The effect of the RRA on 2012 design ...

[WhiteBlue]

Penalties depend of the transgression. Whatever they have violated will be shortened for the following season. There is indeed an FiA influence there because the FiA are signatory to the mutual contract with all competitors. Once the facts have been established by a FOTA called independent auditor the usual disciplinary mechanisms apply. This means that the perpetrators can be punished by the FiA's new disciplinary system. They can also appeal at the ICA. The ICA can reduce or even increase the penalty.

[bhall]

This seems to indicate that the FIA doesn't play a role in the RRA.

The agreement - which is a Fota-specific document and not part of the rules laid down by the FIA - was created in 2009 as a stepping stone to a more detailed and wide-ranging arrangement.

That may or may not be correct, but let's assume for the moment that it is. How are penalties levied without the FIA?

EDIT: The article states that the teams couldn't agree on what to do. But were there at least ideas for penalties presented at its inception that wouldn't involve the FIA?

[WhiteBlue]

The BBC is right that the agreement is a mutual private agreement by all present teams. But they fail to report that the FiA is a signatory to the RRA. In fact the RRA replaces the budget cap that was proposed by the FiA and later modified by a resource proposal drafted by Mercedes Benz.

http://www.formula1.com/news/headlines/2009/8/9713.html

The signing of the RRA was a necessary condition for the signing of the 2009 Concord agreement by the FiA and as I said the FiA is a signatory to the document. So in reality both points are true.

[Pingguest]

All teams are bound by the RRA until 2015. Unfortunately this does not include engines and the energy recovery from 2014 on. The RRA is enforceable with the single majority of teams. So no team can really afford to violate it seriously. There are grey zones which are subject to interpretation but over all the RRA is accepted as beneficial. The big disagreement between Ferrari and Red Bull wasn't as much about the past as it is about extending the RRA to engines and chassis in the future. Red Bull think that Ferrari and Mercedes have a massive advantage because they develop energy recovery (currently) in the engine departments/firms and do not have it included in the RRA budget and resources. Red Bull has to use RRA resources for the job. In the future those manufacturers will also benefit from engine development outside the RRA unless Red Bull somehow achieve a new agreement.

The above is one reason why the Resource Restriction Agreement (hereafter: RRA) is a flawed concept. Not only is the agreement very difficult or practically impossible to enforce - with the consequence of rumours about teams breaking the rules, just like with traction control prior its 2001 re-legalization -, it also creates an unfair balance among teams. It is known that Mercedes-Benz is pushing hard to comply with future restrictions, in the hope of gaining an organizational advantage. For the smaller teams the RRA is practically insignificant, as their number of resources are well below the restrictions.
As regulations provide an absolute point of perfection and thus require a continuous increase of resources, teams will try hard to find ways to achieve just that. Would not it be better to look for a more sustainable solution?

[WhiteBlue]

Actually I have to adjust my previous post about the length of the present RRA.

viewtopic.php?p=216882#p216882

It appears that the Singapore agreement was never ratified and that means the 2009 RRA runs out at the end of 2012 together with the Concord Agreement.

Naturally it would be better if the RRA/Budget cap would regulate all activities including power trains. I agree totally to that view. The problem is that apparently the teams cannot come to an agreement on that.

Nevertheless it is fact that substantial savings have resulted from the 2009 RRA. So it is better than having nothing.

It is my impression that the parties have now given up to sort this thing out ahead of the Concord Agreement for 2013-2017. I believe that like in 2009 there will be a requirement by the FiA to come to a deal before they sign the Concord.

One cannot forget that there are other issues connected to the new Concord. The distribution of money from FOM and the future ownership of the commercial rights. CVC is likely to sell FOM in order to realize their profits and the FiA has the veto rights in that sale. One can expect that Todt will exercise the FiA rights in such a way that F1 will continue to be run under restricted spending. The details of course are going to be subject to negotiations.

[Pingguest]

As the regulations are tightening year by year, I fail to see the legitimacy of the RRA and any other budget cap. The new 2014 engines are to be semi-standardized - and not very relevant - and with the engine manufactures being subject to resource restrictions, another step towards a fully-standardized engines is taken. Apart from that, such a resource restriction will be very difficult to enforce.

[WhiteBlue]

As the regulations are tightening year by year, I fail to see the legitimacy of the RRA and any other budget cap. ... Apart from that, such a resource restriction will be very difficult to enforce.

Unless there are absolute restrictions on budget or resources the law of diminishing returns will not prohibit a cost race. The history of F1 has shown that quite clearly. I agree that restrictions and budget caps are difficult to police but in my view there is no way around it. I do not want to see the top rich teams buying their way to championships. I want the best management and engineering effort to be successful.

[wesley123]

Unless there are absolute restrictions on budget or resources the law of diminishing returns will not prohibit a cost race. The history of F1 has shown that quite clearly. I agree that restrictions and budget caps are difficult to police but in my view there is no way around it. I do not want to see the top rich teams buying their way to championships. I want the best management and engineering effort to be successful.

Well have you been unlucky for the past 60 years. Champions are only won by the wealthiest teams, with a few rare occasions of course, but mostly it was one of the richest teams.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

The FiA is a signatory to any mandate in f1, it is the governing body of F1 after all.
The problem with the RRA is that you can drive a bus through its loop holes.

Mercedes acted out of red bulls transgressions by emplying a hundred more staff, because the gliding scale reduction was not happening quickly enough.
That explains their odds shortening as does a new simulator and messrs Bell, Willis and Costa.
It has nothing to do with the situation suiting them, as they were forced into this situation and acted as only any team with aspirations could.

Equally, Stuttgart hasn't the wherewithal to produce an F1 car. Why purchase brackley and invest millions in new tech?
However, red bull technology is a separate entity of red bull, and certainly can produce things outside the RRA .... For f1.

What's the prize for guessing red bull sells itself exorbitantly expensive development parts at a reduced rate?
This was the smoke eminating from alot of the meetings...

[bhall]

The top rich teams became the top rich teams through years, sometimes decades, of hard work and perseverance. To impose limitations on them is to essentially penalize them for their success.

(All of this looks eerily similar to a recent "discussion" about aerodynamic dependence.)

[WhiteBlue]

All top teams have publicly accepted that resource restrictions are beneficial and should be continued. The dissent is mainly about the detail not the general principle. Fans who are pro unlimited spending do not see the reality of the economic environment. F1 still struggles to get more than four teams on a full budget. The resource restrictions have kept the mid and small teams alive for the last three years. Unless they are continued F1 will loose teams, driver seats and diversity. That is not desirable.

[JohnsonsEvilTwin]

I'd go along with that WB, for the most part.

But it is in red bulls interest to spend what they want.
Just yesterday mateschitz donated 70 million to a spinal injury foundation. Very noble of him I'm sure we all agree.
But that gives you an indication that he will spend on a whim.

I'm of the opinion that as the state of play currently stands, red bull will continue to dominate. The only way to address it is to have a strictly enforced RRA and by bringing them back to the negotiating table, only 2 powers can do that... Bernie and the FIA.

[Pingguest]

As the regulations are tightening year by year, I fail to see the legitimacy of the RRA and any other budget cap. ... Apart from that, such a resource restriction will be very difficult to enforce.

Unless there are absolute restrictions on budget or resources the law of diminishing returns will not prohibit a cost race. The history of F1 has shown that quite clearly. I agree that restrictions and budget caps are difficult to police but in my view there is no way around it. I do not want to see the top rich teams buying their way to championships. I want the best management and engineering effort to be successful.

Throughout the entire Formula 1 history the smaller teams had a fair chance to win races, become champion and outclass the bigger factory teams, due to their creativity and intelligence. However, as the regulations are tightening year by year, it has become almost impossible for talented engineers and managers to win simply because of their creativity and intelligence. In modern Formula 1 there would be no place Colin Chapman.

All top teams have publicly accepted that resource restrictions are beneficial and should be continued. The dissent is mainly about the detail not the general principle. Fans who are pro unlimited spending do not see the reality of the economic environment. F1 still struggles to get more than four teams on a full budget. The resource restrictions have kept the mid and small teams alive for the last three years. Unless they are continued F1 will loose teams, driver seats and diversity. That is not desirable.

For the smaller teams the RRA is practically insignificant, as their number of resources are well below the restrictions.

[WhiteBlue]

Throughout the entire Formula 1 history the smaller teams had a fair chance to win races, become champion and outclass the bigger factory teams, due to their creativity and intelligence. However, as the regulations are tightening year by year, it has become almost impossible for talented engineers and managers to win simply because of their creativity and intelligence. In modern Formula 1 there would be no place Colin Chapman.

Budget restrictions will reduce the need to specify very narrow technical rules in order to utilise diminishing returns. At least that was the thinking by the FiA and the teams in 2009. So the more successful a budget cap is the wider the technical rules can be opened in areas that are suitable for competition.

For the smaller teams the RRA is practically insignificant, as their number of resources are well below the restrictions.

I do not agree. The competitiveness of smaller teams depends of their distance to the leading teams. If the leading teams spend unrestricted they will find it much harder to close the gap or even get ahead.

[wesley123]

All top teams have publicly accepted that resource restrictions are beneficial and should be continued. The dissent is mainly about the detail not the general principle. Fans who are pro unlimited spending do not see the reality of the economic environment. F1 still struggles to get more than four teams on a full budget. The resource restrictions have kept the mid and small teams alive for the last three years. Unless they are continued F1 will loose teams, driver seats and diversity. That is not desirable.

We have seen multiple economic recessions over the year, although not as heavy as this one the idea and point in this stays the same. In previous recessions, 1990, 1970 and I dont know when, where was this resource limit then? Why suddenly fix it now and then just not follow it?

The resource limit is bogus to me, teams will spend their millions on other parts. Also I never knew that Formula 1 was supposed to be cheap. I always thought formula 1 was a big expensive sport where the team that has the most cash, does the best development and has the best team together win. I do not see why suddenly that needs to be changed. Teams will find another way to spend that cash, or the bosses will fill their pockets with the money that isnt allowed to be spend, and wasnt that also a huge problem of millions of people?

Teams come and go in formula 1, it has always been like that, yet the FIA nad the teams dug their own grave by setting impossible limits, with impossible financial requirements. A team has to pay around 40 million to enter formula 1, and the fia wants spendings to get down to that level, someone explain me why that is right. If they want the f1 to become cheaper, reduce your own costs first, ask 4 million instead of 40, allow one car teams, allow more driver changes etc. etc.

Virgin and HRT are both a great example of how it is virtually impossible to raise a formula 1 team from scratch.

Point is, they now are trying to make formula 1 into something it is not, and never was, only to make themselves look good. It isnt about because it costs too much, it is about the best way to fill their pockets and make themselves look good, just like politics and most big companies.