[ 2020 ] Racing Point F1 Team - Mercedes

[ME4ME]

Photography + legal transfer of CAD files for listed components, that was always the understanding. Take all the known reference points from listed components and F1 technical regulations, then fill in the blanks from photography.

Racing Point freely informed the FIA about having used Mercedes CAD files when designing the brake drums, as to their understanding the transfer in 2019 was completely legal. IMO fault lies with the FIA for not being sufficiently clear over how the change from listed to non-listed components was to be handled, especially when it turns out Racing Point was correct about being allowed to use the front brake drums but not allowed to use the rear drums over a technicality.

But the rules for 2020 specifed that brake ducts myst be designed by the team, anf by definition racing poiht didnt do this.
So they leapfrogged in development by using 3D scans and photos or whatever.
It lacks a certain integrity...

FIA ruled that transfering the brake designs in 2019 was legal, and using those brake designs this year is also legal because Racing Point couldn't be expected to unlearn the designs, but only if Racing Point had specifically used those brake designs on track in 2019.

Which means the front brake design process was completely legal, and the brake brake designs process would also have been completely legal except that Racing Point ran their own rear brakes last year and never used the Mercedes rear brake design on track.

Huge mess because the FIA failed to clearly specify how the change from legally supplied listed designs was to be handled, IMO Racing Point acted in good faith and could still appeal the penalties given.

You indeed explained it nicely.

What I'm struggeling with here is that the entire verdict hangs on parts being used on track. While it is common that track-use is often used in F1 to draw bounderies or "activate" parts, I can't imagine any such requirements where specifically stated in the rule change that de-listed BDs.

Haven't seen any line of text of the sorts, and Racing Point and Mercedes wouldn't have missed such a requirement. They'd just bolted on the rear BDs in a 2019 session, with one car, disregarded performance and rake design, and be done with it had it been required.

To me it seems like the Stewards felt so unsure and pressured by setting a president that they "borrowed" a requirement. A requirement that is quite common. But from what ive seen not something that was actually stated. Thus I think Racing Point should have been found innocent, not guilty.

[MtthsMlw]

https://twitter.com/Motorsport/status/1 ... 20289?s=19

We can add Williams and Racing Point to that list.
Williams is interesting given their relationship with Merc.
Fitting that this story takes off at F1's 70th anniversary GP

[Wouter]

https://twitter.com/Motorsport/status/1 ... 20289?s=19

We can add Williams and Racing Point to that list.
Williams is interesting given their relationship with Merc.
Fitting that this story takes off at F1's 70th anniversary GP

[FittingMechanics]

This confuses me: "that had not been legitimately provided to RP in 2019 under old rules."

If they already had everything and legitimately acquired it in 2019 then why buy it again in 2020? Brake ducts were removed as listed parts (or intention to do so) was announced in April of 2019 already and they buy a complete set in Jan 2020? This just doesn't add up... The front brake ducts make sense to me as they already used them in 2019, but some claim they already had a set of rear ducts in 2019 but just didn't use them. Fine, as they didn't fit the high rake concept but if you already had them and their CAD files then why did they need another set?

Other question is why would Merc provide a complete set of now listed parts to RP in 2020? Under the 2020 regs they(RP) would have to make them themselves.

Confusing matter this with small details differing from account to account.

I think it means that Mercedes provided CAD files in 2019, but since Racing Point failed to produce the part in time, Mercedes provided them with a physical brake duct in January 2020. This physical part was result of the CAD files they gave to Racing Point in 2019 so FIA sees that no new IP was transferred in 2020. If the physical part was a new spec, this would be in breach of regulations.

I understand the reasoning but it is borderline.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... Fitting that this story takes off at F1's 70th anniversary GP :P

well ......
F1's 70th anniversary was in 2018
2020 is the 70th anniversary of the WDC

[Raleigh]

You indeed explained it nicely.

What I'm struggeling with here is that the entire verdict hangs on parts being used on track. While it is common that track-use is often used in F1 to draw bounderies or "activate" parts, I can't imagine any such requirements where specifically stated in the rule change that de-listed BDs.

Haven't seen any line of text of the sorts, and Racing Point and Mercedes wouldn't have missed such a requirement. They'd just bolted on the rear BDs in a 2019 session, with one car, disregarded performance and rake design, and be done with it had it been required.

To me it seems like the Stewards felt so unsure and pressured by setting a president that they "borrowed" a requirement. A requirement that is quite common. But from what ive seen not something that was actually stated. Thus I think Racing Point should have been found innocent, not guilty.

Agreed, the ruling validates RP in that they are allowed to base their design work for the brake drums on IP that was legally transferred in 2019. Nowhere in the regulations is the distinction that the design had to be used on track, Racing Point has good grounds to appeal and have the entire penalty thrown out.

Serious failure by the FIA to provide clarity in either the technical regulations or the subsequent ruling.

And you know the ruling is a real FIA classic when 5 different teams are appealing the decision for 3 different reasons.

[kptaylor]

Wow! After quali I'm now thinking I'd like to see a VET/HUL lineup at Aston Martin next year! Good for Hulk in being able to get up to speed and outqualify his teammate within a week. Let's hope it translates into good points and a podium spot tomorrow!

[SmallSoldier]

You indeed explained it nicely.

What I'm struggeling with here is that the entire verdict hangs on parts being used on track. While it is common that track-use is often used in F1 to draw bounderies or "activate" parts, I can't imagine any such requirements where specifically stated in the rule change that de-listed BDs.

Haven't seen any line of text of the sorts, and Racing Point and Mercedes wouldn't have missed such a requirement. They'd just bolted on the rear BDs in a 2019 session, with one car, disregarded performance and rake design, and be done with it had it been required.

To me it seems like the Stewards felt so unsure and pressured by setting a president that they "borrowed" a requirement. A requirement that is quite common. But from what ive seen not something that was actually stated. Thus I think Racing Point should have been found innocent, not guilty.

Agreed, the ruling validates RP in that they are allowed to base their design work for the brake drums on IP that was legally transferred in 2019. Nowhere in the regulations is the distinction that the design had to be used on track, Racing Point has good grounds to appeal and have the entire penalty thrown out.

Serious failure by the FIA to provide clarity in either the technical regulations or the subsequent ruling.

And you the ruling is a real FIA classic when 5 different teams are appealing the decision for at least 3 different reasons.

That’s where I still have problem understanding... The rules in regards to listed parts is very clear:


“A competitor shall, in respect of the Listed Parts to be used in its cars in Formula 1, only use Listed Parts which are designed by it. 2. The obligation to design and use Listed Parts shall not prevent a competitor from Outsourcing the design and/or manufacture of any Listed Parts to a third party (including an Associate of such competitor) provided that: a) It retains the exclusive right to use the Listed Parts in Formula 1 so long as it competes in Formula 1. b) In the case of the Outsourcing of manufacture such third party shall not be a competitor. c) In the case of the Outsourcing of design, such third party shall not be a competitor or a party that directly or indirectly designs Listed Parts for any competitor.”

Regardless of when they purchase the brake ducts from Mercedes, whether in 2018 or 2019... Or when they actually used them, it is clear in the rules that the brake ducts (as a Listed Part) had to be designed by the team.

Furthermore, if they bought the design from Mercedes (again, regardless of when and if it was used or not) it goes against part C), in which they effectively “outsourced the design from a third party and that third party is a competitor”.

I can’t see the ambiguity... Not for the Front ones and even worse for the rear ones, which were not only based on CAD drawings (design) by Mercedes, but actually bought from them (which contravenes also point b) in regards to manufacturing by a competitor).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[siskue2005]

Regardless of when they purchase the brake ducts from Mercedes, whether in 2018 or 2019... Or when they actually used them, it is clear in the rules that the brake ducts (as a Listed Part) had to be designed by the team.

If so why was the Front Brake duct of RP cleared as LEGAL by the FIA?

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 1Uy9c.html

In a 14-page document issued at Silverstone, the FIA stewards outlined in detail why Renault’s protest had been upheld. The crux of the matter focused on when the new rules around listed parts were applied, Racing Point arguing that the new sporting regulations only came into force a day before FP1 in Austria.

The stewards rejected that notion, and said that while the team’s current front brake duct design was acceptable given it was an evolution of the team’s 2019 design – conceived using CAD drawings of the brake ducts on Mercedes’ W10 car, when such a practice was allowed by the regulations – the team’s 2020 rear brake ducts must be considered Mercedes’ designs.

This is because although they were designed using the same materials, Racing Point were not refining a component that had already been incorporated into the DNA of the RP19. Instead, they were – in the stewards’ eyes - introducing a completely new component for the RP20, which it knew was now classified as a listed part.

[Morteza]

Regardless of when they purchase the brake ducts from Mercedes, whether in 2018 or 2019... Or when they actually used them, it is clear in the rules that the brake ducts (as a Listed Part) had to be designed by the team.

If so why was the Front Brake duct of RP cleared as LEGAL by the FIA?

Glenn Freeman has some explanation for that in this video

[Big Tea]

You indeed explained it nicely.

What I'm struggeling with here is that the entire verdict hangs on parts being used on track. While it is common that track-use is often used in F1 to draw bounderies or "activate" parts, I can't imagine any such requirements where specifically stated in the rule change that de-listed BDs.

Haven't seen any line of text of the sorts, and Racing Point and Mercedes wouldn't have missed such a requirement. They'd just bolted on the rear BDs in a 2019 session, with one car, disregarded performance and rake design, and be done with it had it been required.

To me it seems like the Stewards felt so unsure and pressured by setting a president that they "borrowed" a requirement. A requirement that is quite common. But from what ive seen not something that was actually stated. Thus I think Racing Point should have been found innocent, not guilty.

Agreed, the ruling validates RP in that they are allowed to base their design work for the brake drums on IP that was legally transferred in 2019. Nowhere in the regulations is the distinction that the design had to be used on track, Racing Point has good grounds to appeal and have the entire penalty thrown out.

Serious failure by the FIA to provide clarity in either the technical regulations or the subsequent ruling.

And you the ruling is a real FIA classic when 5 different teams are appealing the decision for at least 3 different reasons.

That’s where I still have problem understanding... The rules in regards to listed parts is very clear:


“A competitor shall, in respect of the Listed Parts to be used in its cars in Formula 1, only use Listed Parts which are designed by it. 2. The obligation to design and use Listed Parts shall not prevent a competitor from Outsourcing the design and/or manufacture of any Listed Parts to a third party (including an Associate of such competitor) provided that: a) It retains the exclusive right to use the Listed Parts in Formula 1 so long as it competes in Formula 1. b) In the case of the Outsourcing of manufacture such third party shall not be a competitor. c) In the case of the Outsourcing of design, such third party shall not be a competitor or a party that directly or indirectly designs Listed Parts for any competitor.”

Regardless of when they purchase the brake ducts from Mercedes, whether in 2018 or 2019... Or when they actually used them, it is clear in the rules that the brake ducts (as a Listed Part) had to be designed by the team.

Furthermore, if they bought the design from Mercedes (again, regardless of when and if it was used or not) it goes against part C), in which they effectively “outsourced the design from a third party and that third party is a competitor”.

I can’t see the ambiguity... Not for the Front ones and even worse for the rear ones, which were not only based on CAD drawings (design) by Mercedes, but actually bought from them (which contravenes also point b) in regards to manufacturing by a competitor).


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

If Merc did not use the actual part themselves, would it not be covered by this?

[subcritical71]

I think the other point that RP has made is there is no definition of what it means to design a part. In a series where monkey see monkey do is common place, how do you truly design your own parts without influence from others. Front wings being a prime example. There were big differences after the last rules changes, now they are getting close to the same, did all the teams do their original designs in that case. How much influence would be allowed, 10%... 49%....99%. How much has to be original to be your design? If you design a part based off of cad drawings and modify it for your needs is that an original design? And then the big item, why does a part have to be run on track to be considered your design?!?

[SmallSoldier]

Regardless of when they purchase the brake ducts from Mercedes, whether in 2018 or 2019... Or when they actually used them, it is clear in the rules that the brake ducts (as a Listed Part) had to be designed by the team.

If so why was the Front Brake duct of RP cleared as LEGAL by the FIA?

Glenn Freeman has some explanation for that in this video

Thanks a lot, even when I may not agree with the ruling and some of the points made by the FIA to determine the legality of the parts and the penalty... At least I understand better the situation... Appreciated!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Juzh]

hulk's p3 lap

[Racer X]

Hullkenberg was supposed to get a podium wasn't he?

Anyways how soon can we have Sergio Perez back?