Ax^
Silly Rabbit
have no idea how McLaren ended up with norris but who ever it was is not paid enough
F1 2022
- Thread starter 1%er
- Start date
have no idea how McLaren ended up with norris but who ever it was is not paid enough
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
RIP Lewis first win
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
Did Russell bump into him? I didn't see it.
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
I was being vulgar and double-entendre-ish.
Ax^
Silly Rabbit
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
"Sir, sir, Max is cheating sir!"
Buddy Bradley
Pantheistic solipsist
Doesn't look too excited to be there, does he?
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
His flag-waving is as sweet as his company's manufacturing standards in China.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
Limejuice
Well-Known Member
Well, we're heading south down Mexico way.
The telly times are - for UK viewists - below.
Fri 28 Oct
FP1 - 19:00 [UTC 18:00]
FP2 - 22:00 [UTC 21:00]
Sat 29 Oct
FP3 - 18:00 [UTC 17:00]
Qual - 21:00 [UTC 20:00]
Sun 30 Oct ***
Race - 20:00 [UTC 20:00]
***Be aware that British Summer Time falls back into Greenwich Mean Time / UTC / Zulu on Sunday morning (at 02:00 BST). Confused? Moi?
Que los Toros Rojos de San Cristian Horner se conviertan en caca grumosa.
The telly times are - for UK viewists - below.
Fri 28 Oct
FP1 - 19:00 [UTC 18:00]
FP2 - 22:00 [UTC 21:00]
Sat 29 Oct
FP3 - 18:00 [UTC 17:00]
Qual - 21:00 [UTC 20:00]
Sun 30 Oct ***
Race - 20:00 [UTC 20:00]
***Be aware that British Summer Time falls back into Greenwich Mean Time / UTC / Zulu on Sunday morning (at 02:00 BST). Confused? Moi?
Que los Toros Rojos de San Cristian Horner se conviertan en caca grumosa.
MrCurry
right after this urgent rest
Presets which recall different settings on potentially just about any car systems, but usually affecting engine modes, throttle maps, energy harvesting settings etc. Used in practical terms to switch quickly between attacking, defending, fuel saving, pitlane, etc scenarios to save the driver having to make umpteen individual adjustments.
MrCurry
right after this urgent rest
Great to see Lewis challenging for the win - why did they stick him on hard tyres when LeCock and Verstappen managed to nurse mediums to the end having stopped just the next lap after Lewis? How different might that fight for the lead have been if Lewis had the medium tyre on?
F1’s obsession with celebs really does cheese me off. We had Tim Cook looking like a corpse doing the chequered flag and Coulthard’s grid walk was mostly spent in vain search of “Shaq”, at the expense of talking to F1 drivers. Ridiculous
F1’s obsession with celebs really does cheese me off. We had Tim Cook looking like a corpse doing the chequered flag and Coulthard’s grid walk was mostly spent in vain search of “Shaq”, at the expense of talking to F1 drivers. Ridiculous
1%er
Well-Known Member
Porsche deal with F1 team "almost done"
Porsche are apparently close to striking a deal with Williams to buy a 50% stake in the historic Formula 1 team, according to a report. The German car manufacturer has made no secret of its desire to enter the F1 world. For a long while, it looked as though it would happen through talks with Red Bull, which reached such an advanced stage they trademarked the term "F1nally". But that proposed partnership never materialised. In September, Porsche released a statement confirming that they had pulled out of the deal – but the carmaker also made sure to add that it would still be pursuing other options to get into F1.And it appears they may have found a viable one further down the grid. Unlike Red Bull, Williams have had little success on the track in recent years – but the brand remains one of the sport's most iconic, which could make it a desirable investment. According to former F1 pit reporter Jack Plooij, speaking live for Dutch broadcaster Ziggo Sport, Porsche appear to agree. "Porsche is talking to Williams. 50 per cent owner and supplier of engines from 2026. Almost done that deal," he claimed, as translated by GPBlog. If that deal were to be struck, it would most likely mean two new brands from the Volkswagen Group will be entering F1 from 2026. Audi is the other manufacturer set to join, and they are expected to announce a deal with Sauber, who currently race under the Alfa Romeo name.
