Every discussion that has arisen in recent weeks, and not a few, has come to the same terminus: the regulation. The three writings governing the activity in Formula 1 (sports, technical and financial) have always been subject to revisions, modifications and updates, confirming that no matter how hard we try to put everything in black and white, reality, and above all the reality of a complex sport like Formula 1, it is difficult to circumscribe perfectly.
The law does not admit ignorance, very true, but when even a good number of insiders do not keep up with the pressing pace of the evolution of the rule book, something probably needs to be revised.
A necessary premise is necessary. The teams are an active part in the process that leads to the ratification of a new regulation or of articles added or modified to an already existing code, and for this reason it is surprising that sometimes the biggest complaints come from their front.
Recently Zak Brown attacked the super license assignment system, and especially Mercedes and Ferrari underlined the long time required to verify the budget cap.
These are aspects written in black and white on the respective regulations and which, probably, became a problem only when they clashed with the interests of the teams themselves. Sometimes, however, the observations are indisputable.
Beyond the consideration on “everything had already been known for some time”, those who have not spent spring and summer studying the “Financial Regulations” have taken note in recent weeks of some very questionable aspects of the financial code.
Those who drafted the regulations at the headquarters of the Formula 1 Commission (made up of FIA, Liberty and a representative for each team at the start of the world championship) decided to keep the extent of the infringements confidential.
An approach that goes against the tide of the technical regulation, which provides for the communication by the Stewards of the Board of the type of infringement committed, even in detail.
For example, last year Sebastian Vettel in the Hungarian Grand Prix lost the second position to a technical disqualification, and in communicating the sanction the FIA specified that 0.3 liters of fuel had been found in the tank of his Aston Martin instead of the liter required by the regulation.
These data are used by the FIA itself to clarify the procedure as well as to the opponents and the public to get an idea of what happened.
On the financial front, however, this is not the case. At the moment it is known that Red Bull has been charged with an infringement of the ‘Financial Regulations’ classified as a ‘Minor’, but the actual amount disputed will never be known, which could be a dollar like 7.3 million, at least until the current code will be in effect.
Mohammed ben Sulayem, President of the FIA and Stefano Domenicali, CEO of Formula 1
Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images
It is a limitation of the regulation, endorsed by the same teams who now want more transparency. It is paradoxical to think that the sanction will be made public, but not the extent of the infringement, making it impossible to evaluate the method of punishment of the International Federation and to get an idea of how much the advantage that the team that committed may have been guaranteed. an infringement.
The Formula 1 paddock is a place where thinking badly is a daily practice, and in front of such a wide range as the one baptized as “Minor” one will think in excess.
The possible sanction that could be imposed on Red Bull will be assessed for what will be hypothesized as a crime, and it is a scenario that is not good for the FIA as well as for Red Bull itself.
It is a counter-trend approach, which survives despite the fact that Formula 1 (by the will of Liberty Media) has for years embraced a policy of maximum openness, finding great support and relaunching a sport that was not going through a good period.
The control room, in which aspects that have had an impact on the rankings are discussed and classified, is now anachronistic. And from what we have seen in recent weeks it is not even watertight, given that some teams (at least two) became aware of Red Bull’s problems during the financial audit well before the FIA made it official.
Greater transparency would be of great help, and would probably only displease those who have committed an infringement. Not bad, given that today the person who committed the infraction is actually protected by depriving those who evaluate and judge the sport of information necessary to understand the truthfulness of what was seen on the track.
#Budget #cap #transparency #play #rules