\m/HEAVY METAL\m/
I completely agree with you and with earlier post from WS6TransAm01. Formula 1 was always sport for rich and elite! If you don't have money enough, than you don't belong there! That's it! It is not welfare club with hell's kitchen. No! It is all about money!Originally Posted by aroutis
Full Member
As it has been noted, if you overspend in one season, it will carry over onto the next.
So what should the penalty be?
If a team doesn't get penalized for the year that they breach the cost cap, then any team can just overspend whenever they want a championship.
So the correct penalty must be both. RBR must be docked 10%
Constructor Points in 2021, and must be penalized going forward as well. Say a 10% cap penalty.
That sounds fair to me.
But as others have said, the whole Cost Cap thing, I don't agree with in the first place.
Ferrari (RACE) Shareholder
RIP Michelle Trachtenberg
Banned
Hitting on all 12 cylinders, my man.
My brother from another mother! Stay dangerous, sir!
People are looking to eradicate success because they don't want to see failure or because they are jealous of the success of others. If you eradicate success you have no impetus for action. What is the benefit for successful teams to stay in F1 if they have to be brought down to the level of the failures in the name of equity? It is better to give the possibility of success to everyone including those who have previously failed. Let the smaller teams spend as much as they can, eventually their marginal success will lead to increased ability to spend, or it will lead to demise. Either way, you have a "succeeded" in maintaining F1 as the pinnacle of motorsports and not just another spec series. We already have plenty of those.
Full Member
I am literally promoting excellence, and you are dumbing it down by putting creativity, intelligence, efficiency, and whatever other adjective you want to use below the might dollar. You want to talk to about lower the average. Take a bunch of rich trust fund babies that get to go to Harvard because they have money, and not because of their intelligence. So the actual smart kids get rejected because they don't have the money. The argument to just get a job that earns them millions to support the goal is beyond unrealistic. I find it unusual that you can only recognize success when it corresponds with money.
You are saying that $400m budgets does not need to be available to everyone. So you are content with 1 dominant team and a max of 3 teams ever being in the picture? Was the Mercedes era of domination the best Formula 1 spectacle for you? I like to watch competitive races, but that's me. Ferrari dominating 2002 and 2004 was pretty awesome, but I still prefer 98-2000 as more exciting seasons.
"What you are asking for, though you may not clearly see it, is a 28 car field where all the cars are within 3 tenths at qualifying but pole position at Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya is 1:39 in the dry. That's what you're promoting! You are promoting failure. It's a soy induced, estrogen filled, fever dream where all teams are equally crappy. Wow, now that's a sport I want to watch... Can't wait."
This whole sentence makes zero sense. You have created your own narrative and now are making up assumptions based on nothing actually said. I've read and appreciated lot of your posts before, and I know you are capable of good opinions and using facts, but this one missed the target completely.
To be clear, I don't think a budget cap means equality. It gives equal opportunity, which I do believe in to a certain extent. F1 will always be a rich mans sport. $200m dollars a year is still multiple times over other leading motorsports. So lets not pretend we are talking about middle class red neck budgets. I suspect quite a few teams are well under budget. Simply put, $400m is flat out impossible to attain unless you are one of the big 3 teams, at least sustained year after year. Toyota had a huge budget, but they didn't get the success they wanted in the time they expected, so they pulled the plug. W
ith the budget cap, all 10 (perhaps soon to be 12) teams have the same rules, guidelines, and maximum spending allowance. The best teams will still rise to the top as the best engineers, designers, mechanics, drivers, etc will always migrate to the top teams, especially when their salaries are not part of the budget cap. So budget cap certainly doesn't equal equality. It does however make all teams have the possibility of advancing, and I support that in sports. They just have to do a better job, and how can that be seen as a bad thing?
Anyways. I get it, you want the budget cap demolished and we go back to the tried and true teams with the most money win. I'm not trying to change your mind. I support the idea the budget cap IF they can find a way to police it. The way it is now isn't working which is no surprise.
