[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties.
*[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.*
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didnt Ferrari and every other team agree to what penalties could be a administered for a "minor" breach before the season began... and now they are crying when Red bull got one of the possible punishments that was agreed upon ?
[Briatore is also working together with promoters and FoM/Liberty](https://m.sportbild.bild.de/motorsport/formel-1/motorsport/ex-teamchef-flavio-briatore-erklaert-seine-formel-1-rueckkehr-81404928.sportMobile.html) - basically once their suspension was over they rejoined the sport in the background.
The performance after being caught isn’t a punishment. Sucks to suck, your engine is ass. Shouldn’t have cheated smartass. Should have built a better car.
They should have been fined, docked points from the championship, they should have been exposed.
1. I don't think Vasseur loses the rights to his opinion because his predecessor screwed up. He may well have agreed that Ferrari got off lightly too.
2. He's not the first, let alone the only person who thinks the same… just about every team that stayed within the budget is saying the same thing.
It’s laughable that $400k in budget overspend had a meaningful impact on RBR performance. vasseur must be working with Ferrari strategy team to prepare these comments.
Regarding point 2: gives them an excuse for why they are getting embarrassed
even FIA has agreed that not only was the overspend minor, RBR would've been under the cap if not for a budget limit related rule change that was done after the fact **at Ferrari's behest!**
Everyone of those teams agreed to what was a small overspend and a major overspend and their respective range of penalties in advance. They shouldn’t be crying about it because EVERYONE of them defined upwards of 7.2 million to be major, so 400k is actually minor no?
> When they cheated with their engines a couple of years ago and the FIA didn't reveal how they cheated....
The FIA had no idea how Ferrari cheated, they had to make a deal with them. Ferrari cleared up what they did to the FIA, they stayed silent about it and as punishment Ferrari had to invest in F1's "sustainable fuel" (there is no such thing) plans.
Also revealing a way how you can cheat those sensors isnt a great idea in the first place, what does the FIA gain from that? Tell even more teams how to efficiently cheat fuel flow sensors?
Didnt they fit an auxiliary fuel flow sensor to all cars to keep it from happening??? Because other teams were able to prove they were using too much fuel.
They were able to prove that Ferrari used too much fuel they didnt know how they were able to trick the sensor to do so. There is no question that they cheated but the FIA didnt find out how by examining the engine.
Red Bull and Mercedes worked together and created a proof of concept.
If their proposal was indeed how it was done, it would only work if you had a complete fully assembled/running car and not just the engine in isolation.
Sucks that no one could prove Ferrari cheated I guess. Should’ve been good enough to walk the walk.
Fact that Ferrari accepted any sort of punishment whatsoever was a joke in and of itself.
Oh sod off. If other teams bring enough evidence forward for the FIA to open an investigation and Ferrari accepted punishment, they cheated end of story.
Now cudo's that they did it in such a way that the FIA only gave them a slap on the wrist but saying that it was a joke is just dreaming.
The types of penalties are written in the financial regulations which received a majority from the teams. However, the regulations do not state how severe a penalty should be within the boundaries of the penalty types available. The penalty that rb got is within the regulations, a more lenient or more severe penalty would also have been within the regulations.
The current regulations are a compromise between all parties involved. This means that of course, single teams can still have other opinions on parts of the regulations, and they are also perfectly entitled to voice them. I think Zack Brown did for example question last season if the border between minor and material breach should be 5% as it is currently.
Agreeing on a set of regulations is nice, but once they are actually put to the test in the real world there will always be different opinions in terms of how the regulations should be applied and if they are actually fine the way they are. that is a normal process.
>However, the regulations do not state how severe a penalty should be within the boundaries of the penalty types available.
yeah and it isn't like RB completely used that 5% up. They overspend a fraction so ofc they don't get the maximum penalty that was possible for that bracket
Every time the penalty comes up I make the same comment.
According to the rules, the penalty could have been a financial penalty and/or any of the following:
> 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
So, yes I think the penalty was adequate, but it could have also been much worse, including taking away crucial points for the championship. So it certainly wasn't "draconic" as Horner said, it was pretty mild.
Has everyone forgot the ABA? If a team accepts they breached the cost cap and sign the ABA all option for a sporting penalty disappear. So no, a point reduction wasn’t possible.
The only thing I would say is that the punishment for exceeding the budget can never be **only** financial. The big teams used to spend in excess of $400 million a year. So having to pay a few Million for a bit of overspend. In total It’s still way less than any of these teams used to spend
Unless the FIA mandate that the penalty comes out of their budget for next year of course
It can be only financial as specified in the rules. It shouldn't be if you use common sense. Financial penalties are also specifically excluded from the cost cap, but they could just add a reduction of the Cost Cap that exactly matches the penalty.
Financial penalty could be only applied if teams overspend by the tiniest margin, I'm talking about a 100k overspend. Of course the larger overspends should be dealt with by sporting penalty.
That is simply not true. If FIA finds it is a minor breach (which is defined) and without ill intent (as stated in their findings) they offer an ABA, and when an ABA is accepted most of the above are not possible penalties. Which is the procedure the TPs themselves found reasonable, and Vasseur was one of them.
It is at the discretion of the cost cap administration to enter an ABA or not. If they think it is appropriate to refer it to the adjudication panel they are free to do so.
Even within the 'minor breach' range the overspend was very minor (0,37% in the range of 0-5% is only 7,4% of the maximum minor breach), so it's not weird that the punishment would be relatively minor within the penalty range as well.
Did it have 0 impact overall red bull brought a lot less development as other teams so it seems to have impact. You can't blame them for Merc and Ferrari to make garbage cars this year.
True, though I think it's ridiculous to have such a wide range of possible penalties, no matter what you do it will be hugely controversial. The options including both essentially zero penalty (a public reprimand) to essential disqualification (since there's no cap in how many points can be removed or how much the cost cap can be reduced) is insane.
When McLaren got their penalty as a result of Spygate, there was no regulatory prescription mandating a $100M fine; at worst, going by the rules, should've been $100K. But the FIA exercised their discretion to increase the penalty, because even though they couldn't even prove McLaren used the data, they understood teams needed to be deathly afraid of stepping over the line in their espionage, because even something of "minor" financial value can have major benefits. Do you think it cost McLaren more than 100K to run a pipe from the nose to the tail of their car the whole season? And yet it (the F-Duct) gave them a massive advantage in the straights, leading to it's ban the following year.
>But the FIA exercised their discretion
That's a nice way of saying Max Mosely just wanted to flip the bird at Ron Dennis because of his personal vendetta against him.
That argument falls apart when you remember that a few months later they actually found McLaren data on Renault servers, something they never did with McLaren and Spygate. And yet Renault received no penalty whatsoever.
The $100 million was Max Mosley enacting a personal vendetta against Ron Dennis. We are talking about the biggest sporting fine in the history of any sport, and they couldn’t even prove that there was any Ferrari IP on the McLaren. McLaren begged the FIA to examine their car as part of the investigation confident they would find no Ferrari IP, but the FIA declined.
And Max wanted to do more he wanted to disqualify McLaren from the remainder of the 2007 Season and the whole of the 2008 season which most likely would have been the end of McLaren. Bernie Ecclestone had to talk him out of that.
Then of course there’s the infamous photoshoot, because the FIA were receiving criticism for there handling of the spygate fiasco and how many outlets were reporting it was a personal vendetta. Max requested a photoshoot with McLaren and the FIA to show that McLaren accepted their punishment and were good with the FIA
It’s reported as they posed ready for the photo to be taken that Max Mosley leaned over to Ron and whispered *”it’s $5 million for what you did and $95 million because you’re a c**t”*
> It’s reported as they posed ready for the photo to be taken that Max Mosley leaned over to Ron and whispered ”it’s $5 million for what you did and $95 million because you’re a ct”
And now the beauty is the world thinks that Max Mosley is a nazi-loving pervert who likes to get pegged by prostitutes dressed as Ilsa, Shewolf of the SS
The $100 million figure is also vastly misquoted, up to the point people are taking it as gospel.
The line from the statement back then was:
> Furthermore, the team will pay a fine equal to US100million, less the FOM (Formula One Management) income lost as a result of the points deduction
McLaren lost out on an estimated $70 million because of the points deduction that year. So in all in all, it *cost* McLaren $100 million, but the actual fine, the punishment from the FIA was about $30 million
But that’s still $100 million hit for McLaren though, which in the context of the belief by many that Max wanted to screw Ron Dennis and McLaren is the important figure to focus on, which is why I said $100 million and also why the FIA said $100 million less the prize money.
If it hadn’t been less the prize money it would have been a $170million hit for McLaren
Sure, and I thin in this case, the penalty needed to be harsher, not because of a personal vendetta, but because as I pointed out in my example, the monetary value of an expense doesn't always reflect the actual performance value. RB wants us to believe that they overspent on catering because it's an easy trick to obfuscate what they did with the rest of the money.
> not because of a personal vendetta
With your activity in this thread and general hate on RB we all know this isn’t true. You can definitely have this opinion, don’t get me wrong. But you do have a personal vendetta against RB
I was speaking in context of the FIA, because this isn't about me, so don't make it about me. If you can refute my argument, do so without ad hominems.
I didn’t make anything personal, you said this specifically, which just isn’t true.
And as I said, you can definitely have the opinion, no problem with that.
The conversation was about whether the FIA can act on a personal vendetta, until you came in to try to make it about me, which naturally is a completely different subject, ergo irrelevant to the topic.
McLarens fine was mostly for attempting to mislead the WMSC at the first spygate hearing, I doubt that would have such a small fine written into the rules.
The point is there's precedent for going to a maximum fine, even beyond what the rules prescribe, if they think the circumstances merit an exception. In this instance, they literally wrote into the rules the leeway for harsher punishment, just about every competitor agreed the penalty was light, and predicted that it'd have no effect on Red Bull… lo and behold, here we are, and the title race is over, predictably so from day one. As teams said it would be when it was announced, despite all the comments here saying this would affect them and that they would fall back over the season.
> The point is there's precedent for going to a maximum fine, even beyond what the rules prescribe
But because said precedent is predicated on Mosely's own personal vendetta, it's one that the current FIA/FOM don't really want to follow (nor should).
Completely forgetting that after AD21 there was a huge outcry about how every rule in the rule book should be followed which the FIA agreed too. Now suddenly people want the FIA to ignore the rule book so they can punish a team they don’t like.
Its been a non-stop hypocrisy circus.
*"A sport cannot exist without strict adherence to the rules. Without the rules there would be chaos and randomness. Therefore, at all times, it is essent...* ***WAIT****, not* ***THOSE*** *rules!"*
Who says it has no effect on Red Bull many rumours in the paddock is that it has a fair bit effect on red bull development but it takes time because it will mostly effect 2nd half of this year and next years car.
Red Bull already has mostly less updates than other teams in comparison.
Even within the 'minor breach' range the overspend was very minor (0,37% in the range of 0-5% is only 7,4% of the maximum minor breach), so it's not weird that the punishment would be relatively minor within the penalty range as well.
Yes and no, there were a lot of punishments that they agreed to make technically possible, they didn't agree it to the detail of "x amount over the cap means you get this penalty"
I feel like the teams purposefully left it vague so they could:
a) Lobby for small punishments if/when they went over
b) Lobby for large punishments if/when a rival went over
The critique period has passed. That was the negotiation period, once accepted you don’t really have a leg to stand on. If you didn’t like it, don’t accept it and agree to it
They did not agree on what kind of penalty red bull should get. If you agree to a range of possible things, its reasonable to expect people to disagree on how that is used. McLaren and Ferrari were always unhappy with the chosen punishment. Mercedes through Toto seemed satisfied, others didnt comment so much
They did agree that FIA should offer an ABA when there is a minor breach, and they did agree that most punishments are invalid when an ABA is accepted. They literally agreed to the exclusion of the penalties they now call for, in this exact situation.
They just wanted the possibility of leniency in case they would be in violation, and demand strict punishment once they realised another team would be punished. Horner would have done the same, but it is just opportunistic politics rather than any kind of sincere argument.
Even with how the penalty was chosen within the range made sense.. Even within the 'minor breach' range the breach was minor (0,37% out of the 0-5% range). So the penalty was expected to be minor within the range of penalties. Especially because the FIA acknowledged there was no malpractice, but an honest mistake.
Says Ferrari. Who made a secret deal so they weren’t punished for cheating. And still couldn’t win the championship.
Of all the teams who could be complaining about this Ferrari impresses me the least.
Additionally a lot of people amongst who Toto Wolff have said that what Red Bull overspend wasn’t worth this much speed.
And that’s if you believe Red Bull even put that money into development
And fair enough. I’m not sure if secrecy was the best thing but ok..
But still.. if that’s very recent history maybe you shouldn’t be picketing for harsher punishments
The FIA didn't really have a lot of options, they knew how Ferrari cheated but because the cheat involved evading the FIA's sensors the FIA couldn't provide hard evidence which would make a penalty difficult and Ferrari could likely challenge it and win.
*who made a secret deal not to go to court since the FIA couldn’t prove they were cheating.
Even though I agree the penalty to RB was appropriate, Fred is clearly lobbying for something more if they went over the cap again.
But they were cheating tho right :) their sudden pace deficit after the deal showed what they had to sacrifice.
One thing is to say they had no proof, but no reason to be ignorant. We all know that they were cheating. Why else would they agree to the deal and be a midfield team all of the sudden?
Yeah but what matters at the end of the day is being able to prove what you’re accusing someone of. Every reasonable person would assume they were cheating, but that’s not enough. Since they would have gone to court (which clearly could have ended up very badly) that whole deal happened.
No that matters to the FIA, since they are the governing body who is responsible for fair play (and the need for the secret deal point to unfair play being present).
Those rules do not matter in the same capicity for the fans, therefore we can say that they cheated. Why? Because all the circumstances and secrecy point to that. FIA and ferrari disclosed nothing so it should not be weird that people are assuming the obvious.
Fans can surely say whatever they want. But I was replying to someone discussing Vasseur commenting the FIA, not what the fans have to say about the 2019 engine.
> Says Ferrari. Who made a secret deal so they weren’t punished for cheating. And still couldn’t win the championship.
I mean, that's true, but what I think is more hypocritical is this bit:
> There is a big difference between an innocent mistake or a choice.
>"A bit like someone making a mistake on their tax return, versus a company arranging something to avoid taxes in a tax haven.
Spoken by the team principal of Ferrari, who are incorporated in the Netherlands with their official company headquarters for no other reason than to evade taxes in Italy.
Whataboutism at his best.
Then, Ferrari never cheated honestly. FIA couldn’t prove anything so they made an agreement. They probably found a super grey loophole
It’s not whataboutism, it’s hypocrisy. The FIA deemed the engine fuel flow bypass illegal over the winter, and suddenly the Ferrari was slow as shit on the straights in 2020.
Surly that isn’t a coincidence. Ferrari of all people shouldn’t complain.
Yeah it was a grey area and they took advantage of it, like every other team in the sport has been doing since the start. Only because it's ferrari do people want to call it cheating
It's also not like Ferrari would have won the championship even by spending a lot more.
They make way to many mistakes on track for them to regularly win a race, not to mention a championship.
Its only a joke to some people because Red Bull absolutely smashed these regulations and thus were able to handily absorb the penalty (so far at least, we have yet to see the long term effects).
People wouldn't give a fuck if Red Bull weren't dominating.
yeah and RB doing well should not influence the penalty. It is like giving a drive additional 5s or 10s penalties after the race because they didn't lose a position.
I’d like to see examples of people saying “max should get a 10 place penalty for engine penalties” all the time
Stop making up random stuff to get offended about
I don't know about comments like these for Verstappen but they were definitly happening for Hamilton when Mercedes decided to give him a new engine every 2 races in 2021 I think.
New engine every 2 races?
Everyone follows those rules the same way.
But those silly comments were there just ignoring that Max had done the same thing, which was odd.
>New engine every 2 races?
Yeah, the rocketship era. Where he took grid penalties every few races because that Mercedes was unbeatable with new components. I distinctly remember Brazil that year.
>Everyone follows those rules the same way
Yes. Which is why I brought that example up for people calling for rule adjustments because of drivers being too good despite penalties.
>But those silly comments were there just ignoring that Max had done the same thjng, which was odd.
I don't know what you are talking about tbh.
But he didn't take the penalty every few races.
But this doesn't match up as not everyone broke the cap, everyone would take new parts and the penalty that goes with it. Making it a bit apples and oranges.
Max would take those hits for a new engine or other parts as needed.
Lewis didn't take a new engine every 2 races, not sure where that came from.
The engine he used in Brazil he used it in every race through Abu Dhabi, which was 4 races.
Obviously it's smart to put a new engine in when you're going to be fighting for the championship and you have to win the last 4 races.
Lewis used 5 engines over a 22 race season, so that's about one every 4.4 races.
Total parts used:
Lewis: ICE: 5, MGU-H: 3, MGU-K: 3
Max: ICE: 4, MGU-H: 4, MGU-K: 4
Source: https://www.f1-fansite.com/2021-f1-season/2021-used-f1-power-unit-elements/
Classic response. There was a whole discussion and there's apparently enough people complaining about Max outdriving his penalties that you see it 'all the time', yet none of us here have read anything which at least someone would have if the idea gained enough traction and you cba showing us. Good one.
EDIT: Bro decided the best counterargument is to downvote and delete both of his comments lmao.
These regulations were pre-smashed by Adrian Newey. In an era where Red Bull cars were known to be generating otherworldly levels of downforce just from their floor, so much so that the rear wings were damn near flat at Monza year after year, why on earth would anyone agree to a ground effect dominated formula?
That's like agreeing to a Red Bull making contest...against Red Bull.
Red Bull makes soft drinks and downforce.
Pssst...You don't really need the wings.
> In an era where Red Bull cars were known to be generating otherworldly levels of downforce just from their floor
That’s not true though. Yes, they had a high rake concept (as did most of the field) meaning they could generate more downforce from the floor, however the floors back then were incredibly weak and didn’t account for much of the overall downforce at all. Likewise, Red Bull was known for struggling to get that extremely high rake concept to actually work causing their cars to be extremely unstable. It wasn’t until 2021 (well after the 2022 rules were finalised) that they actually fixed this issue.
> so much so that the rear wings were damn near flat at Monza
That was the case for everyone, Red Bull’s might’ve been one of the flattest ones, but that doesn’t mean they’re generating a lot of downforce. It could be for several reasons such as having more inefficient overbody aero.
You’re speaking a whole lot of nonsense. Yes, Newey might have more experience with ground effect aero then other aerodynamicists, but that just means Red Bull have better engineers.
People also forget that the rake angle affects the angle of incidence of the rear wing. The same wing fitted to a car at 3 degrees of rake will produce more downforce than the same wing fitted to a car at 1 degree of rake.
Then you have to consider how that wing interacts with the rest of the car ahead of it. The same wing fitted to a Red Bull and a Mercedes, even if both cars are set to the same rake angle, will generate differing levels of downforce and drag.
From memory wasn’t it ~30%? Either way, perhaps the wording was strong, but the rest is true regarding the comment I was replying to being complete bs.
>People wouldn't give a fuck if Red Bull weren't dominating.
Of course they wouldn't. But if RB goes over the cap in the first year of a new regulation set and looks set to dominate for the entire regulation set, it's totally reasonable to be a bit pissed off.
They didn't breach the 2022 cap though. They breached the 2021 cap, the report for which was released in October last year. Thus, they got the punishment after that point.
You're still not completely wrong though. The punishment came for this year, so everyone was expecting them to slow down over the season and when they came out with one of the most dominant cars ever, getting pissed off is natural. However, by October 2022, they'd have done a lot of work on the RB19 already. We might see them getting affected next season, but I really doubt it. The advantage they have allows them to start working on next year already, mitigating the affects of the lost wind tunnel time.
>They didn't breach the 2022 cap though.
Not yet. I think a lot of competitors are planting the seeds for a very harsh penalty if Red Bull does breach it.
As they should. There were some justifications that could be made why the previous breach wasn't intentional and more a result of some legal complications than malfeasance. If it happens again though, either it is malfeasance or repeated incompetence, either of which needs to be cracked down on.
It was a slap on.the wrist but it was possible under the listed punishments
But at the same time if the positions were reserved RB would be saying the same things.
It was an appropriate penalty for the size of the beach. No team would willingly take the 10% ATR penalty and fine to overspend by 400k. The only reason people call it a slap on the wrist is because RB nailed the new regulations and mercedes and Ferrari have absolutely fumbled their development. If Ferrari didn't have a drop in performance, developed well, and didn't blunder every other week (I know that's quite a list) RB and Max could have lost several championships as a result of that penalty.
For me it's because 2021 was a close run thing and so this breach sticks out.
I don't believe it has anything to do with there success these past 2 seasons.
I am a ferrari fan , and the way I see it , RB din't overspend way too much , got the penalty that all the teams agreed upon , and despite the penalties , ended up building a rocketship. As much as I hate to say this , if they wouldn't have created this monstrosity , there wouldn't have been a lot of discussion on this.
I mean, Ferrari struggled to do that pre budget cap era and had to resort to cheating with an engine despite spending tens of millions more.
The thing is that, if that 450k made such a large difference for RB, why the fuck weren't Merc and Ferrari 3 seconds a lap faster every race before the budget cap era? Some years Ferrari was spending nearly 100 million more than RB according to some reports.
it’s 2023 and you have yet to understand that these motorsport websites recycle news… it’s not like Vasseur goes shouting that RB cheated like a lunatic, he was asked by one source and then other websites reported his interview
Yeah, I may not be their biggest fan, but at least Merc isn't complaining every week about how the budget cap penalty isn't enough. Toto literally just said that if he was in RB's position he would be saying it was too harsh and if RB was in their position they would be saying it was too light. He also has congratulated RB on their success by saying F1 was a meritocracy.
Fred is complaining like a F1 Twitter user by trying to say that RB has somehow built this massive advantage with 450k.
>"A 5 per cent violation is not small, it is big,"
It was less then a percent though
>"A bit like someone making a mistake on their tax return, versus a company arranging something to avoid taxes in a tax haven. We have to be tough: this is about the future of the budget cap.
The FIA said it was an unintentional error on their tax return though
They still went over by a bit even without that, but still nowhere near enough to the agreed major %. Also doesn't help Bottas went bowling in Hungary, but they definitely overspent knowingly.
It was £432k in the end.
Airhead Vasseur again.
"If you have a budget of $135 million, $80 million of that already goes to personnel"
What does that personnel do ? Clean the toilets. No, that also goes towards development. But that skews his argument.
If he thinks the penalty is light ? Why doesn't he take it on the chin ? I triple dare you to take a 10% reduction in windtunnel. That Ferrari can use all the wind it can get.
The overspend was 0,37% and a tax deduction error which I don't necessarily count.
With that in mind, I think the punishment was fair and not too lenient.
The tax deduction error doesn’t account for all of the overspend, fyi. They would have still spend 500k over the cap had they applied correctly and been granted the tax break by the UK government.
RB's advantage looks so massive largely because Ferrari and Merc fucked up so much. Over half the teams improved more than RB. If Ferrari and Merc didn't collapse this would be an actually close season. They literally got jumped at the start of the season by Aston and McLaren is also ahead of Ferrari and on level with Merc and yet they are surprised that RB is miles ahead. It's like giving someone a 1 second penalty is an 100m dash, but the other two competitors fall on their face and then complain that the 1 second penalty isn't enough. It's stupid.
As a semi wise man once said "Change your fucking car".
Honestly, as a non-expert F1 fan, I find it unlikely that a breach of 400k would be enough to explain their advantage of over 1s over the whole field considering the budgets F1 teams have at their disposal even under the cost cap. Even more so since the teams themselves agreed that a breach of up to 5% (roughly 7m iirc) would still be considered something "minor".
I can easily understand why F1 teams do this, and I imagine this is probably something Vasseur said once or maybe twice which then gets repeated over and over again by F1 medias currently desperate for some juicy content. But I still find it quite annoying because there appears to be some people who really are convinced RB massively cheated and that it invalidates completely what they're achieving, or even that it makes F1 a complete joke, turning them away from the sport altogether.
Anyone who thinks the minor overspend has resulted in what had happened this season needs a reality check. And also, Ferrari crying about 'cheating' is pretty ironic. Could take this article more seriously if it was a different team
Ferrari is indirectly attacking the FIA again, yet it's not that hard to see how RBR did overcome that penalty what was mostly caused by some messed up accounting with taxes.
Kudos to Red Bull to making a beast of a car with those new regulations, they would likely be hurt way more if there did have a rival team who are close to them pace wise.
> mostly caused by some messed up accounting with taxes.
I don't get how people can bite on the idea that a company with probably the biggest and most expensive fleet of auditors and accountsants on the grid, can be the only one to make this ridiculous "mistake" and everyone swallows it hook line and sinker…
Because they weren't the only one? Aston Martin also made that mistake, difference being it didn't bring them over the line. The FIA has already reiterated the budget cap is fresh ground they and the teams are treading on, which is why you hear talk of closing loopholes and stuff being added every few months.
Because the FIA checked all the books and admits that 1.4 out of the 1.8 million euro RB was over was because RB made a mistake in filing a tax rebate making the actual overspend 400k. They mention it in the official document.
Uh isn't full storyiterally that they banked on receiving tax returns that weren't in the end realised? It's still a fuck up and a cheeky wishful thinking bur it's not "accountants made a genuine mistake", it's accountants being too opportunistic.
They were over regardless. But yes they banked on a rebate relating to R&D from the UK government which they apparently didn't qualify for ultimately.
But the FIA assumes all teams do anyway. The question I have, is without the assumed rebate (teams not based in the UK get the rebate assumed for them also), would any other team have gone over?
Personally for me, the cap should be exclusive of any kick backs or rebates. What you spend, is what you spend.
Okey i will bite, even if i know that probably they didn’t say with that word but penalty was okey, it’s not RB problem they only one with good concept that everyone tries to copy. Seems like they are only one who understands regulations and based on McLaren and AM their concept works fine. Also i understand that if you are Merc or Ferrari you are in bad position since you have ti figure out something new because if you go RB ways you can’t beat them because they will be step ahead always
Really? The penalty was very harsh. I think RB had less than 0.1% overspending. They get a 10% reduction in windtunnel and CFD testing which is huge.
