[ 2020 ] Racing Point F1 Team - Mercedes

[rgimblett]

I think Racing Point will be ok, there are some great comparison shots of the brake ducts in the car thread (Page 4) and you can tell that while the design is extremely close there are plenty of small differences in shape, details (like wiring layout) and also differences in construction such as components being titanium on the Racing Point and carbon fiber on the Mercedes.

Also checking through the W10 thread there are many images of the brakes in different states of assembly, so the knowledge of internal details is public.

Agree, almost every curve is slightly different so most likely RP will be ok. It's a plagiarism argument, "sure I copied your work but I made enough minor adjustments until I made it my own....."
As you say there are plenty of photos of the W10 part assembled but are there any of each part dissected? If Renault win it will be because the unseen areas are the same.

[rgimblett]

Secondly, as Dans said, the design of a thing is not only its exterior but also its invisible interior.
Material composition, layer structure, backing temperature, duration, etc.

One Mercedes made brake duct versus another won't be identical so I don't see how composition is material to Renault's complaint.

The key complaint is;
Appendix 6;
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:
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.

How do you end up with a listed part that is functionally the same as another competitor in the way it shapes and directs air through unseen internal workings if it hasn't contravened part (c) OR if you haven't received design drawings. I use functionally for want of a more encompassing term. But consider the breadth of solutions for brake ducts across 10 teams.

[XRayF1]

Secondly, as Dans said, the design of a thing is not only its exterior but also its invisible interior.
Material composition, layer structure, backing temperature, duration, etc.

One Mercedes made brake duct versus another won't be identical so I don't see how composition is material to Renault's complaint.

The key complaint is;
Appendix 6;
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:
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.

How do you end up with a listed part that is functionally the same as another competitor in the way it shapes and directs air through unseen internal workings if it hasn't contravened part (c) OR if you haven't received design drawings. I use functionally for want of a more encompassing term. But consider the breadth of solutions for brake ducts across 10 teams.

To answer your last, perhaps rhetorical, question first - perhaps they just did by trial and error?
Not for each and every component, mind you, but especially for such at the front of the car?
Some things given a certain shape and form do not make any sense being used differently and getting the desired effect.

Would be interesting to know how much time in the tunnel or CFD was used by RP!
Trial and error on a large scale!

[basti313]

I guess that indeed the internals are the reason why Renault chose the brake ducts for their protest. Especially because there is also internal aero. If you want to copy performance you want the brake ducts' aerodynamic performance to be the same (blowing air through the rim etc). But if it is the same, that is a strong indicator that there was more than just pictures.

Absolutely.
I think every other part is at some point visible from every side to copy it (engine covers, floor, etc...). But no one could ever see the inside aero of the brake ducts and that is a very defining and relevant structure.
Sounds like a very smart appeal to check if there is data transfer or not.

The big question for me is what parts Merc will provide? Merc is not stupid, so they will make a good selection. As far as I can see it this was not well defined which brake duct from which race needs to be supplied to the FIA.

While believing that the RP car is indeed legal (at least innocent until proven guilty), how can the FIA actually make Merc providing obvious details of their design?
I would immediately call 'proprietary' and be done with it.

Secondly, as Dans said, the design of a thing is not only its exterior but also its invisible interior.
Material composition, layer structure, backing temperature, duration, etc.
And even if the internals are the same, I could even then easily argue that this is best industry practice.

I just do not get it how you may actually either prove the guilt (FIA) or defend from such an allegation (RP).

I think it is in the rules, that the teams need to supply parts for checks by the FIA. Merc can not get out of this, "proprietary" is certainly covered by the contracts they have and the relevant NDAs.

For the second: I do not think that material and composition play a relevant role for these brake ducts. It is really only about how they internally run the air. They have some external differences, certainly upgrades, but what I would aim for is curvatures, sizing, etc. which would definitely hint for some CADs exchanged in the background. This would be more than "industrial practice" if some distances are similar to the tenth of a mm.
For anything else I totally agree with you...just looking similar is no proof for anything. But I think this is really the background here: RP certainly changed details because they keep the old wire looms, etc...so they certainly changed all external covers. But for the brake ducts every mm counts in the internal design, so this may be the error to catch them...if not these is most probably not much to argue about.

[nzjrs]

I take it as given that Mercedes didn't just give them drawings to copy, and I assume Renault thinks similar, which means they are probably interested in having this protest precisely define what 'design' means.

I think that is about the only interesting fight here.

If we all agree that it is legal under the current definition of the rules to 'design' a part by making an exact copy of a competitors then the point of this must be to check for obvious breaking of the rules (theft or leaking of document) or clarifying the definition of 'design'.

[Big Tea]

I think Racing Point will be ok, there are some great comparison shots of the brake ducts in the car thread (Page 4) and you can tell that while the design is extremely close there are plenty of small differences in shape, details (like wiring layout) and also differences in construction such as components being titanium on the Racing Point and carbon fiber on the Mercedes.

Also checking through the W10 thread there are many images of the brakes in different states of assembly, so the knowledge of internal details is public.

Agree, almost every curve is slightly different so most likely RP will be ok. It's a plagiarism argument, "sure I copied your work but I made enough minor adjustments until I made it my own....."
As you say there are plenty of photos of the W10 part assembled but are there any of each part dissected? If Renault win it will be because the unseen areas are the same.

