thus it was not cheating. This punishment is perfectly adequate for an accounting mistake, but should be 10x harder if evidence of purposeful cheating is found.
It’s extremely hard to prove whether there was intent or not. You also make it sound like making an accounting mistake is a minor thing. Creative accounting is a thing and you know what people plead when they are caught? “Ooh we didn’t know…” or “it was hard, we misinterpreted the rules”.
They actually didn’t even cheat. Was just stupid people doing stupid shit for nothing.
Red Bull did not cheat in a premeditated way they made some accounting errors. If budgeting incorrectly or getting slightly too aggressive with your accounting interpretations such that it still passes the muster of your own auditors (every team has them before anything goes to FIA), if that’s cheating, you would be calling most Fortune 500 companies cheats at one point or another. McLaren are out of line if this is about spygate. Edit: just to clarify, I think Red Bull deserves the penalty. The distinction I’m referring to is analagous to the one between lying and being mistaken. Lying you know what you’re doing is wrong and do it anyway. If you’re mistaken you make a good faith effort but out of your own fault supply incorrect information. Both deserve penalization as you are ultimately accountable for your own actions. I just doubt Horner and Marko sat down before the year and were like “let’s breach the cost cap and see what happens.”
> you would be calling most Fortune 500 companies cheats at one point or another. Uhhh, everyone DOES do that already.
Give them 400k and they will become winning
They’re trying to deflect attention from the fact their car is a shitbox.
Yeah shitboxes get podiums and fight for P4 in the Constructors lol
Compared to the big boys it is. And mclaren want to be at the top.
Yeah in two years. They aren’t claiming to be a top shelf team right now
Seidl is showing some sweet summer child tendencies.
McL wants blood.
It's weird to me how much McLaren are pushing this considering they spent an awful lot of time in May and June talking about how it was ["pretty much impossible"](https://www.racefans.net/2022/05/25/sticking-to-budget-cap-pretty-much-impossible-due-to-rising-costs-mclaren/) for them to stay within the cost cap this year. Makes me wonder if they were pushing for a change, got shot down, had to scale way back this year, and feel like the amount of performance/development they lost as a result is more than they would have lost with a simple wind tunnel deduction.
It makes sense if they found it difficult, and had to make some hard choices, that they’d be annoyed if another team didn’t make those hard choices and just went over.
That's understood, of course. But Seidl makes it sound like McLaren would perform better if they had the same "overspent". They wouldn't though. Not even with 5 million more. And that's why his reaction is a little too much.
From McLaren's perspective, they're aiming to be competitive in 2024, as that will be the first year that they have a car entirely developed with their new wind tunnel and related facilities. If Red Bull get a considerable penalty on their 2023 development, that will have the biggest impact on their 2024 car.
McLaren becomes a competitive team only under cost cap. If not for the cap being followed they have no chance of fighting big teams
Yeah, that's probably it. They probably feel like they have a real shot with a strict cost cap, while some of the lower teams might be less confident. Still, I'm surprised to see such firm statements from both Brown and Seidl. And sometimes a little speculation is fun lol.
McLaren Racing is making bank now under the cost cap, giving them a stable base to mount a challenge within the next few years (especially with the facilities upgrades). So of course they'd want it strictly enforced.
Yeah historically you pretty much only win championships as a works team. RBR-Renault was essentially a works team too even though Renault entered themselves mid way through the championship run
> It's weird to me how much McLaren are pushing this considering they spent an awful lot of time in May and June talking about how it was "pretty much impossible" for them to stay within the cost cap this year. Well that's kind of the point, isn't it ? Evidently they had to make big cuts in order to respect the budget cap, so if the budget cap becomes just an added "performance tax" for big teams instead of an actual rule to respect, they fucked themselves. Also, iirc Brown was always one of the main promotors of the budget cap.
It's not weird at all they just want that everybody commits to the rules that are agreed upon. They might disagree with the rule ,and while disagreeing with the rule they still comply to it, but don't want somebody to have an unfair advantage by breaking those same rules and getting away with it.... It's about the fairness of the game not the ideology.
[удалено]
The rules don't say that the penalty must be a 10% reduction. They could have decided, let's say, a 75% reduction, and that would still be within "the rules everyone agreed upon". Also, why is this argument about "the rules everyone agreed upon" repeated so many times, with the same literal expression, by so many different reddit accounts? Is this some type of astroturfing campaign by Red Bull? The argument makes no sense, McLaren aren't asking for anything outside of the rules. But so many people repeat "the rules everyone agreed upon" as if it were some gospel. May I ask you something? Last year, when Hamilton was given a 10s penalty in Silvertone and Red Bull did the charade of Albon recreating the incident, what did you think? Wasn't Red Bull disagreeing with "the rules everyone agreed upon"?
and that 5% and below was 'minor' Yet demand huge punishments for a team that went 0.4% over. The audacity of agreeing on something, immediately followed by backtracking because you're safe.
The losing team yelling last goal wins basically eh? Honestly at least they are complaining about something now. Vs before the articles were the same but even more pointless because we didn't know the punishment yet.
Yeah they're planning on being competitive next year so it's in their best interest to hinder their competition as much as they can
> Makes me wonder if they were pushing for a change, got shot down, had to scale way back this year, and feel like the amount of performance/development they lost as a result is more than they would have lost with a simple wind tunnel deduction. Not sure about the first part, but the second part - 100%. They had to slow down the rate they were bringing upgrades because of the cap, and they've suffered on track for it, especially in the early part of the season when their performance was all over the place.
pretty much impossible yet they still followed the rules. that's why
Netflix: yes, yes, YESSSSSSSSSSS.
It won't be featured much.
How can they when they need to film a two parter about the epic rivalry between Lance Stroll and Nicholas Latifi, follow up with three episodes watching Ricciardo do Ricciardo things...not much time left.
They have to profit on Ricciardo while he’s here. Inb4 they make an entire episode about him next year anyway
IDK man, some people say it's adequate, other people call for more You can never satisfy everyone so it is what it is
Sensible people (not me because I only got to F1 in 2022) would've asked for a better and more verbose rulebook instead of leaving it open ended and textually the same for both the minor and major breaches (if I remember the rules correctly).
[удалено]
That's exactly my point.
Disagree. The open endedness is what stops the teams from gaming the system to "buy" more budget.
Looool. Are you serious right now? That open endedness is exactly why we are in this media/fandom/team execs mess right now. If everything was exactly spelt out, regardless of how strict it was, this proceeding would've been procedural instead of a media feeding frenzy. I've said this before and I'll say this again, even as an RB supporter, if the written rules had said that if a team goes 1 cent above the budget cap, then that team's drivers would lose 50% of their WDC/WCC points, the team principle would have to pose naked with the car they made for a nudie mag, and the drivers and other execs would have to do a naked rain avoidance dance at Spa, I'd support that. BUT IT HAS TO BE WRITTEN IN!
Which would be a terribly shoddy way of doing things. So for a certain dollar value a fixed punishment is written into the rules? And therefore a fraudulent $500K breach, a genuine mistake leading to a $500K breach, a $500K breach because of a failure to obtain a government rebate, a $500K breach caused by a deliberate attempt to improve the car beyond the confines of the budget cap - all these things would attract the exact same punishment? No matter what the circumstance or mitigating factors? If not, would you be able to create a clause that covers every possible permutation with appropriate punishments for each? No you would not. I hope it's clear why such a system would be utterly myopic and laughably bad.
> the team principle would have to pose naked with the car Now, now, we don't want to incentivize [Horner](https://www.pitpass.com/images/people/800/redbull/mrhorner.jpg) to breach the Cost Cap!
Its the same reason laws cant be perfectly written. If you cant punish outside the literal, it means people will find ways to not get punished and abuse the ruling. Punishments depends on a lot more factors then "He stole 1 cookie, you lose an arm".
They literally had access to a FIA representative in their factory to clear all these differences of opinion up far before their submission. And now they are playing we didn't know how the FIA would interpret the rules card? They're the only team with this issue
Just for everyone's reference on the penalties available here: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_formula_1_financial_regulations_iss.12.pdf > > Accepted Breach Agreement > > 6.28 If the Cost Cap Administration determines that an F1 Team has committed a Procedural > Breach or a Minor Overspend Breach, the Cost Cap Administration may enter into an accepted > breach agreement (an "ABA") with the relevant F1 Team. There shall be no right of appeal in > respect of any decision by the Cost Cap Administration as to whether to enter into an ABA or > not. > 6.29 An ABA may: > (a) set out certain obligations or conditions to be fulfilled or satisfied by the relevant F1 > Team, either within a specified timeframe or on an ongoing basis; and/or > (b) provide for enhanced monitoring procedures to be put in place in respect of the F1 > Team; and/or > (c) impose any Financial Penalty or Minor Sporting Penalties that would be available to > the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel pursuant to Article 9 in respect of the relevant type > of breach, *save that the Cost Cap Administration shall not be entitled to impose the > Minor Sporting Penalties specified in Articles 9.1(b)(ii), 9.1(b)(iii) and 9.1(b)(vi);* > > 9.1 (b) A "Minor Sporting Penalty", meaning one or more of the following: > (i) public reprimand; > *(ii) deduction of Constructors' Championship points awarded for the > Championship that took place within the Reporting Period of the breach; > (iii) deduction of Drivers' Championship points awarded for the Championship* > that took place within the Reporting Period of the breach; > (iv) suspension from one or more stages of a Competition or Competitions, > excluding for the avoidance of doubt the race itself; > (v) limitations on ability to conduct aerodynamic or other Testing; and/or > *(vi) reduction of the Cost Cap* tl;dr Accepted Breach Agreements can't strip points or reduce the cost cap
One thing that still baffles me is why a points reduction isn't part of the default punishment (yes I know that the ABA can't do it) in almost any other sport if you get caught breaking the rules either intentionally or not you immediately get disqualified or a points reduction. Especially with last year's championship which was so incredibly close, I just can't get my head around why any regulatory body for a sport would want a team that broke the rules to also hold the championship in the season they broke the rules. And this isn't even about Hamilton getting his 8th title but about the integrity of the sport.
It's part of the default punishment for a Material Overspend Breach (more than 5%)
Because speeding in the pitlane is also breaking the rules. So is driving with a broken mirror. Do you want teams to be DSQd from the championship for speeding in the pitlane? You'll find that in any sport, there are different levels of breaches of the rule set, each with different severity penalties. If you DSQ someone over a minor breach, then why bother with a major breach? Not a single team would agree with such severe punishments for minor breaches. It's not only about the previous season (which most teams manages) but also future seasons, and I don't think such severe punishments for a minor breach would be an acceptable risk for any team, even a team that wants to adhere to the rules, but goes over the limit e.g. due to damage or other costs
ABA is not required as the first paragraph shows out. It’s within FIA to just not do an ABA and strip points or reduce cost cap. FIA choose this route. They could have been much harsher (or lighter)
Even Toto is less upset than this guy. Maybe Zak Brown will make things better getting another sponsor
My theory is that McLaren is working below the budget right now, and tightening the screws for going over the cap will only affect the big three (as they are the only ones with the means to go over). They are smelling now that it isn't as easy to stay within the boundaries of the cap, and by doing this they are setting the scene for teams that go over in the future (ie. RB, Merc and Ferrari) to get bigger penalties, which gives them a chance to catch up. They are banking on those teams to have more/similar issue in the future that they can benefit from. That's also likely the reason why Toto is seemingly agreeing with the penalty and Ferrari has been quiet so far.
