Full F1 stewards conclusion on Racing Point protest

On Friday, the FIA finally announced the verdict of Renault's protest agains Racing Point. Below are the main conclusions from the ruling body's stewards.

Full F1 stewards conclusion on Racing Point protest

Racing Point was docked 15 constructors' championship points, fined 400,000 euro, and reprimanded after the FIA found its brake duct design was in breach of F1's design rules.

Stewards' conclusion

Having carefully considered the various submissions made by the parties and listened to the expert witness statements made at the hearing, the Stewards come to the following conclusions, regarding the essence of the Protest:

1. Each protest is admissible, as correctly determined by the respective Stewards' Panel at each event, as each was lodged no later than thirty minutes after the publication of the provisional classification and requirements specified in Art. 13 of the FIA International Sporting Code.

2. The effective date on which the 2020 SRs come into force is Jan. 1, 2020, though they may in part determine actions prior to that date in order to ensure compliance with the SRs.

3. Racing Point had the opportunity both during 2019, when all concerned were aware that the status of BDs would change from non-LPs to LPs in 2020, and during the March 2020 FIA visit to the factory to explicitly clarify with the FIA their intentions with respect to the BDs going forward and clarify this potentially grey area of the regulations now being argued. They chose not to do so, even though this clarification process by written document exchange is well known and routinely used by F1 competitors.

4. The parts transfer between Mercedes and Racing Point on Jan. 6, 2020 does not constitute a breach of the regulations worthy of censure as the parts in question were both not used and did not expand the information that had previously passed from Mercedes to Racing Point quite legitimately under the regulations in 2019. The recent change of status of the BDs as LPs further argues that censure or penalization is not appropriate on this point.

5. The BDs of the RP20 are fully compliant with all relevant technical regulations, as detailed in the 2020 FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations. This point is not in dispute by the parties involved.

6. BDs changed status in Appendix 6 of the SRs by moving from non-LPs in 2019 to LPs in 2020.

7. As LPs, the SRs require that they be "designed by" the Constructor; in this case Racing Point. There is no amplifying information in the SRs as to what test must be met by a Constructor to positively demonstrate that a part has been "designed by" that Constructor. This point is the crux of this protest.

Read Also:

8. Racing Point, in their arguments, puts forward the case that the design process is fully captured by beginning with input "data," in whatever form available, and then moving through an intellectual process that arrives at a set of drawings from which a part could be manufactured. After listening to a wide variety of inputs on this crucial topic, the Stewards conclude that the design process has a wider basis than that hypothesized by Racing Point and that the source(s) of the input data and the design work inherent in that data must be noted and captured in any "who designed it?" analysis.

9. In the case of the RP20 FBDs, their genesis as Racing Point parts began in an earlier evolution with being run on the RP19 in 2019, when Mercedes BDs, as non-LPs could legitimately be used. Although as noted in the earlier analysis, the ambiguity of the regulations leaves some room for argument on this point, the Stewards conclude that the combination of the design work done on the 2019 RP19 coupled with the necessary upgrade work to the FBDs in designing and developing the 2020 RP20 cross the quantitative threshold for design work necessary to meet the SRs requirements for LPs in 2020.

10. However, since the RP20 RBDs were not run on the RP19 in 2019 and since the Stewards believe that the design effort expended by Racing Point in adapting the RBDs originally designed by Mercedes for the W10 pales in comparison to the significance of the original Mercedes work, the Stewards conclude that the principal designer of the RP20 RBDs was Mercedes, not Racing Point.

11. The method of creating the RP20 RBDs accrued a potential sporting advantage to Racing Point by allowing it to allocate a wide range of design resources to other design efforts as opposed to executing the detailed design effort on the RBDs that would have been necessary to replicate the equivalent effort from Mercedes in the original W10 design.

12. Racing Point did not design the FBDs [sic - this should be RBD] used on the RP20 as required by SR Appendix 6 and, therefore, the respective protests are well founded.

13. The Stewards acknowledge that since the RBDs are compliant with the 2020 FIA F1 Technical Regulations it is not realistic to expect Racing Point to re-design or re-engineer the BDs in a way that would effectively require them to "unlearn" what they already know. Therefore, the penalty imposed is intended to penalize the potential advantage Racing Point may have accrued in the BD design process which resulted in the use of LPs which were not designed by it.

14. The Stewards emphasize that this breach is one of the Sporting Regulations rather than a non- compliance with the Technical Regulations and, therefore it is not necessary to consider disqualification as the default sanction for the breach, as would normally be the case for a Technical Regulation breach. They also note that there are a number of mitigating factors which we have considered:

a. The change in classification of the BDs from Non-LPs in 2019 to LPs in 2020;

b. The absence of specific guidance or clarification from the FIA in respect to how that transition to LPs might be managed within the spirit and intent of the regulations;

c. The lack of detailed focus on BDs by the FIA personnel who inspected the RP20 in March 2020 when they were admittedly focused on the entire car.

d. Racing Point could probably have obtained much of the same amount of competitive advantage from photographing the Mercedes W10 RBDs and reverse engineering them, albeit with additional design resources expended in the process.

e. In every respect regarding this matter, Racing Point has been open and transparent with regard to their actions, which they fully believed to have been compliant with the regulations, and the Stewards attribute no deliberate intent to any breach of the regulations that occurred.

15. The penalty imposed for the Styrian Grand Prix is intended to penalize the potential advantage Racing Point may have accrued in the BD design process. Although paragraph 1 of appendix 6 specifies, according to its wording, that a team shall not "use" LPs which are not designed by it, which can only be understood in such way that it does not allow such parts to be used in a car during a competition, the Stewards see the focus of the infringement to be in the design process itself, which was completed some time before the Styrian Grand Prix. However, this breach of the rules continues to exist through the use of the relevant BDs during following F1 events. For the first protests in the Styrian Grand Prix, it is therefore appropriate to impose a penalty that covers the entire process of (non-)designing the BDs and making them available for use during the whole 2020 season. The use of the BDsin further competitions, however, remains an infringement of the SRs, but a penalty of Reprimand seems sufficient, because the actual infringement, namely the improper development of the BDs, is sufficiently covered with the penalty assessed at the Styrian Grand Prix.

16. The Stewards take note of Article 12.3.5.a of the International Sporting Code as it applies to not deducting points separately from the Drivers and Competitors, save in exceptional circumstances. They believe this is such an exceptional case, because the infringement has to do with a very unique situation revolving around the design process of the car. Accordingly, they are using their broad discretionary powers under Articles 11.9 and 12.3.5 to withdraw points only for the Constructors' (Competitors') Championship.

shares
comments

Related video

Racing Point docked points after Renault wins protest

Previous article

Racing Point docked points after Renault wins protest

Next article

Racing Point says F1 stewards verdict "bewildering"

Racing Point says F1 stewards verdict "bewildering"
Load comments
The tough balancing act facing Schumacher’s Netflix film producers Prime

The tough balancing act facing Schumacher’s Netflix film producers

Michael Schumacher is the latest sporting superstar to get the ‘Netflix treatment’, with a special documentary film airing on the US streaming giant’s platform this month. DAMIEN SMITH has the inside track on how the filmmakers gained access to tell the human story behind one of Formula 1’s most publicity-shy champions - while the man himself, for obvious reasons, is in absentia… 

Why Verstappen should be confident of Russian GP recovery Prime

Why Verstappen should be confident of Russian GP recovery

For the second race in a row, Mercedes has ended the first day of track action on top. It’s in a commanding position at the Russian Grand Prix once again – this time largely thanks to Max Verstappen’s upcoming engine-change grid penalty. But there’s plenty to suggest all hope is not lost for the championship leader at Sochi...

Formula 1
Sep 24, 2021
Why dumping the MGU-H is the right move for F1 Prime

Why dumping the MGU-H is the right move for F1

OPINION: With its days apparently numbered, the MGU-H looks set to be dropped from Formula 1’s future engine rules in order to entice new manufacturers in. While it may appear a change of direction, the benefits for teams and fans could make the decision a worthwhile call

Formula 1
Sep 23, 2021
The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots Prime

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots

Team Lotus ceased to exist in 1994 - and yet various parties have been trying to resurrect the hallowed name, in increasingly unrecognisable forms, ever since. Damien Smith brings GP Racing’s history of the legendary team to an end with a look at those who sought to keep the flame alive in Formula 1.

Formula 1
Sep 22, 2021
Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background Prime

Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background

OPINION: Formula 1 reconvenes for the Russian Grand Prix two weeks after the latest blow in ‘Max Verstappen vs Lewis Hamilton’. While the Silverstone and Monza incidents were controversial, they thankfully lacked one element that so far separates the 2021 title fight from the worst examples of ugly championship battles

Formula 1
Sep 22, 2021
How Mika Hakkinen thrived at Lotus Prime

How Mika Hakkinen thrived at Lotus

Mika Hakkinen became Michael Schumacher’s biggest rival in Formula 1 in the late-90s and early 2000s, having also made his F1 debut in 1991. But as MARK GALLAGHER recalls, while Schumacher wowed the world with a car that was eminently capable, Hakkinen was fighting to make his mark with a famous team in terminal decline

Formula 1
Sep 21, 2021
The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey  Prime

The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey 

Before Michael Schumacher – or anyone else – had driven the 191 (or 911 as it was initially called), Eddie Jordan turned to a fellow Irishman to test his new Formula 1 car. JOHN WATSON, a grand prix winner for Penske and McLaren, recalls his role in the birth of a legend…

Formula 1
Sep 20, 2021
The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog Prime

The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog

A podium finisher in its first outing but then never again, the BRM P201 was a classic case of an opportunity squandered by disorganisation and complacency, says Stuart Codling.

Formula 1
Sep 18, 2021