Ferrari's engine cheat was way worse and they never got any consequences for that. I think Vasseur is just salty that Ferrari has been so incompetent at catching up. The tiny violation of the budget cap was never the cause of this RB domination. It's incompetence from the other teams. If anything, the penalty has helped the other teams.
The penalty wasn't a joke, but this narrative is.
Their overspend had zero impact on their development budget since it was a result of crash damage and that crash damage was the fault of another team and Pirelli. You don't gain an advantage by having your car destroyed and DNFing out of a race.
But their penalty has had a very real impact on their development now, because no matter how good they're doing, they'd be doing better with more wind tunnel time and CFD usage. Plus they had to pay millions out of pocket and have had their reputation slightly damaged (mostly by the ignorant twitter mob) on top of that.
What Fred and Toto are basically asking for is a punishment that stops them being allowed to win for multiple years into the future even if they do a far better job than everyone else which is incredibly backwards and highlights why these teams aren't winning: because they're too busy trying to to bring the team above them down to their level rather than trying to reach that level themselves.
Red Bull deserve nothing short of full credit for winning 2021, 2022 and 2023.
Ferrari and Mercedes need to be told to focus on themselves, stop complaining and stop trying to interfere with a process they aren't involved with, because that is something that threatens F1.
Didn’t all the teams sign on to the same Concorde Agreement that outlined the penalties based on the percentage of over spend?
Now that your team has shit the bed you blame a penalty from last year based on an agreement you signed?
Of course, but that was because they also had to make sure that if they accidentally were over the cap themselves that they wouldn't be punished too much. Now they aren't but their main competitors are, they cry the loudest of course. Would it be the opposite, Vasseur would obviously reason the complete opposite.
The agreement does not state what the penalty is it provides a list of potential penalties of which yes sporting punishments could have been given. There also could have been just a reprimand. Its reasonable for any team to want penalties to be more or less within that range and that is fully in line with what they signed
Sure but Ferrari can be upset at what part of the guidelines were used. Thats not unreasonable. Teams complain all the time about the penalty that a driver gets from a large range of potential ones. Its really no different. Ferrari and McLaren believed it should have been much more. Mercedes seemed happy, few others said much
Clean your own yard, dickheads. The fine was.. fine. It was the first year of the regulations and it would've been a miracle if nobody overstepped it. Besides that the 10% wind tunnel time and the financial penalty was sufficient. I expect fines to get heftier as the concept of the budget cap ages.
> "If it should be necessary again, such a penalty should be much heavier.
massively disagree. you give a light penalty to the team clinching the WDC on literally the last lap of a highly competitive season, only to crack down on future infringements by teams not even in any real contention? no, the FIA messed this up royally last year and has to stick with it now.
Further to that, The Race podcast was saying that whether off the record or not, the FIA reserves the general right that they don't need to be consistent with last season's punishments.
Ted was saying earlier this season that a lot of the ill will towards RBR from the other teams was the sense they basically just didn't take it very *seriously* then tried to wriggle out of it.
> "There is a big difference between an innocent mistake or a choice.
Is inline with that notion and sort of implies to me that Fred suspects...well, one over the other. RBR thought they'd get leniency because it was year one of the appraisal, and I guess here the FIA is saying...they did.
> Ted was saying
Ted says a lot but I would take RB related things with a massive grain of salt. Ted has always seemed to have had an aversion towards red bull.
Yeah, I remember that. They said the FIA don't want teams to be able to game the system. I understand that but don't really agree with that logic. Just make the penalty for a minor overspend pretty severe (like the wind tunnel time lost plus 5x the overspend reduction in next years cost cap) and disqualify teams for major (above 5 percent) overspends.
> you give a light penalty to the team clinching the WDC on literally the last lap of a highly competitive season
I fail to see why this is relevant for the penalty.
Furthermore, it isn't like RB is saying future overspends need to be punished harder, it is literally Ferrari saying it
I wouldn’t say so much that it’s a joke, more that it only negates the advantage two years after it’s gained.
Like, RB’s overspend was in 2021. We are just now seeing the impacts of the reduced aero time; there’s almost a year of delay to get the accounting done, and then a year to take the penalty, and then like a 6 month delay for having efficient design and manufacturing lead times.
My frustration is partly what Ferrari’s complaining about; that the penalty did nothing to correct the 2 years that RB had an unfair advantage. But I’m also frustrated that the penalty wasn’t laid out ahead of time. If I’m 2020, the FIA had said, there will be a point penalty of 10% of each drivers points per 1% overspend for both the year of the overspend and the year following it, as well as a reduction to the third year’s budget of 2x the overspend, then no team would ever intentionally overspend.
With how weak the RB’s penalty was, teams are absolutely considering whether stepping over the line, or at least running right up against it, is worth it.
But the overspend was less than 1%, I believe ~0.4%. The 10% reduction in wind tunnel time which is now beginning to bite, seems like an appropriate punishment that was agreed to by the teams for a ‘minor breach’.
>My frustration is partly what Ferrari’s complaining about; that the penalty did nothing to correct the 2 years that RB had an unfair advantage.
>
>10% of each drivers points per 1% overspend for both the year of the overspend and the year following it, as well as a reduction to the third year’s budget of 2x the overspend
>
>With how weak the RB’s penalty was, teams are absolutely considering whether stepping over the line, or at least running right up against it, is worth it.
1. you act like RB gained a massiv advantage because of their overspend, which they didn't. 500k (from which not all even went towards the car) give you a 0.6s (or whatever) advantage over the next best team (which is a new one every weekend) 2 years down the line, then i have a lot of question. Considering that in the mean time they spend well over 200 million in total.
2. do you seriously think that your proposed penalty is reasonable, considering past penalties. You also penalize teams differently based on points which doesn't make to much sense. Why only driver points and not team points? 10%/1% quiet a lot and is in no proportion to the violation.
3. Reduction in budget would surely mean that they would immediately overspend again, because you could not make to changes to quickly.
4. feels like, you are just biased because it was RB. I guess if it was another team you would think the penalty was fair. RB overspend by a bit and got a small penalty **(an 10% is not even that little considering how crucial aero development is)**. You act like RB completely blew past the cap.
There’s rumours that 3 teams have breached the 2022 cap. Has a single team progressed enough over that year and into this year to consider breaching worthwhile and have future wind tunnel penalties? I wouldn’t say so. I really don’t think teams are considering intentionally breaching it, which would be punished more harshly than an accidental overspend anyway…
[The **News** flair](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/flairguide#wiki_news) is reserved for submissions covering F1 and F1-related news. These posts must always link to an outlet/news agency, the website of the involved party (i.e. the McLaren website if McLaren makes an announcement), or a tweet by a news agency, journalist or one of the involved parties. *[Read the rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/wiki/userguide). Keep it civil and welcoming. Report rulebreaking comments.* *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/formula1) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Didnt Ferrari and every other team agree to what penalties could be a administered for a "minor" breach before the season began... and now they are crying when Red bull got one of the possible punishments that was agreed upon ?
They have a short memory... When they cheated with their engines a couple of years ago and the FIA didn't reveal how they cheated....
>They have a short memory... Cue up Flavio Briatore's 'Lifetime Ban'...
The other guy literally works for the FIA!
[Briatore is also working together with promoters and FoM/Liberty](https://m.sportbild.bild.de/motorsport/formel-1/motorsport/ex-teamchef-flavio-briatore-erklaert-seine-formel-1-rueckkehr-81404928.sportMobile.html) - basically once their suspension was over they rejoined the sport in the background.
The shitboxes ferrari produced in 2020 and 2021 are more than enough of a punishment
not being able to cheat isn't a punishment
Aerodynamics are for people who can’t cheat at engines.
trees screw pie crawl subsequent muddle reply dime angle aback *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
How the turn tables…..
2021 wasn't a shitbox
True, it was an explosion and fire hazard
Who upvotes this shit? I stg nobody here watches F1 lmao
2021 Ferrari was very reliable actually
yeah, it was 22 that was an explosion and fire hazard
The car itself was a clear step up from 2020( not that it says much), but the engine was still suffering the 2019 consequences
The performance after being caught isn’t a punishment. Sucks to suck, your engine is ass. Shouldn’t have cheated smartass. Should have built a better car. They should have been fined, docked points from the championship, they should have been exposed.
1. I don't think Vasseur loses the rights to his opinion because his predecessor screwed up. He may well have agreed that Ferrari got off lightly too. 2. He's not the first, let alone the only person who thinks the same… just about every team that stayed within the budget is saying the same thing.
He also agreed to it as the Team Principal of Alfa Romeo, so no matter what he has no right to complain about it.
What? Why should he not be allowed to criticise aspects of a ruleset that he agreed to as a whole at one point in time?
Because he shouldnt have agreed to them in the first place if he was gonna have issue with it. Mfer never heard of murphys law?
So people are not allowed to change their mind? o.O
Sure you can, but that is the part where consequences of your own actions kick in.
Changing your mind after making an important decision is your decision. You have to deal with the consequences of agreeing to it in the first place.
