F1 News & Discussions > General F1 Discussion

Haas unhappy with special F1 budget rule for Audi.

(1/1)

John S:
I'm not normally on the side of Haas over things, but This proposed cost cap leniency/cost of living adjustment for Audi as their operation is based in Switzerland smacks of lobbying spin outplaying common sense.
Just who is signing off on this at FIA?  :DntKnw:

https://www.grandprix.com/news/haas-boss-slams-special-f1-budget-rule-for-audi.html

Jericoke:

--- Quote from: John S on November 26, 2024, 02:26:45 PM ---I'm not normally on the side of Haas over things, but This proposed cost cap leniency/cost of living adjustment for Audi as their operation is based in Switzerland smacks of lobbying spin outplaying common sense.
Just who is signing off on this at FIA?  :DntKnw:

https://www.grandprix.com/news/haas-boss-slams-special-f1-budget-rule-for-audi.html

--- End quote ---

It's not hard to adjust cost of living, plenty of corporations do it.  Given that VW makes cars on basically every continent, they must be familiar with paying different 'fair' wages based on local market forces.

Is the point of the cap to give teams fair access to talent and resources, or to create a race to bottom where employees are being exploited?

Alianora La Canta:
Neither. The point of the cost cap is literally to stop teams spending $500 m on it every year and forcing other teams out of the sport. Everything after that is a bonus. (At one point, the FIA's position was that some redundancies might be a good thing for F1, so I don't think "race to the bottom" was ever considered a non-bonus).

Jericoke:

--- Quote from: Alianora La Canta on November 26, 2024, 06:38:20 PM ---Neither. The point of the cost cap is literally to stop teams spending $500 m on it every year and forcing other teams out of the sport. Everything after that is a bonus. (At one point, the FIA's position was that some redundancies might be a good thing for F1, so I don't think "race to the bottom" was ever considered a non-bonus).

--- End quote ---

If F1 teams find that a particular country/region can spend far less on personnel, why would the teams continue to operate in an expensive location if it means that the absolute dollar cap gives them a competitive disadvantage? 

Currently there is no race to the bottom, but if Audi feels like running a Swiss team guarantees failure, how long will they keep running Switzerland?

The cap was created so teams don't spend their opponents into oblivion, but the question remains: is the point of the cap to ensure the teams spend as little as possible, or that everyone has fair access to resources?

rmassart:

--- Quote ---Currently there is no race to the bottom, but if Audi feels like running a Swiss team guarantees failure, how long will they keep running Switzerland?
--- End quote ---

Leaving Switzerland would not be due to costs, but due to lack of a real car racing industry. When you want to be best of the best you don't put your engineering team in a location with no specialist engineers.

With the exception of Ferrari, when is the last time an F1 team not based in the UK produced a championship winning car? Has it ever happened?

I for one would not be holding my breath for Audi to get very far whilst based there...

Navigation

[0] Message Index