the voluntary budget cap!
Discussion
A quote from Max "If you want to carry on with unlimited expenditure running at the front we won’t interfere. And we won’t have a cost-capped car running in front of your car so it doesn’t interfere with you because they will be at the back.
“But if Ferrari have any sense at all they will come in under the cap because it would be an instant €200 million to their bottom line.”
So let me get this right. Ferrari who have the right to spend as much as they want to do, find themselves losing to a small team with a £40 million cap. So they spend more than $40 million to get back on top, and the small team cannot respond in kind. So the small team carruies on, happily at the back of the pack but willing to spend 40 million pa to stay there.
It literally is one set of rules for Ferrari and one set for everyone else.
“But if Ferrari have any sense at all they will come in under the cap because it would be an instant €200 million to their bottom line.”
So let me get this right. Ferrari who have the right to spend as much as they want to do, find themselves losing to a small team with a £40 million cap. So they spend more than $40 million to get back on top, and the small team cannot respond in kind. So the small team carruies on, happily at the back of the pack but willing to spend 40 million pa to stay there.
It literally is one set of rules for Ferrari and one set for everyone else.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Ferrari just being used as an example of a team who don't want to come under the budget cap? It seems like you're saying Max is specifically allowing Ferrari to be the only team not under the budget cap, which is of course not the case. Or are facts not important in this thread?
bordseye said:
A quote from Max "If you want to carry on with unlimited expenditure running at the front we won’t interfere. And we won’t have a cost-capped car running in front of your car so it doesn’t interfere with you because they will be at the back.
“But if Ferrari have any sense at all they will come in under the cap because it would be an instant €200 million to their bottom line.”
So let me get this right. Ferrari who have the right to spend as much as they want to do, find themselves losing to a small team with a £40 million cap. So they spend more than $40 million to get back on top, and the small team cannot respond in kind. So the small team carruies on, happily at the back of the pack but willing to spend 40 million pa to stay there.
It literally is one set of rules for Ferrari and one set for everyone else.
You're shooting wide off the mark.“But if Ferrari have any sense at all they will come in under the cap because it would be an instant €200 million to their bottom line.”
So let me get this right. Ferrari who have the right to spend as much as they want to do, find themselves losing to a small team with a £40 million cap. So they spend more than $40 million to get back on top, and the small team cannot respond in kind. So the small team carruies on, happily at the back of the pack but willing to spend 40 million pa to stay there.
It literally is one set of rules for Ferrari and one set for everyone else.
The budget cap is voluntary. Mosley is just talking about what will happen if Ferrari doesn't submit to the budget cap. He's trying to get Luca to agree to go along with the budget cap, but Luca thinks the idea is b
ks.So it's not about one rule for Ferrari and another for everyone else. It's just one rule for budget-capped teams, and another for non-capped teams, which can include Ferrari, McLaren, BMW, etc.
Edited by Jungles on Tuesday 5th May 13:02
How would the budget cap be enforced?
How does development by an outside supplier get affected by the cap?
Couldn't an F1 team have the brakes, engine, even the design work supplied, at less than cost for sponsorship or other agreements? Leaving the £30mill cap or whatever decided just for going racing beers, and cigarettes?
Or am I over simplifying it all?
How does development by an outside supplier get affected by the cap?
Couldn't an F1 team have the brakes, engine, even the design work supplied, at less than cost for sponsorship or other agreements? Leaving the £30mill cap or whatever decided just for going racing beers, and cigarettes?
Or am I over simplifying it all?
You may well find the likes of Ferrari, BMW, Mclaren et al adhearing to the cap and spending millions in other areas like employing the best designers, computer simulations, things that aren't affected by the budget cap. We will see very soon if money can still buy the best car over effective design, will Brawn finish behind the big boys this year?. If so then I feel that will result in which teams go with the cap.
I just hope the FIA stops meddling soon, it seems every few months there are more fules and fegulations in F1.
I just hope the FIA stops meddling soon, it seems every few months there are more fules and fegulations in F1.
zac - the quote was from a link on this forum of an interview given by Max Mosley. Of course I cannot find it now I want to, but its here on some recent post on this board.
The gist of what Mosley was saying is that Ferrai have some legal right under a previous deal to have the rules ammended on them only by the FIA and so are saying "no thanks" to the idea of a cap. max is saying it will go ahead but if necessary Ferrari can continue without a cap.
The gist of what Mosley was saying is that Ferrai have some legal right under a previous deal to have the rules ammended on them only by the FIA and so are saying "no thanks" to the idea of a cap. max is saying it will go ahead but if necessary Ferrari can continue without a cap.
zac510 said:
I still want to see where the quote is from.. He's essentially saying that if you submit to the cap you're unlikely to win anyway.
Unless of course all the teams are under the cap, then there's only one set of rules.
Getting Ferrari in would be a major coup , politically, for them.
There is no way that the FIA would allow the two-tier system to give a competitive advantage to the uncapped teams. If anything, they have the opposite intention.Unless of course all the teams are under the cap, then there's only one set of rules.
Getting Ferrari in would be a major coup , politically, for them.
zac510 said:
I always thought (assumed, actually) that the capped teams would have their performance tweaked to make them as fast as the uncapped teams, then essentially forcing the uncapped teams into a futile battle.
That's right. The only change to your words that I would suggest is that the capped teams' performance will, IMO, be tweaked to exceed that of the uncapped teams.
Already, the FIA have said that a capped team can have:
- adjustable front and rear wings,
- no engine rev limit (and the engine budget itself will not be under the cap),
- unlimited out-of-season testing, and
- no restrictions on wind tunnel scale or speed.
ISTM that those factors, in themselves, will give the advantage to the capped teams.
zac510 said:
I still want to see where the quote is from.. He's essentially saying that if you submit to the cap you're unlikely to win anyway.
Unless of course all the teams are under the cap, then there's only one set of rules.
Getting Ferrari in would be a major coup , politically, for them.
I'm not sure that's quite correct. From what I can understand, Ferrari, McLaren, BMW and every other team want the budget cap to be the only option.Unless of course all the teams are under the cap, then there's only one set of rules.
Getting Ferrari in would be a major coup , politically, for them.
I think there's litttle doubt that an uncapped team will not be at the front of the grid or on the podium.
The quotes can be seen in the James Allen article on ITV F1 - http://www.itv-f1.com/Feature.aspx?Type=James_Alle...
To me, an interesting point, which is almost a contradiction in itself is:
O/T - The other interesting point in the article is the comment from MM that Ron Dennis would have made the proposal difficult. Surely that is as close to an admission that MM did not like him because he was prepared to stand up for what he believed in rather than submit to the non-nazi spanking dictator as we are ever likely to see!
To me, an interesting point, which is almost a contradiction in itself is:
Max Mosley said:
“And we won’t have a cost-capped car running in front of your car so it doesn’t interfere with you because they will be at the back.
“But if Ferrari have any sense at all they will come in under the cap because it would be an instant €200 million to their bottom line.”
If the capped teams will not be able to be at the front, why would Ferrari want to take part with the cap applied to them. They are in F1 to win, and always have been. OK, there have been many years where they could have been said to be making up the numbers, but that was never the aim, whereas to be realistic, some teams must know they are only ever likely to be near the front in rare situations. MM is suggesting you can either win, or enter on the cheap. Ferrari and McLaren (amongst others) are unlikely to to go for the latter, in my opinion.“But if Ferrari have any sense at all they will come in under the cap because it would be an instant €200 million to their bottom line.”
O/T - The other interesting point in the article is the comment from MM that Ron Dennis would have made the proposal difficult. Surely that is as close to an admission that MM did not like him because he was prepared to stand up for what he believed in rather than submit to the non-nazi spanking dictator as we are ever likely to see!
flemke said:
zac510 said:
I always thought (assumed, actually) that the capped teams would have their performance tweaked to make them as fast as the uncapped teams, then essentially forcing the uncapped teams into a futile battle.
That's right. The only change to your words that I would suggest is that the capped teams' performance will, IMO, be tweaked to exceed that of the uncapped teams.
Already, the FIA have said that a capped team can have:
- adjustable front and rear wings,
- no engine rev limit (and the engine budget itself will not be under the cap),
- unlimited out-of-season testing, and
- no restrictions on wind tunnel scale or speed.
ISTM that those factors, in themselves, will give the advantage to the capped teams.
even if that's not enough for the capped teams to walk all over the uncapped, the FIA can change the rules as they see fit to get the results they want. and the result they want is for everyone to stick to the budget cap, and for those that can't or don't want to, to leave F1 for him to rule unchallenged.
skinny said:
double KERS storage capability too
even if that's not enough for the capped teams to walk all over the uncapped, the FIA can change the rules as they see fit to get the results they want. and the result they want is for everyone to stick to the budget cap, and for those that can't or don't want to, to leave F1 for him to rule unchallenged.
even if that's not enough for the capped teams to walk all over the uncapped, the FIA can change the rules as they see fit to get the results they want. and the result they want is for everyone to stick to the budget cap, and for those that can't or don't want to, to leave F1 for him to rule unchallenged.
flemke said:
skinny said:
double KERS storage capability too
even if that's not enough for the capped teams to walk all over the uncapped, the FIA can change the rules as they see fit to get the results they want. and the result they want is for everyone to stick to the budget cap, and for those that can't or don't want to, to leave F1 for him to rule unchallenged.
even if that's not enough for the capped teams to walk all over the uncapped, the FIA can change the rules as they see fit to get the results they want. and the result they want is for everyone to stick to the budget cap, and for those that can't or don't want to, to leave F1 for him to rule unchallenged.
The interested parties would include FOTA, the drivers, the circuit owners, tyre manufacturers, representatives of those who put money into the sport, such as sponsors, advertisers and the TV companies. And perhaps, I'd listen to an argument to have, in an observing role, those who take money from the sport. But perhaps I wouldn't.
And I know this is a bit off the wall, but how about - no, it sounds so silly - but how about a reresentative or two from the spectators and those who run the F1 tours? It can be done. FOTA reckoned they approached the fans to come up with some proposals. Mosley rejected them of course.
The remit of this body, call it SO for the Sensible Option, would be to keep costs down, to increase the spectacle, to repay excellence, to ensure stability and to repay investment. Further, they will be forced to negotiate with the teams rather then ram new rules down their throat late on in the season.
Mosely has recently stated that he is in charge of F1, but the question that gives rise to is Why? The FiA should be the enforcer of the rules alone and the legislators should be separate.
There are a considerable number of problems associated with this suggestion, but none are overwhelming and it has the benefit of not having a history of poor management.
One meeting of the SO to receive suggestions, ideas and criticisms, a month to consider with full reports to the relevant parties, and then a return with the new regs. Or rather, new regs if any.
If an interested party did have concerns about a specific problem then they must come up with a a number of preferred solutions. The SO would not be restricted to these but it is not their job to do all the work.
At the moment the teams and sponsors are dictated to and the fans ignored. We have one man with absolute power and we all know what that does.
I cant see how a cap can work. I've run businesses part of large scale multi national engineering companies (as no doubt others on the forum have done)so I know how easy it is to adjust costs to the figures you want, and how easy it is to pull the wool over auditors eyes if you need to do so. And that is ignoring the issues of cost allocation on essentially overhead activities like research. Finally, many continental European companies operate on the 2 books system anyway - one for the taxman and one for the owners.
So how exactly are the FIA to know what anything at (say) FIAT has ever cost if FIAT dont want them to?
Wrapped up with all the tech rules, its a farce. The best way of keeping costs reasonable is to ban ownership of F1 teams by the big manufacturers.
So how exactly are the FIA to know what anything at (say) FIAT has ever cost if FIAT dont want them to?
Wrapped up with all the tech rules, its a farce. The best way of keeping costs reasonable is to ban ownership of F1 teams by the big manufacturers.
bordseye said:
I cant see how a cap can work. I've run businesses part of large scale multi national engineering companies (as no doubt others on the forum have done)so I know how easy it is to adjust costs to the figures you want, and how easy it is to pull the wool over auditors eyes if you need to do so. And that is ignoring the issues of cost allocation on essentially overhead activities like research. Finally, many continental European companies operate on the 2 books system anyway - one for the taxman and one for the owners.
So how exactly are the FIA to know what anything at (say) FIAT has ever cost if FIAT dont want them to?
Wrapped up with all the tech rules, its a farce. The best way of keeping costs reasonable is to ban ownership of F1 teams by the big manufacturers.
The vaguer the rules are, the more power the authorities have to interpret them as they wish. Since every situation will be unique, the interpretation can be unique. There will be times when we plebs think that rulings have been inconsistent, but we shall be informed, "You don't understand - this time it's different". So how exactly are the FIA to know what anything at (say) FIAT has ever cost if FIAT dont want them to?
Wrapped up with all the tech rules, its a farce. The best way of keeping costs reasonable is to ban ownership of F1 teams by the big manufacturers.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff