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

[S griffin]

Sensible decision in the circumstances. Means the drivers efforts haven't been in vain, whilst the team has consequences for their actions

[sizzle]

So just a little bit pregnant but not really then

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

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.

It’s difficult to believe that someone can misunderstand the reality of the true process so much.

[Knowlesy]

They can keep using the ducts, so this will become a very dull saga quite quickly.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by 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.

They only had Lance ....

[peebee2]

Why aren’t RP and Ferrari being censured for blatantly ignoring the bubble rules?

Or Mercedes for helping RP cheat?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Why aren’t RP and Ferrari being censured for blatantly ignoring the bubble rules?

Or Mercedes for helping RP cheat?

Mercedes didn't help RP cheat. Mercedes supplied the documentation in 2019, when it was legal. Had RP used the documentation in 2019 then it'd have been legal for both 2019 and 2020. However, they didn't use it until 2020, which means the part isn't legal.

Mercedes are completely innocent.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Mercedes are completely innocent.

You must be a shareholder LOL.

Of course no way did they help Tracing Point design their all-new 2020 car and abandon the last God knows how many years of development.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by peebee2

You must be a shareholder LOL.

Of course no way did they help Tracing Point design their all-new 2020 car and abandon the last God knows how many years of development.

I don't like Mercedes.

The plans for the brake ducts specifically were given in 2019. The part was not a listed part during 2019. Had RP used these plans for 2019 it would have been legal (and therefore legal for 2020 as well). RP did not use these plans in 2019. Thus, the brake ducts are illegal.

It isn't Mercedes fault.

[peebee2]

You’re focussing on the one thing protested, not the 1,000 things that haven’t been. Yet.

[Akrapovic]

I'm focusing on the one thing we have facts on, rather than just making stuff up to fit whatever narrative I want.

It was not illegal to supply plans for brake ducts in 2019. It was not illegal to copy the brake ducts in 2019. It was illegal in 2020. Mercedes supplied the plans in 2019. RP used these in 2020. It appears to be RPs misunderstanding of when they got the plans vs when they use the plans that has made the brake ducts illegal.

So unless you want to retro-actively punish Mercedes for violating a rule which didn't exist in 2019 then you're out of luck trying to blame Mercedes. Otherwise I say we make ALL the cars illegal and remove all the points because the teams are using V6 engines, when if you apply the 2013 regulations you HAVE to use V8s. I mean, if we're just applying random rules to a time that doesn't apply, lets go big or go home.

Mercedes are innocent, like them or not. RP apparently not. Does approach the topic of if any of this should even be illegal or not (I vote no) but that's not really the point I suppose.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

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

Very stinky indeed.

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

Does approach the topic of if any of this should even be illegal or not (I vote no) but that's not really the point I suppose.

I vote the same. What a load of complete nonsense.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Very stinky indeed.



I vote the same. What a load of complete nonsense.

Agreed, 3rd vote, complete bloody rubbish!

[GT6]

i am afraid one team has always enjoyed more power with the FIA than is healthy but this decision is more about the use of developments and making sure smaller teams are always just that.

[wnut]

"We read the sporting regulations and there was nothing in there that said we can't do what we did. It's a bit bewildering, however we now need to decide if we want to appeal. The good news is we can run the car here as it is."


Otmar Szafnauer, Team Principal

[S griffin]

Originally Posted by wnut

Agreed, 3rd vote, complete bloody rubbish!

It does seem to be quite nonsensical, but the punishment could have been worse, so at least we are spared some blushes

[Richard C]

Protest was quite narrow and it seems the ruling was as well. And with this it leave questions unanswered and I also think the ruling includes contrary/conflicting logic.

The main problem I see with the ruling is that on one hand, they say that the design used was "designed by" Mercedes. And that "when" is irrelevant. So while it was legal in 2019 to share, it is not in 2020. In the ruling they say the effective date for the 2020 regulations was January 1st and yet they also say that Racing Point had the design prior to that.

However they don't force Racing Point to remove the part. That they can't "unlearn what they have learned". The implication is that they learning this in 2020? No, they learned this in 2019 when it was legal to learn the details. How can they unlearn what they learned in 2019? They also call out that it's OK to reverse engineer solutions as that has been done for a long time.

This part of the ruling is very weak and frankly makes little logical sense. In my opinion, logically either it's fully legal (you can copy parts/solutions) or its not legal (a copy still means it was "designed by" someone else). They need to pick one. They have generally given up and tried to fit somewhere in-between. IMHO, this ruling is about 50% based upon regulations and 50% politics.

But the FIA also say that are complicit by having unclear regulations. So far the game as been to use photographs, etc. to reserve engineer and make facsimile of the source part. With the unsaid expectation is that they would probably end up not being identical. This prior precedence totally ignored the logic they used above regarding "designed by". Because by their logic, the "designer" was the original team. Or maybe they way they dodged this is that it was "just different enough" due to the limitations of how parts have been copied in the past.

The FIA now understands this is a complete can of worms of their own making. The potential for this problem has existed for a long long time. For whatever reason, now is when it has becoming an issue. I suspect the reason is that it is so much easier today (due to advanced automation and scanning techniques) to convert things like images, etc. into working solutions. Previously it would have been hard and with likely less potential for "exact" duplication.