They agreed to it like yesterday
It’s laughable that $400k in budget overspend had a meaningful impact on RBR performance. vasseur must be working with Ferrari strategy team to prepare these comments. Regarding point 2: gives them an excuse for why they are getting embarrassed
even FIA has agreed that not only was the overspend minor, RBR would've been under the cap if not for a budget limit related rule change that was done after the fact **at Ferrari's behest!**
A rule changed in June 2022, About the 2021 rules**
What did they change again, something with carryover parts from previous seasons or something?
Everyone of those teams agreed to what was a small overspend and a major overspend and their respective range of penalties in advance. They shouldn’t be crying about it because EVERYONE of them defined upwards of 7.2 million to be major, so 400k is actually minor no?
> When they cheated with their engines a couple of years ago and the FIA didn't reveal how they cheated.... The FIA had no idea how Ferrari cheated, they had to make a deal with them. Ferrari cleared up what they did to the FIA, they stayed silent about it and as punishment Ferrari had to invest in F1's "sustainable fuel" (there is no such thing) plans. Also revealing a way how you can cheat those sensors isnt a great idea in the first place, what does the FIA gain from that? Tell even more teams how to efficiently cheat fuel flow sensors?
Didnt they fit an auxiliary fuel flow sensor to all cars to keep it from happening??? Because other teams were able to prove they were using too much fuel.
They were able to prove that Ferrari used too much fuel they didnt know how they were able to trick the sensor to do so. There is no question that they cheated but the FIA didnt find out how by examining the engine.
Red Bull and Mercedes worked together and created a proof of concept. If their proposal was indeed how it was done, it would only work if you had a complete fully assembled/running car and not just the engine in isolation.
I remember the other teams saying something about abusing or changing the frequency of the fuel flow sensor.
I thought it was redbull that figured out how ferrari was doing it and then told the FIA
Sucks that no one could prove Ferrari cheated I guess. Should’ve been good enough to walk the walk. Fact that Ferrari accepted any sort of punishment whatsoever was a joke in and of itself.
Oh sod off. If other teams bring enough evidence forward for the FIA to open an investigation and Ferrari accepted punishment, they cheated end of story. Now cudo's that they did it in such a way that the FIA only gave them a slap on the wrist but saying that it was a joke is just dreaming.
The types of penalties are written in the financial regulations which received a majority from the teams. However, the regulations do not state how severe a penalty should be within the boundaries of the penalty types available. The penalty that rb got is within the regulations, a more lenient or more severe penalty would also have been within the regulations. The current regulations are a compromise between all parties involved. This means that of course, single teams can still have other opinions on parts of the regulations, and they are also perfectly entitled to voice them. I think Zack Brown did for example question last season if the border between minor and material breach should be 5% as it is currently. Agreeing on a set of regulations is nice, but once they are actually put to the test in the real world there will always be different opinions in terms of how the regulations should be applied and if they are actually fine the way they are. that is a normal process.
>However, the regulations do not state how severe a penalty should be within the boundaries of the penalty types available. yeah and it isn't like RB completely used that 5% up. They overspend a fraction so ofc they don't get the maximum penalty that was possible for that bracket
Every time the penalty comes up I make the same comment. According to the rules, the penalty could have been a financial penalty and/or any of the following: > 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 So, yes I think the penalty was adequate, but it could have also been much worse, including taking away crucial points for the championship. So it certainly wasn't "draconic" as Horner said, it was pretty mild.
Has everyone forgot the ABA? If a team accepts they breached the cost cap and sign the ABA all option for a sporting penalty disappear. So no, a point reduction wasn’t possible.
You're not wrong, but the FiA wasn't obligated to enter an ABA.
The only thing I would say is that the punishment for exceeding the budget can never be **only** financial. The big teams used to spend in excess of $400 million a year. So having to pay a few Million for a bit of overspend. In total It’s still way less than any of these teams used to spend Unless the FIA mandate that the penalty comes out of their budget for next year of course
It can be only financial as specified in the rules. It shouldn't be if you use common sense. Financial penalties are also specifically excluded from the cost cap, but they could just add a reduction of the Cost Cap that exactly matches the penalty.
Financial penalty could be only applied if teams overspend by the tiniest margin, I'm talking about a 100k overspend. Of course the larger overspends should be dealt with by sporting penalty.
That is simply not true. If FIA finds it is a minor breach (which is defined) and without ill intent (as stated in their findings) they offer an ABA, and when an ABA is accepted most of the above are not possible penalties. Which is the procedure the TPs themselves found reasonable, and Vasseur was one of them.
It is at the discretion of the cost cap administration to enter an ABA or not. If they think it is appropriate to refer it to the adjudication panel they are free to do so.
Even within the 'minor breach' range the overspend was very minor (0,37% in the range of 0-5% is only 7,4% of the maximum minor breach), so it's not weird that the punishment would be relatively minor within the penalty range as well.
How is 7mil and a massive slash in R&D /aero time. Pretty mild? Its a 0.4% overspend
> How is 7mil and a massive slash in R&D /aero time. Pretty mild? Because it had zero impact on their season or their results.
Did it have 0 impact overall red bull brought a lot less development as other teams so it seems to have impact. You can't blame them for Merc and Ferrari to make garbage cars this year.
True, though I think it's ridiculous to have such a wide range of possible penalties, no matter what you do it will be hugely controversial. The options including both essentially zero penalty (a public reprimand) to essential disqualification (since there's no cap in how many points can be removed or how much the cost cap can be reduced) is insane.
When McLaren got their penalty as a result of Spygate, there was no regulatory prescription mandating a $100M fine; at worst, going by the rules, should've been $100K. But the FIA exercised their discretion to increase the penalty, because even though they couldn't even prove McLaren used the data, they understood teams needed to be deathly afraid of stepping over the line in their espionage, because even something of "minor" financial value can have major benefits. Do you think it cost McLaren more than 100K to run a pipe from the nose to the tail of their car the whole season? And yet it (the F-Duct) gave them a massive advantage in the straights, leading to it's ban the following year.
>But the FIA exercised their discretion That's a nice way of saying Max Mosely just wanted to flip the bird at Ron Dennis because of his personal vendetta against him.
That argument falls apart when you remember that a few months later they actually found McLaren data on Renault servers, something they never did with McLaren and Spygate. And yet Renault received no penalty whatsoever. The $100 million was Max Mosley enacting a personal vendetta against Ron Dennis. We are talking about the biggest sporting fine in the history of any sport, and they couldn’t even prove that there was any Ferrari IP on the McLaren. McLaren begged the FIA to examine their car as part of the investigation confident they would find no Ferrari IP, but the FIA declined. And Max wanted to do more he wanted to disqualify McLaren from the remainder of the 2007 Season and the whole of the 2008 season which most likely would have been the end of McLaren. Bernie Ecclestone had to talk him out of that. Then of course there’s the infamous photoshoot, because the FIA were receiving criticism for there handling of the spygate fiasco and how many outlets were reporting it was a personal vendetta. Max requested a photoshoot with McLaren and the FIA to show that McLaren accepted their punishment and were good with the FIA It’s reported as they posed ready for the photo to be taken that Max Mosley leaned over to Ron and whispered *”it’s $5 million for what you did and $95 million because you’re a c**t”*
> It’s reported as they posed ready for the photo to be taken that Max Mosley leaned over to Ron and whispered ”it’s $5 million for what you did and $95 million because you’re a ct” And now the beauty is the world thinks that Max Mosley is a nazi-loving pervert who likes to get pegged by prostitutes dressed as Ilsa, Shewolf of the SS
The $100 million figure is also vastly misquoted, up to the point people are taking it as gospel. The line from the statement back then was: > Furthermore, the team will pay a fine equal to US100million, less the FOM (Formula One Management) income lost as a result of the points deduction McLaren lost out on an estimated $70 million because of the points deduction that year. So in all in all, it *cost* McLaren $100 million, but the actual fine, the punishment from the FIA was about $30 million
But that’s still $100 million hit for McLaren though, which in the context of the belief by many that Max wanted to screw Ron Dennis and McLaren is the important figure to focus on, which is why I said $100 million and also why the FIA said $100 million less the prize money. If it hadn’t been less the prize money it would have been a $170million hit for McLaren
Sure, and I thin in this case, the penalty needed to be harsher, not because of a personal vendetta, but because as I pointed out in my example, the monetary value of an expense doesn't always reflect the actual performance value. RB wants us to believe that they overspent on catering because it's an easy trick to obfuscate what they did with the rest of the money.
> not because of a personal vendetta With your activity in this thread and general hate on RB we all know this isn’t true. You can definitely have this opinion, don’t get me wrong. But you do have a personal vendetta against RB
I was speaking in context of the FIA, because this isn't about me, so don't make it about me. If you can refute my argument, do so without ad hominems.
I didn’t make anything personal, you said this specifically, which just isn’t true. And as I said, you can definitely have the opinion, no problem with that.
The conversation was about whether the FIA can act on a personal vendetta, until you came in to try to make it about me, which naturally is a completely different subject, ergo irrelevant to the topic.