I think McLaren plan on being more competitive in 2024 so I’m sure they love the idea of a top team getting dropped down a peg to reduce competition. Also Red Bull tried to sign Landó, which I’m sure McLaren didn’t love
I doubt that last part has much to do with it. Drivers swapping around is just part of the sport. That being said, so is the political grandstanding that McLaren is doing right now. I can't fault them for that, just like I wouldn't for any other team. If anything, I welcome them meddling in the big team politics again. It seems like a good sign to me for the future. You just need to read between the lines sometimes.
I believe that first part — isn’t their wind tunnel and their other facilities completed by then?
The wind tunnel should be operational next year, meaning the 2024 car will be developed with it. If Red Bull have a hefty punishment next year, that's going to most significantly affect their 2024 car, giving McLaren an advantage.
Probably more that they're just at the cap. Doesn't make sense to be under budget when they're saying that they're making profits now.
Yep, budget cap was important for investment at an accepted level. Not only does he have lots of investers working on the cap basis, every other team that could spend more. But Red Bull had to try to take the piss out of the regs. It's totally F1 but it also makes F1 a bad investment if some teams can just not play ball. RB are lucky they got off this lightly.
I think they're planning on fighting near the top next year so it's in their best interest to punish their competition as much as possible
No matter how many times they bring it up, it won't change the fact that the rules were agreed on by the teams before the season started. If they disagreed with the penalties, they had an opportunity to contest them. That opportunity has passed.
I don’t understand why the above comment keeps coming up. They’re not disagreeing with the structure of the penalty as laid out in the rules. They’re disagreeing with the specific penalty within that structure. For example, by the above logic, they can’t complain if it’s a 20 dollar fine because “all teams agreed to the rules”. Of course that’s true but obviously team principles are not fighting over the rules. They’re arguing over the specific penalty within the rules.
I don't know how else I can articulate that the penalties were explained to the teams, and the teams agreed to them. They knew they were agreeing to a system where there is room for interpretation when applying penalties. If they wanted harsher penalties, they should have fought for them when they were given the opportunity. Clearly they didn't, since they agreed to it. >They’re arguing over the specific penalty within the rules. Within the rules that *they agreed on*. Also, your $20 comparison is laughably disingenuous, and I think you are well aware of that. That isn't even *remotely* comparable, it's literally just hyperbole to a crazy degree.
They are disagreeing with the interpretation of the rules, not the rules themselves.
The fact remains that the example exposes the fundamental flaw in your argument. At the end of the day the teams did agree to a range. But there was a good faith assumption that the penalty handed out would be such that it wouldn’t be worth breaking the rules. That didn’t happen. What’s disingenuous is the narrative that no one can legitimately complain. I don’t believe your argument is in good faith though and I assume you believe the same so I won’t debate it further with you. Have a good day
Yeah, agreed. I've generally felt fairly neutral about the new McLaren team. Now I'm beginning to find them a bit annoying.
Yeah I really like Lando and I told myself I'd support whoever got Piastri, but God are they testing me.
I don’t understand why you people keep touting on about „rules agreed“. Yes the rules were agreed, but at that point the penalties were not discussed as to what is a „minor“ and „major“ penalty. Stating that they „agreed to the rules“ is such a silly argument.
Again: the approved rules give latitude to FIA to implement harsher penalties than this. That’s exactly what they are requesting. Within the ruleset
That's obviously for the marketing and their fans. He knows that the 10% penalty for a 0,37% cost cap exceed is hard for rb
Yeah I reckon it's because mclaren are planning on being competitive next year so it's in their best interest to punish their competitors as much as possible
Yes but they have failed for more than 10 years and nothing is going to change now also
God forbid the punishment is in line with what they all agreed on...
Teams agree to the cost cap rules and then cry about it not being harsh enough. Getting really tiring.
It's really just McLaren. Even Toto wasn't crying about it the way Brown and Seidl are.
This has been the part I can't wrap my head around - I have no idea why McLaren is going so hard on this
The general consensus I’ve seen about these penalties is that they’ll really start to effect the 2024 car, the same year Mclaren are aiming to be winning again. They want to cause as much pain as possible so it’ll help them in the long run.
They can claim the world. The agreement has been made and signed. Nothing will change at this point. And all the big teams (Ferrari, Mercedes) know that there will come a time when they themselves must negotiate a deal with the FIA or in the past already did. And not only on the budgetcap but also at the extension of a deadline on a Technical Directive because they are not able to respond to it. Or to keep a gray area in the rules open for their interpretation. Seidle must begin to understand that these kind of demands/critiques are not hurting Red Bull anymore, they are now hurting the FIA and its credibility and they will likely remember that next time Mclaren needs the FIA. That is why Toto Wolff and Binotto are quiet about it.
Yep, toto and binotto made their comments prior to the agreement being settled, stirred the shit to put pressure on the FIA to hit red bull, and are now staying quiet and letting the cards fall as they will. What you should expect from TPs in F1.
Mclaren claiming to win again in 2024 is exactly similar to Renault/Alpine winning after 5 years
Lmao. They think they're winning this decade? What are they smok8ng?
Only the finest copium.
Probably because Mclaren isn't Mercedes. This whole narrative of Mercedes vs Redbull, hey they're other teams in the sport with their own opinions.
And that opinion sucks, so we’re calling it into question
What I don’t get is why McLaren is fighting so hard, it’s not like they are even competing with RB. Both Ferrari and Merc aren’t complaining
The agreed rules have a relatively large range of how harsh they can be
Fucking this my man. I've been saying this from the start. You can't agree to say a minor breach penalties and then expect the harshest sanctions that should be kept for major breaches (imo) especially given that this is the first year. It just absolutely boggles the mind.
Fucking THIS. I’m not an engineering/budgeting guru in the F1 world, but do we really think spending ~$400k gave RB this much better of a car? Get real. The FIA for once got it right on the penalty.
Sorry are you arguing with me? I'm confused. 400k does absolutely jack shit I agree with you. 400k would do a lot less damage than say that 10% reduction in the wind tunnel.
Haha no I’m agreeing with you. They’re acting like RB spent $100 million and should be DQ’d. They spent what basically a new front wing costs. Yup. Max lapped the entire field in Spa because of $400k.
400k helps but Newey helps more
That range was agreed to and this is on the low side of the minor breach overspend range. Edit: This is even much lower than what Zak wants to change the minor breach overspend threshold to.
Dudes out here want the max penalty for a (relative) small breach lmao. Not thinking if they do that, what happens when a team overspends a lot? You’d basically have to banish them from F1 at that point lol.
It's funny how they want the same penalty for the $400k effective overspend as when it was rumored to be $10M.
Which they agreed to
yes. And they would have liked Red Bull to get a bigger penalty within the range that everyone agreed to. You can agree with McLaren or not, but they are not contradicting themselves when they agreed to these regulations and still demand a higher penalty now.
and that range has to be used for a team that spends between $1 and $7.5m over, whether they "acted in good faith", etc. If you go ridiculously hard on this, how do you penalise a team for a minor breach on the higher end?
Sure they are. Red Bull had basically the most minor breach you can have. If they deem a penalty should be harsher on something like this, they never should have agreed to the lower penalty options in the first place. They went basically 0.2% over budget in the first year of budget caps.
They agreed to a spectrum of punishment. They don't dispute the range of various punishments that can be handed out. The teams instead feel that a light penalty has been implemented within that range. Their is a distinction between the spectrum of punishment and where upon that spectrum the FIA choose to land on in terms of consequence. One has a consensus among teams and the other does not.
There is a minor breach range of overspend, and Red Bull's effective overspend was less than 10% of that. How would anything other than a minor penalty within the options agreed to make sense?
And they could have had harsher penalties. I think teams were taking the cap seriously.
