Christian Horner has claimed the penalty dished out to Red Bull for breaching the Formula 1 cost cap last season could cost the team up to half a second in lap time.

Red Bull was handed a $7 million fine and a 10 percent reduction in its wind tunnel and computational fluid dynamic (CFD) allowance (collectively known as Aerodynamic Testing Restrictions, or ATR) for a 12-month period.

That limitation comes into play immediately and will have an impact on both the team’s 2023 and 2024 designs.

“I’ve heard people reporting today [that] it’s an insignificant amount, let me tell you now that is an enormous amount that represents anywhere between 0.25s and 0.5s worth of lap time,” Horner said on Friday morning.

“That comes in from now. That has a direct effect on next year’s car and will be in place for a 12-month period.

“By winning the constructors’ championships, obviously, we become victims of our own success by, in addition to that 10 percent, having 5 percent incremental disadvantage or handicap compared to the second and third place.

“So, just for clarity, we will have 15% less wind tunnel time than the second-place team in the constructors’ championship, and 20%, less than the third-place.”

Development for next year is well underway, and while the regulations are largely stable there are some key aerodynamic changes.

The floor edges are being raised, as is the throat of the diffuser, in an effort to combat porpoising.

Those changes were finalised in August, at which point teams were already concerned about the impact it would have on their 2023 efforts given how late they were made.

Additional restrictions for Red Bull, therefore, exacerbate that issue.

“It goes without saying it’s a one-to-one effect,” Horner said of the ATR penalty his team now faces.

“We cannot do as many wind tunnel runs, we cannot run as many simulations. That will have a material effect on our performance.

“It’s difficult to put a lap time figure but one could assume, whilst these regulations are still pretty immature and development is still steep, it could be anywhere between 0.25 and 0.5 of a second in lap time.

Rivals had called for a harsh penalty to be handed down to Red Bull for two reasons.

The first is to act as a deterrent to teams that may look to flaunt the rules in future, though there is no doubt a competitive element in a tough penalty hurting their rival’s performance on track – a point not lost on Horner.

“It’s a hit, it’s a handicap,” he conceded.

“It gives an advantage to our competitors, which is why they were pushing so hard for a draconian penalty.

“We’re going to have to work incredibly hard within the time that we have available, and we’re going to have to be efficient with our time, we’re going to have to be efficient with the runs that we choose to do in our wind tunnel.

“So I have full belief in our team and the capability of our team. I think they’ve demonstrated that time and time again.

“And yeah, there were other sporting penalties that were available to the FIA, but this one was obviously lobbied hard for by our competitors because they felt it hit us the hardest.”

Horner also argued the specifics of what his team was found in breach for, claiming a number of items that were disconnected from the Formula 1 operation were included within the cap.

That, he reasoned, tipped it over the edge.

While the headline figure is £1.864 million, in reality, Horner claimed it’s only £432,652 (a 0.37 percent overspend) as the team overpaid with regards to tax credits.

That is a figure that can be explained away through catering and payments to staff.

Of particular note is a £1.2 million figure the team has had to include for the factory’s canteen.

“Costs of key personnel that play no role in the cap, so some of the support functions, marketing, HR, finance, every single meal that they have had has been included in the cap,” Horner revealed.

“Red Bull Powertrains, which is a new entity which has over 200 people, every single meal, every single coffee, they have been charged.

“Were all HPP’s costs charged in Mercedes submission?

“Every cup of coffee that we’ve served to a guest, every sandwich that we’ve given them has been included.

“So again, there are costs that are excludable, and the excludable costs, we believe, amount to the amount of overspending itself.

“So just that alone would have dealt with the 0.37 percent breach.”

Horner also claimed the classification of spare parts, and the changes made to those in July, meant his team was unable to account for those where others did.

That, he claims, equated to £1.2 million.

The Red Bull boss also pointed to the way sick leave and departing staff members were treated under the cap as another point of difference between the team’s opinion and that of the FIA.

“We had a difference of opinion on sick pay,” Horner explained.

“We have always taken a view that we wanted to support our staff, in sickness and in health.

“When members of staff had been on long-term sick, we have supported them, as we will continue to do in the future.

“We felt that the sick pay, because the role of played no function in the grand prix team for a period of eight months, was an excludable cost.

“Unfortunately, the regulations can be interpreted in two ways.

“Had the person died, which thankfully they didn’t, the cost would have been excludable.

“Thankfully, they didn’t die, but therefore the cost was includable for that sick period.

“Another point that we had a differing opinion on was levers and redundancy, and the movement of staff between companies,” he added.

“This sometimes happens between grand prix teams that have separate entities.

“So for example, we had a senior member of staff on a lock-in contract, a fixed-term contract, that was offered a Hollywood-style offer from another team, and at that point, you can see that their heart and mind is not within your company.

“And so they were transferred from the Formula 1 activity into our Advanced Technology activity, which is currently designing the RB17 and America’s Cup projects amongst a myriad of other projects.

“The individual then left the company from there, but the time that was spent not in the Formula 1 activity was included in the cap.

“So there are a few examples which, added together, probably come in in excess of three to £3.5 million worth of worth of value.”

Though he branded the penalty “draconian,” Horner nonetheless accepted it, claiming he did so for the greater good of the sport.

“This set of regulations is immature, we accept that there are interpretations,” he reasoned.

“We accept that this FIA administration has inherited these regulations and indeed there’s an awful lot of work that needs to be done for the future.

“Had we dragged it out through the Administration process, to go effectively appeal, that could have taken months.

“Then beyond that, the International Court of Appeal could have taken further months.

“So we could have been looking at a 12-month period to have this situation closed.

“The amount of speculation and commenting and sniping that has been going on in the paddock, we felt it’s in everyone’s interests, in our interests, in the FIA’s interests, in Formula 1’s interest, to say ‘we close the book’, and we close the book here and today.

“We accept the penalties, begrudgingly, but we accept them.

“I think collectively we have a duty of care with the other entrants.

“There are lessons for everybody to learn, and to work collectively, because I think the cost cap is an important part of Formula 1,” he continued.

“It’s an important part of its future but it has to be in a manner that is consistent and applicable and develops.

“With such a new concept of incredibly complex regulations around different entities, different subsidiary companies, companies that belong to OEMs, companies that are independent, companies that are a subsidiary of an energy drinks manufacturer, our structures, our cost base, our apportionment is all different between all of those entities.

“So that is why we’ve chosen to accept it. We take it on the chin. But as I say, now is the time to put it to bed and move on.”