The Official Formula One Thread!

[joli160]

Originally Posted by Andad

Stuff what makes champion?

I though he was very lucky to make it.

Why would a supposedly ‘top class’ driver take a chance on a first turn outside pass with so many laps to go.

But first or last lap makes no difference to MV.

It’s in his nature and with his aggression good luck to any driver who is leading the race with him right behind on the final lap. Especially with a leg up from a safety car.

Just ask Charles et al.

Verstappen has matured a lot and it’s been a while since he crashed.
Obviously Leclerc had to stick to the apex side and Verstappen positioning his car in the right place, good tactics.
Since his childhood he is very good on a wet track, logically so, it always rains or drizzles here in NL.
Remember 2016 Brazil, arguably one of the best wet races ever and a master class by Verstappen. He was only 19.

It’s exactly this hungry or call it agressive mentality which I enjoy to watch.
So much better than the endless procession of cars we’ve seen the last years.

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by Andad

Why would a supposedly ‘top class’ driver take a chance on a first turn outside pass with so many laps to go.

Because the outside is where the grip is on a wet track.

[77T]

I would say the wider arc of the outside line allowed more speed in the wet if that’s what VER wanted. Bigger risk on the outside in case LEC slipped on any standing water in the apex.

The outside was fairly won - and it also took away any hope LEC had of opening up his line in tracking out at Turn 2.

A definite risk but VER has a habit of making such moves stick.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[INC]

I watched again the Perez-Leclerc incident and found the reason for the penalty:

Perez was much faster than Leclerc after the latter left the track. In this conditions Perez almost managed to overtake Leclerc from the outside. And this was the key point, as during this maneuver Leclerc moved his car to the left while Perez was already next to him, and this resulted Perez to have to hit his brakes.

This move was the one which from Leclerc gained an unfair advantage, because without with this move Perez would have overtaken him before the finish line. IMO that was the reason for the 5sec penalty.

[Speedbird-1]

The BBC report that they have seen a letter from McLaren's Zak Brown to the FIA which says:
“The overspend breach, and possibly the procedural breaches, constitute cheating by offering a significant advantage across technical, sporting and financial regulations."




James Walker-Roberts
BY
JAMES WALKER-ROBERTS
UPDATED 17/10/2022 AT 14:32 GMT+1
McLaren boss Zak Brown has said Red Bull’s budget breach “constitutes cheating” and has called for the FIA to issue a “sporting penalty”.
It was ruled last week that Red Bull committed a "minor" breach of the F1 budget cap in the 2021 season. A minor overspend means exceeding the budget by less than 5%.


Formula 1's governing body, the FIA, has yet to decide on a punishment.
The BBC report that they have seen a letter from Brown to the FIA which says: “The overspend breach, and possibly the procedural breaches, constitute cheating by offering a significant advantage across technical, sporting and financial regulations.
"The FIA has run an extremely thorough, collaborative and open process. We have even been given a one-year dress rehearsal (in 2020), with ample opportunity to seek any clarification if details were unclear. So, there is no reason for any team to now say they are surprised.
"The bottom line is any team who has overspent has gained an unfair advantage both in the current and following year's car development.
'Suprised' Red Bull hit back at budget breach ruling
Ricciardo confident he can still succeed in F1
"We don't feel a financial penalty alone would be a suitable penalty for an overspend breach or a serious procedural breach. There clearly needs to be a sporting penalty in these instances, as determined by the FIA.
"We suggest that the overspend should be penalised by way of a reduction to the team's cost cap in the year following the ruling, and the penalty should be equal to the overspend plus a further fine - i.e. an overspend of $2m in 2021, which is identified in 2022, would result in a $4m deduction in 2023 ($2m to offset the overspend plus $2m fine).
"For context, $2m is (a) 25-50% upgrade to (an) annual car-development budget and hence would have a significant positive and long-lasting benefit.



"In addition, we believe there should be minor overspend sporting penalties of a 20% reduction in CFD and wind tunnel time. These should be enforced in the following year, to mitigate against the unfair advantage the team has and will continue to benefit from.”
Red Bull said they were "surprised and disappointed" by the FIA's decision last week.
Red Bull’s Max Verstappen won the F1 title on the last day of the 2021 season and has already been crowned champion in 2022 with four races remaining.
Brown has called for the cost-cap rules to be “firmly” implemented to avoid similar situations in the future.
"It is paramount that the cost cap continues to be governed in a highly transparent manner, both in terms of the details of any violations and related penalties," he wrote.
"It will also be important to understand if, after the first full year of running and investigating the scheme, there needs to be further clarity on certain matters or any key learnings. Again, any insights or learnings should be shared across all teams - there can be no room for loopholes.
"The cost cap introduction has been one of the main reasons we have attracted new shareholders and investors to F1 in recent years, as they see it as a way to drive financial and sporting fair play.
"It is therefore critical that we be very firm on implementing the rules of the cost cap for the integrity and the future of F1."