Williams are owned by American investment firm Dorilton Capital, who bought the struggling team in August 2020. That deal meant the team was no longer owned by the Williams family for the first time since it was founded by the legendary Frank Williams in 1977. Their attempts to reverse their on-track fortunes are yet to bear fruit – the Oxfordshire-based team sits rock bottom in the 2022 standings with just eight points from 19 races so far in 2022. Alex Albon has been impressive but unable to regularly get results out of an uncompetitive car, while Nicholas Latifi has scored points at just one race. A deal with Porsche would see them end their partnership with Mercedes as a power unit customer. By supplying their own engines through a partnership with the German carmaker, they may hope it helps them to move back towards the front of the grid in the future.
spitfire
Walty McWaltface
Audi audi audi
www.theguardian.com
Audi confirm Sauber deal to join Formula One grid from 2026 season
Audi said on Wednesday it has agreed to take a stake in Swiss-based Sauber Group, whose team will become the German car manufacturer’s works entry in Formula One from 2026
1%er
Well-Known Member
Brad Pitt sends note to Brundle, explains grid walk snub
Hollywood film star Brad Pitt contacted British television reporter Martin Brundle to explain why he snubbed his request for an interview on the grid at last Sunday’s United States Grand Prix. Brundle on Thursday confirmed Pitt had sent him a message to explain why he was not keen to talk ahead of the race - a gesture that the former Formula One driver appreciated. “Got a note from Brad Pitt explaining what happened with our near miss on the Austin grid. Unnecessary, but nice of him,” Brundle posted on Twitter. “Absolutely nobody is obliged to talk to me on the grid, but as I endeavour to make 10/12 minutes of live and unscripted sports TV I’m obliged to at least ask.”Brundle’s grid walks have been his trademark contribution to television coverage of F1 racing since he began the feature at the 1997 British Grand Prix. In an interview with GQ magazine, he explained: “It happened in 1997. My guys said ‘We’ve had an idea, why don’t you walk down the grid and just say what you see?‘ And I was the only one on the grid. “Obviously, we go live and that is unscripted, unrehearsed car crash television. Whatever happens, happens. And I got to wing it. And I can’t throw it back to a studio or have the studio throw it to me. When I happen to find somebody, it flows. It’s got to go. And that puts a lovely sense of urgency into it.”
Brundle has had many awkward moments and failed interview attempts, but those of Pitt last Sunday and American rapper Megan Thee Stallion last year prompted social media storms. While Pitt was reluctant and terse, he was not rude. When his path to Stallion was blocked off physically, with a bodyguard telling Brundle to back off because “you can’t do that”, he replied “I can - because I just did.” Brundle’s retort went viral and led to celebrity bodyguards being banned from the grid.
1%er
Well-Known Member
Red Bull, Aston Martin agree F1 cost cap breach deals with FIA
The team has reached an Accepted Breach Agreement, which in essence confirms that it acknowledges any wrongdoing and accepts any sanctions. Aston Martin has also agreed an ABA for its less serious procedural breach, and details of that are also set to be revealed on Friday. The FIA will explain the areas that are in dispute for both teams as well as the penalties. Red Bull boss Christian Horner talked extensively with FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem over the US GP weekend, although technically any such conversations fell outside the official legal process. Negotiations were put on hold after the death of Red Bull co-founder Dietrich Mateschitz, but were concluded this week.Red Bull has been guilty of both a procedural breach and a “minor” overspend, which is believed to be in the region of $1.8m. The team is understood to be receiving both a financial and sporting penalty. It is understood that the latter will involve a reduction in aero testing heading into 2023. As constructors’ champion the team will already have less windtunnel time and CFD usage than any of its rivals under the aero testing restriction regulations. For Red Bull, the matters that were under debate are believed to include catering at the factory and feeding employees who were not under the cap, sick pay and redundancy issues, and how to deal with leftover spare parts at the end of the 2021 season, and their allocation to the heritage department. It’s believed that there may also be a tax issue.
Asked by Motorsport.com last weekend about the spare parts issue Horner said that it “had a seven-digit effect on our submission,” which suggests that it was probably the single biggest factor in Red Bull being over the cap limit. He downplayed any potential performance gain from the overspend. “What you have to remember is that the submission can constitute about 75,000 line items,” said Horner. “So, there's an enormous amount of data that has to be inputted into these submissions and I think it's only natural that, in a first year we have a set of very complicated regulations, to be able to get its arms around everything, is almost impossible. Almost impossible. And interpretations have been made, [that] maybe by other teams have been slightly different, and then a change like that has a huge swing in your application of how you've completed your form which, had we been able to resubmit at that point in time, we would have treated very, very differently. So there's probably several teams that have been affected in that manner.”
Aston Martin was found guilty of a procedural breach that is understood to relate to a UK specific tax issue that was interpreted differently by the team and the FIA. The penalty is expected to be solely financial, as was the case for Williams when it was deemed to have committed a procedural breach by submitting documents after the deadline earlier this year. "I think it's complex, it’s a complex set of regulations,” team boss Mike Krack noted in Austin last weekend. “And it is not frustrating, it shows us that we have to do a better job in the future, that we are not having such issues. But at the end of the day, I think probably the most important thing is that we were under the cap. And the rest is procedural.”
1%er
Well-Known Member
Mexico Grand Prix to remain on Formula 1 calendar until 2025
The Mexico City Grand Prix will remain on the Formula One race calendar until 2025, the F1 said on Thursday. The addition of the race at Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez to the calendar was announced after an agreement was reached between F1, the Mexico City government, and the race promoters. Stefano Domenicali, president and CEO of F1, said: "I am very pleased to announce that Formula 1 will continue to race in Mexico City for another three years under this new agreement."The Mexico City Grand Prix returned to F1 calendar in 2015 and generated over $2,443 million in economic activity until 2021. The upcoming Mexico City Grand Prix, which will be held on Sunday, is expected to attract around 350,000 fans.
MrCurry
right after this urgent rest
Alonso back into 7th in US GP result : Alonso's US GP penalty cancelled as Alpine force review · RaceFans
1%er
Well-Known Member
FIA finally reveals Red Bull’s penalty for cost cap breach
The FIA issued a statement on Friday and revealed that an Accepted Breach Agreement was finalized between Red Bull and the sport’s governing body, while revealing the sentence meted out to the team of double F1 World Champion Max Verstappen for breaking the $145-million budget cap for last season. As a summary, Red Bull would have to pay a hefty fine and accept reduced aerodynamic and wind tunnel for the next 12 months – details below.The FIA Statement
Following the submission of all required documentation by all ten Formula One Teams, the Cost Cap Administration carried out the first ever Review process under the FIA Formula One World Championship Financial Regulations. These new Financial Regulations are a very complex set of rules that competitors were required to adapt to for the first time.
Red Bull Racing was found to be in breach, however, the Cost Cap Administration recognised that Red Bull Racing 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 and that there is no accusation or evidence that RBR has sought at any time to act in bad faith, dishonestly or in fraudulent manner, nor has it wilfully concealed any information from the Cost Cap Administration.
In these circumstances, the Cost Cap Administration offered to RBR an ABA to resolve this matter. That offer was accepted by RBR.
An Accepted Breach Agreement (“ABA”) dated 26 October 2022 was therefore entered into by and between the Cost Cap Administration and Red Bull Racing pursuant to Article 6.28 of the FIA Formula 1 Financial Regulations (“Financial Regulations”). A link to a summary of the terms of the ABA as provided for by Article 6.32 of the Financial Regulations is below.
Accepted Breach Agreement details
The FIA detailed the terms of the ABA in a document they shared, below is the transcript: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.
The ABA concerns:
• RBR’s submitted Relevant Costs reported in its 2021 Full Year Reporting Documentation of
£114,293,000;
• Subsequent to the findings of the Cost Cap Administration, a Procedural Breach committed by RBR pursuant to Article 8.2(e) of the Financial Regulations due to the submission of inaccurate Full Year Reporting Documentation in respect of the Full Year Reporting Period ending on 31 December 2021 because it inaccurately excluded and/or adjusted costs amounting to a total of £5,607,000 in its 2021 Full Year Reporting Documentation; and
• Consequently, a Minor Overspend Breach committed by RBR under Article 8.10(b) of the Financial Regulations because its Relevant Costs, as adjusted by the FIA, exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap of £118,036,000 by less than 5%, namely by £1,864,000 (i.e., 1.6%).
Summary of ABA terms and sanctions
In accordance with the findings of the Cost Cap Administration, RBR has acknowledged that the Reporting Documentation submitted by it included the following incorrectly excluded and/or adjusted costs:
1. Overstated excluded costs pursuant to Article 3.1(a) of the Financial Regulations (concerning catering services);
2. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(w) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
3. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(i) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of Non-F1 Activities), as those costs had already been offset within Total Costs of the Reporting Group;
4. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(k) of the Financial Regulations (in respect of bonus and associated employer’s social security contributions);
5. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of a gain on disposal of fixed assets by failing to make the necessary upwards adjustment;
6. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(q) of the Financial Regulations (concerning apprenticeship levies);
7. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h)(ii)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and
associated employer’s social security contributions);
8. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(a)(i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning the cost of use of Power Units);
9. Costs pursuant to Article 3.1(h) (i) of the Financial Regulations (concerning consideration and associated employer’s social security contributions);
10. Understatement of Relevant Costs in respect of provisions set forth by Article 4.1(f)(i)(B) of the Financial Regulations (concerning use of inventories);
11. Clerical error in respect of RBR’s calculation of certain costs re-charged to it by Red Bull Power Trains
Limited;
12. Certain travel costs pursuant to Article 3.1(r) of the Financial Regulations;
13. Costs of maintenance pursuant to Article 3.1(i) of the Financial Regulations.
And further that consequently its Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £1,864,000 (1.6%). RBR has therefore accepted that it has breached: (i) Article 8.2(e) of the Financial Regulations due to its failure to file accurate Full Year Reporting Documentation in respect of the 2021 Full Year Reporting Period, and (ii) Article 8.10(b) of the Financial Regulations due to its failure to keep its Relevant Costs under the 2021 Cost Cap.
The FIA acknowledges that had RBR applied the correct treatment within its Full Year Reporting Documentation of RBR’s Notional Tax Credit within its 2021 submission of a value of £1,431,348, it would have been considered by the Cost Cap Administration to be in compliance with Article 4.1(b) of the Regulations and therefore RBR’s Relevant Costs for the 2021 Reporting Period would have in fact exceeded the 2021 Cost Cap by £432,652 (0.37%).
On that basis, RBR has accepted the imposition of the following sanctions:
a) RBR must pay a Financial Penalty of USD 7,000,000 to the FIA within 30 days of the date of execution of the ABA (Article 9.5 of the Financial Regulations);
b) RBR receives a Minor Sporting Penalty in the form of a limitation of RBR’s ability to conduct aerodynamic Testing during a period of 12 months from the date of execution of the ABA through the application of a reduction of 10% of the Coefficient C used to calculate the individual Restricted Wind Tunnel Testing (RWTT) and Restricted Computational Fluid Dynamics (RCFD) limits applicable to each Team as set out in Article 6 of Appendix 7 to the
FIA Formula 1 Sporting Regulations. For example, if the Coefficient C, based on RBR’s championship position is 70%, the effective new value of C will be: CNEW=70% x (1-0.10) = 63.0%; and
c) RBR bears the costs incurred by the Cost Cap Administration in connection with the
preparation of the ABA.
The decision of the Cost Cap Administration to enter into the ABA constitutes its final decision resolving
this matter and is not subject to appeal. Non-compliance by RBR with any terms of the ABA will result in
a further Procedural Breach under Articles 6.30 and 8.2(f) of the Financial Regulations and automatic
referral to the Cost Cap Adjudication Panel.
