You indeed explained it nicely.Raleigh wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 5:57 pmFIA 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.PowerandtheGlory wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:47 pmBut the rules for 2020 specifed that brake ducts myst be designed by the team, anf by definition racing poiht didnt do this.Raleigh wrote: ↑Fri Aug 07, 2020 4:43 pmPhotography + 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.
So they leapfrogged in development by using 3D scans and photos or whatever.
It lacks a certain integrity...
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.
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.