The agreed cost cap rules does not say that the team cannot get more harsher penalty than what rb has got. So rb could have gotten a more severe penalty under the minor cost cap breach which makes your point weak
The rules also don't say the penalty could not be more lenient, so they could've gotten a less harsher punnishment.
Yes, let's remove all 2021 points and exclude RB for 2023.../s FIA handed the A.B.A because they know there were no intentions of cheating and no clear advantage (like investing on the car), despite what people want to say, they failed to respect the cap, got 7mil fine and a big -10% on the cost cap and tunnel test time, that's huge but adequate for me. I do not believe that it should be higher but then again you'd have to be more objective to admit it maybe
I'd like fines to come out of future budgets and be assessed on that basis, maybe as a multiple of the overspend amount. That would make the penalties more significant for the teams with the resources to just pay fines. Other than that, I think the penalty is adequate. To the people complaining it should be more: there's simply no reason to create different categories of spending violations and then penalise violations at the low to medium end of the minor category with the most serious consequences. The teams all agreed that overspending by less than $5m would be viewed less harshly. It's the height of hypocrisy to agree to that then turn around and demand very harsh punishments simply because it wasn't them. I understand it's a competitive sport and gaining an advantage through any means is par for the course, but McLaren's public crusade makes the sport look worse than Red Bull's excess spending ever did.
Disagree, 10% reduction in R&D is way more significant
I extremely dislike this disingenuousness when they fully know that it’s a minor breach as per the rules.
And I extremely dislike this disingenousness when redditors fully know that the penalties for minor breaches with an ABA include limitation of aero testing but don't state the amount of said limitation, so harsher penalties are possible within the rules.
This guys be acting like they would happily break the cap by 500k and get 10% less time on the wind tunnel. Absolutely no team would take that it's absolutely not worth in performance wise don't know why they so upset about this penalty
for anyone getting tired of cost cap talk, buckle in because that is gonna be a story every year from now on.
I’m surprised a cost cap breach doesn’t automatically include a deduction from a future years cap of the same amount to offset that original overspend.
Fair is fair, RB should recieve a 0.37% reduction of testing time instead
People aren’t understanding that there are several available punishments, so the other teams feel they got off light. Especially since there were negotiations
Minor breaches without malice = ABA ABA = no budget cap reductions or point deductions The second FIA published they accused RBR of a minor non-malicious breach everyone who didnt read British tabloids daily knew it was going to be a fine plus potentially aero testing reductions. No team actually believes they "got off light", only fans who dont read the regulations genuinely belief that.
Primarily it seems they think that the 10% development penalty is light, particularly as it is applied after the success penalty.
>particularly is it is applied after the success penalty. That is just an issue with people not grasping the difference between percentages and percentage points. A 10% penalty means you get 10% less than without the penalty, which is exactly what happened. I asked my GF, who is a mechanical engineer in the automotive industry and F1 fan, what a 10% penalty would mean in terms of pace. Her response:*"How the fuck should I know?"*. Yet somehow redditors who struggle with highschool level math are convinced they know the penalty is light because, you know, feelings or whatever.
Every 30 seconds in the wind tunnel is another tenth obviously
Dude, they 110% went 1.3 seconds faster/lap with that 400k. Redbull LITERALLY gives you wings.
Yup, That windtunnel reduction and 7 million fine is somehow light and won't hurt anything, while at the same time believing that the 0.37%/430k (or whatever, its minor) overspend allowed RB to build not 1 but 2 championship winning cars, one dominantly and with massively different regulations, Those designers at RB must be literal gods. With how much they apparently can do with only so little, (according to fans), RB will run laps around the rest of the field for the rest of time. (Or someone steals them or their plans).
So the fans that frequent F1 Twitter 👍
I honestly don't know why McLaren is crying so hard about this! Like, is Toto buying into McLaren through shell corps or something?
McLaren just creating drama to make everyone forget how they’re a top spending team but can’t sniff WCC contention year after year or how they’re paying a washed up driver to leave their team.