[Dr.Brian]

I tend to agree. An overspend should be harshly penalized or teams will use it to get an edge, especially if they are close to the next team and that might gain them positions in the constructors ranking. Make the punishment hurt enough and they won’t be doing it “accidentally” to gain an advantage.
They’ll be checking their books and counting their pennies like grandma on her fixed $150m/yr allowance.

[Mifune]

maybe they over spent in catering...

[SDGT3]

Mercedes say they know why their car hasn't worked all year and will be bringing updates to the Austin GP. It'll be interesting to see if they can go with RBR and Ferrari down the long straights in Texas.

Trying to find reasons to watch the remaining 4 races. Max has the driver's title locked up and RB is a virtual lock for the constructor's trophy. Perhaps the most entertaining element of the weekend will be the pre-race grid walk! What are the odds that Martin Bundle gets blown off by either Serena or Venus Williams? Will Meghan the Stallion not talk to Brundle despite being on the grid and then having a Harry Potter "Malfoy" look alike brush him off? These may be the most compelling reasons to tune in.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by Speedbird-1

The BBC report that they have seen a letter from McLaren's Zak Brown to the FIA which says:
“The overspend breach, and possibly the procedural breaches, constitute cheating by offering a significant advantage across technical, sporting and financial regulations."

McLaren boss Zak Brown has said Red Bull’s budget breach “constitutes cheating” and has called for the FIA to issue a “sporting penalty”.
It was ruled last week that Red Bull committed a "minor" breach of the F1 budget cap in the 2021 season. A minor overspend means exceeding the budget by less than 5%.

Zak Who ? Aaah, that guy always eager to be in the limelight kissing up Mercedes Toto Wolff

[Andad]

Originally Posted by Mifune

maybe they over spent in catering...

Does the spending cap include repairs to damage caused by others?

[Andad]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

Because the outside is where the grip is on a wet track.

Wouldn’t there be too many variables to make this sweeping statement?

I have ridden on quite a few tracks and found the racing line is the driest line but this was the first corner on the first lap and I don’t see how any driver/rider would think the outside line would have better grip?

If the outside line has more grip in the wet why don’t all the drivers take it?

[SDGT3]

Originally Posted by Andad

Wouldn’t there be too many variables to make this sweeping statement?

I have ridden on quite a few tracks and found the racing line is the driest line but this was the first corner on the first lap and I don’t see how any driver/rider would think the outside line would have better grip?

If the outside line has more grip in the wet why don’t all the drivers take it?

Generally speaking the racing line is the slickest in the wet because it's the most worn. At this particular track, that corner is banked and the water is draining toward the inside where LEC was positioned.

[Lol-x]

Originally Posted by joli160

Zak Who ? Aaah, that guy always eager to be in the limelight kissing up Mercedes Toto Wolff

That's true, but Red Bull were upgrading practically every race last year, they spent more than they were legally entitled and should suffer a significant penalty, anyway Verstappen shouldn't have been F1 Champ in 2021, so he needs to get that ripped off him, as much as it pains me to see Hamilton get it

The 2021 Championship Drivers Title should just be declared a non-event and not awarded to anyone, no one deserved it.

[joli160]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

That's true, but Red Bull were upgrading practically every race last year, they spent more than they were legally entitled and should suffer a significant penalty, anyway Verstappen shouldn't have been F1 Champ in 2021, so he needs to get that ripped off him, as much as it pains me to see Hamilton get it

The 2021 Championship Drivers Title should just be declared a non-event and not awarded to anyone, no one deserved it.

Declaring a no win event is perhaps the most fair solution in this day and age, but I doubt this will happen. If they decided to do that it would become a nice soap opera.

Than again maybe the reason of the RB overspending was Mercedes wrong doing by wrecking Verstappen in Silverstone and Bottas crashing two Red Bulls in Hungary.
Surely racing accidents and not done deliberately but very costly. Where was the punishment for Mercedes in this.

Ferrari is certainly not without fault either with Sainz tyre testing in 2022 and the 2019 scam we never heard the official outcome of. FIA acts in mysterious ways.

If you dig deep enough you will find something in every team, Red Bulls accountants are obviously not the brightest bunch not having foreseen this shitstorm coming to them.

[SDGT3]

I've sat back, read and listened to everything coming out for the past couple weeks. IMO, the British media along with Mercedes F1 seem to be the loudest voices about this topic. The FIA says RBR went over budget by less than 5% which by rule is a minor breach and not subject to heavy penalties. The British Media and Mercedes want heavy penalties.

Red Bull is not wiling to concede that they went over even into the 5% territory and claim that the numbers the FIA is counting includes employee lunches and sick leave due to Covid which would not be considered a competitive advantage. Now, I've read that RBR is owed some type of tax break from the British govt which would be in the neighborhood of 4m Sterling which would put RBR firmly under the cap. As I've said before, this FIA budget cap was not well thought out with way too many loopholes. The fact you have an international series with different governments involved with tax breaks etc, makes it nearly impossible to police. In theory, a cap makes sense, but in practice it's proven to be more difficult than first imagined.

[INC]

And let us not forget the pilots' payments are not included! If we take only this fact into account, than we can state that not RB was the best spending team in the last year. Also it's an unfair treatment, that FIA debates Newey's wages just because he was not employed but contracted.

IMO in this form this cap so bad that it has to be revoked.

[daveathall]

8 out of the 10 teams seemed to understand the rules and stay below the cap.

[SDGT3]

And then there was only one seat left at HAAS...

Jost Capito says American racer Logan Sargeant will race alongside Alex Albon for Williams Racing in F1 next season, providing he gains enough super license points in the final FIA Formula 2 race in Abu Dhabi

[enjoythemusic]

#FloridaMan to drive in F1.

Have never felt prouder.

[77T]

Originally Posted by Lol-x

The 2021 Championship Drivers Title should just be declared a non-event and not awarded to anyone, no one deserved it.

Chatter about that is not pointed in that direction. Constructors usually pay for their errors. Drivers are sanctioned for their own errors. This all on the Constructor.

The meetings may settle in the middle for a final accepted breach agreement. Red Bull may lose Constructor title but VER may keep WDC.

[77T]

Originally Posted by SDGT3

And then there was only one seat left at HAAS...

Jost Capito says American racer Logan Sargeant will race alongside Alex Albon for Williams Racing in F1 next season, providing he gains enough super license points in the final FIA Formula 2 race in Abu Dhabi

Yes, nice to see SAR getting a shot. There is some confusion about where he needs to finish to gain the remaining 10 pts (presuming his next couple of FP appearances go well). It's not so much about that one race, it's where he finishes in final F2 championship. Finishing the championship in 6th pl or better gets him the required 10 pts.

He sits 3rd pl now - if he holds off the 3 guys tied for 4-5-6 places for final champ standings, he gets 40 pts.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by 77T

Chatter about that is not pointed in that direction. Constructors usually pay for their errors. Drivers are sanctioned for their own errors. This all on the Constructor.

The meetings may settle in the middle for a final accepted breach agreement. Red Bull may lose Constructor title but VER may keep WDC.

Mercedes won the constructors championship in 2021 though.

[77T]

Originally Posted by daveathall

Mercedes won the constructors championship in 2021 though.

You are right Dave. I did not choose my words carefully.

I was referring to this year. Sorry for the confusion - it's a messy situation.

To me, no point in changing the 2012 record books. But lots of opinions around the topic since we haven't any precedents with this spending cap.

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by 77T

You are right Dave. I did not choose my words carefully.

I was referring to this year. Sorry for the confusion - it's a messy situation.

To me, no point in changing the 2012 record books. But lots of opinions around the topic since we haven't any precedents with this spending cap.

I must admit, I agree my friend. I think it is just best left as it is, all the history books have been written now and should remain. (that's just my opinion) I think that the punishment should come in next season, a fine and perhaps the overspend being taken from that years budget.

[77T]

And I can't even type right! 2012???

I meant 2021 but you understood.

[JoeJoeBobo]

Whatever the FIA punishment is Red Bull are not happy with it.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/red-bu...agree-with-it/

[INC]

Originally Posted by daveathall

8 out of the 10 teams seemed to understand the rules and stay below the cap.

That's true, but let's not forget that at least 5 out of 10 teams were very far from the spending cap, so they don't deserve kudos for that.

Let's also consider that the FIA ​​changed the rules even last year, and these rules were brand new. It follows that the costs handling was not based on any kind of best practice or long-term knowledge, but actually on a system that can be interpreted in several ways.

Accordingly, for me, the most important thing is that the RB didn't lie about their costs. Also FIA didn't find any hidden costs or anything that would indicate a fraud. To me, these means that RB can prove without a doubt that they intended to act by the rules. Also, for me their explanation about the costs treatment seems not worse, than FIA's interpretation of the rules. Therefore, in my opinion, the rules must first be corrected. In summary, all of these facts means for me, that any kind of penalty should be proportional for an accidental breach of a brand new system.

Despite of the aboves, in the other hand I agree with you that this case cannot remain without consequences. Whether this case happened by accidentally or because the rules were not clear, RB spent more than they could do.

Let's see the facts in this aspect:

No one has ever proved, or even dared to claim, that Max won his World Championships because Red Bull spent more on development. And since Red Bull did not win the championship last year, it cannot arise that they gained an advantage for an unfair winning of a world championship at a team level by violating the rules.

Accordingly, in my opinion, the team should have face the consequences. Im my view, an appropriate procedure could be, for example, that next year RB's spending cap should be lowered by the amount by which they spent more last year, and of course regardless of this, but not as part of the spending cap, they should also have to pay a reasonable penalty.

However, a pilot cannot be punished for such a violation, since they have absolutely nothing to do with these.

[77T]

Unwelcome news for the Red Bull & Alpha Tauri teams yesterday.

https://www.espn.com/f1/story/_/id/3...8?platform=amp

So many have benefited from his dedication to F1 and the feeder series via RB Academy. Of course, other sports were supported too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

[daveathall]

Originally Posted by INC

That's true, but let's not forget that at least 5 out of 10 teams were very far from the spending cap, so they don't deserve kudos for that.

Let's also consider that the FIA ​​changed the rules even last year, and these rules were brand new. It follows that the costs handling was not based on any kind of best practice or long-term knowledge, but actually on a system that can be interpreted in several ways.

Accordingly, for me, the most important thing is that the RB didn't lie about their costs. Also FIA didn't find any hidden costs or anything that would indicate a fraud. To me, these means that RB can prove without a doubt that they intended to act by the rules. Also, for me their explanation about the costs treatment seems not worse, than FIA's interpretation of the rules. Therefore, in my opinion, the rules must first be corrected. In summary, all of these facts means for me, that any kind of penalty should be proportional for an accidental breach of a brand new system.

Despite of the aboves, in the other hand I agree with you that this case cannot remain without consequences. Whether this case happened by accidentally or because the rules were not clear, RB spent more than they could do.

Let's see the facts in this aspect:

No one has ever proved, or even dared to claim, that Max won his World Championships because Red Bull spent more on development. And since Red Bull did not win the championship last year, it cannot arise that they gained an advantage for an unfair winning of a world championship at a team level by violating the rules.

Accordingly, in my opinion, the team should have face the consequences. Im my view, an appropriate procedure could be, for example, that next year RB's spending cap should be lowered by the amount by which they spent more last year, and of course regardless of this, but not as part of the spending cap, they should also have to pay a reasonable penalty.

However, a pilot cannot be punished for such a violation, since they have absolutely nothing to do with these.

My point that you quoted remains exactly the same, that is fact.

[77T]

While we await the final official announcement about breach and penalty, I offer this from the FIA regs with regard to sanctions. I am sticking with the minor breach category only for the sake of brevity. Paragraphs are from this doc: https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...2022-02-18.pdf

9.1 The following sanctions may be imposed for breach of these Financial Regulations as set out in Article 8:

(a) A "Financial Penalty", meaning a fine in an amount to be determined on a case by case basis.

(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,
provided that the penalty specified in Article 9.1(b)(vi) shall only be applied with respect to the Full Year Reporting Period immediately following the date of the imposition of the sanction (and subsequent Full Year Reporting Periods, where applicable).

While those are penalty ranges, keep in mind the aggravating or mitigating factors.

Aggravating or mitigating factors
8.14 In determining the sanctions appropriate for a particular case, the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel shall take into account any aggravating or mitigating factors.
8.15 Examples of aggravating factors include:
(a) any element of bad faith, dishonesty, wilful concealment or fraud;
(b) multiple breaches of these Financial Regulations in the Reporting Period in question;
(c) breaches of these Financial Regulations in respect of a previous Reporting Period;
(d) quantum of breach of the Cost Cap; and
(e) failure to co-operate with the Cost Cap Administration and/or Independent Audit Firm appointed by the Cost Cap Administration.
8.16 Examples of mitigating factors include:
(a) voluntary disclosure of a breach to the Cost Cap Administration;
(b) track record of compliance with these Financial Regulations in previous Reporting Periods;
(c) unforeseen Force Majeure Events; and
(d) full and unfettered co-operation with the Cost Cap Administration and/or the Independent Audit Firm appointed by the Cost Cap Administration.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro