Red Bull’s rivals believe the team’s penalty for exceeding Formula 1’s budget cap during 2021 will not have a significant effect on their competitiveness this year.
The world champions were fined $7 million and given a reduction in their aerodynamic testing allocation for over-spending in the first year F1 introduced its new cap. The sanction was announced in October last year.As fines do not count towards the cap the penalty does not reduce how much money Red Bull can spend on car development. However their aerodynamic testing allocation, which was already the lowest of any team this year, was further reduced, from 70% of the reference total to 63%. Ferrari have the next-lowest allocation on 75%, with Mercedes on 80%.
However Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff says the fact Red Bull were so competitive last year means they will begin the new season in a strong position regardless of the restriction.
“But if you have an efficient machine, you can certainly compensate for that, or large parts of it. So, long term, [it’s] good for us.”
Under the Aerodynamic Testing Restriction the team which finishes highest in the championship has the smallest development allocation the following season – a challenge Mercedes faced last year after winning the 2021 constructors title.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“We’ve been in that situation, obviously without a penalty, in the years before,” said Wolff. “We’ve won, and therefore we had less wind tunnel time than everybody else for the last two seasons.
“It’s going to certainly bite them a bit, but if they’re efficient as an organisation which they’ve demonstrated, it’s not going to be big.”
Former Red Bull designer Dan Fallows, who is now at Aston Martin, said the champions have “a great deal of strength in depth” which will allow them to “minimise the impacts of that penalty.”
Alpine team principal Otmar Szafnauer, who is counting on the ATR to help his team close its deficit to the top three this year, said it was hard to predict the likely impact of Red Bull’s penalty.
“It definitely won’t help” them,” said Szafnasuer. “That’s still one of the biggest areas of development, to have that restricted will definitely hamper them. By how much. I don’t know.”
Asked whether their penalty should have been tougher, Szafnauer said: “I’m not at Red Bull [so] I’m always going to say it should have been bigger.”
Red Bull team principal Christian Horner said the lower limit they will operate under is “a significant handicap that we carry for the majority of the year.” The team is yet to publicly reveal its RB19 chassis for the upcoming season, having presented a show car at its launch event in New York, though the car has already run in private at Silverstone.
*Due to their penalty for exceeding the budget cap in 2021, Red Bull’s allocation this year is reduced from 70% to 63%
Bringing the F1 news from the source
RaceFans strives to bring its readers news directly from the key players in Formula 1. We are able to do this thanks in part to the generous backing of our RaceFans Supporters.
By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the equivalent in other currencies) you can help cover the costs involved in producing original journalism: Travelling, writing, creating, hosting, contacting and developing.
We have been proudly supported by our readers for over 10 years. If you enjoy our independent coverage, please consider becoming a RaceFans Supporter today. As a bonus, all our Supporters can also browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2023 F1 season
- FIA president cleared of alleged interference in two 2023 races
- First week viewing figures for new Drive to Survive season fall again
- Max who? Drive to Survive season six prefers its favourite faces
- RaceFans’ complete 2023 season review
- The F1 drivers who pulled off the 10 biggest charges through the field in 2023
Darryn Smith (@darryn)
21st February 2023, 7:32
Hopefully Merc and Ferrari disregard the rules this year. No reason not to.
Red Andy (@red-andy)
21st February 2023, 8:34
@darryn Except that “bad faith” is cited in the Financial Regulations as an aggravating factor that could lead to a more severe penalty being applied. Deliberately breaking the rules because you feel a previous breach wasn’t punished severely enough would probably be penalised more heavily than the original offence.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
21st February 2023, 12:44
@red-andy
That’s exactly what RBR have actually done. This is not the first time they have been involved in a controversy with regard to the budget cap. They were investigated for a similar incident back in 2011 when they were audited for compliance with the Resource Restriction Agreement RRA.
The Dutch consultancy company that was commissioned by the FIA to audit F1 teams did not give clearance to RBR from the get-go. RBR requested further clarification and there were pending issues regarding the monitoring of wind tunnel time and especially the data protection. The matter was settled after a FOTA meeting IIRC.
grat
21st February 2023, 14:31
Either Red Bull deliberately misinterpreted the rules and attempted to gain an advantage (something they have a long history of), or they’re so incompetent they couldn’t get the regulations right when 9 other teams had no problems understanding them.
So– willful non-compliance, or incompetence?
Red Bull F1 is many things. They are not incompetent.
drmouse (@drmouse)
21st February 2023, 18:15
That assumes you can prove bad faith, which is very difficult without hard evidence.
There are likely to be vast numbers of areas of the rules which have not been clarified. If one of the other teams overspends by a small amount, and can point to an area without clarification which doesn’t relate to performance, the FIA would need to be able to show strong evidence that this wasn’t accidental to make a significantly more severe punishment appear reasonable.
If they just slapped a massively increased penalty on another team for, effectively, doing the same as Red Bull (making a few mistakes about things which have had no clarification)… Well, I don’t think it takes a genius to see how that would look, and how much damage it would do to the crumbling credibility of the FIA.
Note, a small escalation of penalties would still be reasonable, as it’s legitimate to say that the teams have had another year to get used to the rules. But it would have to still be in the same ballpark.
Elvira
21st February 2023, 21:44
“That assumes you can prove bad faith”
Present CH as a character witness?
Lee1
22nd February 2023, 15:57
You say that, but they have done that before. Remember McLarens massive fine? Renault were actually in possession of the same data and unlike McLaren had actually included some of it within their car. However they were given a small penalty fine (Were they even given that?) and McLaren were given a $100 million fine (despite the FIA agreeing that they had not widely distributed the documents and that they had not acted on any of the data. Ferrari got away with the whole reason the docs were leaked in the first place (A flexible floor) and received zero punishment.
Moi
21st February 2023, 19:10
Ah I see, so because RB gave their staff free lunches and paid them sick-leave (how dare they), it is now perfectly fine for Merc and Ferrari to cheat. Got it.
Lee1
22nd February 2023, 16:04
I am not sure you understand finance… If you spend money on lunches etc and do not include that in your budget then it leaves more of your budget for development work. If the other teams correctly included lunches in their budgets then it means they had less money for development work. Now it looks like this was not a mistake from RB and that they were trying to push the rules in order to maximise development. It also seems that the other teams already guessed roughly what figure they were over by due to calculating the extra developments they were able to bring compared to the other similar teams. It is estimated that it gave them an extra 10th of a second or so which in a championship as close as it was, could be the difference between winning and coming second.
drmouse (@drmouse)
22nd February 2023, 19:59
This.
ryanoceros (@ryanoceros)
21st February 2023, 20:02
RB was penalized quite harshly for slightly exceeding the budget cap last year – unintentionally. The consequence for doing that would surely make it unappealing.
Lee1
22nd February 2023, 16:08
It was not harsh at all. It would have been harsh for a backfield team but for a team so dominant last year and being so dominant partly due to the overspend the year before; It is barely a punishment at all. If they were to put out last years car with no changes, it would probably still have a good chance of winning races this year. The changes they need to make are reasonably minor compared to the ones Ferrari and Mercedes need to make.
MacLeod (@macleod)
21st February 2023, 7:47
Not this year indeed but 2024 it will have a effect but that fact is something he forget to say…
drmouse (@drmouse)
21st February 2023, 8:38
Maybe. However, if RBR still have the advantage they had last year there’s every chance they’ll walk the championship again, allowing them to use less resources on in-season development of this year’s car and mitigating any effects of the penalty on next year’s. Especially if Mercedes have managed to catch up with Ferrari, as that would lead to them taking points off each other and giving RBR more breathing space.
Even if it does bite next year, though, that means a team gets to keep any advantage they gain from breaching the budget cap for a minimum of 2 years before any penalty has an effect, and that penalty is unlikely to do any more than neutralise the advantage you gained for those 2 years. That’s sounds like a great incentive for the other teams to break the rules to me, certainly not a discouragement.
Jere (@jerejj)
21st February 2023, 9:31
@drmouse The penalty will certainly impact next year’s preparations, given how early into the seasons teams generally start working on the following season’s car.
Therefore, impactful regardless of how much they do in-season development this year.
drmouse (@drmouse)
27th February 2023, 8:12
That depends a lot on how things go.
Let’s take a silly, extreme hypothetical, where they start the season 5s/lap ahead of everyone else in both race and qually pace, with no reliability concerns. In that case, they would have no need for significant in-season development of this year’s car. All of the development time could go towards next year from the very start, and that’s likely to be plenty even with the “penalty”.
On the other hand, if they don’t have a significant advantage when the season starts they may need to use most of their development allowances on this year’s car, which would hinder the development for next year.
Christopher Rehn (@chrischrill)
21st February 2023, 7:50
Considering the rapid pace of development displayed by Red Bull last year where they brought updates very frequently even when rivals stopped developing due to budgets, it will be interesting to see how they did in 2022. If they, or anyone else, were caught cheating last year the punishment must be much more severe. In addition, the overspend should be doubled and removed from the budget of the coming two years. Overspend by £1 million, cut your cap with £2 million for the coming two seasons. Regardless of whether Red Bull, Ferrari, Mercedes, or Haas or Williams did it.
drmouse (@drmouse)
21st February 2023, 8:46
Why should another team be penalised more harshly for a first offence than RBR? If some other team breached the cap by a similar amount last year without evidence of intent and they are punished significantly more harshly than RBR were… Let’s just say it would not enhance the image of the sport. I could see a slightly harsher penalty being appropriate on the second year, but not by much.
