Racing Point and Ferrari - Illegal parts. Penalty comparison
Discussion
There is plenty to suggest Ferrari played ball with the FIA and Liberty by voting for/not vetoing certain regulation changes at around the same time they were given the soft serve closed door deal.
As a result of the regs changes (no engine dev) that Ferrari suddenly decided to go along with, they are effectively stuck with their duff car for two entire seasons.
It's all very shady but in the end the car they're stuck with is effectively Ferrari's penalty. All parties involved would have known that would be the outcome and subsequently the teams that initially complained about the closed door deal have subsequently ceased to pursue it. Everyone got what they wanted/deserved in the end.
As a result of the regs changes (no engine dev) that Ferrari suddenly decided to go along with, they are effectively stuck with their duff car for two entire seasons.
It's all very shady but in the end the car they're stuck with is effectively Ferrari's penalty. All parties involved would have known that would be the outcome and subsequently the teams that initially complained about the closed door deal have subsequently ceased to pursue it. Everyone got what they wanted/deserved in the end.
Mr Pointy said:
Ferrari - have stop using the engine & are stuck with a dog of a car for two years
Racing Point - can bolt the offending rear brake ducts on today & go racing
Pretty much that. What harsher penalty could there be? The pink Merc is still quick it’s hardly much of a penalty for them. Racing Point - can bolt the offending rear brake ducts on today & go racing
I thought the fine was based on them not complying with the sporting regs as opposed to the technical regs.
The penalty is applied from the standpoint of how they were developed not that they are illegal to use.
If they were illegal they wouldn't be allowed to race with them this weekend.
The penalty is applied from the standpoint of how they were developed not that they are illegal to use.
If they were illegal they wouldn't be allowed to race with them this weekend.
Renault and Mercedes both copied cars by legally taking over Lotus and Brawn racing respectively.
The extent to which a brake duct can be copyrighted is a grey area, in my view. If the claimed designer makes a claim that is worthy of attention, but is it really ethical for Renault to make a legal claim about Racing Point copying a ‘Mercedes’ design?
The extent to which a brake duct can be copyrighted is a grey area, in my view. If the claimed designer makes a claim that is worthy of attention, but is it really ethical for Renault to make a legal claim about Racing Point copying a ‘Mercedes’ design?
Aluminium said:
Renault and Mercedes both copied cars by legally taking over Lotus and Brawn racing respectively.
The extent to which a brake duct can be copyrighted is a grey area, in my view. If the claimed designer makes a claim that is worthy of attention, but is it really ethical for Renault to make a legal claim about Racing Point copying a ‘Mercedes’ design?
They didn't copy, they used a Merc design. And that's what's fallen foul of the regsThe extent to which a brake duct can be copyrighted is a grey area, in my view. If the claimed designer makes a claim that is worthy of attention, but is it really ethical for Renault to make a legal claim about Racing Point copying a ‘Mercedes’ design?
Aluminium said:
Renault and Mercedes both copied cars by legally taking over Lotus and Brawn racing respectively.
The extent to which a brake duct can be copyrighted is a grey area, in my view. If the claimed designer makes a claim that is worthy of attention, but is it really ethical for Renault to make a legal claim about Racing Point copying a ‘Mercedes’ design?
Of course it was ethical to protest that RP had cheated by breaking rules. The evidence was there and if it wasn’t them someone else would have done it. The extent to which a brake duct can be copyrighted is a grey area, in my view. If the claimed designer makes a claim that is worthy of attention, but is it really ethical for Renault to make a legal claim about Racing Point copying a ‘Mercedes’ design?
It’s being suggested that further protests will now follow in respect of other components. Good luck to them, I hope they do and that they succeed.
To be honest they’ve screwed themselves. They haven’t made anywhere near the most of the car in the races so far this year and now just had 15points taken away. They won’t be able to do the same next year, 2022 will be very different, no “last years car” to inherit. They have a task of understanding the aerodynamic systems of this car, trying to develop it further and add performance. They needed to make the most of it at the start of this year, while everyone else develops new cars and overtakes them. They haven’t at all so a very very very expensive waste of “a head start”
Purchasing the Merc design of the brake ducts (front or rear) in 2019 was allowed, its now not as they have been added to the list of parts you are not allowed to buy the design of.
The front brake ducts were used on their 2019 car and hence why they are OK now, its only the rear ducts that are the issue
Racing point didnt have the rear brake ducts in use in 2019, they have now installed them (merc design) on the their 2020 car. If they had used them last year it would have been OK
If they have used their own design on a 2020 car it would have been OK
The front brake ducts were used on their 2019 car and hence why they are OK now, its only the rear ducts that are the issue
Racing point didnt have the rear brake ducts in use in 2019, they have now installed them (merc design) on the their 2020 car. If they had used them last year it would have been OK
If they have used their own design on a 2020 car it would have been OK
The Surveyor said:
Does this end any further suggestions of RP copying Mercedes, and allow then to run the car for the rest of the season without further penalty, or is this specific to the brake ducts, and leave the door open for Renault to object to other components?
I think that there is more to come. Few in the sport believe the official story that Racing Point copied the car from photographs (McLaren came unstuck trying to claim the same thing back in 2007).Martin Brundle said:
To replicate a car that works, it is stretching my imagination on that.
Most think that Racing Point were either given detailed technical files or had access to the car.Troubleatmill said:
Racing Point brake ducts found to be illegal.
15 points penalty
400,000 Euro fine
Ferrari run an illegal engine for the whole of a season.... and nothing.
How can this be?
Ferrari didn't run an illegal engine, there exploited a loophole that was then closed (apparently and all that). 15 points penalty
400,000 Euro fine
Ferrari run an illegal engine for the whole of a season.... and nothing.
How can this be?
davidd said:
Ferrari didn't run an illegal engine, there exploited a loophole that was then closed (apparently and all that).
If that were true then there would have been no need for the whole saga to have all been conducted behind closed doors. I don't for a second believe it was a simple case of exploiting a loophole, there was far more to it than that and keeping it private does nothing to dispel the rumour.TwentyFive said:
davidd said:
Ferrari didn't run an illegal engine, there exploited a loophole that was then closed (apparently and all that).
If that were true then there would have been no need for the whole saga to have all been conducted behind closed doors. I don't for a second believe it was a simple case of exploiting a loophole, there was far more to it than that and keeping it private does nothing to dispel the rumour.Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff