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

[Moneyseeker]

You've got to love Claire Williams - yesterday....

However Claire Williams says her team is "very clear" on its position regarding the design of performance parts and its importance to Formula 1.

"It's quite a difficult conversation for all us to have," she told the Australian Grand Prix's In the Fast Lane podcast.

"Quite honestly, nobody wants to be criticising your fellow competitors. As much as this is a sport, and we're all incredibly competitive against each other and [you] use everything within your armoury to beat your rivals, nobody every really wants this situation.

"But Williams has always been very clear on what we feel to be the real and true DNA of this sport, the traditional DNA.

Today...
Williams has now also confirmed it will not be taking its appeal any further.

"After careful consideration, Williams have elected not to proceed with the formal appeal," a statement from the team reads.



"We believe the FIA's decision to seek the prohibition of extensive car copying for 2021 onwards addresses our most fundamental concern and reasserts the role and responsibility of a constructor within the sport, which is fundamental to Formula 1's DNA and Williams core beliefs and principles."

Nothing to do with TW or Mercedes then...

[steve_r]

Christian Horner quote from 1st May 2020:
"If I was running a smaller team, the fastest way to competitiveness at a cost-effective route would be rather than trying to reverse engineer and copy your supplier team, which is happening in many cases, why not just sell them the whole car that we finish with in Abu Dhabi? Let them have it.

"Then they can operate as a race team, they don't need all the research and development facilities. It's the fastest route to competitiveness, and the cheapest route as well. They could operate as a race team with a decent product.

"Plus, if they get the race team together, they could win races. We proved that with Toro Rosso and Sebastian Vettel when we were supplying them effectively a customer car back in 2008.

"But there's this paranoia about being a constructor and what you're giving up if you're not a constructor.

"It works in other forms of motorsport, in MotoGP. So if you could buy a Mercedes, buy a Ferrari or a Red Bull after Abu Dhabi, why wouldn't you?"[/I]

Red Bull are now complaining, and have changed their tune entirely. The joy of F1 politics.

[wnut]

perhaps somebody should mention the March 761 customer car Williams started with originally to dearest Claire with her high and mighty pronouncements as to what F1 is. Self-righteous ....

[Moneyseeker]

Personally I have no problem with customer cars - platform sharing amongst road car brands is so commonplace that nowadays you are driving more or less the same car from 4 or 5 manufacturers with different styling badges.

F1 is all about 'optimising', so wouldn't be an equally interesting challenge to see say Williams buy a Mercedes F1 car and put their designers to work on updates and bespoke Williams tweaks.

Currently we have 10 businesses, collectively spending $2bn replicating what the others are doing - remember when the ant eater snout appeared on virtually every car as all the teams interpreted the regs the same way (and not as the FIA had imagined or intended) - same with the reappearance of the shark fin.

Very occasionally one team comes up with something radical (DAS - now banned for 21) but if you stripped the livery off evry car and lined them up, how many people could pick one out from another - I suggest very few.

As for customer cars making every race the same and all cars equal, if that were the case all the GP2 cars would cross the line at the same time - they don't because different teams will understand and run the cars better and some drivers will drive tham better - that is what pure racing is. In the junior series race teams are all about operation - getting the best out of the car and driver at each track.

F1 teams have become almost more theory and less operational - the computer and sim says this, so we do it.

[S griffin]

I’m split on customer cars

On the one hand you would get more teams and cars on the grid and it would be a lot cheaper to do. After all a lot of teams started out with buying cars from other teams and running it themselves

On the other hand, this is not a spec series and it can undermine the hard work of those who build their own cars. As we said before, teams copy each other anyway

Not saying it shouldn’t happen, but maybe do it in a way that’s regulated properly so it doesn’t lead us with a grid full of them

[Tourer]

Originally Posted by steve_r

Red Bull are now complaining, and have changed their tune entirely. The joy of F1 politics.

I suspect that they've come to realise that the murky waters generated by the stewards decision could mean a change to the way they operate with their other team but they're looking for clarity.

Originally Posted by wnut

perhaps somebody should mention the March 761 customer car Williams started with originally to dearest Claire with her high and mighty pronouncements as to what F1 is. Self-righteous ....

Know what you mean but a long bow you're drawing. That was, after all, nearly fifty years ago and buying someone else's chassis was completely within the rules (and common) back then. The sport has changed a lot since then and being a constructor of your own car has been integral for well over three decades now.

Originally Posted by S griffin

I’m split on customer cars

Yeah me too - when M Mosely was first proposing something like that, it would have generated an influx of some new teams and certainly if a GP2 team were able to purchase an existing car, its current operations would need to be expanded to step us but the manufacturing facilities wouldn't be needed - could be a good thing.

On the other hand, teams being constructors is more technically interesting and should result in variety but under the current rules, it doesn't really deliver in that regard does it?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Moneyseeker

Because as the ultimate regulator, the FIA has a duty to treat everyone equally. You cannot treat one alleged breach as a confidential matter with no apparent penalty and have another played out in public with a visible penalty. Cosy confidential 'settlements' simply undermine the whole regulatory process.

If I were Lawrence Stroll, I would want to know why Ferrari were treated confidentially and I am sure their legal team would use this to discredit the way the FIA regulates.

I not saying they should have held back the Ferrari details.

However I can see differences. To report on the Racing Point situation no technical details needed to be released. To report on the Ferrari situation then technical details had to be released. This could either give others details beyond the actual issue and helped them or given other teams information to do something similar.

What I am saying is that there are differences so that might be why there is a different approach. Now I am not saying that the different situation justifies a different approach.

There might be annoyance over the Ferrari thing here, but what would Stroll benefit from trying to drag that up again? He would be better served concentrating on his situation. As that is wat is relevant to this.

[Moneyseeker]

Originally Posted by Adam43

I not saying they should have held back the Ferrari details.

However I can see differences. To report on the Racing Point situation no technical details needed to be released. To report on the Ferrari situation then technical details had to be released. This could either give others details beyond the actual issue and helped them or given other teams information to do something similar.

What I am saying is that there are differences so that might be why there is a different approach. Now I am not saying that the different situation justifies a different approach.

There might be annoyance over the Ferrari thing here, but what would Stroll benefit from trying to drag that up again? He would be better served concentrating on his situation. As that is wat is relevant to this.

Once you get expensive lawyers involved they tend to have a different perspective on things and generally they like precedents of previous 'cases', so I guess for a lawyer the way the FIA treated Ferraris alleged transgression will be an open goal to discredit the FIA and their whole regulatory process, that is why I think their cosy deal with Ferrari might well come back to bite them.

[Aysedasi]

As a lawyer, I agree. The process involves discrediting your opponent just as much as proving your own case. Throw enough mud and some of it will stick and, to be honest, the FIA need more than a couple of wet wipes to clean this idiocy up.

[Akrapovic]

I don't think the other teams should be criticised for the protests. If they feel the car is illegal, they should make that point. "Make your own car faster" is a bit of a silly thing to say if it turns out the car is illegal. Should we just turn a blind eye to cheaters and say everyone else is a hater?

I don't really know if the car is illegal or not. But I do think the others should protest it if they think it is.

[chillibowl]

But the FIA isnt a real court of law though. Im not sure discrediting the people judging you or pointing out their hypocrisy is an effective strategy for that forum.

I suspect they prefer bribes over logic anyways.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

But the FIA isnt a real court of law though.

I ask as I don't know the answer, but I assume this could eventually go beyond/outside the FIA an into a real court of law (civil case) if someone (RP) cares to push it far enough?

Richard

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

But the FIA isnt a real court of law though. Im not sure discrediting the people judging you or pointing out their hypocrisy is an effective strategy for that forum.

I suspect they prefer bribes over logic anyways.

I disagree, the same principles (or lack of them) apply to virtually every tribunal and will continue to do so until such time as they are presided over by robots. A decent bung might help though!

[Aysedasi]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

I don't think the other teams should be criticised for the protests. If they feel the car is illegal, they should make that point. "Make your own car faster" is a bit of a silly thing to say if it turns out the car is illegal. Should we just turn a blind eye to cheaters and say everyone else is a hater?

It appears to be a tenable argument that the FIA already have done just that......

[chillibowl]

does falling on the wrong side of a rule change even after the governing body gave you clearance to use said parts make one a 'cheater'?

in fairness though i dont know the differences between a court and tribunal. in all honesty, most of what i think of as a court room probably comes from tv shows.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

in fairness though i dont know the differences between a court and tribunal. in all honesty, most of what i think of as a court room probably comes from tv shows.

Perry Mason would get someone to confess on the witness stand. Probably just after Paul Drake brings in a crucial bit of evidence. This entire mess would be solved in an hour or less (length of episode)

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Perry Mason would get someone to confess on the witness stand. Probably just after Paul Drake brings in a crucial bit of evidence. This entire mess would be solved in an hour or less (length of episode)

Richard

im partial to Colombo myself!

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Perry Mason would get someone to confess on the witness stand. Probably just after Paul Drake brings in a crucial bit of evidence. This entire mess would be solved in an hour or less (length of episode)

Richard

Perhaps we're in the SVU mould of procedural.

Drop a thread in one series, and then wrap the story up a couple of years later.....

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

im partial to Colombo myself!

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

Perhaps we're in the SVU mould of procedural.

F1 has plenty of drama. It would be interesting to see old favorite TV shows dropped into the mix. Starsky & Hutch (someone can try to slide across the front of an F1 car!), Magnum PI (Ferrari tie in), etc.

We can do movie tie-ins. Go dark with "Silence of the Lambs" (Helmut Marko as Hannibal Lecter and #2 drivers at RBR going missing) or "Seven" with evidence we can't see in box as it is covered by a non-disclosure agreement between Ferrari and the FIA (Fans shouting... "What is in the box!!!")

Richard

[peebee2]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

does falling on the wrong side of a rule change even after the governing body gave you clearance to use said parts make one a 'cheater'?

Cheat is a very challenging word.

Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical scenario.

You want someone dear to you to be European Fx Champion. You have money so you buy a top team.

You bring an F1 team in as part of a big deal to improve the base car. Maybe they have the Fx car in their tunnel more than the F1 car, which shows! Two improved versions. Best for the one dear to you. Second, good but not quite so good for the other three cars.

You bring in three other decent drivers on deals where if they are directly ahead of the one dear to you they must let him pass. If they are directly behind the one dear to you, they must protect him from others trying to pass at all costs.

Then, you might worry the Italian in the English team with the other engine still might win so, masterstroke, you give him a deal to race for your team in GPy.

The one dear to you goes on to become Champion and qualifies for F1 licence.

Of course none of this makes you a cheat. But is there manipulation and optimisation?

[Aysedasi]

Manipulation and optimisation. Playing the broken record once again - as there always has been and almost certainly always will be (subject to protest, of course.... ).

[Adam43]

One thing to consider, and I am sounding like a broken record, is the car isn’t illegal. The brake ducts are technically legal. It is how it was built/designed that causes a problem.

This explains why race stewards wouldn’t find a problem. It also means that precedents possibly don’t exist. I don’t recall a similar situation? At least not recently.

As much as it may be enjoyable to drag Ferrari into this I just don’t see it as related. An also as much as we might want to be annoyed at the FIA - the issue doesn’t lie with the race stewards.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by peebee2

Cheat is a very challenging word.

Imagine, if you will, a hypothetical scenario.

You want someone dear to you to be European Fx Champion. You have money so you buy a top team.

You bring an F1 team in as part of a big deal to improve the base car. Maybe they have the Fx car in their tunnel more than the F1 car, which shows! Two improved versions. Best for the one dear to you. Second, good but not quite so good for the other three cars.

You bring in three other decent drivers on deals where if they are directly ahead of the one dear to you they must let him pass. If they are directly behind the one dear to you, they must protect him from others trying to pass at all costs.

Then, you might worry the Italian in the English team with the other engine still might win so, masterstroke, you give him a deal to race for your team in GPy.

The one dear to you goes on to become Champion and qualifies for F1 licence.

Of course none of this makes you a cheat. But is there manipulation and optimisation?

well in fairness, if they were blocking on track i would say that is cheating.

someone buying a team for their preferred son/driver and pouring more resources into that driver's car it is pretty typical i would say.

i think i see what you are getting at but your analogy is covering a lot of territory...but overall i agree, 'Cheat' is a very challenging word and as your analogy points out, i do also agree point of view of who one considered the aggrieved party also factors into word choice.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Adam43

This explains why race stewards wouldn’t find a problem. It also means that precedents possibly don’t exist. I don’t recall a similar situation? At least not recently.

interesting question...

surely this cant be the first time a part has moved between being on the listed/unlisted list.

what have teams done in the past? do they always design something from scratch when the status of a part changes or do they learn from what they had last year and use that as a starting point?

designing a modern F1 car without using data from the previous year sounds like an impossible task made even more impossible.

did Haas or Alfa use Ferrari brake ducts last year and what are they doing this year? Haas i am assuming is literally buying everything they can from Ferrari? does such a young team have any ability to build something new without relying on knowledge they gleaned from their previous use of a Ferrari part?

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

interesting question...

surely this cant be the first time a part has moved between being on the listed/unlisted list.

It’s a relatively new situation.

It might be the first year where parts that were OK stop being OK. The general direction has been to try and lower costs by allowing this more - I was surprised that the situation could occur, but don’t follow the lists that closely (The details are, frankly, not that interesting, although the principle is important for F1).

And with any of these changes they don’t affect every team, only those doing it.

did Haas or Alfa use Ferrari brake ducts last year and what are they doing this year? Haas i am assuming is literally buying everything they can from Ferrari? does such a young team have any ability to build something new without relying on knowledge they gleaned from their previous use of a Ferrari part?

Haas did. I believe they made a point about how they went to great lengths to do it themselves and employed new people (from Dallara IIRC) to help them with this.

Edit: Haas on this: https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/15...ke-duct-design