[Team] Aston Martin Racing in 2023. One of the cars still has Alonso.

[Adam43]

Oh, I’m with you now.

[Nononsensecapeesh]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Oh, I’m with you now.

I'm not very good at explaining things I just remember reading Aston Martin's profile on the former F1 Rejects.

[Asa]

So this is why Aston Martin pulled out of DTM.

I guess Honda should be happy to be the lone manufacturer on next year's Red Bull.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Asa

So this is why Aston Martin pulled out of DTM.

I guess Honda should be happy to be the lone manufacturer on next year's Red Bull.

Wasn't the Aston Martin DTM with-drawl because R-Motorsport didn't want to run through 2020? They want to run the AMR Hypercar this year.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Wasn't the Aston Martin DTM with-drawl because R-Motorsport didn't want to run through 2020? They want to run the AMR Hypercar this year.

Exactly that, Aston didn't pull out as much as the team running them quit. No team entered means you aren't running any more. Nothing to do with the Stroll and Co buy-in.

[Asa]

https://www.motorsport.com/supergt/n...g-dtm/4679527/

Then why do they want to run in Super GT?

[peebee2]

If your projects only last a year, you’ll always be needing new categories...

[wolfhound]

Is there any news on the Racing Point protest from Renault, the Stewards were to meet today?

[Adam43]

Not seen anything.

On that, did Renault protest again at Silverstone? Or did they not bother as Racing Point were behind them?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

On that, did Renault protest again at Silverstone? Or did they not bother as Racing Point were behind them?

have seen on twitter that the FIA is expected to announce their results on Friday sometime before FP1.

https://twitter.com/AlbertFabrega/st...98532216848384

for whatever this is worth of course. much could change in the next day or so.

[wolfhound]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Not seen anything.

On that, did Renault protest again at Silverstone? Or did they not bother as Racing Point were behind them?

To the best of my knowledge they protested again.



If the results are to come out on Friday it leaves Racing Point very little time to make changes.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

To the best of my knowledge they protested again.
If the results are to come out on Friday it leaves Racing Point very little time to make changes.

They did protest again, but only one car which is a bit strange given that they should be identical.

Why have the FIA taken so long to come to a decision, they apparently have all the documents from the pre-season and the brake ducts were already agreed and signed off by the FIA's chief technical officer?
If they DSQ the Racing Points, then their tardy response has cost the team an extra GP maybe two.

The protests should have been thrown out immediately imo.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by wnut

They did protest again, but only one car which is a bit strange given that they should be identical.



Why have the FIA taken so long to come to a decision, they apparently have all the documents from the pre-season and the brake ducts were already agreed and signed off by the FIA's chief technical officer?

If they DSQ the Racing Points, then their tardy response has cost the team an extra GP maybe two.



The protests should have been thrown out immediately imo.

Because the FIA does NOT make this decision. The FIA is NOT the stewards, please understand that. The race stewards make the decision based on the FIA and team testimony and report their finding. The FIA calls teams to "court" on behalf of the stewards. One should read the regs and processes.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wnut

They did protest again, but only one car which is a bit strange given that they should be identical.

I read somewhere that they only protested one because only one started the race. Who knows maybe the rules don't allow you to protest a car that doesn't take the green flag.

I have also read somewhere (can't find it right now) that Ferrari has asked for clarification around the same rules that Racing Point is using to clone/reverse engineer the Mercedes.

I think it's good Ferrari has asked for clarification (for everyone). Because the ruling might be that the Racing Point is fine, but that doesn't say exactly where the line is on the strategy of reverse engineering the car. For example, lets say someone takes a consumer product. Someone else owns the IP. You measure and create a clone. It might measure slightly differently in a few places. You claim you own the IP of the clone. I can imagine the owner of the original version might challenge that assertion. The problem we have here is that Mercedes might just be perfectly OK with Racing Point cloning the car and claiming the IP as there own (effectively there is two sets of IP when we wonder if really there is only one).

Where does it stop? What if someone rolled a car through an X-ray machine or large MRI to not just examine the external details, but peer into the interior. No "plans" were provided, but you can now see the buried details. Is that OK? (I understand there are no MRI's large enough to run an entire car through, but you get my point).

How much assistance is the original IP owner allowed to provide? Can they drop an old car off for the weekend and say "Have at it boys, make sure it's back together Monday morning"? Then they could take it all apart and then they could run bits through non-destructive scanners to determine not just exterior, but interior details (with likely amazing accuracy). Sure, converting what would effectively be a detailed 3D model that into a working car would be difficult, but clearly Racing Point has shown it is possible to do and and likely on the cheap. Some non-destructive scanners may tell more than just shape, but materials as well.

