|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
14 Jun 2023, 18:49 (Ref:4163745) | #2101 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,936
|
Yes you are right. The regulations also call out what "Considerations" means. And the exclusion generally uses the phrase "cost of Considerations". Of which it is to a person. So that is why the exclusion is "person" based and not an entire company that might be providing services. Plus the Considerations section calls out both employees and non-employees. Nothing in the call out for the three who are excluded says they must be employees.
Again, where am I wrong? Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
14 Jun 2023, 19:02 (Ref:4163750) | #2102 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,936
|
Quote:
I can only speculate, but I can imagine that to some degree, F1 is one of those industries in which those at the bottom of the pyramid might actually be paid less than market value while those at the top are well compensated, maybe overly compensated. That is because there is a level of (not sure of the word)... "status" to be working in F1. I know that in other industries such as fashion, or video game design, if you are in a lower level position, you can be treated like a dog because you are just "lucky to be there" and you have to "pay your dues" before you reap any financial benefits. Also, these types of industries have a heavy "lifestyle" component which ends up being part of the non-financial "compensation". Anyhow, I digress. I think it is not a race to the bottom, but for the well funded teams a race to someplace lower than where they have been. I think this is just pain that is felt by those who previously had effectively unlimited budgets and could generally buy whoever they want. I DO think this will deflate the earning potential of many of the lower top tier. Those who are not in the top three who are excluded, but those just below them. Those folks will likely feel extreme pressure to move elsewhere in which they might end up higher on the food chain than where they might currently be. Also, for the teams who are moving some employees into "non-race" positions and then counting only a percentage of their time toward cost capped activities, I can imagine that might not be exactly what they want to do. So they might see a position in another team that promises full time race related positions attractive. Richard |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
14 Jun 2023, 19:13 (Ref:4163756) | #2103 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,936
|
I know I am appearing to be confrontational with the qty of posts. But where does it exclude compensation for the Team Principal? As best as I can tell, there is none.
Chili, to your question. My understanding is that it is not a set list of "who" or that the team even gets to pick. I think they just order the compensation from highest to lowest and the top three are excluded regardless of who they are (note there are exclusions for the drivers, HR expenses, etc. the focus on accounting for the compensation for the people is about who "makes the car go fast" not the company overhead). Now... I think there is an expectation that each position should be getting some type of fair market wage. So otherwise everyone might be getting compensated outside of F1 and then taking $1 for their salary and that means money can be spent elsewhere. I think the same applies to parts. You can't have an internal supplier sell you parts on the cheap and the supplier eats the true costs. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
14 Jun 2023, 19:16 (Ref:4163758) | #2104 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,936
|
Sorry for the machine gun posts. I am not an attorney or an accountant. So I could be getting some of this stuff wrong. But I tend to be a bit of a Anorak when it comes to F1 regulations. So I just read them and try to understand them. I am open to being wrong. But I would like someone to say "why" I am wrong vs. "it doesn't work the way you think it works". I think insiders are just as likely to get some of the esoteric details wrong as the next guy unless it is areas in which they are the experts.
Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
14 Jun 2023, 19:49 (Ref:4163762) | #2105 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,334
|
Quote:
You’re overthinking a lot to be honest. |
||
|
14 Jun 2023, 23:26 (Ref:4163774) | #2106 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,936
|
Quote:
Richard Last edited by Richard C; 14 Jun 2023 at 23:41. |
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
14 Jun 2023, 23:42 (Ref:4163775) | #2107 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,936
|
||
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
15 Jun 2023, 05:15 (Ref:4163793) | #2108 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,334
|
Only that you seem to want to suggest a team should be allowed to differentiate between different suppliers/contractors for the budget cap which makes no sense at all, especially when the rules are actually clear.
|
|
|
15 Jun 2023, 05:34 (Ref:4163794) | #2109 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,409
|
We are way off the topic of McLaren here - but for the record:
Payments to Newey (salary or contract) were never the reason for breaching the budget cap. The final findings were that 13 misinterpretations of the regulations were identifed. The major issues were: A tax payment. The FIA noted that “if RBR [Red Bull Racing] applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652 (0.37%).” Catering “Catering within Red Bull has always been a benefit that’s been provided by the group,” he said. “It’s a benefit of working within the Red Bull group that free food and beverage has always been provided. Therefore, as something of a Red Bull policy, we viewed it as an excludable cost. Aggressive, but we felt acceptable. “The FIA took a different viewpoint on that and said that food was not excludable. Fair enough. But what was included was the entire catering bill of the entire company. So £1.4 million worth of food, drink, coffees – any of you [media] that attended Milton Keynes during the last 12 months have contributed to our overspend. Red Bull Powertrains have nothing to do with Red Bull Racing, its activity this year the costs are included. So there’s a difference of opinion on how that was applied.” Sick Pay “We felt that the sick pay, because the role played no function in the grand prix team for a period of eight months, was an excludable costs. Unfortunately, the regulations can be interpreted in two ways.” Salary of departing personnel “We had a senior member of staff on a fixed-term contract, that was offered a Hollywood-style offer from another team, and at that point, you can see that their heart and mind is not within your company. And so they were transferred from the Formula 1 activity into our Advanced Technology activity which is currently designing the RB17 [road-going hypercar] and America’s Cup projects amongst a myriad of other projects. “The individual then left the company from there but the time that he was spent not in the Formula 1 activity was included in the cap. So again, something that we vehemently felt was an excludeable costs.” On the 28th October: The FIA releases details of Red Bull’s breach, finding the team overspent in four main areas amounting to a total of $5.8m, which after the $4m under-submission created an overspend as follows:
|
||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
15 Jun 2023, 07:44 (Ref:4163803) | #2110 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,334
|
Quote:
Yes, they failed on the above once AN had been put back in the figures and the third highest paid employee taken out. Before they did that they failed on AN and food. |
||
|
15 Jun 2023, 08:07 (Ref:4163809) | #2111 | |||
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,409
|
Quote:
Your explanation does not make sense. How can they fail on AN before they include him in the figures? Are you saying that an initial submission with AN as a 'top three earner' still exceeded the budget cap? I'll refrain from attacking the poster - just leave the link to the [Official] ABA here - https://www.fia.com/sites/default/fi...cle_6.32_1.pdf The ABA refers to all of the breaches I referred to previously. If you have any evidence to the contrary (other than the speculation that originated from Ziggo Sports) then please, for the sake of preventing this becoming another 'I know something you don't' discussion, please provide it. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
15 Jun 2023, 13:19 (Ref:4163854) | #2112 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,936
|
Agree. Can a moderator consider moving all of these recent posts (which are off topic for this thread) to the 2022 Cost Cap thread? https://tentenths.com/forum/showthread.php?t=157449
If this discussion involves more than just me and Peebee2, then I would jump back in, but not as to continue it as off topic here. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
15 Jun 2023, 17:10 (Ref:4163901) | #2113 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,971
|
In any case, McLaren's original interpretation of the cost cap was supposedly far too conservative so they were losing out on useful hours and employee numbers to all the other teams, not just Red Bull. [E.g., billing things to the cost cap that can otherwise be moved to things like administration while only engineering hours on the car go to the cost cap, engineering employees spending most of their time working on "special projects" with only their F1 work billed to the cap etc.] So that has been rectified.
|
|
|
16 Jun 2023, 00:37 (Ref:4163929) | #2114 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,869
|
Anyway Mika Hakkinen reckons that McLaren will be challenging RB soon so that's funky.
|
||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
16 Jun 2023, 08:17 (Ref:4163961) | #2115 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,480
|
||
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
18 Jun 2023, 05:12 (Ref:4164307) | #2116 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 1,207
|
I think all the teams can take heart from AM-F1.
For years under various names, they have been reliable mid-rear team. Suddenly this year a few factors fell into place and they are regulars on the podium and surely will stand on the top step this year, maybe this weekend. So yes McLaren or even Williams could come out of no where next year.. or the one after.. or |
||
__________________
Bathurst 1977, best day of my childhood Worst thing ever to happen to Ford Aust Motorsport. |
18 Jun 2023, 08:42 (Ref:4164316) | #2117 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,334
|
Nice thinking but Williams package is generations behind. Mind you, chuck enough money at it and who knows…
|
|
|
18 Jun 2023, 08:54 (Ref:4164317) | #2118 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,480
|
McLaren have done good to get both cars in the top 10, even if it was helped by the weather. Let's see if they can hold on in the race
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
18 Jun 2023, 20:58 (Ref:4164516) | #2119 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
So on this basis, Audi Sauber seems better placed to improve than McLaren or Williams. Indeed, last time BMW injected a huge amount of money into Sauber and this similarly resulted in considerable improvement... Money that could have gone to Williams, save for Williams refusing to sell to BMW and become BMW but rather remain an "independent garagiste". Similarly Mercedes injected a huge amount into Brawn GP instead to McLaren, because McLaren refused to sell (and/or because McLaren offended Mercedes with "spygate"). These days Red Bull Racing have the best of both: both a wealthy benefactor and a car that is plastered with sponsors from end to end (like the Williams of the 90's: Labatt's, Canon, Sega, Mobil 1, Camel et al.) whereever the decals will fit in true garagiste spirit. Although the benefactor does lose a huge amount of money on Scuderia AlphaTauri though... |
||
|
9 Aug 2023, 15:53 (Ref:4172003) | #2120 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,672
|
An article in Autosport and sister mag Motorsport has surprised me in that after 12 years, McLaren is to stop using Toyota's wind tunnel in Cologne as it starts using it's own new tunnel at Woking.
The surprise to me is that McLaren hasn't had a modern functioning tunnel for all these years; if it had been, say, Haas or Sauber, I could have understood but not the Woking outfit with all their modern and very expensive facilities. Here's the article: https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/t...deal/10506135/ |
||
|
9 Aug 2023, 16:47 (Ref:4172006) | #2121 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 2,135
|
Here's something to think about...
Even though they will be ending their use of TGR-E's wind tunnel, McLaren will still be partnering with them for other technical and engineering work. It also makes me wonder, with RBR moving to Ford in'26, Haas doing a deal with Alfa Romeo, and StrollF1(may as well, as the divestiture of Aston Martin from F1 is ongoing) has made a deal with Honda, when is that present supply deal with Mercedes supposed to end? |
||
__________________
Here's to the new age of Sports car/Prototypes... |
9 Aug 2023, 17:34 (Ref:4172008) | #2122 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 5,150
|
Quote:
Somewhere along the way I missed the fact it wasn't good enough. |
||
__________________
Walk a mile in someone else's shoes. When they realise you have, you'll be a mile away and you'll have their shoes. |
9 Aug 2023, 18:08 (Ref:4172011) | #2123 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 5,672
|
My exact thoughts, Greame.
|
||
|
9 Aug 2023, 19:08 (Ref:4172015) | #2124 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Jan 2009
Posts: 2,971
|
Quote:
Times move fast in Formula One and in a stroke of Ron Dennis genius the McLaren Technology Centre was designed in such a way that significantly upgrading the wind tunnel was difficult to impossible. I.e., there was no provision for making the working section and therefore the entire ductwork circuit larger. As you can appreciate, wind tunnels are big! Especially when they now need to have space for a turntable for testing 60% models at up to 15 degrees while not having detrimental blockage effects. Not the case for the smaller 50% models which were tested in a straight-line only back in 2004 (which allowed for smaller working sections). Over the 10's, McLaren of course did not have the capital to build a new wind tunnel, as capital was prioritised towards the McLaren road car division. The new wind tunnel has now been constructed in a separate, rather more plain and rectangular, building which should make keeping it up to date easier. PS. The Ferrari wind tunnel lives outside where it can be easily modified. I'm not sure putting a wind tunnel in the middle of an office and workshop building is a good idea by way of comparison: Even though it was designed by Pat Fry circa 2012, it also has become out-of-date and has recently been upgraded again too. Last edited by V8 Fireworks; 9 Aug 2023 at 19:20. |
||
|
15 Aug 2023, 15:39 (Ref:4172885) | #2125 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,936
|
Interesting comments from Lando a few days ago regarding the character of the 2023 car and how while vastly improved still requires him to drive it in a way that doesn't fit his style.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/n...tyle/10507078/ He also says that Oscar and even DR from last year has provided similar feedback. The article provides more details as the issues, but he calls out the car likes straight lines and that includes a strength of braking in a straight line. But it sounds like he would prefer to follow a smoother entry and exit from a corner. It also sounds like the car doesn't like trail braking? He has to use a more "V" vs. "U" shaped path through (I assume low speed) corners. Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ghosn: "Renault won't stick around if we can't compete". | Knowlesy | Formula One | 15 | 28 May 2007 12:20 |
Winton can’t compete with richer raceways...... | retro | Australasian Touring Cars. | 28 | 25 Jul 2006 00:33 |
Can Button Compete with the Likes of Kimi And Alonso | marzF1rocks | Formula One | 22 | 31 Mar 2006 11:59 |
Kimi Raikkonen and McLaren - can they continue their current form? | Yoong Montoya | Formula One | 23 | 1 May 2003 00:26 |
Can the Pilbeam compete with the Reynard and the MG Lola? | H16 | Sportscar & GT Racing | 8 | 27 Jan 2003 16:51 |