The principle underlying the ‘Financial Regulations’, that is the regulation that defines in 52 pages what can be done and what not in terms of budget cap, is very clear.
The goal is to guarantee all the teams on the track the same resources, leaving the capacity of the staff and the efficiency of the structure to make the difference between the teams. The sentence communicated yesterday by the FIA regarding the Red Bull affair does not reflect the original principle of the regulation for several reasons.
The first of all is that a team with good financial possibilities can afford to pay a fine, as in the case of the 7 million dollars that Red Bull will have to pay, and this sends a dangerous message: it can be worth it, and not only on the sports front.
If the sanctions do not affect the position of a team in the Constructors’ World Championship it can also be a bargain in terms of revenues, since under the ‘prize pool’ the delta between two positions is on average between 10 and 12 million.
Since the financial regulation came into force, one aspect that is (and will be) the basis of Formula 1 as never before in its history must be taken into account: budget equals performance. It is a crucial step, and precisely because the ‘Financial Regulations’ is taking its first steps, it would have been appropriate for the FIA to launch a more rigid message.
Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing RB18
Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images
The new Formula 1 cycle is based on two pillars, the financial regulation and the new Concordia pact, that is, a controlled expenditure and a more equitable distribution of the prize money. And the whole thing, it is fair to point out, is working in many ways.
Next year all the ten teams that will be at the start of the World Cup will have the 135 million dollars that cost the maximum spending ceiling available, a scenario that was unthinkable just a few years ago. Beyond the Red Bull case, however, if the concept passes that exceeding the spending ceiling within a threshold of 2 or 3% involves only the payment of a fine and a minimum reduction in the hours available in the wind tunnel, it lapses the basic concept. And this is the greatest risk that emerged from the ruling of the International Federation.
It is right to underline that the work of the FIA working group which analyzed the 2021 budgets of all ten teams on the track in the 2021 season was very good.
13 items in the financial statements have been challenged at Red Bull, and in this case the message is positive, that is, it is not easy to get away with it. There are and will still be controversies and discussions, but this was the case for all the regulations: experience will also help those who must be vigilant.
To fuel discussions is the penalty following the infringement, because the 2.2 million dollars contested against Red Bull (which became official yesterday and no longer just speculations as Christian Horner claimed in recent weeks), are no small thing.
In the economy of a world as tight as last year, they may have made a difference, especially in the hands of a team that has already shown that it knows how to seize every opportunity.
In the long press conference held yesterday in Mexico City, Horner touched on all the points that have been contested by the FIA. The Red Bull team principal stated that there are several reasons behind the choice to accept the plea deal offered by the International Federation.
“If we had pursued all legal avenues at our disposal – clarified Horner – the trial could have dragged on for another 12 months, and it would have been months of speculation, with snipers who would have defamed us with all kinds of comments. So let’s bite the bullet and close the book ”.
Red Bull actually also had a good payback in terms of penalty discount, and as much as Horner tried to get the message out of a very harsh penalty, the impression is that Milton Keynes has uncorked a few bottles.
Horner has also espoused the interpretation that the figure actually contested at Red Bull is £ 432,652. It is not so. The difference detected by the FIA analysts with respect to the budget presented by the team on March 31 last is 5.6 million pounds, which becomes 1.864 million pounds (2.2 million dollars) as Red Bull presented a total of 3 spending. , 7 million less than the maximum envisaged.
The FIA pointed out that Red Bull did not deduct a £ 1.4 million tax rebate, and here comes the £ 432,652 cited by Horner. But the reimbursement came at the end of the season, and in fact it had no influence on the team’s expenses.
Christian Horner, Red Bull Racing Team Principal, with a fan
Photo by: Carl Bingham / Motorsport Images
Even more conflicting are the opinions that emerged in the paddock regarding the second penalty imposed on Red Bull by the FIA ruling, namely the 10% reduction of the hours foreseen for the wind tunnel and CFD.
“It’s a serious disadvantage – commented Horner – being world champions we already have a reduction in the time we can spend in the tunnel, and together with the penalty, this gap becomes 15% less than the second-placed team in the Constructors’ Championship and 20 % compared to the third. Converted into lap times, I correspond to about three tenths ”.
“The penalty did not include any type of budget cap reduction – commented Laurent Mekies – and this aspect means that a competitor will allocate the part of the budget that he will not be able to spend in the wind tunnel on other fronts. For example, he will be free to spend it to reduce the weight of the car ”.
In the paddock there are also those who argue that the hours of penalties imposed on Red Bull lead to a gap of 0 ”05, perhaps an excessively low value, but still very far from that indicated by Horner. The truth is probably somewhere in between.
On one point they all seem to agree, and that is the need to put their hand to the regulation to file the critical issues that emerged in this affair. The now famous Milton Keynes canteen has been the subject of discussions between Red Bull and the FIA.
“They counted all the meals – explained Horner – even those of the employees who work in the powertrain department. At Mercedes the two departments are in two different locations, so they don’t have this problem, and this entry cost us £ 1.2 million ”.
“The procedural errors of which Aston Martin has been accused are similar to ours in many cases – concluded Horner – they only had more room for improvement than us. And we are surprised that other teams have not had the same problems, what happened to us can happen to anyone. We will learn from what happened, but I think some of the still immature rules need to be changed ”.
Laurent Mekies, Ferrari Sporting Director
Photo by: Glenn Dunbar / Motorsport Images
The only real positive aspect that emerged from yesterday’s ruling is that the budget cap affair, at least in the short term, will stop being the topic of the race weekends.
“The FIA has come to a very clear conclusion – Mekies reiterated – confirming this irregularity. We are happy to see that the same breach has been admitted by the team that committed it, and it is a good message that the FIA has managed to reach this result ”.
Now, however, it would be a serious mistake if the corrections and changes required by a regulation that took shape in front of the FIA, Liberty Media and representatives of the teams were not carried out in the appropriate forum (the Formula 1 Commission).
The criticisms and critical issues that emerged during this story must be transformed into something constructive for the future, to be put on paper. If this is not the case, in this case there will not be only Red Bull in the dock.
#Budget #cap #lights #shadows #Red #Bull #ruling