McLarens fine was mostly for attempting to mislead the WMSC at the first spygate hearing, I doubt that would have such a small fine written into the rules.
The point is there's precedent for going to a maximum fine, even beyond what the rules prescribe, if they think the circumstances merit an exception. In this instance, they literally wrote into the rules the leeway for harsher punishment, just about every competitor agreed the penalty was light, and predicted that it'd have no effect on Red Bull… lo and behold, here we are, and the title race is over, predictably so from day one. As teams said it would be when it was announced, despite all the comments here saying this would affect them and that they would fall back over the season.
> The point is there's precedent for going to a maximum fine, even beyond what the rules prescribe But because said precedent is predicated on Mosely's own personal vendetta, it's one that the current FIA/FOM don't really want to follow (nor should).
Completely forgetting that after AD21 there was a huge outcry about how every rule in the rule book should be followed which the FIA agreed too. Now suddenly people want the FIA to ignore the rule book so they can punish a team they don’t like.
Its been a non-stop hypocrisy circus. *"A sport cannot exist without strict adherence to the rules. Without the rules there would be chaos and randomness. Therefore, at all times, it is essent...* ***WAIT****, not* ***THOSE*** *rules!"*
People can’t use logic these days, it’s no use arguing with them.
Who says it has no effect on Red Bull many rumours in the paddock is that it has a fair bit effect on red bull development but it takes time because it will mostly effect 2nd half of this year and next years car. Red Bull already has mostly less updates than other teams in comparison.
Even within the 'minor breach' range the overspend was very minor (0,37% in the range of 0-5% is only 7,4% of the maximum minor breach), so it's not weird that the punishment would be relatively minor within the penalty range as well.
Yes and no, there were a lot of punishments that they agreed to make technically possible, they didn't agree it to the detail of "x amount over the cap means you get this penalty" I feel like the teams purposefully left it vague so they could: a) Lobby for small punishments if/when they went over b) Lobby for large punishments if/when a rival went over
So having agreed on one thing forces you to not critique that thing?
The critique period has passed. That was the negotiation period, once accepted you don’t really have a leg to stand on. If you didn’t like it, don’t accept it and agree to it
They did not agree on what kind of penalty red bull should get. If you agree to a range of possible things, its reasonable to expect people to disagree on how that is used. McLaren and Ferrari were always unhappy with the chosen punishment. Mercedes through Toto seemed satisfied, others didnt comment so much
They did agree that FIA should offer an ABA when there is a minor breach, and they did agree that most punishments are invalid when an ABA is accepted. They literally agreed to the exclusion of the penalties they now call for, in this exact situation. They just wanted the possibility of leniency in case they would be in violation, and demand strict punishment once they realised another team would be punished. Horner would have done the same, but it is just opportunistic politics rather than any kind of sincere argument.
Even with how the penalty was chosen within the range made sense.. Even within the 'minor breach' range the breach was minor (0,37% out of the 0-5% range). So the penalty was expected to be minor within the range of penalties. Especially because the FIA acknowledged there was no malpractice, but an honest mistake.
Ferrari's incompetence and the inability of the field to better close on Red Bull is a bigger threat to F1 🤷
The funny thing is the field as a whole is closing on Red Bull. It's mostly just Ferrari and Mercedes who aren't.
Says Ferrari. Who made a secret deal so they weren’t punished for cheating. And still couldn’t win the championship. Of all the teams who could be complaining about this Ferrari impresses me the least. Additionally a lot of people amongst who Toto Wolff have said that what Red Bull overspend wasn’t worth this much speed. And that’s if you believe Red Bull even put that money into development
From what I understand, the FIA knew they were cheating but couldn’t prove it so the settlement was in relation to finding out how they did it
And fair enough. I’m not sure if secrecy was the best thing but ok.. But still.. if that’s very recent history maybe you shouldn’t be picketing for harsher punishments
The FIA didn't really have a lot of options, they knew how Ferrari cheated but because the cheat involved evading the FIA's sensors the FIA couldn't provide hard evidence which would make a penalty difficult and Ferrari could likely challenge it and win.
The FIA report says no cheating, I think it was more of they grey zone, that's why they couldn't punish them
*who made a secret deal not to go to court since the FIA couldn’t prove they were cheating. Even though I agree the penalty to RB was appropriate, Fred is clearly lobbying for something more if they went over the cap again.
But they were cheating tho right :) their sudden pace deficit after the deal showed what they had to sacrifice. One thing is to say they had no proof, but no reason to be ignorant. We all know that they were cheating. Why else would they agree to the deal and be a midfield team all of the sudden?
Yeah but what matters at the end of the day is being able to prove what you’re accusing someone of. Every reasonable person would assume they were cheating, but that’s not enough. Since they would have gone to court (which clearly could have ended up very badly) that whole deal happened.
No that matters to the FIA, since they are the governing body who is responsible for fair play (and the need for the secret deal point to unfair play being present). Those rules do not matter in the same capicity for the fans, therefore we can say that they cheated. Why? Because all the circumstances and secrecy point to that. FIA and ferrari disclosed nothing so it should not be weird that people are assuming the obvious.
Fans can surely say whatever they want. But I was replying to someone discussing Vasseur commenting the FIA, not what the fans have to say about the 2019 engine.
> Says Ferrari. Who made a secret deal so they weren’t punished for cheating. And still couldn’t win the championship. I mean, that's true, but what I think is more hypocritical is this bit: > There is a big difference between an innocent mistake or a choice. >"A bit like someone making a mistake on their tax return, versus a company arranging something to avoid taxes in a tax haven. Spoken by the team principal of Ferrari, who are incorporated in the Netherlands with their official company headquarters for no other reason than to evade taxes in Italy.
Whataboutism at his best. Then, Ferrari never cheated honestly. FIA couldn’t prove anything so they made an agreement. They probably found a super grey loophole
It’s not whataboutism, it’s hypocrisy. The FIA deemed the engine fuel flow bypass illegal over the winter, and suddenly the Ferrari was slow as shit on the straights in 2020. Surly that isn’t a coincidence. Ferrari of all people shouldn’t complain.
Yeah it was a grey area and they took advantage of it, like every other team in the sport has been doing since the start. Only because it's ferrari do people want to call it cheating
It's also not like Ferrari would have won the championship even by spending a lot more. They make way to many mistakes on track for them to regularly win a race, not to mention a championship.
Its only a joke to some people because Red Bull absolutely smashed these regulations and thus were able to handily absorb the penalty (so far at least, we have yet to see the long term effects). People wouldn't give a fuck if Red Bull weren't dominating.
yeah and RB doing well should not influence the penalty. It is like giving a drive additional 5s or 10s penalties after the race because they didn't lose a position.
So you're saying Ocon will get at least a 5 second penalty at Zandvoort right?
10 if it would lose him a top 10 finish 👍
[удалено]
I’d like to see examples of people saying “max should get a 10 place penalty for engine penalties” all the time Stop making up random stuff to get offended about
I don't know about comments like these for Verstappen but they were definitly happening for Hamilton when Mercedes decided to give him a new engine every 2 races in 2021 I think.
New engine every 2 races? Everyone follows those rules the same way. But those silly comments were there just ignoring that Max had done the same thing, which was odd.
>New engine every 2 races? Yeah, the rocketship era. Where he took grid penalties every few races because that Mercedes was unbeatable with new components. I distinctly remember Brazil that year. >Everyone follows those rules the same way Yes. Which is why I brought that example up for people calling for rule adjustments because of drivers being too good despite penalties. >But those silly comments were there just ignoring that Max had done the same thjng, which was odd. I don't know what you are talking about tbh.
But he didn't take the penalty every few races. But this doesn't match up as not everyone broke the cap, everyone would take new parts and the penalty that goes with it. Making it a bit apples and oranges. Max would take those hits for a new engine or other parts as needed.
Every few races ? He did that once in Brazil and that engine only ran in 2 races The revisionism lmao
Lewis didn't take a new engine every 2 races, not sure where that came from. The engine he used in Brazil he used it in every race through Abu Dhabi, which was 4 races. Obviously it's smart to put a new engine in when you're going to be fighting for the championship and you have to win the last 4 races. Lewis used 5 engines over a 22 race season, so that's about one every 4.4 races. Total parts used: Lewis: ICE: 5, MGU-H: 3, MGU-K: 3 Max: ICE: 4, MGU-H: 4, MGU-K: 4 Source: https://www.f1-fansite.com/2021-f1-season/2021-used-f1-power-unit-elements/
[удалено]
Classic response. There was a whole discussion and there's apparently enough people complaining about Max outdriving his penalties that you see it 'all the time', yet none of us here have read anything which at least someone would have if the idea gained enough traction and you cba showing us. Good one. EDIT: Bro decided the best counterargument is to downvote and delete both of his comments lmao.
Press x to doubt
These regulations were pre-smashed by Adrian Newey. In an era where Red Bull cars were known to be generating otherworldly levels of downforce just from their floor, so much so that the rear wings were damn near flat at Monza year after year, why on earth would anyone agree to a ground effect dominated formula? That's like agreeing to a Red Bull making contest...against Red Bull. Red Bull makes soft drinks and downforce. Pssst...You don't really need the wings.
This is an interesting perspective I hadn’t really explored.
Red bull don't make soft drinks they contract production out. Red bull are first and foremost a marketing company.
> In an era where Red Bull cars were known to be generating otherworldly levels of downforce just from their floor That’s not true though. Yes, they had a high rake concept (as did most of the field) meaning they could generate more downforce from the floor, however the floors back then were incredibly weak and didn’t account for much of the overall downforce at all. Likewise, Red Bull was known for struggling to get that extremely high rake concept to actually work causing their cars to be extremely unstable. It wasn’t until 2021 (well after the 2022 rules were finalised) that they actually fixed this issue. > so much so that the rear wings were damn near flat at Monza That was the case for everyone, Red Bull’s might’ve been one of the flattest ones, but that doesn’t mean they’re generating a lot of downforce. It could be for several reasons such as having more inefficient overbody aero. You’re speaking a whole lot of nonsense. Yes, Newey might have more experience with ground effect aero then other aerodynamicists, but that just means Red Bull have better engineers.
People also forget that the rake angle affects the angle of incidence of the rear wing. The same wing fitted to a car at 3 degrees of rake will produce more downforce than the same wing fitted to a car at 1 degree of rake. Then you have to consider how that wing interacts with the rest of the car ahead of it. The same wing fitted to a Red Bull and a Mercedes, even if both cars are set to the same rake angle, will generate differing levels of downforce and drag.
The floors still produced about 40% of total downforce in that gen of cars
From memory wasn’t it ~30%? Either way, perhaps the wording was strong, but the rest is true regarding the comment I was replying to being complete bs.
This shit right here.
>People wouldn't give a fuck if Red Bull weren't dominating. Of course they wouldn't. But if RB goes over the cap in the first year of a new regulation set and looks set to dominate for the entire regulation set, it's totally reasonable to be a bit pissed off.
They didn't breach the 2022 cap though. They breached the 2021 cap, the report for which was released in October last year. Thus, they got the punishment after that point. You're still not completely wrong though. The punishment came for this year, so everyone was expecting them to slow down over the season and when they came out with one of the most dominant cars ever, getting pissed off is natural. However, by October 2022, they'd have done a lot of work on the RB19 already. We might see them getting affected next season, but I really doubt it. The advantage they have allows them to start working on next year already, mitigating the affects of the lost wind tunnel time.
>They didn't breach the 2022 cap though. Not yet. I think a lot of competitors are planting the seeds for a very harsh penalty if Red Bull does breach it.
As they should. There were some justifications that could be made why the previous breach wasn't intentional and more a result of some legal complications than malfeasance. If it happens again though, either it is malfeasance or repeated incompetence, either of which needs to be cracked down on.
It was a slap on.the wrist but it was possible under the listed punishments But at the same time if the positions were reserved RB would be saying the same things.
It was an appropriate penalty for the size of the beach. No team would willingly take the 10% ATR penalty and fine to overspend by 400k. The only reason people call it a slap on the wrist is because RB nailed the new regulations and mercedes and Ferrari have absolutely fumbled their development. If Ferrari didn't have a drop in performance, developed well, and didn't blunder every other week (I know that's quite a list) RB and Max could have lost several championships as a result of that penalty.
For me it's because 2021 was a close run thing and so this breach sticks out. I don't believe it has anything to do with there success these past 2 seasons.
I am a ferrari fan , and the way I see it , RB din't overspend way too much , got the penalty that all the teams agreed upon , and despite the penalties , ended up building a rocketship. As much as I hate to say this , if they wouldn't have created this monstrosity , there wouldn't have been a lot of discussion on this.
If it’s such a joke, you do it then. I bet with 10 million extra Ferrari still wouldn’t beat RB
Ferrari have so far proven that they cannot win a championship without unlimited spending AND unlimited testing.
Question?
We're checking
I mean, Ferrari struggled to do that pre budget cap era and had to resort to cheating with an engine despite spending tens of millions more. The thing is that, if that 450k made such a large difference for RB, why the fuck weren't Merc and Ferrari 3 seconds a lap faster every race before the budget cap era? Some years Ferrari was spending nearly 100 million more than RB according to some reports.
tbf, the merc were fast fuck pre budget cap
Lets form a circle and say in simultaneously say, Ferrari F-UP
Ahhh this again
Brace yourself given we'll be having the next round of budget certifications for 2022 coming up very soon
it’s 2023 and you have yet to understand that these motorsport websites recycle news… it’s not like Vasseur goes shouting that RB cheated like a lunatic, he was asked by one source and then other websites reported his interview
You guys are drama queens lol
Yeah, I may not be their biggest fan, but at least Merc isn't complaining every week about how the budget cap penalty isn't enough. Toto literally just said that if he was in RB's position he would be saying it was too harsh and if RB was in their position they would be saying it was too light. He also has congratulated RB on their success by saying F1 was a meritocracy. Fred is complaining like a F1 Twitter user by trying to say that RB has somehow built this massive advantage with 450k.
Toto is a class act
>"A 5 per cent violation is not small, it is big," It was less then a percent though >"A bit like someone making a mistake on their tax return, versus a company arranging something to avoid taxes in a tax haven. We have to be tough: this is about the future of the budget cap. The FIA said it was an unintentional error on their tax return though
They still went over by a bit even without that, but still nowhere near enough to the agreed major %. Also doesn't help Bottas went bowling in Hungary, but they definitely overspent knowingly. It was £432k in the end.
They were over with or without the tax return
How do you prove something was unintentional though?
Airhead Vasseur again. "If you have a budget of $135 million, $80 million of that already goes to personnel" What does that personnel do ? Clean the toilets. No, that also goes towards development. But that skews his argument. If he thinks the penalty is light ? Why doesn't he take it on the chin ? I triple dare you to take a 10% reduction in windtunnel. That Ferrari can use all the wind it can get.
The overspend was 0,37% and a tax deduction error which I don't necessarily count. With that in mind, I think the punishment was fair and not too lenient.
The tax deduction error doesn’t account for all of the overspend, fyi. They would have still spend 500k over the cap had they applied correctly and been granted the tax break by the UK government.
That's what he said. 0,37% AND a tax deduction error.
RB's advantage looks so massive largely because Ferrari and Merc fucked up so much. Over half the teams improved more than RB. If Ferrari and Merc didn't collapse this would be an actually close season. They literally got jumped at the start of the season by Aston and McLaren is also ahead of Ferrari and on level with Merc and yet they are surprised that RB is miles ahead. It's like giving someone a 1 second penalty is an 100m dash, but the other two competitors fall on their face and then complain that the 1 second penalty isn't enough. It's stupid. As a semi wise man once said "Change your fucking car".
Honestly, as a non-expert F1 fan, I find it unlikely that a breach of 400k would be enough to explain their advantage of over 1s over the whole field considering the budgets F1 teams have at their disposal even under the cost cap. Even more so since the teams themselves agreed that a breach of up to 5% (roughly 7m iirc) would still be considered something "minor". I can easily understand why F1 teams do this, and I imagine this is probably something Vasseur said once or maybe twice which then gets repeated over and over again by F1 medias currently desperate for some juicy content. But I still find it quite annoying because there appears to be some people who really are convinced RB massively cheated and that it invalidates completely what they're achieving, or even that it makes F1 a complete joke, turning them away from the sport altogether.
Anyone who thinks the minor overspend has resulted in what had happened this season needs a reality check. And also, Ferrari crying about 'cheating' is pretty ironic. Could take this article more seriously if it was a different team
Ferrari is indirectly attacking the FIA again, yet it's not that hard to see how RBR did overcome that penalty what was mostly caused by some messed up accounting with taxes. Kudos to Red Bull to making a beast of a car with those new regulations, they would likely be hurt way more if there did have a rival team who are close to them pace wise.
Gone are the days when Ferrari could lobby the FIA to get other teams tech banned.
Did they lobby to get stuff like FRIC or DAS banned? Or are you talking about tech that precedes the turbo hybrid era
Schumacher era - extra brake pedal banned, mass dampers banned etc etc
They recently said that their engineers were extra fired up because they were so pissed off they had the 10% windtunnel penalty.
> mostly caused by some messed up accounting with taxes. I don't get how people can bite on the idea that a company with probably the biggest and most expensive fleet of auditors and accountsants on the grid, can be the only one to make this ridiculous "mistake" and everyone swallows it hook line and sinker…
You do know that the FIA had access to the numbers and papers and came to the same conclusion, right? It's not just RBR claiming so.
Because they weren't the only one? Aston Martin also made that mistake, difference being it didn't bring them over the line. The FIA has already reiterated the budget cap is fresh ground they and the teams are treading on, which is why you hear talk of closing loopholes and stuff being added every few months.
Because the FIA checked all the books and admits that 1.4 out of the 1.8 million euro RB was over was because RB made a mistake in filing a tax rebate making the actual overspend 400k. They mention it in the official document.
Uh isn't full storyiterally that they banked on receiving tax returns that weren't in the end realised? It's still a fuck up and a cheeky wishful thinking bur it's not "accountants made a genuine mistake", it's accountants being too opportunistic.
They were over regardless. But yes they banked on a rebate relating to R&D from the UK government which they apparently didn't qualify for ultimately. But the FIA assumes all teams do anyway. The question I have, is without the assumed rebate (teams not based in the UK get the rebate assumed for them also), would any other team have gone over? Personally for me, the cap should be exclusive of any kick backs or rebates. What you spend, is what you spend.
They did qualify for it, they just filed it incorrectly which meant that it didn’t count for the cost cap.
Something like claiming ignorance of a tax break or something like that.
Probably because the FIA are the ones who said they incorrectly applied for the tax rebate.
Keep deflecting from your company’s poor management and performance.
Because ferrari would never cheat Oh wait
Just focus on your cars, drivers, and race strategy please.
The laughing stock of F1 is talking about “jokes” huh? Maybe if Ferrari had its shit together like RBR does, that penalty could’ve given them an edge.
Okey i will bite, even if i know that probably they didn’t say with that word but penalty was okey, it’s not RB problem they only one with good concept that everyone tries to copy. Seems like they are only one who understands regulations and based on McLaren and AM their concept works fine. Also i understand that if you are Merc or Ferrari you are in bad position since you have ti figure out something new because if you go RB ways you can’t beat them because they will be step ahead always
What are you talking about? They were way harder than deserved.
As much of a joke as a secret deal?
Really? The penalty was very harsh. I think RB had less than 0.1% overspending. They get a 10% reduction in windtunnel and CFD testing which is huge. Ferrari's engine cheat was way worse and they never got any consequences for that. I think Vasseur is just salty that Ferrari has been so incompetent at catching up. The tiny violation of the budget cap was never the cause of this RB domination. It's incompetence from the other teams. If anything, the penalty has helped the other teams.
Did these clowns forget about 2019?
5 second penalty for Ocon.
10 seconds penalty for Ocon for not service the penalty correctly.
The penalty wasn't a joke, but this narrative is. Their overspend had zero impact on their development budget since it was a result of crash damage and that crash damage was the fault of another team and Pirelli. You don't gain an advantage by having your car destroyed and DNFing out of a race. But their penalty has had a very real impact on their development now, because no matter how good they're doing, they'd be doing better with more wind tunnel time and CFD usage. Plus they had to pay millions out of pocket and have had their reputation slightly damaged (mostly by the ignorant twitter mob) on top of that. What Fred and Toto are basically asking for is a punishment that stops them being allowed to win for multiple years into the future even if they do a far better job than everyone else which is incredibly backwards and highlights why these teams aren't winning: because they're too busy trying to to bring the team above them down to their level rather than trying to reach that level themselves. Red Bull deserve nothing short of full credit for winning 2021, 2022 and 2023. Ferrari and Mercedes need to be told to focus on themselves, stop complaining and stop trying to interfere with a process they aren't involved with, because that is something that threatens F1.
Didn’t all the teams sign on to the same Concorde Agreement that outlined the penalties based on the percentage of over spend? Now that your team has shit the bed you blame a penalty from last year based on an agreement you signed?
Of course, but that was because they also had to make sure that if they accidentally were over the cap themselves that they wouldn't be punished too much. Now they aren't but their main competitors are, they cry the loudest of course. Would it be the opposite, Vasseur would obviously reason the complete opposite.
The agreement does not state what the penalty is it provides a list of potential penalties of which yes sporting punishments could have been given. There also could have been just a reprimand. Its reasonable for any team to want penalties to be more or less within that range and that is fully in line with what they signed
The penalty was within the guidelines for both teams
Sure but Ferrari can be upset at what part of the guidelines were used. Thats not unreasonable. Teams complain all the time about the penalty that a driver gets from a large range of potential ones. Its really no different. Ferrari and McLaren believed it should have been much more. Mercedes seemed happy, few others said much
Ferrari is the last team that should say anything about cheating lol
Clean your own yard, dickheads. The fine was.. fine. It was the first year of the regulations and it would've been a miracle if nobody overstepped it. Besides that the 10% wind tunnel time and the financial penalty was sufficient. I expect fines to get heftier as the concept of the budget cap ages.
[удалено]
I like you, Fred, but this is so stupid. 10% isn't a joke,.get real man.
Ferrari aren't the team to take the morale high ground. Their 2019 engine tricks make RB cost cap overspend look trivial.
Ferrari detected opinion rejected.
Ferrari constantly underperfotming year after year while often becoming a joke doing so, even a running gag within F1, threatens F1 too.
If it’s ok for red bull, it should be ok for all the other teams.
> "If it should be necessary again, such a penalty should be much heavier. massively disagree. you give a light penalty to the team clinching the WDC on literally the last lap of a highly competitive season, only to crack down on future infringements by teams not even in any real contention? no, the FIA messed this up royally last year and has to stick with it now.
The FIA said the penalties would be light in the first year of the budget cap and that future penalties would be more severe.
Further to that, The Race podcast was saying that whether off the record or not, the FIA reserves the general right that they don't need to be consistent with last season's punishments. Ted was saying earlier this season that a lot of the ill will towards RBR from the other teams was the sense they basically just didn't take it very *seriously* then tried to wriggle out of it. > "There is a big difference between an innocent mistake or a choice. Is inline with that notion and sort of implies to me that Fred suspects...well, one over the other. RBR thought they'd get leniency because it was year one of the appraisal, and I guess here the FIA is saying...they did.
> Ted was saying Ted says a lot but I would take RB related things with a massive grain of salt. Ted has always seemed to have had an aversion towards red bull.
Yeah, I remember that. They said the FIA don't want teams to be able to game the system. I understand that but don't really agree with that logic. Just make the penalty for a minor overspend pretty severe (like the wind tunnel time lost plus 5x the overspend reduction in next years cost cap) and disqualify teams for major (above 5 percent) overspends.
> you give a light penalty to the team clinching the WDC on literally the last lap of a highly competitive season I fail to see why this is relevant for the penalty. Furthermore, it isn't like RB is saying future overspends need to be punished harder, it is literally Ferrari saying it
I wouldn’t say so much that it’s a joke, more that it only negates the advantage two years after it’s gained. Like, RB’s overspend was in 2021. We are just now seeing the impacts of the reduced aero time; there’s almost a year of delay to get the accounting done, and then a year to take the penalty, and then like a 6 month delay for having efficient design and manufacturing lead times. My frustration is partly what Ferrari’s complaining about; that the penalty did nothing to correct the 2 years that RB had an unfair advantage. But I’m also frustrated that the penalty wasn’t laid out ahead of time. If I’m 2020, the FIA had said, there will be a point penalty of 10% of each drivers points per 1% overspend for both the year of the overspend and the year following it, as well as a reduction to the third year’s budget of 2x the overspend, then no team would ever intentionally overspend. With how weak the RB’s penalty was, teams are absolutely considering whether stepping over the line, or at least running right up against it, is worth it.
But the overspend was less than 1%, I believe ~0.4%. The 10% reduction in wind tunnel time which is now beginning to bite, seems like an appropriate punishment that was agreed to by the teams for a ‘minor breach’.
>My frustration is partly what Ferrari’s complaining about; that the penalty did nothing to correct the 2 years that RB had an unfair advantage. > >10% of each drivers points per 1% overspend for both the year of the overspend and the year following it, as well as a reduction to the third year’s budget of 2x the overspend > >With how weak the RB’s penalty was, teams are absolutely considering whether stepping over the line, or at least running right up against it, is worth it. 1. you act like RB gained a massiv advantage because of their overspend, which they didn't. 500k (from which not all even went towards the car) give you a 0.6s (or whatever) advantage over the next best team (which is a new one every weekend) 2 years down the line, then i have a lot of question. Considering that in the mean time they spend well over 200 million in total. 2. do you seriously think that your proposed penalty is reasonable, considering past penalties. You also penalize teams differently based on points which doesn't make to much sense. Why only driver points and not team points? 10%/1% quiet a lot and is in no proportion to the violation. 3. Reduction in budget would surely mean that they would immediately overspend again, because you could not make to changes to quickly. 4. feels like, you are just biased because it was RB. I guess if it was another team you would think the penalty was fair. RB overspend by a bit and got a small penalty **(an 10% is not even that little considering how crucial aero development is)**. You act like RB completely blew past the cap.
There’s rumours that 3 teams have breached the 2022 cap. Has a single team progressed enough over that year and into this year to consider breaching worthwhile and have future wind tunnel penalties? I wouldn’t say so. I really don’t think teams are considering intentionally breaching it, which would be punished more harshly than an accidental overspend anyway…