Satisfied? All F1 Teams Have Been Cleared of Cost Cap Malfeasance

Matt Posky
by Matt Posky

Despite evidence that numerous Formula One teams had broken the sport’s updated financial rules during the 2022 season, the Federation Internationale de l'Automobile (FIA) has formally announced that all ten have since operated under the cost cap limitations. 

"The review has been an intensive and thorough process, beginning with a detailed analysis of the documentation submitted by the competitors," stated the FIA. "Additionally, there has been an extensive check of any non-F1 activities undertaken by the teams, which comprised multiple on-site visits to team facilities and careful auditing procedures to assess compliance with the Financial Regulations."

Criticism has not abated, however.


Like it or not, cheating is a fundamental component of motorsport. Race organizers frequently change the rules and teams habitually seek loopholes that will give them an edge. This often creates a gray area where it’s not entirely clear what qualifies as rule-breaking vs. rule exploitation. 


A favored example of this is NASCAR banning the Dodge Daytona and Plymouth Superbird. Seeking an aerodynamic advantage on high-speed tracks, Chrysler realized there were no formal rules against fitting nose cones and massive rear spoilers to their racers, provided they did the same with the homologation cars sold to the public (this was back when NASCAR still required vehicles to be based on real production automobiles) to ensure compliance. 


With the resulting Daytona and Superbird (below) dominating NASCAR events from 1969-1970, there was a lot of supposition about how Chrysler had broken the rules. But when it came out that there were no official restrictions on the matter, organizers simply banned the use of aero kits and restricted engine displacement to just 305 cubic inches. With Chrysler being forced into abandoning its aerodynamic advantage and banned from utilizing motors sized above 400 cubic inches, its dominance in NASCAR ended overnight. 

Over the years, racing teams from all corners of motorsport have been trying to find ways of gaming the system. While this often results in exploiting bylaw blind spots, full-blown cheating is nearly as common. But it’s ultimately up to racing organizers and the sanctioning bodies to interpret when and how the rules are broken and this can lead to decisions that seem arbitrary or widespread criticism of engaging in favoritism. 


Formula One has taken great strides to expand its popularity in recent years. Rules have been tweaked in a bid to encourage closer competition and there’s been a massive marketing effort that includes a Netflix documentary that’s covered every racing season since 2018 and broadcasting rights for American television networks. F1 has even abandoned the use of grid girls and started trying to present itself as environmentally conscious to minimize any bad publicity stemming from activist groups. As a byproduct, the changes became big news and drew even more media attention. 


The above seems to have helped viewership immensely, with the sport seeing a surge of popularity in the United States that has only recently started showing signs of a plateau. However, some of Formula One’s historic criticisms still appear to be in play. Last year’s Abu Dhabi Grand Prix ended with the FIA deciding the results based on a shootout between Lewis Hamilton and Max Verstappen. However, many accused organizers of corruption due to how the matter was handled. 


That season likewise resulted in the FIA looking into numerous teams accused of having exceeded the relatively new $142.2 million budget cap. Williams and Aston Martin were cited for minor penalties with Red Bull (long famous for spending big) getting busted for exceeding the limit by roughly $2 million and failing to file a tax deduction document that could have improved the situation. 


The scandal wasn’t so much that some teams had broken the financial rules and gotten away with it. Despite some initial denial, Red Bull admitted to having screwed up and was forced into paying a $7 million fine while also losing some of its development time. But its driver (Max Verstappen) ultimately won the season, with Red Bull likewise taking home the constructor trophy for 2022 by a wide margin. 


Now, the FIA is saying that all teams have been investigated and cleared of having exceeded the cost cap going into this year’s events. But fans (and even a few teams) are calling into question the regulatory body’s ability to effectively police spending. For starters, teams are already allowed to exclude their three highest-paid members from the total. This allows the biggest brands to hire the best drivers by offering tens of millions more per season. There are also lingering questions about how exactly the FIA can possibly oversee all aspects of team spending, what should be included in the $142.2 million seasonal budget cap, and what constitutes fair penalties for exceeding it. 


For as much effort as Formula One has put into trying to level the playing field, we’re still seeing teams famous for having deep pockets (e.g. Red Bull, Ferrari, and Mercedes) outperforming the rest of the grid. These are old problems and something the FIA seemed eager to move away from. But one wonders if they’ve been effectively dealt with via the new spending caps, with there still being some concerns regarding how things were handled last year.


"The FIA also notes that the Financial Regulations are essential to the long-term financial stability of the sport and that they will continue to be developed and refined based on the findings of each review process both in terms of the regulations themselves, which are written and approved under the FIA Formula 1 governance process, and the way in which they are enforced and policed," the organization stated.


[Images: Formula1; NASCAR]

Become a TTAC insider. Get the latest news, features, TTAC takes, and everything else that gets to the truth about cars first by  subscribing to our newsletter.

Matt Posky
Matt Posky

Consumer advocate tracking industry trends and regulations. Before joining TTAC, Matt spent a decade working for marketing and research firms based in NYC. Clients included several of the world’s largest automakers, global tire brands, and aftermarket part suppliers. Dissatisfied, he pivoted to writing about cars. Since then, he has become an ardent supporter of the right-to-repair movement, been interviewed about the automotive sector by national broadcasts, participated in a few amateur rallying events, and driven more rental cars than anyone ever should. Handy with a wrench, Matt grew up surrounded by Detroit auto workers and learned to drive by twelve. A contrarian, Matt claims to prefer understeer and motorcycles.

More by Matt Posky

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 13 comments
  • Probert Probert on Sep 07, 2023

    I blame Hunter Biden - the most dangerous man who was ever born on earth...ever....on earth...Biden.......Hunter...America....freedom...communists...Biden....can't stop.....believin in tomorrow

    • El scotto El scotto on Sep 07, 2023


      One more thing for Hunter to write in the memo line on a check: Blow, Hookers, Bribes to Dad, F-1 Parts. :)

  • Redapple2 Redapple2 on Sep 08, 2023

    F1 is out for me. IMSA all the way

  • Tassos Ask me if I care for the idiotic vehicles less than 10% of whose owners use as INTENDED.
  • Brandon The 2024 Mercedes-Benz E 350 4Matic looks like a compelling addition to the luxury sedan market. From the drive notes, it’s clear that Mercedes-Benz has maintained its commitment to blending performance with comfort. The handling and acceleration seem impressive, reflecting Mercedes’ signature blend of power and smoothness.
  • Jmanb52 In this case clearly a driver responsbile for the accident. Lawyer just trying to add confusion to jude and or jury to think about it. I was on a jury once for an auto accident and one of the attorneys tried a few stunts to shift blame. Same thing is happening here. The companies pushing autonamous want to deal with fleet markets like the autonamous taxi companies rather than individual consumers. In my opinion I think they belvie that would be more predictable sales. Car gets to xyz milage time to replace. In my opinion they could never sell a full autonamous car to an individual because of a back and forth legal battles between owner and maker when there is a crash. They need to foget about all these take over driver aids. It is just causing more issues than it could prevent.
  • Jmanb52 Short answer is NO! It has been a tread for manufactures to basicaly glue a tablet to an area of the dash and call it an infotament system. However there is not one of us on here that doesn't ahve a smart phone or tablet. With the android auto, and the Apple Carplay and bluetooth that conencts car spekers and mic to our headset, do we even need an Infotament system or just bluetooth connection to use hands free mic and spearkers or wired connection to USB port for connection to spearkers / mic and charge the phone. So maybe the QOTD should be do manufactures even need to provide an infotanement system or should they just provide an in dash holder for a tablet or smartphone?
  • Jmanb52 In the past year I did some more research on EVs. I already knew for years they were heavier than a ICE car of the same model / class. Like the F150 lightning can be 1000 LBS heavier than its ICE counterpart. In the last year I read more on the size of breaks, tires and other items that take more resrouces to create and polute more in their wear. This was another nail in my corporate EV caufin. I already didn't have much care for them due to my height (over 6 feet) and they all have a bad desgin, over dependency on gimics, over computerized driving experience. If I ever did get one it would be a low range in town only type vehicle that I would convert an older car. There is no manufacture making EVs that is worth a penny of my money.
Next