Full Member
I don't know anything about EPL, or Soccer (fooootball), but in North American sports there are forms of Salary caps. NHL has the most proper one, baseball perhaps has the worst. Although there is always going to be big market teams that can always spend the maximum amout of money and more importantly, attract the best players. In these pro sports, the same one or two teams aren't heavily favored to be champions each and every year, and there is actual competition. So no, it isn't always about budget.
F1 is still for the rich. Other racing series budgets could barely afford a years worth of F1 engines.
Level playing field means means let the best team win. How is that bad?
$145m budget to design, build, and develop the car will still lead innovation, just maybe not as rapidly as before. However that hasn't proved true, as Ive seen more development in 2022 than in seasons with no budget cap. When have teams brought 2 completely different cars in pre-season?
Budget cap or not, F1 will always be elite. Having a maximum spending limit won't change that. However, if costs get out of control, the FIA may keep implementing more and more spec parts and next thing you know it's a glorified Indy car series.
Banned
Not even close. You want to bring everyone down to the level of those who are less able to compete by virtue of being less successful in the past, ie less money. That is the antithesis of promoting excellence. Yes, money is a measure of success, like it or not. If you win more, you get more payout, you get bigger sponsors etc. Money is directly related to success, especially in F1. It's a feeback loop. If you win, you get more money, you win more. Assuming there are no artificial barriers. If Lance Stroll wants to spend $600M a year to buy every engineer possible and develop a rocket ship, he should be able to. Buy his own track, test 24/7, all of it.
Yes, I am content with one dominant team so long as they are doing it because they found a better mouse trap and were able to pay for it. That is how evolution works. The Merc era of domination did not have anything to do with their ability to pay for things and everything to do with the FIA giving them preferential treatment in order to promote an affirmative action champion. It's a different side of the same coin you are working with. Again, the FIA set artificial barricades to success by not allowing development in order to keep one team dominant. It's the same as them capping expenditures, if teams can't spend money, they can't innovate, can't catch up. Both are artificial impediments to evolution and not the natural order of things. I am against both. The Ferrari era of dominance was entirely different because at that time everyone had the opportunity to test every day and bring countless updates to every race. That is how the sport should be, it should be an unending arms race where those who can do and those who can't die off.
I did not miss the target. The desire to assist failed teams by hamstringing successful ones and the all other equity initiatives all come from the place of inadequacy. The whole equity movement is lead by people who failed at life and rather than strive for success they attempt to bring those who did to their level of failure. I am not trying to attribute the description to you directly, but the both desires share that same core idea.
A budget cap is not equality, you are right, it is equity. It is not looking for equality of opportunity, it is looking for equality of outcome [equity]. The best teams will not rise to the top, not in the log run because they can't attract the best people. The best people require higher rates of compensation [as it should be]. What will happen is that over time the top engineers will be dilutes among all teams because no team can afford to employ a majority or even a plurality of them. This will result in all teams having roughly the same performance, which is the explicit goal, the only problem is that that equal performance will be diminished from it's ultimate pace, hens the tight field of slow(er) cars. Hens the joking reference of pole in Spain being 1:39.
That's the point. The goal of a budget cap, development freeze, testing ban et al is not looking for equality of opportunity, it forcing an equality of outcome. That stands in stark contrast to what F1 is supposed to (at least what I believe it to) be.
Salut Gilles
I have read some rumours from German media that Red Bull paid Newey $10 million but as a contractor and not on the staff pay list. Cap excludes driver salary and top 3 staff earners I believe.
Forza Ferrari
Full Member
I disagree with the equality of outcome. To me a budget cap is equality of opportunity. There is nothing in the rules that say how they allocate that money. So team A may spend it on aero, team B may spend it on suspension and driveline, team C may spend it on mechanics. As for the best workers, well that hasn't changed. Excluding the top 3 employees, if a team wants Mr Aerodynamics, but he wants $5m a year and they can't afford it. He can go to a team that is willing to pay for it OR take a smaller wage. This the beauty of negotiations. I personally like the strategy dynamics in how to spend the money to maximize performance. All of it supports what I said, let the best team win.
