Sergio Perez - Can he still hack it?

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by NaBUru38

Let me quote Helmut Marko:

If he's so harsh in public, imagine how harsh he is in private.

I can promise you that blunt doesn’t even begin to cover it!

[Aysedasi]

What a disaster. That could have been a very easy second place but he really blew it.

[S griffin]

He made a brilliant start, but then blew it all at the first corner. You can’t blame Leclerc for that and Checo’s explanation that he going for the win doesn’t really cut it. As they say you can’t win a race at the first corner, but you can certainly lose it, as he did there

[GT6]

i fear next years Mexican GP might not have Checo to support next year

[ChrisA]

Originally Posted by GT6

i fear next years Mexican GP might not have Checo to support next year

I feel somewhat sorry for Checco, after a great start to the season. But where could he go, if RB choose to let him go?

[chillibowl]

at this point in this season and with so few story lines with which to over sensationalize, i suspect the talking heads will be looking to draw even more attention to Checo's recent poor run of form/luck.

and no doubt a resurgent Ham and a Merc team looking to play spoiler will do their part to keep on saying how sorry they feel for Checo.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

I feel somewhat sorry for Checco, after a great start to the season. But where could he go, if RB choose to let him go?

Maybe he'll be demoted to Alpha Tauri?

[GT6]

i doubt he would agree to that

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by ChrisA

I feel somewhat sorry for Checco, after a great start to the season. But where could he go, if RB choose to let him go?

Well, he pretty much had nowhere to go before they did....

[Gerard C]

He should fire his guru and schrink first.

[chunterer]

Being reported that Checo will be staying for '24.

At the moment there is too much repetetive headlines from certain outlets that he is out.

The only way that will hapoen now is if he loses 2nd place in the championship,
or Ricciardo continues last weekend's almost unbelievable form until the chequer in Abu Dhabi.

[Teretonga]

Horner says he doesn't blame Checo for going for it, a(lthough he would probably rather he had finished)
Yuki did much the same thing with Piastri and Hamilton did the same thing with his teammate at Qatar?
Its racing. Unfortunate but we want cloe racing and ewe want drivers to go for the gaps?
Or do we?
We say one thing but then castigate people for trying things that are on in terms of opportunity.

You can't have both ways.
We say we want real racing rather than sanitized processions.
If Checo had pulled it off without hitting Leclerc some people would have been in awe.
His movement was very similar to Hamiltons, so Lewis was no better in the same circumstance and Yuki's move on Piastri was a lot worse (clumsier)

[Skam85]

You can tidy up speed, but you can't speed up tidiness.

At the moment, Checo has neither.

[Aysedasi]

Of course we want drivers to go for gaps, but drivers at that level need to be able to recognise when a gap will only be a gap if the driver beside him magically disappears.....

[GregUK]

Originally Posted by chunterer

Being reported that Checo will be staying for '24.

He has a contract for a '24 drive.

If Red Bull decides to P45 him, does the severance payment come from the cost envelope?

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by GregUK

He has a contract for a '24 drive.

If Red Bull decides to P45 him, does the severance payment come from the cost envelope?

Aren't driver's costs excluded from the budget?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Aren't driver's costs excluded from the budget?

Yes they are. While the wording in the financial regulations are oddly written when it comes to the drivers, it seems like they can rotate through multiple drivers if they want and all fees related to that are not part of the budget cap. Including (I assume) buying out a driver's contract. Be it their own or another driver from a different team.

Richard

[chillibowl]

speculation, but if a driver gets loaned out for a favourably priced or discounted supply contract then perhaps there is a way to work the budget cap system here?.

if for example AT loan out or sell DRic's current contract to RB (which may not even be an AT contract but for the sake of this point lets pretend) for the bits they are currently buying for a discount then AT will presumably have more money to spend in other areas while staying under the cap. perhaps more of a benefit once the engine budget cap comes into play?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

speculation, but if a driver gets loaned out for a favourably priced or discounted supply contract then perhaps there is a way to work the budget cap system here?.

if for example AT loan out or sell DRic's current contract to RB (which may not even be an AT contract but for the sake of this point lets pretend) for the bits they are currently buying for a discount then AT will presumably have more money to spend in other areas while staying under the cap. perhaps more of a benefit once the engine budget cap comes into play?

I think that when it comes to expenditures under the cap, it is not just the total sum that you spend, but they must keep detailed accounting as to what it was spent on. So you can't have back door sweetheart deals in which goods or services are paid at below fair market value (and then compensated in some other shadow way). From a forensic accounting perspective I assume that is an obvious trick they would look for.

As to the engine budget cap stuff. I believe that is all ready in effect for those who signed up as power unit providers. R&D in the 2026 power units is happening now and the regulations have a "look back" component to ensure money spent prior to providing the units is accounted for. If someone were to jump into this (today or closer to 2026) as a provider, I think that same look back would be put in place. So you couldn't dump a ton of money and resources into a design and THEN show up and say you want to join F1 as a power unit provider. You have to prove you operated under the same constraints as everyone else. Which is more than just financial. It includes limits on specific equipment as well.

Lastly the budgets to run the teams and do R&D for power unit are not comingled when it comes to cap accounting. Teams do have budget entry for paying for power units. And even a team like Mercedes or Ferrari have to pay themselves for their own unit. No intra-org cheap engine deals.

Richard

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

which may not even be an AT contract but for the sake of this point lets pretend

And I think Daniel's contract is with Red Bull (Red Bull Racing?) and not AT. I think he is currently "loaned" to AT. Which as you say, might be the situation.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard C

I think that when it comes to expenditures under the cap, it is not just the total sum that you spend, but they must keep detailed accounting as to what it was spent on. So you can't have back door sweetheart deals in which goods or services are paid at below fair market value (and then compensated in some other shadow way). From a forensic accounting perspective I assume that is an obvious trick they would look for.

no doubt it would be an easy thing to track or uncover through any number of accounting techniques but i also wouldn't considered it shadowy. maybe more barter but i take you point.

i wonder if this precludes teams from benefiting from any discounts like a price reduction for buying in bulk...but indeed, from a budget cap monitoring position, the cap hit has to be based on what the fair market value is and not necessarily the price for which a team actually paid.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

no doubt it would be an easy thing to track or uncover through any number of accounting techniques but i also wouldn't considered it shadowy. maybe more barter but i take you point.

Right. And a "barter" arrangement would need to have some cash value established. Which would fit in the cap somehow.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

i wonder if this precludes teams from benefiting from any discounts like a price reduction for buying in bulk...but indeed, from a budget cap monitoring position, the cap hit has to be based on what the fair market value is and not necessarily the price for which a team actually paid.

I think the "bulk purchase" example would be fine. As long as the related discount is within market norms.

Games can still be played in this area. And maybe successfully at times. But likely not to levels that negate the goal of the caps.

Richard

[Skam85]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

speculation, but if a driver gets loaned out for a favourably priced or discounted supply contract then perhaps there is a way to work the budget cap system here?.

if for example AT loan out or sell DRic's current contract to RB (which may not even be an AT contract but for the sake of this point lets pretend) for the bits they are currently buying for a discount then AT will presumably have more money to spend in other areas while staying under the cap. perhaps more of a benefit once the engine budget cap comes into play?

That sounds like money laundering a little..

So yes perfectly on brand for F1

[crmalcolm]

Has a 2nd placed driver in the WDC ever finished closer in points to the last place than 1st before?

[AndreasDavour]

Originally Posted by Skam85

That sounds like money laundering a little..

So yes perfectly on brand for F1