This is beyond the topic of Mercedes sharing a non-listed part in 2019. This is the FIA understanding that teams will accurately reverse engineer currently listed parts. The protest was over the brake ducts, but the bodywork is a listed part. Has anyone noticed a similarity between the 2020 Racing Point and 2019 Mercedes from a bodywork perspective. That WAS a listed part in 2019.

Given they know it is a problem and could explode (potentially along the lines I outlined in an earlier post) they are looking to change the regulations (to stop "copy cat" designs).

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/15...from-next-year

I have to wonder what the behind the scenes discussions are like. To my logic above, Renault could protest the Racing Point bodywork. The brake duct precedence exists. However, I wonder if a back-channel conversation with between FIA and Renault might go like this...

Renault: We are going to keep protesting other parts of the Racing Point. This is not going to end. You already acknowledge the car is illegal.

FIA: Listen, we punished them. But you can't expect us to force them to redo the entire car in the middle of this pandemic and with a development freeze before 2022. We are going to clarify the regulations for next year. Racing Point will probably have to make some tweaks for 2021. But you have gotten as much as you can expect to get out of this. No more protests.

All unofficially of course!

There is a telling quote (by Nikolas Tombazis) in the above linked Autosport article. Does it not say the same thing. Maybe this public communication is the way the FIA is sending a message to Renault.

It will be of course accepted that teams, whatever they have now in the 2019/2020 cars, they are not supposed to delete it or start afresh because that is never how it works.

Richard

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Renault: We are going to keep protesting other parts of the Racing Point. This is not going to end. You already acknowledge the car is illegal.

FIA: Listen, we punished them. But you can't expect us to force them to redo the entire car in the middle of this pandemic and with a development freeze before 2022. We are going to clarify the regulations for next year. Racing Point will probably have to make some tweaks for 2021. But you have gotten as much as you can expect to get out of this. No more protests.

Yep. This. Renault need to be told to quit moaning and wasting everyone's time.

[Akrapovic]

We're in an odd situation where the car is apparently illegal, but also legal.

[Greem]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

We're in an odd situation where the car is apparently illegal, but also legal.

This is one of the best illustrations of the "Schrödinger's cat" thought experiment I think I've ever come across.

The car was both legal *and* illegal until it was observed, at which point it became illegal. And then we looked away and it was legal, and then we looked back and it was legal, and we looked away and it was legal and illegal at the same time.

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

We're in an odd situation where the car is apparently illegal, but also legal.

A statement like that sums up F1 quite well.....

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by peebee2

It’s difficult to believe that someone can misunderstand the reality of the true process so much.

No, I can see and read and follow what's been done. To make an argument you must present facts to back your position. You don't and thus you aren't arguing but rather just bring a childish I don't want to agree with the facts because I'm right position.

It's not worth debating the realities with someone who pretends they invented the world. Thanks for again ruining an otherwise civil discussion forum.

[Moneyseeker]

Pleased to see that Claire Williams has managed to chip in with her 'fiercely indepdent but skint' fourpenneth to distract from the fact that she as overseen another turkey on zero points, although a slightly better turkey than last year.

[broadrun96]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

A statement like that sums up F1 quite well.....

And most of F1s rules. It appears many of the rules were the pretend idea of "fair play" and I'll invent my own things. If you think the first (any new part or design) wasn't immediately copied and any new hire wasn't immediately grilled on how things were done, well honestly that makes you the innocent babe.

The ruling boils down to we didn't say you couldn't do this, no where in the rules does it say what they did EXACTLY is not allowed. They did not purchase the part, they did not illegally steal the design, they didn't not solicit MB assistance AFTER the date when the part became illegal. Not adding a closure date at which ALL products before must be completely redesigned left the egg on the FIA's face. Everything Racing Point did was legal AT THE TIME they did it, the only restriction was they could not source it now. They did not, they built it when they could and took their design from what was learned. Nothing in the design says it's a direct copy but rather heavily influenced by having the previous files. There lies the problem, nothing in the rule said you must forget that. And Racing Point could show enough to skirt by hence the ridiculous we're all looking foolish because we don't stop to read the rules we wrote. Plus did they really think anyone sourcing the part last year would magically forget how it was built before? Come on, garbage assumption at its face. Renault only appealed one because they look utterly foolish with their own car and McLaren making the chassis look like junk often.

I would guess the very same thing happened with Ferrari but for the FIA's sake it was not an appeal but their own meetings with Ferrari. No appeal filed no public decision needs to be posted. If another engine builder came to them with a similar design the FIA knows enough to now shut that down.

But isn't that the way of many FIA rules and Brawn should know that. He's been a master at finding that gap and designing to meet it perfectly.

[Moneyseeker]

Ferrari join the other teams protesting the RP penalty as too lenient, when their own alleged discretion was 'resolved' behind closed doors and currently resides under an FIA carpet in Paris. The whole thing is a farce, as ever the teams truce to drive F1 forward is a sham, vested interests always prevail.

Sent from my SM-T580 using Tapatalk