The way it sounds to me, you prefer the guy that joins a racing series of average joes with limited budgets. Shows up with his car that he paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for someone to build, and then when he wins simply because of his money you call him the best. And if said rich guy goes on to brag about how amazing he and his car is by beating everyone with his money, then that guy is pathetic. He might get the victory, but who's really going to respect that, let alone want to watch or participate in that series?
A budget cap won't stop development or innovation, and certainly won't make the performance go backwards. It should just slow it down. The same way punishing the successful teams by limiting their CFD time. I am not 100% onboard with that, and you should certainly be upset with that regulation. I can't see the negatives of a properly enforced budget cap. We as the viewer are getting more big name manufacturers, hopefully more competitive races each week, no longer will 1 team dominate for 8 years. While reduced costs to everyone F1 should mean reduced cost to the viewer, that is never going to happen. But maybe we wont be hit with so many cost increases. Who can even afford to go to races anymore? Only the "elite" that don't even care about F1?
Full Member
Seems like such an obvious thing to do and a way to try and cheat the books. However it shouldn't matter as teams that outsource for building the car have to claim those expenses.
Banned
It isn't though. The budget cap doesn't increase the opportunity to participate. All the teams have the opportunity to participate. What you are asking for is opportunity to win, the only way to do that is to provide equality of outcome. By the very nature of the sport, not everyone can win, nor should they. The cost cap may introduce those dynamics you describe and like, but all it does is accelerate the Second Law of Thermodynamics. If you have set parameters you will arrive zero Entropy quicker. This means a homogeneous spread of talent. Like I said this is the goal of the cost cap and development freeze. Yes, tighter competition of lower quality.
If that rich guy's car falls within the specifications of that racing series, then yes. I have no problem with that. You're assuming that rich guy cares about anyone's' respect or is looking for it. Thirty years after no one will remember how he won, only that he did. He has the trophy, he has the win, why would he care? And I would praise him for winning.
A budget cap will slow down development and innovation by the very virtue of there not being enough money to develop and innovate. How are you able to even argue against that with a straight face? Exactly, the CFD rule punishes success, the same way the budget cam does and I find both repugnant.
I agree, if they are going to have a cap, they should enforce it properly but there is no way to do it since it can only be done retroactively. For this, and the many other reasons I have states before, there should be no cap to begin with.
Full Member
The budget cap was put in place in 2021. How many different designs did we see with the new regulations? Red Bull brought an enormous update in preseason, Mercedes brought an entirely different car. Throughout 2022 we have seen countless updates up and down the grid. Aston Martin brought a RBR copy. Alpine had some pretty huge updates. Not enough money to develop and innovate? Look at the proof, teams are doing just fine.
Equality of outcome would suggest the budget cap is built to make sure all teams will have the same result. Not true. They are just given the opportunity by getting the same rule book and building within the same maximum budget (if they can even afford that). I'm okay with that. I do agree that budget caps will likely distribute the talent across the 10 teams, but it wont reduce the talent in F1 overall. Let's say Mercedes had 20 of the top 25 key players to become successful. If 5-10 of those people choose to go to other teams chasing the money, then that could very well bring new innovations that Mercedes never would have done because we now have those brains mixed with other teams. So instead of decreasing innovation, it's increased it. And no where does it say a team can't innovate because their budget is reduced. If it's something incredible, they will allocate the budget to make it happen. If that sacrifices a different department, then so be it.
Anyhow, we wont agree on this. There is a budget cap, like it or hate it, but it's ran like crap.
Banned
RBR continues to innovate because they more likely than not ignored the cap like last year. You need to read up on Entropy. A system does not reach equilibrium instantly. I said in time, not right away. Right now there is still a discrepancy in engineering talent between the teams, but the cap is intended to solve that. Please re-read what I wrote.
