Racing Point will attempt to clear its name via the International Court of Appeal while Formula 1 rivals Ferrari and Renault pursue a greater punishment through the same process.
The commitment of the three teams to appeal the stewards’ decision regarding Renault’s protest of Racing Point’s brake ducts risks dragging out the matter over several weeks, if not months.
While it may just be brinkmanship with the potential for all parties to withdraw their legal cases before that happens, as it stands the legality row continues to escalate to new heights.
McLaren and Williams have withdrawn their appeals while Mercedes has never officially been anything more than an implicated party.
These teams all have skin in the game though, as this issue extends beyond a specific protest and includes the wider debate about how much copying is allowed. It is considered a smoking gun by teams that believe, irrespective of the brake ducts, that Racing Point’s wholesale car copy of Mercedes’ 2019 aerodynamic design is unlawful.
Therefore more than half the grid remains invested in this saga to some degree, while Red Bull, AlphaTauri, Haas and AlphaTauri have also watched with interest from the sidelines throughout.
But what do the teams that sparked a civil war of sorts hope to gain from this process?
Racing Point: Exoneration
Racing Point was the subject of the original protest and given it was found to have designed its rear brake ducts illegally, it’s no surprise that it appealed. Racing Point will not only want its rear brake ducts to be ruled legal, but also for its 15 points and €400,000 back – as well as the withdrawal of the four reprimands it has so far received, with another expected after the Spanish Grand Prix.
But there’s also more to it than that. Lawrence Stroll gave an impassioned defence of his team, saying that “my integrity – and that of my team – are beyond question”. While the very fact a protest was lodged and the team was found partly guilty suggests that’s not the case, it’s clear that it’s a sensitive topic and he also wants Racing Point to be entirely exonerated of any wrongdoing.
Curiously, Stroll also said he was “shocked to see the FIA introduced a new grandfather clause, which had never previously existed”. It was a strange thing to say given this was the reason why the front brake ducts were declared to have been legally designed – as they had been incorporated into the DNA of the car by being used in 2019.
If Racing Point pursues this point in the appeal, it is presumably with the intention of proving that having used the Mercedes design data in 2019 was unnecessary – but it also invites scrutiny of the FIA stewards’ interpretation of the FIA’s recommendation that allowed the front brake ducts in doing so.
This is the risk implicit of any appeal against a verdict. The ICA could uphold the original decision or change it – but that change can go for or against Racing Point. It’s possible Racing Point could be entirely cleared, and it will likely lean heavily on the gap in the rules governing the correct process to follow with the brake ducts becoming listed parts in 2020 in its case.
However, given the stewards did accept all of the points put forward by Lawrence Stroll as mitigating factors and also added that the team did not seek any clarification on the correct process to follow, this could be a risky path to pursue.
Ferrari: Punishment and trouble
Ferrari team boss Mattia Binotto claims his opposition to Racing Point’s punishment is that it doesn’t go far enough.
This was a position shared by Renault and the two teams that have since withdrawn their appeals. It was also questioned by others, such as Alfa Romeo, that have otherwise kept on the sidelines.
Ferrari will benefit from a harsher Racing Point penalty because the Italian team has taken a big step backwards in 2020, developing a car that is not quick enough and an underpowered engine following its own legality scrutiny last year.
So, there is reason to believe its claim that this is about punishing Racing Point more severely.
However, the other element is Ferrari making sure Mercedes comes under great scrutiny, despite the FIA clearing it of any significant breach regarding the brake ducts and previously indicating there was no evidence of misdeeds beyond this specific case either.
Binotto has taken every opportunity to question the wider concept of Racing Point copying Mercedes, which is a separate issue to the specific nature of this protest.
He has said it is “very difficult or likely impossible” to copy a car, as Racing Point claims to have done, through extensive photography. Ferrari wrote to the FIA and “argued the entire process and entire concept”.
Binotto then said: “We believe that there may be a breach of regulations in what is that process.”
What he has stopped short of saying outright is ‘we believe that Mercedes and Racing Point have colluded illegally on the design of the RP20’. But it is clear where the hints are heading, and it has not gone unnoticed with the teams in question.
Ferrari was embroiled in its own long-running and highly divisive legality saga last year over its engine, a matter that was only ended because of a confidential settlement with the FIA.
Some opposition believe Ferrari’s pursuit of this issue, and the suggestions that the brake ducts are not the only matter of illegality between Mercedes and Racing Point, is a direct consequence of the case of Ferrari’s 2019 engine.
Renault: Harming a rival
From the beginning, Renault has questioned the extent of the sanction applied.
As well as believing the brake ducts destroyed the Racing Point argument that it had replicated aerodynamic parts of the 2019 just from copying photographs, Renault also considered them an area of significant performance sensitivity.
This was a position supported by the stewards who said that it carried “enormous” potential.
So, even ignoring the bigger picture (which Renault is still very keen to address), the team is beyond miffed that Racing Point’s Mercedes copy, which includes parts deemed to have been developed illegally, has allowed it to start the season in strong form.
In fact, Racing Point immediately overturned the impact of the points penalty and moved straight ahead of Renault in the championship again with its results in the 70th Anniversary GP.
Renault views what Racing Point has done as a “shock to the system”. It is an under-pressure, underachieving factory team operating at significant expense and is being beaten by a team it believes has effectively built a customer car.
So Renault wants a great penalty applied now, hurting its immediate competitor more severely in 2020. And it wants clear and swift action to prevent such wider concepts harming its long-term prospects as well.
Prolonging the legality row is the only way to achieve a greater penalty. But it may also be a bargaining chip to get the FIA to move rapidly to take its pledge to act on Racing Point’s ‘paradigm shifting’ car copy and enshrine it in the rules.
Mercedes: An end to inaccurate accusations
It’s clear that Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff doesn’t believe Racing Point did anything wrong, so Wolff could well argue that what he wants is justice for a Mercedes customer.
He has stated his surprise that the decision fell the way it did, and his confidence that should the matter be reviewed by the ICA the verdict would be different.
But Wolff’s main point over the weekend following the verdict was that it doesn’t benefit anybody to send this issue to court, get more lawyers involved, and bog everything down by months.
Based on that, and the stance Ferrari is taking by targeting a supposed wider infringement, it stands to reason that even though Mercedes believes there has been no wrongdoing whatsoever, it would like this issue put to bed.
Mercedes was implicated in the protest because it was the supplying team and although there was a transfer of parts in early January this was considered immaterial by the FIA because it related to 2019 components that had already been made available legally last year.
Those parts were provided as Racing Point faced a potential shortage for testing, were never intended to be used for competition, and in any case were not used in pre-season and were returned.
Wolff has slammed the notion that Mercedes had acted improperly in any way, arguing that Mercedes would have no benefit whatsoever to “stepping even one inch over the line”. He said it was a suggestion “that people make up in their minds”.
The longer the row drags on, the more emboldened the likes of Ferrari seem to feel about dragging Mercedes into the issue.
Given Mercedes’ quiet position at the height of Ferrari’s engine saga last year and at the start of 2020, this will undoubtedly feel like a case of terrible double standards – and Wolff said last Sunday that if anyone really believes Mercedes has done something illegal, it should protest.
Whether it’s a successful Racing Point appeal or for a compromise to be reached so it doesn’t reach the court itself, Mercedes would like this matter to end so the snide remarks and baseless accusations can stop.
McLaren and Williams: Victory from the sidelines
Both McLaren and Williams temporarily joined the fight when they lodged their notification of intent to appeal the stewards’ verdict last Saturday, only to withdraw before making their formal appeal.
Williams said that the FIA’s stated intent to prohibit car copying in the future tackled “our most fundamental concern”, which is in keeping with its long history of standing against all forms of customer cars.
As a struggling team determined to stand on its own two feet as a constructor, it’s entirely in keeping with its desire to curb the assistance given to teams via technical partnerships.
As for McLaren, it has been a vocal critic of Racing Point’s whole approach to copying the 2019 Mercedes design.
Like Williams, it sees itself as a constructor team with the aspirations of returning to winning ways so is instinctively against any such collaborations. It was therefore no surprise to see it also stressing support for the FIA’s desire to “further clarify the sporting and technical regulations to protect Formula 1 as a sport where teams are clearly defined as constructors”.
Both have significant skin in the game so from that perspective it was surprising to see neither proceed with the appeal. When you consider one is a current Mercedes customer team and the other has a deal for 2021 onwards, it’s less unexpected.
But as far as they are concerned, Renault and Ferrari can at least continue to fight the good fight.
Is this being dragged out further than necessary?
Working on the basis the stewards were correct with their verdict on Racing Point’s brake ducts, the punishment was clearly a compromise rather than one befitting the act of illegally developing a part.
The FIA has to shoulder part of the blame – how much depends on which side of the argument you sit – because the lack of clear guidelines around the transition of brake ducts from being non-listed parts to listed parts was significant.
This was among the mitigating circumstances that the stewards took into account when determining the penalty. The FIA’s view is that Racing Point should have requested clarification and had it done so, would have been instructed what was legal and what was not. But as the situation was unprecedented and confusing, some leniency has been shown.
It has also shown mercy on Racing Point by allowing it to continue to run the parts without more than just a reprimand at further events, and with no apparent limit to the number of reprimands a team can accrue this is little more than some legal housekeeping.
However, amid all this the FIA has pledged to change the rules to prevent wholesale copying of a concept like Racing Point has done this season – so it has used this specific situation to address the wider concern that sparked division among the teams in the first place.
It is believed that progress has been made swiftly and that will continue to be the case to get the changes ratified as soon as possible.
The issue of the brake ducts is murky and unique, so the compromise and consequences so far seem about right. Of course, Racing Point may achieve its goal of having the verdict overturned and its name cleared, or Renault could get a harsher punishment for its direct rival.
But any further insults or arguments designed to force something else from the situation represent an unnecessary and unseemly addition, padding out an entertaining saga past the point of necessity given the bigger issue appears to be being tackled head on.