Copy someones work and it is called plagiarism. copy some of everyone's and its called research

[Raleigh]

I think Racing Point will be ok, there are some great comparison shots of the brake ducts in the car thread (Page 4) and you can tell that while the design is extremely close there are plenty of small differences in shape, details (like wiring layout) and also differences in construction such as components being titanium on the Racing Point and carbon fiber on the Mercedes.

Also checking through the W10 thread there are many images of the brakes in different states of assembly, so the knowledge of internal details is public.

Agree, almost every curve is slightly different so most likely RP will be ok. It's a plagiarism argument, "sure I copied your work but I made enough minor adjustments until I made it my own....."
As you say there are plenty of photos of the W10 part assembled but are there any of each part dissected? If Renault win it will be because the unseen areas are the same.

There are publicly availible images of the disassembled brake system from multiple angles, for example these are from the W10 thread (credit to Morteza). Racing Point are completely fine, we can already tell from the detail differences they have made a copy from visual references and not Mercedes CAD files.

[dans79]

I'd be willing to bet that just from the standard F1 photographers there are tens of thousands of photos of every car that never see the light of day.

Now imagine if a team decided to make a concerted effort with paid photographers to sit across from the Merc pit box and shoot continuous high-res video or stills while Merc assembles the car for every race.

[nzjrs]

I'd be willing to bet that just from the standard F1 photographers there are tens of thousands of photos of every car that never see the light of day.

Now imagine if a team decided to make a concerted effort with paid photographers to sit across from the Merc pit box and shoot continuous high-res video or stills while Merc assembles the car for every race.

Indeed. This is standard practice for every F1 team - they all employ private photographers for this purpose.

As I said in the other thread, I think the protest might be to get at what exactly 'design' means in the regulations.

[dans79]

As I said in the other thread, I think the protest might be to get at what exactly 'design' means in the regulations.

That's a slippery slope, because depending on how they rule every team on the grid has 50 reasons to protest every other team.

[nzjrs]

As I said in the other thread, I think the protest might be to get at what exactly 'design' means in the regulations.

That's a slippery slope, because depending on how they rule every team on the grid has 50 reasons to protest every other team.

Agree, but photogrammetry, laser scanners and other advanced reverse engineering approaches have improved a lot in the last 15 years.

There is value in knowing if the old feeling that the laissez faire 'take photos of everything and the engineers discuss it over coffee in the break room' is really the right way to view it, and is as harmless as what one can do now with modern techniques.

I definitely think it's worth discussing legally. Times change as they say.

[Emag]

Marc Priestly made an interesting point in his last video regarding the whole RP Renault protest.
Some of the midfield teams spent a lot more money than RP for this season (McLaren and Renault) by designing every bit of their car on their own. Now both McLaren and Renault receive extra funding from external sources (McLaren from the Bahraini investors and Renault from the road car division).

They are spending hundreds of millions of dollars on these cars, so when they ask for a little more next time around to take the next step, the investors have the right to ask: Why did this team with half our budget (RP) outperformed us this badly. Why can't we follow their way of working to save money and get better results?

And this is a big problem because if by copying the best car, a midfield team can finish 3rd in the constructors, then what is the point of everyone designing their own car? Might as well allow customer teams again and have a bunch of last year Mercedes's copies battling around in the midfield for the best copy title. You see how teams like Renault might feel a little "not so happy" about this whole situation because they have been trying to develop everything on their car on their own as per rules. If the rules allowed customer team cars (or essentially, copies of faster cars), then perhaps they would have taken a different approach back when they rejoined the sport, by buying parts from RedBull and copying their aero until they were in a strong enough position to try and develop their own concepts.

This is a huge deal and FIA has to provide some clarifications on what is legal and what is not because this is setting a role model for every new / low budget team to follow. Cutting costs down and ending up with a better car is such a no brainer for a lot of teams (Haas, Alfa Romeo, Alpha Tauri are all teams that can definitely gain a lot by following RP footsteps).

The protest is right because FIA banned customer teams for this exact reason. A couple of years ago RedBull was running on 4 exact same cars on two different teams and that wasn't something FIA were happy with back then. What RP is doing is a slightly different approach which ultimately leads to the same result, so all that Renault is doing right now perhaps is just seeking clarification regarding these rules that were set a while back.

[dans79]

I see nothing wrong with customer cars, or cars that are almost photocopies. People are constantly complaining that their isn't enough action, and a bunch of similar cars would provide that.

People are also always complaining that everything's so expensive, and copying 95% of your car would surely drive costs down and allow you to focus on your own customizations.

I'd go as far as saying, the number one issues with f1 currently is ridiculous amount of over-regulation.

[bosyber]

That is a fine argument, but in the end my answer would be that, including the Force India time, and maybe even going all the way back to Jordan - this team has a history of doing well for their budget, with occasional (usually severe funding draught period triggered) lapses. So the answer is because we/Renault/McLaren are not that efficient, lean and mean, but that is because we aim to build a WDC winning team, while Racing Point has long ago adopted a mentality that borrowing good ideas, reverse engineering them and improving upon them is nothing to be ashamed of, wheras we/Renault/McLaren have our pride, though not the results that might come with that either (yet).

[nzjrs]

I see nothing wrong with customer cars, or cars that are almost photocopies. People are constantly complaining that their isn't enough action, and a bunch of similar cars would provide that.

People are also always complaining that everything's so expensive, and copying 95% of your car would surely drive costs down and allow you to focus on your own customizations.

I'd go as far as saying, the number one issues with f1 currently is ridiculous amount of over-regulation.

Oh, agree there 100%. I hope RP is completely cleared of any wrongdoing and this serves as a model for teams to jump up the field (with legal certainty).