The budget cap is in fact designed to create an equality of outcome, that is it's sole intent. Otherwise why have it? The teams already had the same rule book, what you're descripting isn't a rule, but a resource. No one said an equal distribution of talent brought to you buy an artificial limitation on the ability to spend would reduce the overall talent. What I said it that it would create an equal but lower level of performance than we see now. It's a simple average. If the fastest car is going a 1:10 and the slowest a 1:20 what you will have is all cars doing a 1:15. So yes, the competition will be closer, but it will be of lower quality. This happens in all levels of the human experience whenever artificial barriers to excellence are introduced. There is an initial period of time where everything looks rosy then everything falls to crap. Just look at any equitable (socialist) regime ever on the planet. It's exactly the same social principle applied to racing. You will never increase the level of success by punishing it.
Full Member
Why do you continue to suggest the cars will be slower? Do you really think that Red Bull, or Mercedes, or Ferrari are actually going to REDUCE performance because they cut their expenses in half? If they are running 1:10, they are still only going to get faster. They still hold a massive advantage in having much better facilities and equipment to build than the likes of Williams or Alfa Romeo. If the slowest team started the budget cap at 1:20, then it's a matter of time before they start closing that gap. So im time the top teams are running 1:08, and the bottom teams are running 1:12. Of course the numbers are arbitrary, but the point nobody is going to get slower because of a budget cap.
Also you say that all teams have the same opportunities with no budget cap. Do you honestly believe Williams, or Alfa Romeo can get a $400m a year budget? Furthermore a sustained $400m budget.
Banned
Because that's how life works, dude. Do you really think that cars under a cost cap will not be slower than cars without a cost cap? Are you really going to make that argument? Come on, you're better than that. No, the teams will not reduce performance, their performance will be artificial reduced due the the fact that they can't spend more money that is prescribed. How is this even up for debate?
The problem with your 1:08 and 1:12 prediction is that in the entirely of human history, equity measured have never once improved life at the top, they have always reduces it's quality to a lower level in the name of improving life at the bottom. This is the nature of things. It has been proven countless times.
Yes, they all have the same opportunity. Opportunity is not ability. They all have the opportunity, they do not have the same ability because again, that is the natural order.
Why do you keep confusing or conflating equality with equity and opportunity with ability?
Full Member
Any indication on when we will know the penalties for Red Bull and Aston Martin?
Full Member
If there will be any penalties !
Full Member
I don't know what your trying to do with this "artificially" slower argument. In both 2021 and 2022 cost cap years, the cars have gotten faster. End of story.
Full Member
You're completely missing his argument. Of course the cars got faster, even Minardi would get faster with the limited budget they used to have.
What he is saying is the cars are slower than they otherwise WOULD have been, without budget restritctions, because the TOP teams spent half as much as they would have normally spent. Sure they wouldn't got TWICE as fast because of the law of decreasing returns, but the mere fact that the teams aren't spending as much means, the laptime aren't as low as they COULD be. So we have equality of outcome by attempting to slow down top teams, to allow the others to compete.
edit: don't mean to upset Minardi fans, I just picked a back of grid team to prove a point. I like Minardi, they had some of my favorite liveries.
Last edited by Cavallino; 14th October 2022 at 20:04.
Ferrari (RACE) Shareholder
RIP Michelle Trachtenberg
Full Member
Maybe I am. But he has twice suggested the cars would have slower lap times. Once using a 1:39 lap time for Barcelona (even if the time is just an exaggeration to make a point, it is implied the cars would be slower), and then again saying cars doing 1:10 now well be doing 1:15.
Yes it is true that a budget restriction could slow the rate of potential performance, just as reduced testing, reduced CFD, reduced wind tunnel, or more restrictive technical directives. I would much rather have a budget cap than more restrictions in the TD's.
Full Member
BTW given the opportunity to show and perform with your best ability, not being held back for sure changes the outcome of where a driver finishes.
Full Member
Perhaps the penalty will be a reduced budget cap for next year.
