World Motor Sport Council announces... well, very little actually (2024)

"@ Pavlo...thanks for the response. IMO you have made a few errors there. Firstly in categorising F1. F1 is a business masquerading as a sport...look no furtherthat the rejection of Andretti Global. Secondly, the rules most definitely must not be set by the competitors/fans but by the body vested with running the entire show as has happened since year one.That decision, should, eliminate the individual powers that major teams have over minor teams...supposedly! As for the 'mole' , well any dissemination of confidential team data should be seriously investigated. Industrial espionage, which this breach would fall under, is treated as an illegality and so it should be. Look no further that the McLaren breach in regards to Ron Dennis/Ferrari.

Yes, there should've been defined penalties linked to the agreed and accepted levels of breach in the original rules governing the cost cap but the question was what and to which degree attraced what penalty. IF it needs to be changed then that is an entirely a different matter. It's too late now now to cry over spilt milk.....as they used to say a very long time ago!!! The latest claim by Zak Brown is quite possibly linked to the relationship between client and supplier of PU's with Mercedes being the most vocal of all. If they can change the result of the '21 championship by RB exclusion, unlikely, they would both benefit substantially by way of recompense to their respective businesses. "

"@ kenji - the "mole" is not a problem, don't forget it's a sport, not corporate business. The rules must be transparent and controllable by the competitors AND by the spectators. Trying to regulate something leaving it confidential will just kill the sport, who is going to watch how the "head judge" announced that Nicolas Latifi "is a WDC 2023 for the reasons he cannot disclose".

And yes, FIA did awfully bad job 2 years ago. "Minor"/"major" are absolutely meaningless if not mapped to the penalties. As well as any rule is meaningless if penalty is not clear.
Now we can speculate about the penalties for "minor" crossing of the white line on the pit entry (compared to "major"?), minor 5% time difference on the lap which is more than the difference between WDC and the last place, "minor" portion of the millimeter on a rear wing or "minor" gram missing in a fuel sample.

In ideal world FIA would have no other choice than DQ both RB and AM - if the rule has no penalty described, rule must be treated as "just can't be breached at any cost". In a real world it's better - as other teams were involved in agreeing the cap, they share the responsibility for not defining a penalty. But on the other hand it also means that they have the right to be involved in defining this penalty, and this is exactly what they are doing now.
I said many times, in the interest of the sport the FIA should define the rules without listening to the competitors, and then let those who want play by the rules. Like soccer - who cares what Barcelona thinks about offside rule, you either obey or can go find another business."

"the "Biggest Scandal" facing the sport is an accounting problem of less than 5%? Not the clear propensity for allowing races to continue in countries run by dictators and despots? Not first addressing blatant basic human rights violations of a hosting nation BEFORE showing up with the biggest media circus on the planet? How about addressing how Money talks and seems to blind the likes of Stefano from actually caring where the source of said money is?

Utter hogwash to suggest that Redbull allegedly blowing the budget cap in the most wasteful sport on the planet being a "Scandal".

How about actually doing something REAL about the sports carbon footprint? or just admit that they are carbon intense and move on? they zig zag the globe in private jets with a train of jets behind them carrying race teams and hospitality tents to schmooze said Despots. Anything other than a mirror to distract them from their own sins is music to the FIA's ears."

"@Lapps - quite so. The "problem" with all this is that when formulating this fiasco, FIA wanted to leave itself plenty of wiggle room. I expect they also thought that Teams with the odd $140m to spend might employ Accounts sufficiently competent to avoid any breaches.

However, the unexpected\unthinkable has happened. By encouraging ambiguity (wiggle room again) & not having a simple menu of breaches\punishments they have invited every armchair pundit, passing wino & Team Principle to decide things for themselves. My own scheme is below & I commend it to FIA to simplify matters in future.

$2m - 10m overspend - docked 20 constructor points budget cap reduced by 2X overspend for next season
$10+ overspend public execution of Team principle (should please Saudis) + exclusion for 20 years..

It may seem a bit harsh, but it would make things clear....."