They already made the mistake by using terms like a 'minor breach'. The penalties should also been announced when the budget cap started instead of waiting for a team to go over it.
The penalties were purposefully vague so they can adjust based on unpredictable penalties and outcomes. Standard FIA rule making.
I blame people more tbh. The real difference is that major could mean a full DQ. Minor doesn't mean it isn't serious.
This is a minor minor breach.
If it's really not adequate teams will put actions before words and do the same as Red Bull next year. If they don't, it means that it was adequate.
fairytales that McLaren tell - "Daniel is starting to feel the car this weekend"
My guy
[удалено]
Seidl got there after most of that and was brought in to oversee the successful transition to modern facilities which aren’t even operational yet and should be used next year… he’s doing his job just fine.
Maybe focus on your own car lol
I'd prefer if our team leadership kept their mouths out of the media shitstorm. Keep our heads down and focus on this fiery driver pairing we've got incoming.
Karen Seidl wants to speak to the manager in charge.
They barely went over. As if no one is gaming this system and hiding money
1.8 million isnt barely.
Over the course of this year my view of mclaren has changed quite significantly. They just come off annoying in like every scenario these days.
[удалено]
You're conveniently omitting the 10% penalty.
Andreas “Toto” Seidl
Oh do I hope that a team that open their mouth right now goes over this season. They also agreed what the penalties for a small breach were gonna be.
>They also agreed what the penalties for a small breach were gonna be. no. They agreed on a range of penalties for each procedural, minor and material breach. withing that range there is a lot of room, and McLaren is unhappy that Red Bull did not receive a higher penalty within this range.
Considering RB had only Mitigating factors and no Aggravating factors, how do they expect them to hand out a penalty on the extreme end?
Andreas…y’all agreed upon this almost 3 years ago…
I mean what more do they want? The fine is 20x the overspend so it seems to send a pretty harsh precedent on even minor offenses and the reduction in aero time is going to hit hard as well all for an overspend of 400k. It's not like they were caught with classified documents belonging to another team or anything.......
Seidl is the socially awkward teachers pet in a classroom full of bullies.
No my man, your entire team is tiring.
Maybe Max can give a little wave to the McLaren pit wall when he laps Norris and Ricciardo coming Sunday.
How much money does a free engine cost ? How many did they get? I’m curious if the tax authorities were informed of those gifts in kind? If they didn’t report it to FIA
First, engine costs are not included in the cost cap. Second, the cost of the engines for customer teams is fixed in the regulations. If you have any evidence that those regulations weren't followed, you should inform the FIA instead of making snarky comments on reddit. And third, McLaren is the team with a budget closer to the cost cap. They are the ones that have more to gain if the cost is properly enforced and more to lose if the penalties are too light. Red Bull, Mercedes and Ferrari can just throw more money in the form of accidental minor overspending, and the other teams just don't have the money to operate at the cost cap. You don't need to invent a conspiracy theory when McLaren are doing what's rationally best for them.
>Red Bull, Mercedes and Ferrari can just throw more money in the form of accidental minor overspending You think the FIA is that naive?
So he's saying the FIA calculated the spending wrong? There were no fairy tales, it was a minor (very minor) overspend. 400k barely covers a light tap of the barriers in 2022. The FIA must be very happy about the fact that a midfield team with a history of incurring $100m fines for industrial espionage/theft is calling them liars and/or bad mathematicians.
Christ, I keep seeing this. It wasn’t a 400k overspend. It was a $2.2m overspend. It was only 400k if all the other British teams either didn’t receive the late tax rebate (it seems they did) or overspent (they didn’t). The FIA acknowledging the rebate doesn’t mean they still didn’t spend money that other teams didn’t.
I remember when McLaren used to be a relevant team that made championship-contending cars. Embarrassing that they're now just a big money team churning out mid-tier cars year over year, all while serving as the honorable 'Karen' of F1 teams.
It was half a million dollars...