Exactly, arrogant prick. He is already a shareholder at Aston Martin Automotive. He knows that Daimler might get interested in acquiring Aston and that Mercedes might leave F1 as a team: this would open an myriad of business opportunities for him.
Maybe FIA showed some teeth because of this? Mercedes and F1 in stand-off as Concorde Agreement deadline looms https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/151153/renault-considering-appeal-over-racing-point-penalty LOL, Dodo saying “Mercedes has contributed to the sport over the last years”. Should be “Mercedes has contributed to [destroying the appeal of] the sport over the last years!” LOL using the popularity of your driver like he’s an asset of the company. Also probably not happy to have to turn off the taps (fire hose?) on spending that resulted in frivolous crap like DAS. "We are, I would say, the biggest victim in terms of prize fund loss in all of that. Ferrari has maintained an advantageous position. With Red Bull, it obviously balances out with AlphaTauri. So it's us that are hurt the most. "I feel that Mercedes has contributed to the sport over the last years. We have apart from being competitive on-track, we have the driver that has clearly the most global appeal. "We feel that whilst being in those negotiations, we weren't treated in the way we should have been. "Therefore there is a bunch of open topics for us that are legal, commercial, and sporting. "In our point of view, I don't feel ready to sign a Concorde Agreement."
Clone Point now - But , but, but, but we presented all of this to the FIA and we were inspected and cleared. We were 'transparent' LOL. Given the ruling as the rest of the paddock outside of Mercedes are probably already planning more protests. I do not think they are wrong at all. Showing up with a copy of a car you did not buy legally is good policy?? When one takes a step back and looks at the Clone car even in testing its beyond brazen. Yes copy a wheel or barge-board. A car. NO no no no no no. Thats absurd.
My understanding is that they chose the brake ducts simply as an example, as those parts could NOT be reproduced identically based on photographs. I don't know what would stop Renault or other teams from protesting other parts that could not reasonably be reproduced from photographs. They will clearly be identical. Kevin
For those in denial or who don’t want to understand read above - very clear and to the point. Also, Renault would have known that tRacing (Cloning?) Point had the actual, physical parts in hand from Merc because they were buying them from Merc last year - so no need to prove copying. And just to be clear, even though a diffuser is fully uncovered and can viewed (unlike the inner workings of a duct) it is still not so simple to copy the exact shape, apply it to your car and make it work like tRP have or else every other team would be copying the best diffuser of the year every year.
Out of the link above - "We will consider that matter, bearing in mind that the advantage that was obviously obtained will keep on going for all the season. And it's a very material advantage. "Just to put things in perspective any team will be spending 20% of its aerodynamic time into developing those parts. It's not small parts." Clone point saved a LARGE amount of money doing the clone move this year just on brake ducts per the quote above. Go Renault. Im sure Red Bull have plans now as well.
I have read in other media of the Renault 'getting payback' from Japan protest by Clone point last year. I need to find all that press.
I highly recommend watching this interview with Toto after FP2 https://streamable.com/mq21jo The butt hurt he has is unbelievable. When asked about the concorde agreement stuff Toto goes: "Some of these guys when they come on camera, they are up the ass' of the commercial right holder" Real mature Toto, real mature.
Something has changed over time. This will be interesting. Losing Mercedes as an engine supplier would not be so great. F1 politics never fails to please! Amazing..........
Ok, ok, I have another conspiracy theory : 1- Toto is in fact just playing dumb. 2- Daimler gets angry because of these Concorde negotiations and decides to leave F1. 3- Value of all Mercedes F1 team goes down. 4- Toto buys 100% of it very cheap
I think Mercedes have waited for changes they offered. Liberty and the rest have not made progress that pleases Mercedes. This was done in private. Now Mercedes have gone to a public forum/tactic, one which Liberty do not like, and waited a bit towards the end to force action Mercedes feels is needed.
From Autosport + more can be found here - https://www.autosport.com/f1/feature/10511/why-the-fia-racing-point-verdict-pleases-nobody Over five months since Racing Point debuted its 2020 car and sparked controversy in the Formula 1 paddock, the FIA at last on Friday had its say on the debate. The Racing Point RP20 - a.k.a the Pink Mercedes, a.k.a. the Tracing Point - was, per the stewards ruling, in part designed by Mercedes, with the FIA detailing a breach of the sporting regulations following a protest lodged by Renault. The protest centred on the brake ducts of the Racing Point car, formerly a non-listed part supplied by Mercedes before becoming a listed part teams must design themselves for 2020. Racing Point stressed it had complied with the regulations and designed the rear brake ducts itself, only for the FIA to rule that "the principal designer of the RP20 RBDs was Mercedes, not Racing Point". The sanction was a 15-point constructors' championship penalty, a €400,000 fine and two reprimands. But as the team cannot be expected to unlearn the design of the brake ducts, it is permitted to continue to use the part for the remainder of the 2020 season. It is a ruling that is far from being a resolution of the case, for this appears to be just the start of the saga that reaches beyond the protestor and the accused, instead dragging in the majority of the grid and leaving no party wholly satisfied. The FIA issued a 14-page document explaining its decision, something all teams said they would need time to fully digest and ponder. Racing Point said the ruling was "a bit bewildering", but was left content that its car was completely legal. Technically, that is true. The Racing Point RP20 car is legal. But the process of designing the brake ducts was not. Racing Point has always been open about its approach for 2020, opting to base the design concept of its car off the title-winning Mercedes W10 from 2019. It claimed it did so by using photographs of last year's Mercedes and trying to reverse engineer its car, resulting in its catapult up the pecking order to even rival Red Bull as the second-fastest team at times so far this season. "They claimed that they had copied the car via photography. It's clear from reading the document that that's B.S., and therefore you have to question anything else around that car" Zak Brown It sparked a wider philosophical debate about what this meant for F1's future, whether it would descend into a "copying championship" and begin down a road towards becoming a spec-series. The FIA has confirmed it will clamp down on the rules for 2021 to prevent future copycats, but given this year's cars will remain for next year, the damage in this case has already been done. Racing Point's claim of basing the design of its cars off photographs of last year's Mercedes was never contested by Renault, for there is nothing outlawing that in the regulations. It's a tried and tested tactic dating back several decades. But, as the stewards' ruling explains, this went further than a few photos or spy shots. "The reason that Renault has protested the RP20's brake ducts is that Racing Point did not just photograph and reverse engineer those brake ducts from the Mercedes W10," it reads. "Instead, Mercedes had given Racing Point the CAD models and other data for the Mercedes W10 brake ducts, and Racing Point used that information to develop the RP20 brake duct." It contradicts Racing Point's long-standing claims that it designed its rear brake ducts independently, prompting rival team bosses to question what else it might not have been truthful about. "They claimed that they had copied the car via photography," said McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown. "It's clear from reading the document that that's B.S., and therefore you have to question anything else around that car.
They didn't flout the rules at all. AFAIU, last year (2019) it was legal to use brake ducts bought from someone else. In 2019, as part of their agreement, Mercedes supplied Racing Point with both front and rear brake duct designs. RP used the Mercedes front brake ducts in 2019 and have carried them forward to 2020 when it is illegal to not use your own design. The FIA consider this acceptable. RP didn't use the Mercedes rear brake ducts in 2019 but have used them in 2020. The FIA consider this unacceptable. It's all pretty grey but the penalty is just bizarre. About as bizarre as the situation with the Ferrari engine. I expected better of Ross Brawn really; the rules need to be clearer and the FIA need to police them better and more consistently - I mean, a 15pt deduction but they can still use the 'illegal' parts? WTF is that about?
This isn't the first time a car is deemed "illegal" yet still allowed to race the rest of the season. It does however open up a loophole to said team that is allowed to race the rest of the season. The rules are antiquated and YES need changing....until then.
Confusing but given the world situation, Liberty/FIA will not want fewer cars on the grid this 'season'
Rivals suspect Racing Point ruling is just the tip of the iceberg - Liberty and FIA have lots of fun coming up. This mess with Clone Point and Mercedes not in favor of new Concorde LOL https://www.espn.co.uk/f1/story/_/id/29614309/rivals-suspect-racing-point-ruling-just-tip-iceberg SILVERSTONE, Great Britain -- McLaren and Ferrari suspect Racing Point's breach of Formula One's regulations may go deeper than the stewards' decision issued on its brake ducts. Image Unavailable, Please Login FIA stewards found that the design process of Racing Point's rear brake ducts was in breach of F1's sporting regulations as they were based on the design of last year's Mercedes. The verdict saw Racing Point fined €400,000 and docked 15 points in the championship, but ruled the team would be allowed to continue using the same design for the rest of the season without further punishment. Renault, which lodged the original protests against Racing Point, is considering appealing the decision and Ferrari and McLaren are also planning to review the decision in detail. However, the brake duct controversy has shone additional light on the overall design of the Racing Point, which is remarkably similar to last year's Mercedes. Racing Point claims it used photographs of last year's Mercedes to reverse engineer its car design, but its rivals are sceptical such a feat is possible. "I think it's very difficult or likely impossible," Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto said. "If it has never happened in 70 years of Formula One it means that somehow it is not an idea that somebody simply thought about today. "We believe it is not possible to copy and simply understand the full concept behind the car. It is something that, again we have said in a letter to the FIA, that we really argue the entire concept and entire process, we believe that the regulations are clear enough and we believe there may be a breach of regulation in that process. "But at the moment we are looking ahead and looking forward and it's something on which we need to clarify. I don't think that the verdict of today is sufficient because it is only relevant to the brake ducts and not the entire concept, so I think it is only the tip of the iceberg but there is much to further discuss. "But if it has never happened so far in the history of Formula One it means somehow it is almost impossible to do it." McLaren CEO Zak Brown agreed. "If it was that easy it would have been done before. The sport has been around a long time. "The engineers and designers do take inspiration from different things they see on other cars, but to be able to replicate a car as they have done, everything that I've been told by people who are much smarter than me on this topic, say there is no way you could do it with the degree of accuracy that they can. "I think the brake ducts and the revealing that they had information beyond photography just begs the question of what else wasn't done via photography?" Williams deputy team principal, Claire Williams, also raised concerns about the impact Racing Point's improved performance would have on the midfield battle in the championship, considering prize money is tied to the results of the constructors' championship. "There are wider implications for this if a car is in breach but able to race with those parts. Whenever we take our car [to scrutineering] and the FIA says 'that part is not quite right, you've got two races or whatever to rectify it' then that should be the case in this circumstance. "The very fact they are allowed to continue race has much broader implications on teams further down the grid when it comes to prize fund money, the order of the championship and I'm not sure I agree with that."
Couldn’t have said it better though I’ve been saying the same for a while now. I don’t do racing cars but I’m in charge of design and do stuff like this every day so not surprised: McLaren CEO Zak Brown agreed. "If it was that easy it would have been done before. The sport has been around a long time. "The engineers and designers do take inspiration from different things they see on other cars, but to be able to replicate a car as they have done, everything that I've been told by people who are much smarter than me on this topic, say there is no way you could do it with the degree of accuracy that they can. "I think the brake ducts and the revealing that they had information beyond photography just begs the question of what else wasn't done via photography?"
Ferrari's legacy in racing is intact and it would last forever if they quit today. So why are they putting up with this copying crap not to even mention the engine freeze which has them behind the eight-ball this year and next. Silly . . . .
I think there is more than meet the eyes in Renault's relentlessness in protesting Racing Point for copying Mercedes. The target isn't Racing Point (although they end up being the victim of this) but Mercedes and the reason goes well beyond F1. Until recently, Mercedes and Renault were partners in some industrial ventures. For example, small Mercedes engines (up to 1600cc) were produced in France in Renault factories, just like some small Mercedes vans (MB Citan). Also Renault and Mercedes were partners through SMART and their factory in France, to produce look-alike models like the Renault Twingo and Smart FourTwo. In recent months, Mercedes decided to review that cooperation by rationalising their production. In future, Mercedes plans to stop buying engines and vans from Renault, no less. Obviously that will affect Renault industrial capacity, at a time when all manufacturers struggle with Covid-19 . In recent months, Mercedes also sold their 50% stake in SMART to ... the Chinese, who decided to move production to China. A double whammy for Renault, that founds itself losing a good client in one hand, and a reliable business associate in the other. Renault will be unable to maintain production of its Twingo in a factory half-owned by an unwilling Chinese company. I think here are the seeds of animosity between the 2 brands, and F1 is the unfortunate playing ground. Abiteboul must have received orders from the Renault management to make life uncomfortable for Mercedes-AMG. I would not be surprised if Mercedes quits F1 like Toto Wolff mentioned.
Personally, I really don’t see a problem—3 different suppliers could pick up the slack. And no one would really care, I think. The loss of the Merc team would not be good (for the numbers of cars on the grid) but for sure could be compensated somehow especially if it’s Mercedes and their army retreating—might encourage another manufacturer to step in.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/ferrari-appeal-fia-racing-point-ruling/4851736/?ic_source=home-page-widget&ic_medium=widget&ic_campaign=widget-1