If RBR break it a second time, though, I agree the penalty should be significantly more severe. That would be a repeat offence.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
21st February 2023, 14:08
@drmouse A penalty for the same or similar offence could be more severe if the ruling on the RBR case provided more clarity on what was or wasn’t allowable, and the team fell foul of it anyway. The budget cap is relatively new and therefore new guidance is constantly being issued on all the various aspects of it, so even something unrelated to the RBR breach could be more severely punished if the FIA thought the rule was more clear at this point in time. Teams will likely be given less leniency over time as the rules, guidance, and enforcement of the regulations become clearer and better defined.
bosyber (@bosyber)
21st February 2023, 17:50
I see your point @keithedin, though the fact the ruling in the BRB case came so late in the season makes it not as straightforward as it would seem.
drmouse (@drmouse)
22nd February 2023, 20:24
A small escalation, assuming any other offence of similar magnitude in an area not clarified which couldn’t be proved intentional, would be appropriate. A significantly more harsh penalty would look like yet more inconsistency at the very best, which is something the FIA really need to work to improve on, not show more of. At worst, it would provide more fuel for theories of bias, favouritism and result fixing.
Mayrton
21st February 2023, 8:03
About just as significant as the breach? Toto should still be reprimanded for his behavior/communications around this topic.
drmouse (@drmouse)
21st February 2023, 8:52
But Horner’s continuous exaggeration of the severity of the penalty is perfectly fine?
NS Biker (@rekibsn)
21st February 2023, 17:59
Both Horner and Wolff are saying the same thing.
“if we loose (or more precisely, if we don’t win) it is because of the restriction in aero development time and resources. It was too much … or insufficient.”
Clearly no recognition that one technical team may have done a better job than the other. It is interesting and predictable that both would be pushing the same story.
News on the outcome should start to show up in a couple of weeks. Final word will take 6 to 8 months. Can’t wait.!
Jere (@jerejj)
21st February 2023, 9:28
Perhaps, but still, a handicap to some extent, so definitely impactful on their in-season development & 2024 preparations as RB20 designing phase starts pretty early into the upcoming season with the penalty effect valid until late into the season.
Additionally, even though I’ve already pointed this out I’ll do it again for preciseness’ sake:
The team that finishes the highest in the WCC gets the least wind tunnel time only for the following year’s first six months rather than the entire season unless that team happens to be first also after the last race before July-beginning, consequently meaning Mercedes didn’t have the least throughout last year since they were third after the Canadian GP nor did all other teams have the same amount from beginning to end.
From the present allocations, I reckon at least Williams will have the same amount beyond June-end too, given the likelihood of them being again last at that point.
slowmo (@slowmo)
21st February 2023, 9:58
I don’t care Toto, you (other team principals) all think the penalty wasn’t severe enough but have done nothing to change the penalty for such offences in future in the off season so you’re equally to blame in this matter. Any team that complains the penalty was too lenient should have been campaigning in the off season to have the rules changed but they’ve done nothing because they all know they don’t want to risk a severe penalty for a minor breach themselves.
Red Bull cheated, it was wrong, they have been penalised according to the rules. Whether it is enough or not is on the teams who agreed to the current rules.
petebaldwin (@)
21st February 2023, 12:45
Exactly – the teams all agreed to the rules as they were. They didn’t want harsher penalties because they weren’t sure if they’d be able to comply or not themselves.
In terms of how much effect the punishment will have, as always, it’s somewhere in-between the nonsense that both Horner and Toto spout to the press.
drmouse (@drmouse)
22nd February 2023, 20:06
To be fair, the punishments even for a minor breach can be significantly more harshly than RBR received, and there are no guidelines other than minor or not. It would be perfectly within the rules of someone did something substantially the same for them to be excluded from the championship for the year they were in breach. It would look exceedingly bad on the FIA, but when has that stopped them before?
geometry dash
21st February 2023, 12:19
Nearly as big a deal as the security lapse? Yet, Toto should still be disciplined for his actions and words on this matter.
That guy
21st February 2023, 13:10
Toto is very much mistaken, by saying that Red bull was half a second faster.
In the real world, Mercedes was half a second slower than Ferrari and Red Bull. Only after the new “Mercedes floorrules” were applied, ferrari immediatly lost pace, and Red Bull sailed away.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
22nd February 2023, 3:39
Yes, a bit that and a bit the fact ferrari’s in season development isn’t at merc or red bull’s level, so they fell behind in the 2nd half, they were much more competitive early on.
Khürt Williams (@khurtwilliams)
23rd February 2023, 3:47
What are the “Mercedes floor rules”?
Coventry Climax
21st February 2023, 22:39
We haven’t even started yet, and mr. Wolff is already back at playing the media.
This man can be characterised in one word: Abhorrent.
Mayrton
22nd February 2023, 7:25
He certainly doesn’t contribute to the sport. He inherited a successful team, could keep up the appearances for a time but cracked immediately under the first signs of any competitive pressure.
dino game
2nd March 2023, 9:32
Maybe, but it is still a disadvantage to some degree.