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

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

That's 2 races for Hulk, he was entered in both. Broken car doesn't mean he didn't run and qualify and the car was entered in the GP. So Hulk actually had the worst number at 3 per entry.

Disagree - you can't measure a driver's performance in races in which they did not even start. Maybe we've all become so used to the reliability of the current cars that this has been forgotten?

A DNS result was always viewed as lack of a black mark against a driver, a DNF could go either way, depending on why.

Hulk may have been entered for the BGP, may have run in P and Q but had zero opportunity to score points due to the DNS in the actual Grand Prix.

[broadrun96]

So he bins it in the wall and the team gets no points? Well that's not fair to them, they didn't do anything wrong, why should they lose out on points?

He didn't do anything wrong but the car didn't take the start. He was entered but something broke. It's still a GP entry. Sitting other than that is trying to pretend bad things don't happen and be delusional. Not a black mark against him as a driver but points are earned as a team, points are lost as a team.

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

So he bins it in the wall and the team gets no points? Well that's not fair to them, they didn't do anything wrong, why should they lose out on points?

He didn't do anything wrong but the car didn't take the start. He was entered but something broke. It's still a GP entry. Sitting other than that is trying to pretend bad things don't happen and be delusional. Not a black mark against him as a driver but points are earned as a team, points are lost as a team.

If he bins it, it's a DNF, not a DNS.

Yep, motorsport is definitely a team game but you simply can't judge a driver or team performance in a race when they didn't start the race. For sure you could judge the team's prep but that's about as far as it goes.

The post you commented on was comparing the performance of the drivers at (t)RP this year - when comparing drivers (which is all the other post did), you can't include a DNS and be statistically correct.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by broadrun96

That's 2 races for Hulk, he was entered in both. Broken car doesn't mean he didn't run and qualify and the car was entered in the GP. So Hulk actually had the worst number at 3 per entry.

OK Whatever you say. Ill agree to disagree on that one. No doubt you will suggest that Stroll outperformed Hulk over the Anniversary GP weekend as well.

Bottom line is out of the two regular drivers Perez has scored more points per race done than Stroll has. Hulk performed admirably as last minute stopgap.

[Moneyseeker]

I wonder if the FIA have bitten off more than they can chew on this one...


Racing Point team owner Lawrence Stroll - who normally keeps an extremely low media profile - has lashed out at the four teams who think the EUR 400,000 fine and 15 deducted points penalty is not severe enough.

"I don't often speak publicly, but I am extremely angry at any suggestion we have been underhand or have cheated - particularly those comments coming from our competitors," the billionaire said at Silverstone.

"I have never cheated at anything in my life. I am appalled by the way Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and Williams have taken this opportunity to appeal. They are dragging our name through the mud and I will not stand by nor accept this."

Stroll said he will vigorously defend the appeal in court, with his Aston Martin business partner Toto Wolff saying on Sunday that the Canadian intends to use "all resources" to clear the team's name.

[Tourer]

I think that it's imperative for the FIA to bite off whatever they need to chew, regardless of the resources supposedly behind an entity that the FIA believes has breached the rules.

So far, a number of teams have lodged intention to appeal - maybe Stroll Snr's outburst is calculated to scare at least some of those teams out of actually appealing.

Until it ends up in the appeal process proper, it's all posturing and media statements - meaningless really.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Tourer

I think that it's imperative for the FIA to bite off whatever they need to chew, regardless of the resources supposedly behind an entity that the FIA believes has breached the rules.

So far, a number of teams have lodged intention to appeal - maybe Stroll Snr's outburst is calculated to scare at least some of those teams out of actually appealing.

Until it ends up in the appeal process proper, it's all posturing and media statements - meaningless really.

But did 'the' FIA themselves believe the cars we not legal, the cars are scrutineered by FIA officials before every race to ensure legality, where have we seen any indication from them (not rival teams) that they cars would not be allowed to race with certain parts.

You may recall that when Williams turned up at the F1 test last year, the FIA did intervene to say that the suspension part they had fitted was not legal.

In this case the test of legality has come from a protest from rival teams which the FIA has upheld and the penalty applied. I think in it likely that RP will point out the FIA's off the record treatment of Ferrari over their engine last year ans that no penalty was applied despite the FIA allegedly believing that what was on the car was not as it should be and Ferrari agreeing sufficiently to remove it on the basis it was all confidential.

I am sorry, but you cannot have a situation where one team has preferential treatment from the FIA and a confidential settlement and no apparant sanction other than the loss of performance caused (too bad..) yet another is able to have the rules policed by a rival team and face sanction.

The FIA needs to police all aspects of the rules themselves, not have endless appeals by rival teams and those tivals should not be able to push for a further appeal to have a rival disqualified - which is clearly the objective - even Ferrari for maximum hypocrosy...

Personally, I think if it gets deep into legal action and Stroll is well represented RP could win the case.

[Tourer]

The FIA themselves decide the cars were outside the rules - the stewards ARE the FIA. If other parts of the FIA missed the problem, there'll clearly need to be a discussion.

Otherwise your points are valid. It occurs to me that maybe someone in the FIA has accepted that the hidden agreement with Ferrari was not good for the sport and it is better to run the sport within the existing process.

I re-iterate my point though that the FIA should be dealing with teams that breach rules appropriately, regardless of any resources behind the team or any threat of legal action.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by E.B

OK Whatever you say. Ill agree to disagree on that one. No doubt you will suggest that Stroll outperformed Hulk over the Anniversary GP weekend as well.

I was surprised to be able to get an online bet on on Sunday morning for which RP driver would finish in front of his teammate, so clearly the bookies don’t know the long history of shenanigans and manipulation. Easy money to be won!

[Aysedasi]

Whatever happens, appeal wise, the FIA have once again made themselves look bloody stupid, bowing to pressure to penalise RP and yet allowing them to carry on with the supposedly 'offending' part(s). Ridiculous. And after the Ferrari hush-up, the boys in red should have had more sense than to be involved in this protest.

[E.B]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Whatever happens, appeal wise, the FIA have once again made themselves look bloody stupid, bowing to pressure to penalise RP and yet allowing them to carry on with the supposedly 'offending' part(s). Ridiculous. And after the Ferrari hush-up, the boys in red should have had more sense than to be involved in this protest.

^^^ This.

[GT6]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Whatever happens, appeal wise, the FIA have once again made themselves look bloody stupid, bowing to pressure to penalise RP and yet allowing them to carry on with the supposedly 'offending' part(s). Ridiculous. And after the Ferrari hush-up, the boys in red should have had more sense than to be involved in this protest.

Unfortunately the boys in red seem to have no one taking charge of anything at the moment so people are doing things that are not really in the team interest, and yes i agree they are looking like an injured beast lashing out at anyone and anything at the moment with no one to hold them back

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Aysedasi

Whatever happens, appeal wise, the FIA have once again made themselves look bloody stupid, bowing to pressure to penalise RP and yet allowing them to carry on with the supposedly 'offending' part(s). Ridiculous. And after the Ferrari hush-up, the boys in red should have had more sense than to be involved in this protest.

Agreed

Plus

The FIA basically said that RP had not violated any of the rules, had obtained everything legally, but had taken it to a new level and violated the intent of the rules.

Then dished out a penalty and agreed the car could carry on unaltered.

Plus unfair prejudice compared to the Ferrari decision.

Good luck to the FIA with this in a court of law!

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by wnut

Agreed

Plus

The FIA basically said that RP had not violated any of the rules, had obtained everything legally, but had taken it to a new level and violated the intent of the rules.

Then dished out a penalty and agreed the car could carry on unaltered.

Plus unfair prejudice compared to the Ferrari decision.

Good luck to the FIA with this in a court of law!

Agreed and presumably RP could push the FIA to make the Ferrari case public knowledge and a suitable retrospective penalty.

Making is even more daft is that RP obtained the rear brake ducts entirely legally from Mercedes in 2019 as a listed part, which the FIA changed for 202 - but based on the clear fact that you cannot unlearn something you have in your posssession - they chose to run this part or RP's 'interpretation' of it 2020. This is why the FIA has not made them take it off the car as RP already has the knowledge of the part to appear with an almost identical example they have designed themselves.

I can only see that the FIA have backed themselves into a corner and risk opening a whole can of Ferrari worms at the same time.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Agreed and presumably RP could push the FIA to make the Ferrari case public knowledge and a suitable retrospective penalty.

Making is even more daft is that RP obtained the rear brake ducts entirely legally from Mercedes in 2019 as a listed part, which the FIA changed for 202 - but based on the clear fact that you cannot unlearn something you have in your posssession - they chose to run this part or RP's 'interpretation' of it 2020. This is why the FIA has not made them take it off the car as RP already has the knowledge of the part to appear with an almost identical example they have designed themselves.

I can only see that the FIA have backed themselves into a corner and risk opening a whole can of Ferrari worms at the same time.

Looks like they tried to come up with the popular decision amongst the 200 pound gorillas ( the manus) rather than the legaly correct one.
Really hope Stroll kicks their asses until their noses bleed here.

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Agreed and presumably RP could push the FIA to make the Ferrari case public knowledge and a suitable retrospective penalty.

Making is even more daft is that RP obtained the rear brake ducts entirely legally from Mercedes in 2019 as a listed part, which the FIA changed for 202 - but based on the clear fact that you cannot unlearn something you have in your posssession - they chose to run this part or RP's 'interpretation' of it 2020. This is why the FIA has not made them take it off the car as RP already has the knowledge of the part to appear with an almost identical example they have designed themselves.

I can only see that the FIA have backed themselves into a corner and risk opening a whole can of Ferrari worms at the same time.

That’s not true. They received parts in 2020 that were manufactured by Mercedes.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by peebee2

That’s not true. They received parts in 2020 that were manufactured by Mercedes.

The parts were supplied during pre-season testing. The parts were not used, and the technical regulations do not apply until you reach FP1 at the first weekend.

[chillibowl]

So here is a question...a team buys and uses a part one year, only for that part to be removed from the listed parts the following year.

The customer team, realizing they must now build the part themselves, uses knowledge learnt from having access to the prior year part to build their own part.

How is this not an issue between the customer and their supplier exclusively?

I would imagine the supplier, when selling any parts, has strict language outlying how that part must be used and the resulting transfer of any knowledge/ip that may derive from its short term supply of that part no?

So if Merc doesnt care enough to file a complaint then how is it Renault's duty to protect Merc's ip?

No doubt i am missing something here leading to a poor analogy on my part.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by peebee2

That’s not true. They received parts in 2020 that were manufactured by Mercedes.

If we are talking about the front/rear brake ducts, the text from the appeal decision says that RP received CAD models for the 2019 parts in 2019. There is a mention in the document that I think says/implies that physical parts also came at some point, but doesn't say when. I assume if it was important, it would have been called out in the document. I will say the FIA document is vague, unclear, poorly worded in many places and maybe has at least one error (mentions "2018" parts when I think it means "2019" parts).

I know battle lines are being drawn here. But it remains a can of worms with lots of conflicting logic. You can reverse engineer parts to figure out the tricks of how they work, but there is some poorly defined line as to how you learn things. And when the knowledge is yours or someone else's. What is interesting is that the RB ducts are not identical to those from Mercedes. So that even while they had the CAD files and could have made exact clones, they did not. An interesting quote from the FIA document...

The fact that certain mechanical design features of the RP20 RBDs are different to the Mercedes W10 RBDs is irrelevant.

Oh, really! They go on to say...

The CAD models of the Mercedes W10 RBDs gave Racing Point a 3D model of the surface dimensions/shape of the Mercedes W10 RBDs, which are the crucial aspects of the part from an aerodynamic perspective. Racing Point reproduced those aerodynamic aspects very closely in its own RP20 RBDs.

In the end, the entire FIA argument hinges upon the concept of "designed by". So if you see a part, copy it, "who is the designer" and what is the "design". The FIA said above, that the brake duct in its entirety is not the "design", but rather the aerodynamic properties of the duct.

This is a huge can of worms. Are they to start defining the "essence" ("crucial aspects" in FIA words) of particular listed parts? I create a copy of your listed part, but it is different in X ways. When does X not count because the essence is still the same?

As others have mentioned, you can use photometric 3d scanning to copy something like the body shape (a listed part) with incredible accuracy. The "shape" defines the aerodynamic proprieties. By the FIA logic above, any replication of someone else's aero concepts are potentially in violation of the regulations because you are not the "designer". Why are a slew of copy cat aero concepts not illegal???

Originally Posted by chillibowl

The customer team, realizing they must now build the part themselves, uses knowledge learnt from having access to the prior year part to build their own part.

Exactly. When do you share the knowledge with the original designer, but your part is so close that it is no longer yours? And what aspects of the design does the FIA decide are the important ones? How do designers know they have crossed a line?

I am starting to think that RP may win an appeal.

Richard

[Aysedasi]

As I said, totally and utterly ludicrous. Just the kind of abject stupidity that the FIA and F1 generally could seriously do without.

[peebee2]

People here are focussing on the brake ducts far too much, but they are just the stalking horse.

The question has always really been did they illegally buy designs from Mercedes. That is firmly where the argument is going and the brake ducts are now just a political side issue.

[Aysedasi]

No I think we're focusing on what has been ruled upon, aren't we?

[Akrapovic]

People are talking about the only thing we have facts for.

[Aysedasi]

Exactly.

[P38 in workshop]

If my memory is correct,the stewards at the event are acting on behalf of the National sporting authority and the appeal goes to the FIA when contested.Without ploughing through the entire judgement I find the statement "The fact that certain mechanical design features of the RP20 RBDs are different to the Mercedes W10 RBDs is irrelevant." ludicrous -taken in isolation.Using that logic every car on the grid is a copy of the Mercedes because they all have four wheels and a power unit.Not to mention brake ducts.