Full Member
This is really simple firstly the budget cap was mandated by all f1 teams.Secondly they have had ample time to digest the budget and to spend wisely, knowing full well that any breach will result in punishment.As we all know now red bull have broken the rules and we all await there faith from the FIA.The budget cap does not control current facilities which fi teams have The big three in this department are way ahead, also the budget cap has no control as to the recruitment process in other words the brand and its success is the main draw card here, so the budget cap in some respects has flaws from a dollar point of view sure the teams financially are on a level playing field but from a logistics and facility point of view there is divide, throw in there the brand name and its ability to attract or to poach talent leads me to the conclusion that the big three will always be the big three and that the divide and the gap will always remain regardless of the cost cap.Is there an answer to solving this there probably is but the answer would be a bitter pill for the big three to swallow.Lets just end with a hint to the answer being handicapped.
Full Member
The change of engine for Charles Leclerc in Austin is no longer certain! The last two wet races have cast doubt as the engine is less worn than expected. Ferrari could wait or climb 1-2 elements taking 5 or 10 positions instead of starting last.
@Formu1a_uno
Banned
BINGO!
FFS dude... you still don't get it. I was making an example to illustrate the point. An exaggeration to make it as simple as possible. One that you still refuse to understand for reasons you may not even know yourself.
Yes, the cars will be slower than their ULTIMATE POSSIBLE PACE WITH A COST CAP THAN WITHOUT. Only an absolute mad man would think that a team can develop a car using $145MM that will be as fast as if the team had $400MM.
Seriously? How is this so damn difficult to understand?
The second part of that, deals with the Second Law of Thermodynamics as they apply to social issued. It's simple Entropy and has been proven to apply to everything, not just heat transfer. All systems in this universe seek equilibrium. As talent becomes equally distributed among teams because of equal budgets the average pace of all the cars will get closer and closer to the AVERAGE!!!!!! Again, using simple numbers as an example, if WITHOUT THE BUDGET CAP, the fastest car would have been a 1:10 and the slowest a 1:20, in a few years they will all be doing 1:15s. Jesus H Christ, dude. It's so freakin' simple my Pomeranian understand but you still seem to struggle. Entropy is a real thing no matter how much you want to pretend it doesn't exist.
Full Member
Do a better job using your words. YOU gave two examples of times where cars will be slower and not once did you say "without a budget cap cars would be X fast". I did a better job explaining the supposed point you are trying to make by using the 1:08 and 1:12 numbers, and you crap all over it. And I don't get it? Given the fact I clearly stated that the rate of development would be reduced within a budget cap, as well as the gap between the best worst teams would inevitably close. Are you trying to make a point that I have already talked about? I don't have a problem with this, you do, who cares either way? Also if your intended argument is to suggest the maximum performance of an F1 will never be achieved within a budget cap, it's a pointless argument anyways since the FIA have implemented new rules time and time again to slow the cars, slow the development, "reduce costs", and reduce the freedom of the designers.
Seriously dude take a chill pill. You are throwing a hissy fit because someone does not agree with you.
Banned
I didn't think I was speaking with a 6 year old to where I had to spell EVERYTHING out. I figured an adult would understand basic scientific principles.
The entire argument is that budget caps are crap and anyone who thinks they are acceptable is fit a similar description.
Full Member
Did you really just imply I am a 6 year old because you didn't use wording to accurately describe what you were wanted to say, and then go on to say a form of "this is stupid, and anyone that doesn't agree with me it is stupid too"? Way to take this down to a kindergarden conversation.
Banned
No, because you don't understand simple concepts and need them spoon fed to you, but rather than admit you misunderstood, you take umbrage with the fact that it wasn't spoon fed to you"
Full Member
They are indeed budget CRAP! Applying intentionally nebulous un/mis-enforceable budgets and regulations is against the whole point and the claim of F1's being at the "pinnacle" of motorsport - yeah, motorsport bureaucracy! It's just feeble hypocritical window-dressing to assuage and appease environmentalist whiners, and they do this while yet continually adding even more mediocre races at mickeymouse tracks in some very questionable countries. Fantastic way to cut down spending and environmental damage right?
I'm always enthusiastic about Ferrari but getting more and more disenchanted with what F1 has become. Bring on the LeMans Hypercar series!
This has all been more eloquently stated before so I apologize for the rant but it just rankles me no end!
Last edited by Liscia; 18th October 2022 at 19:04.
Banned
[SLOW CLAP]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks