A maybe 'loophole' in the cost cap?
If Porsche is just a PU supplier to =, say Williams, then conceivably, Williams' cost cap wouldn't impart development by Porsche on the PU, just their [Williams] ability to pay for the PU as it's upgraded.

Not sure how that applies to teams like Mercedes, Ferrari & Alpine as works teams.

I’m not exactly sure, but I believe new engine manufacturers get a bit of leeway for the first two years before they get clamped.

Fingers crossed:

For those that never experienced the earlier engines or got to see what the speed looks like from trackside, take a look at this video from 2009.
This is what the new rules for 2026 will try to bring back.
Turn up the sound and watch in the full screen view.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zfoVqAt0lIM

F1 Experiences ran their 2 seater in 2017 at the USGP.
2 March V10 from 1998 IIRC
Edit: Minardi with a Cosworth V10

Obviously not pushing 100%, but that sound is intoxicating.
Told my wife to now imagine 22 of them going by at full push & that ear plugs/muffs were needed in those days.

I remember in 2014, drivers commenting that it was the first time they've been able to hear the crowds while racing, with the V6T being so much quieter.

This one is one of my favorites as well:
Montoya Monza 2004 in the Williams

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
Fingers crossed:

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E-d4gIQ-Wfk" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Having the sound as a goal seems silly to me. I like a good engine sound as much as the next guy, but making a certain sound be a driver of engine design and the rules seems to be the tail wagging the dog.

I'm sure sound/volume is a happy byproduct of the changes.
Removing the costly & finnicky MGU-H is what drew VAG to the table.

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:

Removing the costly & finnicky MGU-H is what drew VAG to the table.

True. And I think adding the MGU-H to show they were interested in being green is also silly.

It is car racing, for god's sake. It is totally not green. Why even pretend to be green? Let them burn plain old, super-high octane leaded gas in what ever engine has the best power to weight ratio. Anyone who thinks there is anything green about F1 is dreaming.

I don't have any issue with the sustainable/biofuels part, but dislike the imposed limit on the cars [fuel flow rates]

They're capped to 15k RPM, but drivers routinely shift around 11-12k as there's not enough fuel from 12-15k to make more power, so that rev range pretty much only gets used with DRS in 8th on a very long straight.

Watching some old V10 footage, on upshift the revs drop to around 12k & top out around 18k which gives that amazing banshee wail.

Alonso reinstated to 7th at USGP.
I know the Masi issue last year was a big one but I'm not sure the present groups would do much better, especially making a decision on the fly. Other than that one, Masi did a generally good job.

There must be a few thinking about how to rehabilitate his reputation along with some rules clarifications and slide him back into the position. Some of that, like banning contact during the race from the teams to the Race Director, have already happened.

What they have officiating now seems to be a clown show and they are about to announce some sort of decision on the cost cap/Red Bull issue.

They've had plenty of time to sort that one out and plenty of time to carefully consider all aspects of the issue. Lets see how that turns out.

RBR Cost Cap Breach Punishment:
RBR exceeded the cost cap by <5%
-$7M USD fine
-Reduction of wind tunnel testing. Formula I saw was with a WCC finish in 1st, they would go form 70% to something like 63%.

https://www.formula1.com/en/la...nUpChqHSIDGMXmg.html

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
RBR Cost Cap Breach Punishment:
RBR exceeded the cost cap by <5%
-$7M USD fine
-Reduction of wind tunnel testing. Formula I saw was with a WCC finish in 1st, they would go form 70% to something like 63%.

https://www.formula1.com/en/la...nUpChqHSIDGMXmg.html

So, no consequences basically. That fine was more than made up by winning the constructor’s championship, and dropping wind tunnel time by 7% doesn’t seem like it will be any hinderance.

Read the complete statement that breaks down the technicalities and explains how the breach occurred.
Taking it at face value, most was a result of how some money was applied in their accounting due to tax laws. That total was something like $2.2 million but after that adjustment it was $400K +/-.
One of the things I don't understand about the whole process is why this takes so long to determine, since most of this is known by the teams accounting department on the first business day in January, and why the punishment for various violations are not clearly stated ahead of time.

Later today Red Bull will have another press conference to put their spin on this, FWIW.


"So, no consequences basically. That fine was more than made up by winning the constructor’s championship, and dropping wind tunnel time by 7% doesn’t seem like it will be any hinderance."

The teams have their wind tunnel time reduced based on finishing position last year and Red Bull already lost about 30%, now +7%.

I'm sure we'll hear more from the other teams now too.

Here is the FIA statement.

The FIA announced on Friday that Red Bull had been handed a 10 per cent reduction in development time as well as a $7m fine for breaching the budget cap.

The Milton Keynes squad overspent by £1,864,000 with motorsport’s governing body acknowledging that had a tax credit had been correctly applied it would have been ‘just’ £432,652.

Red Bull have 30 days to pay the fine, they also have to pay the costs incurred preparing the Accepted Breach Agreement.

Here are the FIA’s findings in full:
RBR Public Summary ABA / Article 6.32

An Accepted Breach Agreement (“ABA”) dated 26 October 2022 has been entered into by the Cost Cap Administration and Red Bull Racing F1 Team (“RBR”) pursuant to Article 6.28 of the FIA Formula 1 Financial Regulations (“Financial Regulations”). The Financial Regulations are issued by the FIA and form part of the terms and conditions of participation in the FIA Formula One World Championship.

The Cost Cap Administration recognised that RBR has acted cooperatively throughout the review process and has sought to provide additional information and evidence when requested in a timely manner, that this is the first year of the full application of the Financial Regulations which are a very complex set of rules that competitors were required to adapt to and that there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in a fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information from the Cost Cap Administration.

The Cost Cap Administration considered it appropriate, in these circumstances, to offer to RBR an ABA to resolve this matter on the terms set out below, given the limited nature of the Procedural Breach in issue and the fact that the Minor Overspend Breach falls at the lower end of the <5% minor overspend range, and RBR’s willingness to accept the breaches and to cooperate with the Cost Cap Administration. That offer was accepted by RBR.

https://www.planetf1.com/news/...eport-red-bulls-aba/

quote:

Originally posted by Dwill104:

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
RBR Cost Cap Breach Punishment:
RBR exceeded the cost cap by <5%
-$7M USD fine
-Reduction of wind tunnel testing. Formula I saw was with a WCC finish in 1st, they would go form 70% to something like 63%.

So, no consequences basically. That fine was more than made up by winning the constructor’s championship, and dropping wind tunnel time by 7% doesn’t seem like it will be any hinderance.

In a vacuum 7% doesn't sound like much, but...

Consider that 63% relative to 2nd place Scuderia Ferrari having 75% and 3rd place Mercedes having 80% in areo testing allowance.

In numbers, this would be 16 windtunnel runs fewer than nearest rival Ferrari and 32 fewer runs than Mercedes. In CFD terms it would mean 100 fewer items versus Ferrari and 200 fewer compared to Mercedes.

7th place gets 100% areo testing which is 320 runs and 2000 CFD items

No doubt it's a punishment, but it's one that would hurt a midfield team a lot more than the top 3.

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
No doubt it's a punishment, but it's one that would hurt a midfield team a lot more than the top 3.

Horner, when addressing the aero penalty today called the 10% "draconian", saying that that 10% would be worth .25-.50 seconds in lap time.
Pretty big when that might cover the the whole of Q3

quote:

Originally posted by 9mmepiphany:

quote:

Originally posted by P250UA5:
No doubt it's a punishment, but it's one that would hurt a midfield team a lot more than the top 3.

Horner, when addressing the aero penalty today called the 10% "draconian", saying that that 10% would be worth .25-.50 seconds in lap time.
Pretty big when that might cover the the whole of Q3

That puts it into some perspective. Newer going to have to work his magic on the RB to overcome that.

There’s no way to quantify how much lap time a given amount of wind tunnel time is worth.
I think that’s called puffing.

Q1: Shocker seeing the Alfa so high. But he does hold the race lap record.
And again in Q2, Glad Alfa found some pace, at the end of the season.
And split the Ferraris in Q3
Hope that carries over to the race tomorrow, he's overdue for a good result.