I suspect Ferrari wants to understand exactly where the FIA thinks the line exists. How far down the path toward the scenarios I outline above is acceptable?

I have no strong opinions on this other than things are badly broken if to be successful you have to fully clone a competitors car. And given this is not just a drivers championship, but also a constructors championship, it somewhat makes a mockery of the concept of "constructor". I know copying ideas is a core part of racing. That "secret sauce" does not remain secret forever. But if you run a championship based upon "constructors" there needs to be some lines somewhere. Or, we just ditch (or rework) the constructors championship and allow things like customer cars. This is all about working around the prohibition on customer cars. Racing Point has a customer car that is likely a bit more expensive than if they had just bought a car from Mercedes. So now we have customer cars, but they are expensive? Is the focus now about keeping cost down? If we are going to have customer cars, then do it right.

Richard

[Kempi]

Is there any definition of IP in the rules? "IP" is a summary of protection for various things such s inventions (patents), trademarks, design rights, and - commonly used but not truly IP, copyrighted works.

Trade secrets and know how are also often thrown in there when talking about IP but they are also a different story. What is exactly meant in the rules?

Then there is the next question of what is allowed and what not. Patented inventions cannot be copied or developed independently without a license. Copyrighted works can be identical and not infringing, if they are truly developed independently. Copying requires a license. So it is really not as simple as throwing in the term "must own IP". And I am not sure Stewards are the right people to determine this.

[S griffin]

I just hope the right solution is found. It's always a pain when things like this drag on and on and end up in court. It's not what F1 needs. Mind you Renault still managed to beat the Pink Merc at Silvestone, so maybe it's not that big of an advantage as Renault think

[VIVA GT]

Originally Posted by S griffin

I just hope the right solution is found. It's always a pain when things like this drag on and on and end up in court. It's not what F1 needs. Mind you Renault still managed to beat the Pink Merc at Silvestone, so maybe it's not that big of an advantage as Renault think

Or maybe the driver of the one Racing Point car in the face was instructed to ease off a little until the appeal result was made public?

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by VIVA GT

Or maybe the driver of the one Racing Point car in the face was instructed to ease off a little until the appeal result was made public?

i'm not sure i find copying to be worse then just being able to buy a spec part.

the line has been moving towards allowing more and more spec parts to be sold to customers so the line is fluid. i would imagine the top teams go to great lengths to hide their 'secrets' as well as buy up the talent from smaller teams if they happen to have worthy secrets themselves. i suppose top people from top team also go to smaller teams also so they bring the knowledge to copy with them.

i guess what may be more shocking is not the copying itself per say but just how they managed to copy to this detail this quickly or without the transfer of staff and/or circumventing gardening leave which is primarily aimed at extending the amount of time ideas and technology can filter through the teams.

that said though, Force India/RP had already been moving towards buying more Merc parts and no doubt they were legally receiving technical assistance...with F1 being a relatively small fishbowl is it outside the realm of possibilities that RP went down a similar design process or take design cues just based on what the TV feed or photo journalist caught on camera?

however, if someone had directly passed on detailed technical specs then that would be cheating of the criminal variety? short of a photocopy store clerk calling Ferrari or a whistle blower, or finding the data on a RP server... im not sure how anyone could prove that though.

Renault of course were also rumoured to have had access to that same book that got Mclaren in so much trouble (so much irony in f1).

when Toyota showed up with a Ferrari clone (based on a 2002 Ferrari?) there were certainly allegations that they had managed to get Ferrari's data (from their Cologne wind tunnel perhaps?)...there may have even been a police investigation. i dont believe anything happened with that but that may have been more to do with the fact that Toyota had so desperately under performed (which RP is sort of doing now)

anyways long rambling story short...copying, while being similar to stealing, is not exactly stealing unless it is criminally overt and that is where the line is?

[Aysedasi]

And as we've said so many times before, F1 teams and designers have been doing it practically since F1 first existed.....

[S griffin]

Oh yes, there plenty of Lotus 79 doppelgängers in 1979. And some weren’t so successful, remember the Kauhsen?

[steve nielsen]

[Knowlesy]

Derp.

[steve_r]

15 point deduction. Guilty but not guilty. Not disqualified. Clear as mud.

[Moneyseeker]

Note that this is all shared in public whereas Ferraris decision was not disclosed to anyone....

What the hell does 14.e section mean - contradicts everything written above it.

Shame to see that number of points deducted and a pity Renault can't beat them on track instead of the stewards room...

[steve_r]

Playing Devils Advocate, Renault would probably say that they could beat Racing Point on track if they were given the CAD plans from Mercedes.

And of course, they did beat them on track in the last race.