2023 Mercedes-AMG | Petronas F1 Team

[mzso]

Firstly this has a quite large bias toward the customer. In Mercedes case, they design and build suspension and gearbox for the Aston martin team. Brixworth supplies engines and radiators.

Engine development is not covered by the cost cap. And buying suspension, gearbox, etc is covered. So I don't see how customers have an advantage. I'm quite sure Mercedes or other suppliers don't sell the parts so cheap as to disadvantage themselves.

[Cassius]

Firstly this has a quite large bias toward the customer. In Mercedes case, they design and build suspension and gearbox for the Aston martin team. Brixworth supplies engines and radiators.

Engine development is not covered by the cost cap. And buying suspension, gearbox, etc is covered. So I don't see how customers have an advantage. I'm quite sure Mercedes or other suppliers don't sell the parts so cheap as to disadvantage themselves.

Suppliers of gearboxes/suspensions get a fixed agreed amount. FIA can see the development costs of these parts in their cost cap evaluation so my guess is there is an opportunity for the FIA to adapt the amount if needed.

If a customer of these parts feels they can make it for less they are free to do so (e.g Alfa last year started producing their own gearbox).

[basti313]

Firstly this has a quite large bias toward the customer. In Mercedes case, they design and build suspension and gearbox for the Aston martin team. Brixworth supplies engines and radiators.

What???
Firstly....if you design the part, you are the boss. Merc designs the suspension to fit its aero, Aston needs to fit its aero to the suspension. Same for the engine, they are squeezing the zero-pod engine into their RedBull aero.
That a customer team is slightly faster than the works team has a simple reason:
Merc screwed up. They should be where RedBull is. Then Aston would be where a good customer team naturally sits...around a second behind per lap.

I think the racing ability is still weak... It was better in the late nineties early 00s without any DRS.
If today they disable the DRS, overtaking practically ceases...

You take the early 00 with practically ceased overtaking as a good example? Wasn't this the time at which a 1sec per lap faster Schumacher was hanging behind Nando for half a race at Imola?
Or the iconic move at Spa by Hakkinen....also easily 0.5sec faster and could only overtake AT SPA because of a backmarker standing in the way.
Your comparison is great.

[AR3-GP]

Even the ability to follow closer has taken a huge step back this year compared to last. Look how long it took max to clear much slower cars and he was complaining about how hard it was to follow. In Bahrain perez said the same. Both leclerc and hamilton could not follow their slower teammates and destroyed their tires doing so. So we are back to square one with the racing but now you have one car that can not be caught with the cost cap rules. So yeah bravo Ross Brawn.

My suspicion is that the increased floor edge height has made following worse. The floor is more susceptible to dirty air now. One benefit of the low floor edge was making it easier to seal the floor and protect from dirty air at the sides of the car.

[organic]

They should reverse the floor edge change

[ValeVida46]

Engine development is not covered by the cost cap. And buying suspension, gearbox, etc is covered. So I don't see how customers have an advantage. I'm quite sure Mercedes or other suppliers don't sell the parts so cheap as to disadvantage themselves.

The engines are set cost yes, and aren't what the point of my post was about, I'm saying they are supplied by Brixworth. The parts Mercedes supplies are separate to the above.
Mercedes designs, develops, builds and tests these parts, which are at a cost the team. These parts are then sold for an unspecified price.

I'll put it this way so as maybe you see. If half the chassis(rear suspension and gearbox) is set at a production cost, this leaves Design, testing and research costs separate.
The problem of "suppliers don't sell parts so cheap as to disadvantage themselves" is that's not compatible with the rules.

The supplier must also provide their customer with all relevant financial information, with the financial regulations dictating the parts must be ascribed a “fair value” for cost cap accounting purposes.

So from the list I have included, Aston Martin can source 50% of these items at "fair value" which is agreed between AM and Mercedes. This can be fair value at cost of production. And therefore Aston free up cash to develop elsewhere.
If the parts are too expensive to sell at fair value, Aston would be building there own.
That they aren't suggests that the set up is advantageous to the them. Would you have information to suggest otherwise?

What is fair value? What would the cost of Researching, developing, testing and producing the parts, as opposed to the cost of purchasing? As I've said....this could potentially be a gaming of the system.
One requires a department to do it all, one that's covered by the cost cap, and another doesn't even have that department.

The list of items is comprehensive:
Rear impact structure
Gearbox carrier
Gearbox cassette
Clutch
Clutch actuation system
Clutch shaft
Gearbox internals
Gearbox auxiliary components (oil system, reverse gear etc)
Inboard front suspension
Front suspension members
Front upright assembly (excluding axles, bearings, nuts & retention system
Front axles (inboard of the contact surface with the wheel spacer) and bearings
Inboard rear suspension
Rear suspension members
Rear upright assembly (excluding axles, bearings, nuts & retention system)
Rear axles (inboard of the contact surface with the wheel spacer) and bearings
Power assisted steering
Fuel system components not listed as OSC or SSC or LTC
Hydraulic pump and accumulator
Hydraulic manifold sensors and control valves
Pipes between hydraulic pump, hydraulic manifold & gearbox or engine actuators
Secondary heat exchanger (in oil and coolant system)
Power unit mountings to gearbox and survival cell
Exhaust system beyond turbine and wastegate exits (which are covered by PU rules)
Electrical looms

[ValeVida46]

What???
Firstly....if you design the part, you are the boss. Merc designs the suspension to fit its aero, Aston needs to fit its aero to the suspension. Same for the engine, they are squeezing the zero-pod engine into their RedBull aero.
That a customer team is slightly faster than the works team has a simple reason:
Merc screwed up. They should be where RedBull is. Then Aston would be where a good customer team naturally sits...around a second behind per lap.

There's nothing here that is addressing my point of the Supplier/Customer dynamic or how it can be gamed.

[mzso]

You take the early 00 with practically ceased overtaking as a good example? Wasn't this the time at which a 1sec per lap faster Schumacher was hanging behind Nando for half a race at Imola?
Or the iconic move at Spa by Hakkinen....also easily 0.5sec faster and could only overtake AT SPA because of a backmarker standing in the way.
Your comparison is great.

Imola was mid 00s. And the brilliant move by Häkkinen does not support your point, with your false assessment..

[Big Tea]

Engine development is not covered by the cost cap. And buying suspension, gearbox, etc is covered. So I don't see how customers have an advantage. I'm quite sure Mercedes or other suppliers don't sell the parts so cheap as to disadvantage themselves.

The engines are set cost yes, and aren't what the point of my post was about, I'm saying they are supplied by Brixworth. The parts Mercedes supplies are separate to the above.
Mercedes designs, develops, builds and tests these parts, which are at a cost the team. These parts are then sold for an unspecified price.

I'll put it this way so as maybe you see. If half the chassis(rear suspension and gearbox) is set at a production cost, this leaves Design, testing and research costs separate.
The problem of "suppliers don't sell parts so cheap as to disadvantage themselves" is that's not compatible with the rules.

The supplier must also provide their customer with all relevant financial information, with the financial regulations dictating the parts must be ascribed a “fair value” for cost cap accounting purposes.

So from the list I have included, Aston Martin can source 50% of these items at "fair value" which is agreed between AM and Mercedes. This can be fair value at cost of production. And therefore Aston free up cash to develop elsewhere.
If the parts are too expensive to sell at fair value, Aston would be building there own.
That they aren't suggests that the set up is advantageous to the them. Would you have information to suggest otherwise?

What is fair value? What would the cost of Researching, developing, testing and producing the parts, as opposed to the cost of purchasing? As I've said....this could potentially be a gaming of the system.
One requires a department to do it all, one that's covered by the cost cap, and another doesn't even have that department.

The list of items is comprehensive:
Rear impact structure
Gearbox carrier
Gearbox cassette
Clutch
Clutch actuation system
Clutch shaft
Gearbox internals
Gearbox auxiliary components (oil system, reverse gear etc)
Inboard front suspension
Front suspension members
Front upright assembly (excluding axles, bearings, nuts & retention system
Front axles (inboard of the contact surface with the wheel spacer) and bearings
Inboard rear suspension
Rear suspension members
Rear upright assembly (excluding axles, bearings, nuts & retention system)
Rear axles (inboard of the contact surface with the wheel spacer) and bearings
Power assisted steering
Fuel system components not listed as OSC or SSC or LTC
Hydraulic pump and accumulator
Hydraulic manifold sensors and control valves
Pipes between hydraulic pump, hydraulic manifold & gearbox or engine actuators
Secondary heat exchanger (in oil and coolant system)
Power unit mountings to gearbox and survival cell
Exhaust system beyond turbine and wastegate exits (which are covered by PU rules)
Electrical looms

These bought in parts not only have a financial cost, but also a resource cost.
Are AM charged for design time used developing the parts, and if so what is the trade off of time v cost?
This also means AM only have to cover the costs (both expense and used computer and engineer time) of the parts they take receipt of not the costs of 'issue 1' parts which had to return to development and be modified.

TBH, I wonder why suppliers have not asked for a share of computer and tunnel time commensurate with the saved resource on supplied parts. Maybe they have not yet considered it

[ValeVida46]

These bought in parts not only have a financial cost, but also a resource cost.

I've not seen that written anywhere in the rules.

Are AM charged for design time used developing the parts, and if so what is the trade off of time v cost?
This also means AM only have to cover the costs (both expense and used computer and engineer time) of the parts they take receipt of not the costs of 'issue 1' parts which had to return to development and be modified.

TBH, I wonder why suppliers have not asked for a share of computer and tunnel time commensurate with the saved resource on supplied parts. Maybe they have not yet considered it

This is essentially it, what are the details. If a supplier has made an item from scratch, it will be worth more than the sum of it's parts on development time/facilities/staffing than the mere physical production cost of the part.
This creates an area of advantage to a supplied team if the only criteria for sale is "fair value".

This leads me to Hypothetical scenario A:
If I were to be a team boss A and had a facility that produced front suspensions, I could call team boss B that produced rear suspensions and make a deal. We both know the cost of research-dev-testing-production.
We facilitate a deal whereby they invest the money they would've for the entire suspension, only on the front, and vice versa for Team Boss B.
Fair value would be a nominal fee or a simple exchange.

Or Scenario B:
Get the suspension at less cost than producing it yourself and having more budget to develop elsewhere.
It might even be strategic, as "fair value" has a variety of interpretations.

Surely the FIA would mandate a restriction in such instances? But I cannot see anything of substance.

[F1Krof]

Engine development is not covered by the cost cap. And buying suspension, gearbox, etc is covered. So I don't see how customers have an advantage. I'm quite sure Mercedes or other suppliers don't sell the parts so cheap as to disadvantage themselves.

The engines are set cost yes, and aren't what the point of my post was about, I'm saying they are supplied by Brixworth. The parts Mercedes supplies are separate to the above.
Mercedes designs, develops, builds and tests these parts, which are at a cost the team. These parts are then sold for an unspecified price.

I'll put it this way so as maybe you see. If half the chassis(rear suspension and gearbox) is set at a production cost, this leaves Design, testing and research costs separate.
The problem of "suppliers don't sell parts so cheap as to disadvantage themselves" is that's not compatible with the rules.

The supplier must also provide their customer with all relevant financial information, with the financial regulations dictating the parts must be ascribed a “fair value” for cost cap accounting purposes.

So from the list I have included, Aston Martin can source 50% of these items at "fair value" which is agreed between AM and Mercedes. This can be fair value at cost of production. And therefore Aston free up cash to develop elsewhere.
If the parts are too expensive to sell at fair value, Aston would be building there own.
That they aren't suggests that the set up is advantageous to the them. Would you have information to suggest otherwise?

What is fair value? What would the cost of Researching, developing, testing and producing the parts, as opposed to the cost of purchasing? As I've said....this could potentially be a gaming of the system.
One requires a department to do it all, one that's covered by the cost cap, and another doesn't even have that department.

The list of items is comprehensive:
Rear impact structure
Gearbox carrier
Gearbox cassette
Clutch
Clutch actuation system
Clutch shaft
Gearbox internals
Gearbox auxiliary components (oil system, reverse gear etc)
Inboard front suspension
Front suspension members
Front upright assembly (excluding axles, bearings, nuts & retention system
Front axles (inboard of the contact surface with the wheel spacer) and bearings
Inboard rear suspension
Rear suspension members
Rear upright assembly (excluding axles, bearings, nuts & retention system)
Rear axles (inboard of the contact surface with the wheel spacer) and bearings
Power assisted steering
Fuel system components not listed as OSC or SSC or LTC
Hydraulic pump and accumulator
Hydraulic manifold sensors and control valves
Pipes between hydraulic pump, hydraulic manifold & gearbox or engine actuators
Secondary heat exchanger (in oil and coolant system)
Power unit mountings to gearbox and survival cell
Exhaust system beyond turbine and wastegate exits (which are covered by PU rules)
Electrical looms

These bought in parts not only have a financial cost, but also a resource cost.
Are AM charged for design time used developing the parts, and if so what is the trade off of time v cost?
This also means AM only have to cover the costs (both expense and used computer and engineer time) of the parts they take receipt of not the costs of 'issue 1' parts which had to return to development and be modified.

TBH, I wonder why suppliers have not asked for a share of computer and tunnel time commensurate with the saved resource on supplied parts. Maybe they have not yet considered it

Great point you have there. It didn't cross my mind.

[RonMexico]

Mercedes/Ferrari/Red Bull/Renault aren't obliged to supply anything other than their PU. If it is a competitive advantage for their customers then they will stop. The Alonso penalty/non penalty has Mercedes written all over it so I imagine they would have no issue telling AM to sling their hook.

AM are going building their own suspension and gearbox once they have the facilities in line, probably for next season? The way I'd be looking at it is as an impediment, not an advantage with the differing aero and overall car concepts. Running Mercedes suspension and gearbox cost them dearly last year and probably the year before too.

[CHT]

Majority of overtakes yesterday were either uncontested, or just required little or no driving skill whatsoever. I’ve never bought the idea that the racing has improved, even last year. Yes, they get closer and can follow, but it’s too easy. We all know why it’s been done, to increase overtakes, so it looks like more is happening. The way the commentators even tried to big up that Max was behind Lewis and something interesting was going to happen was embarrassing. As for the Russell overtake, as you said it was F2 v F1. There’s nothing that gets you off your seat anymore. It’s an awful look for the sport, and I assume the fans they attracted will leave just as fast as they came.

This could be due to the high-speed nature of the street circuit and drivers know its very risky if they make contact or spin at over 300km/h. Reckon most drivers are just focusing on sticking to the racing line. The quality of racing is not in the formula, but the track itself.

[AR3-GP]

Majority of overtakes yesterday were either uncontested, or just required little or no driving skill whatsoever. I’ve never bought the idea that the racing has improved, even last year. Yes, they get closer and can follow, but it’s too easy. We all know why it’s been done, to increase overtakes, so it looks like more is happening. The way the commentators even tried to big up that Max was behind Lewis and something interesting was going to happen was embarrassing. As for the Russell overtake, as you said it was F2 v F1. There’s nothing that gets you off your seat anymore. It’s an awful look for the sport, and I assume the fans they attracted will leave just as fast as they came.

This could be due to the high-speed nature of the street circuit and drivers know its very risky if they make contact or spin at over 300km/h. Reckon most drivers are just focusing on sticking to the racing line. The quality of racing is not in the formula, but the track itself.

I agree with this. Anyone who thought we'd get anything other than easy passes in Saudi Arabia is mistaken. There are 3 DRS zones. The entire track is straights with some kinks, 1 chicane, and 1 hairpin.

[mendis]

TBH, I wonder why suppliers have not asked for a share of computer and tunnel time commensurate with the saved resource on supplied parts. Maybe they have not yet considered it

This discussion has a great parallel with the penalty discussions that comes up time and again when one's own favorite driver gets affected. Like VSC or red flag giving free pit stop to the competitor.

https://the-race.com/formula-1/alfas-in ... lling-you/

ALFA’S IN-HOUSE GEARBOX WAS TO AVOID F1 COST CAP ‘KILLING YOU’

Alfa Romeo’s decision to design its own gearbox casing and rear suspension rather than using Ferrari parts was to avoid Formula 1 cost cap regulations “killing you” through the high value put on those components.

But the reasoning for the decision was the high notional value put on the gearbox casing and suspension as a ‘transferable component’ for the calculation of team spending.

This figure, which is produced for cost cap compliance, is not simply the amount spent but also includes adjustments to ensure teams taking parts from other teams don’t gain an advantage.

https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/how- ... /10317063/?

“For the smaller teams, there are levers that the FIA have,” he noted. “The components that are transferred, for example, gearboxes, suspension, the old listed parts components that carry a substantial tax - a cost cap tax, not a real money tax, but a cost cap tax.

“Maybe that's something that the FIA could look at, in revaluing those, because teams that are even P7 in the championship are looking at breaching the budget cap at the moment due to some of that effective taxation.”