485 replies to this topic

[midgrid]

One of the hot topics of the current launch and testing season is the close resemblance of this year's Racing Point RP20 to last year's Mercedes W10:



Despite denials from Racing Point personnel, it looks for all the world as if they have simply bought last year's chassis from Mercedes (or at least the details needed to make copies), and are running it in pink instead of silver.

This could be a masterstroke on the team's part: the design should be sufficiently competitive to secure a good position in the WCC, in a more effective manner than developing the unloved RP19, whilst also freeing up the team's relatively limited resources (compared to those backed by major car manufacturers) to work on the all-new 2021 technical package. If the team is sufficiently competitive, it's not beyond the scope of imagination that they could make significant inroads into the recent gulf between the Big Three teams and the rest.

However, Racing Point's gains would likely come at the expense of the midfield teams who are still true "constructors", such as McLaren, Renault and Williams. Is it fair that they can be leapfrogged in the WCC by what could be argued to be a privateer campaigning another constructor's car?

It's worth noting that this is not the first time in modern F1 history that allegations of this sort have been made: we have seen Benetton and Ligier in 1995, Sauber's 2004 car, Super Aguri's status as a satellite Honda team, the relationship between Red Bull and Toro Rosso, and the Haas-Dallara-Ferrari triangle come under scrutiny in the past.

So, is Racing Point's route a perfectly valid (and clever) reaction to the expenses and rule changes of contemporary F1, and one that should be applauded? Is it valid but also a loophole that should be closed, and the team shamed for acting against the "spirit" of F1 (whatever that may mean)? Or should the team not even be allowed to run this car? And how much does it matter, assuming the situation will last only for one season?

[jcbc3]

Günther Steiner said it's ok, so I'll stick with that. Some would argue that he is forced to have that opinion.

[Ben1445]

Sure, why not...

[Sterzo]

1. Have they bought or been given Mercedes designs? Highly unlikely.

2. Would it be legal to do so? Don't think so.

2. Would it matter if teams were allowed to use each others' designs? Not a jot

[taran]

The reality is that we have never seen a team with a copy ever do as well simply because they lack the resources of a top team (they'd design their own  if they were) or they don't know what made it so good or they lack some vital, secret part.

 

This whole story is a non-starter because RP was destined to do much better anyway after the disruption of 2018 behind them. McLaren and Renault (or their fans) just disregarded the pink cars and now are flustered.

[Atreiu]

Why doesn't F1 allow customer cars again? Is it to preserve the virgin purity of constructors and their accumulated IP?

[MikeV1987]

I would rather this than have them in tier 3 with Williams.

[Knowlesy]

If you are being leapfrogged by a team with an old design then the problem is with you.

[JeePee]

I think it is okay they do this.

 

I think it is very lame to lie about it. We're not stupid.

[chrisj]

If it closes the field, who cares. They should allow customer cars, one car teams, 3 car teams, whatever. 

[messy]

To be honest, if this closes up Class B I’m all for it. Haas nearly bridged the gap a bit at the start of the season in 2018 with a car that was basically a copy and paste Ferrari and Racing Point could do similar - worst case it makes the battle at the front of Class B a little bit more competitive, because McLaren ran away with it really last year. But as Haas, Toro Rosso and even Sauber will tell you, it’s far from a golden ticket because the teams all move forward so rapidly. This won’t push them into Class A.

I remember the genuine concern in the 2003-04 off-season that Sauber we’re suddenly going to be competitive for pole in Melbourne because they were blatantly running a complete Ferrari clone - nowhere near. They never are.

[PayasYouRace]

On the question of customer cars in general, I generally hold the view that customer teams should be allowed (it would potentially increase grid sizes) but they should not be granted WCC points. So if this Racing Point was openly a Mercedes customer car, it should score points for Mercedes.

However I don’t think that’s the real question. As the OP helpfully cites, there have been plenty of cars that have been essentially copies of previous years’ cars from bigger teams.

A lot hinges on the IP. Given it’s last year’s Mercedes, if any IP has changed hands I don’t think it’s a problem as long as Mercedes aren’t still using it on this year’s car.

[Paco]

How can they be considered a constructor and included in the WCC? I really want to know how their molds came about ie if self made or bought from Mercedes and even more so did they even form and bake their own aero kits.. or were the parts just dropped off at RP? The tub that I thought still had to be made by the team, again was it made by Mercedes? What a load of crap...

Edited by Paco, 20 February 2020 - 16:09.

[Myrvold]

If it closes the field, who cares. They should allow customer cars, one car teams, 3 car teams, whatever.

 
I am not against 3 car teams, one car teams, customer cars and all those things. But as long as it is World Constructor Championship, they shouldn't score points for themselves in WCC. Also, as long as this is a closed, almost franchise series, I fear customer cars will lead to DTM-style "racing". Open it up for every team that have a legal car to try to qualify, and open up full customer cars. Then I'll be fine with it.

[MirNyet]

This really needs investigating, and the degree to which the car is a clone should reduce their ability to score constructors points - if half the car is bought in from Mercedes, etc, then they score 50% of the points they otherwise would of.  Same goes for AT, and HAAS.

[Paco]

So then what defines a team in F1? If they don’t make anything, how are they an F1?

3 car teams increase cost dramatically and make even that much harder for the mid pack to compete. Additionally NO ONE wants to see an all Mercedes podium or all Ferrari podium especially in dominate years... fans would tune by the hordes. We already change the points system to accommodate more teams collecting point, 3 car team would kill the WCC and points and payouts. I can’t see a single reaso. For how it’s a good idea.

3 car team would kill f1 in 1-2 years.

Single car teams I can see being implemented rather easy and no reason not too other then they would have a hard time collecting WCC points and it’s payouts accordingly.

Edited by Paco, 20 February 2020 - 16:14.

[MaxScelerate]

Of course, they didn't bake them, they'd rather pay a whole crew of union actors to play the role of factory workers. Heck, they've probably gone and stolen them from Mercedes factory floor  - GTA style -  and ran for the nearest paint shop.

 

The large factory being built at Silverstone is actually decoy: what they're really building is a tunnel network to Ferrari's and Mercedes' vaults where the Strolls will organise satanic orgies and bath in the blood of Vijay, Ocon and that bearded energy drink dude.

[MirNyet]

One of the more annoying aspects of this, is that Racing Point has already stated that it's design dept. is already 100% focused on 2021, so the unfair advantage the team has gained by buying in a design off the shelf, is two fold.  They're pretty much assured to collect points this year early on - even if they're overhauled after the summer, and they've a jump start on the rest of the midfield on next years car.  I say the rest of the midfield, as HAAS and AT will have to produce their own car as well, as there's no 'last years car' for them to inherit off their parent teams.

[7MGTEsup]

If you are being leapfrogged by a team with an old design then the problem is with you.

 

I'm pretty sure the previous years championship winning car would still run at the front of class B this year for at least the first half of the season. Got to remember the Merc was getting on for 2 seconds quicker than most other cars on the track last year.

[alframsey]

I'm not a fan of it tbh but if Sergio gets a car at the sharpish end I wouldn't begrudge him that.

[Paco]

I'm pretty sure the previous years championship winning car would still run at the front of class B this year for at least the first half of the season. Got to remember the Merc was getting on for 2 seconds quicker than most other cars on the track last year.

Typically but this year with mid year developing ceasing mid to end of pack to work on 2021 it may not be like that. If they still ahead by summer break they’ll prob continue so to the end. Depends really how good the w10 will stack up against AlphaT and McLaren and Williams..and whatever Renault actually test next week.. I think they’ll still edge most of those.. sad really but unless FIA withdraw them in Australia it’s going to be a w10 runaway from the midpack

Edited by Paco, 20 February 2020 - 17:13.

[Paco]

I'm not a fan of it tbh but if Sergio gets a car at the sharpish end I wouldn't begrudge him that.

Agreed, be nice to see Perez up there... sad it’s in a w10 clone.

[chhatra]

Don't like it, but the rules are the same for everyone.

I just hope Renault and McLaren can wipe the floor with them and show that the best way is to do it yourself.

What will be interesting is how well RP can develop this machine. I can see them being strong early on but then fading away. Maybe they know that already and have decided that it is the best way with the big rule change coming.

Another thing is the the W10 was marginal on cooling and quite difficult in dirty air, which was not an issue for Mercedes as they were out front most of the time but won't be the case for RP.

Another strength of Mercedes was how they used their tires, can RP replicate this too?

It will actually be quite fascinating, but again I still hope McLaren and Renault can outperform them.

[chhatra]

I'm pretty sure the previous years championship winning car would still run at the front of class B this year for at least the first half of the season. Got to remember the Merc was getting on for 2 seconds quicker than most other cars on the track last year.

The Merc was 2 seconds ahead in the hands of Hamilton and being run by a 6x Championship winning team.

That's worth alot, and the clone will inevitably be slower than the original.

[mclarensmps]

The argument that this "closes up the pack" has the inherent fallacy that it also guarantees the "closed up pack" has an upper limit of performance that is guaranteed to be behind those of the front runners. I.e. you are ensuring that there's a status quo of a multi-tiered F1, and instead of every team trying to figure out new solutions, most of the pack is just not going to bother anymore. 

[boomn]

Here are a couple thoughts on this issue:

 

The bodywork and other pieces are demonstrably not identical.  The nose is quite close, but things like the sidepods and the brake duct and hub remind me of knockoff foreign goods

 

Technology to create 3D models from photos is already available to anyone with a smartphone.  It would be easy for a team with better commercial equipment to reverse engineer bodywork and aero designs from hi-res grid photos.  The harder part would be doing their own engineering to fully understand how and why the copied design works to build a car that actually performs even close to the original.  The details in F1 matter to much to be able to blindly make a 95% similar copy and expect even 95% similar performance. 

 

I wouldn't be surprised if many teams already do similar copying for internal evaluation and understanding when they see an interesting innovation on another car

 

That kind of copying isn't illegal, and shouldn't result in reduced points or exclusion

 

There are parts (called "listed parts", F1 sporting regs appendix 6) that are illegal to purchase from other teams under current F1 rules or to purchase "data, designs or drawings" about them.  These are the survival cell, front impact structure, roll structure, bodywork and (new for 2020) the brake ducts. 

 

All other parts are "non listed parts" that can be legally purchased from another team.  So allegations based on, say front suspension being identical, don't say much because it was already legal to purchase that

 

It doesn't seem likely to me that Mercedes, the team with the most to lose, would risk huge penalties for so little gain by blatantly selling parts or files that are clearly against the rules

 

This should be provable either way if the FIA demanded to see Racing Point's data history and CAD file history

Edited by boomn, 20 February 2020 - 17:47.

[SonGoku]

Perez: I hope it will perform like their car (Mercedes). It is still early days. The team is working flat out. It is very positive to have a car close to Melbourne (spec). Finally, we have a car that is ready after so many years of it being late. There is a lot of potential.

Edited by SonGoku, 20 February 2020 - 17:52.

[boomn]

One of the more annoying aspects of this, is that Racing Point has already stated that it's design dept. is already 100% focused on 2021, so the unfair advantage the team has gained by buying in a design off the shelf, is two fold.  They're pretty much assured to collect points this year early on - even if they're overhauled after the summer, and they've a jump start on the rest of the midfield on next years car.  I say the rest of the midfield, as HAAS and AT will have to produce their own car as well, as there's no 'last years car' for them to inherit off their parent teams.

That doesn't sound true against what their technical director said yesterday.  

 

 

Asked how much of the launch car will be raced in Australia he said: “You're seeing a fair chunk of it, but there's a significant change coming for Melbourne as well. But that's got to be like the big step.

 

“Maybe there's another step in the year, we'll have to see how we go. Obviously, the draw to move on to ’21 is getting bigger.”

[Marklar]

I think it is okay they do this.

I think it is very lame to lie about it. We're not stupid.

To be fair if they would admit that then they could be perhaps in trouble.

Edited by Marklar, 20 February 2020 - 18:01.

[theflyingwheel]

Don't like it, but the rules are the same for everyone.

I just hope Renault and McLaren can wipe the floor with them and show that the best way is to do it yourself.

What will be interesting is how well RP can develop this machine. I can see them being strong early on but then fading away. Maybe they know that already and have decided that it is the best way with the big rule change coming.

Another thing is the the W10 was marginal on cooling and quite difficult in dirty air, which was not an issue for Mercedes as they were out front most of the time but won't be the case for RP.

Another strength of Mercedes was how they used their tires, can RP replicate this too?

It will actually be quite fascinating, but again I still hope McLaren and Renault can outperform them.

I mean generally speaking bar 2019 Racing Point has wiped more often McLaren and Renault than the other way around

Edited by theflyingwheel, 20 February 2020 - 18:04.

[MirNyet]

I mean generally speaking bar 2019 Racing Point has wiped more often McLaren and Renault than the other way around

 

Between 2015 - 2018, yes, but there were reasons for that dip in McLarens form, before 2015, well, different story.

[theflyingwheel]

Between 2015 - 2018, yes, but there were reasons for that dip in McLarens form, before 2015, well, different story.

Had 2018 Force India (RP) keep its points after the change of Name they would had beat McLaren as well, reasons or not Racing Point has done a better job overall this Era than McLaren

[Marklar]

Had 2018 Force India (RP) keep its points after the change of Name they would had beat McLaren as well, reasons or not Racing Point has done a better job overall this Era than McLaren

If you spent over your limits, then you havent done a gob job. And in fact it did put their performance of previous seasons in a different light as well.

[Clatter]

The reality is that we have never seen a team with a copy ever do as well simply because they lack the resources of a top team (they'd design their own  if they were) or they don't know what made it so good or they lack some vital, secret part.

 

This whole story is a non-starter because RP was destined to do much better anyway after the disruption of 2018 behind them. McLaren and Renault (or their fans) just disregarded the pink cars and now are flustered.

 

But there is a good chance of them doing better than they could do on their own, and be higher up the grid without having to put the design work in.

[Widefoot2]

If you are being leapfrogged by a team with an old design then the problem is with you.

That premise is demolished when the "old design" comes from the premier team with the best record and most wins in this era of F1.  There's rarely been a period in GP racing where the dominance is so complete, and during the early stages, "locked in".

 

I'm not a fan of this blatant copy paste, as I stated in the tech RP thread.  At least Haas has the fig leaf of using Dallara facilities to help with construction, and has its own engineers for the design aspects of "must build" parts.  And as a new team (not a continually renamed established one), I have no issues with them having some initial advantages.

[muramasa]

Those who say reverse engineering or 3D printer or AI or whatever have no idea. It's not about making Tamiya plastic scale model or one single component. Making a whole car is not about photo copying. Toy rocket does not go to the moon. When there is new words there are always people who want to use them. While ago it was IT or big data or whatever. Current fad is AI, EV, autonomous etc.

 

There are:

- crush structure which is so complex and difficult to make it to the exterior shape, carbon layering to achieve crushable structure to pass the test with such narrow and delicate shape for nose and monocoque is so high standard, it's not something smaller teams can just copy top team's by just looking at photos.

- chassis rigidity and torsional character which spans from front wheel nut to upright to front suspensions to monocoque to engine to casing to rear suspensions, which is mindbogglingly complex

- aero is so sensitive and holistic which spans from tip of fw to tip of diffuser/rw, guiding and channeling air to intended way is so difficult and requires R&D time, just tiny misshape disrupts whole thing, again, mindbogglingly complex and cannot copy by just looking at photos

- mechanical calculations and manufacturing like suspension is so complex, you cannot just photo copy it to make exact same geometry. Resource Haas and AT can save by receiving full suspensions set alone is so enormous, go figure.

- internal pipings and wirings and radiators and all the mechanism, it is possible to copy and make tight bodywork covers like Merc but it is impossible to arrange all the internals to be fit in that space and shape.

- weight of every single components, weight balance of whole car that is related to all the above

-many more

 

Engineering is all about incremental and parametric, step by step accumulation, so intricate and requires huge amount of time. it's just impossible to make whole sale change and work immediately if you really do everything by yourself. If photo copying is such effective and easy, Williams etc would be doing that and running at the front of midfield already.

 

Whatever in legal forms there was whole car design transfer from Brackley. Haas since entering, AT since last year, are getting the transfer too to some degree, but they still design their car by their own. But this one is about whole car transfer, totally different level.

Again it's legal, it's done whatever way allowed in the current reg, so legal. But saying it's 3D printing or reverse engineering or whatever is just utter nonsense.

 

One huge and obvious benefit to Mercedes is clearly double time for wind tunnel. With budget cap incoming and reduced R&D time, teams like Merc Fer RB will have extra floating money, so sharing and collaborating development with satellite team can give them double wind tunnel time to develop and refine the facility's correlation.

Edited by muramasa, 20 February 2020 - 18:49.

[MirNyet]

Had 2018 Force India (RP) keep its points after the change of Name they would had beat McLaren as well, reasons or not Racing Point has done a better job overall this Era than McLaren

 

Sitting on the best PU in the sport for the entire era may have had something to do with that - just look at Williams in 2014, 2015 and 2016 - when the PU advantage was there, they were flying, Force India, the same.  Meanwhile, McLaren were Honda's test mule for 2015, 2016 and 2017, with the car at times either not lasting a race, or occasionally, not even making it to the start line.  For 2018, yes, McLaren dropped the ball, leaving the PU change too late, and then baking a massive flaw into the car while bending the design to accommodate the Renault PU and it's cooling requirements.  However, 2019, McLaren soundly whooped Racing Point/Force India fair and square once any Honda/PU swap related problems were properly out of the way.

I think any honest assessment of the 2015-2018 period would say that it was McLaren that under performed, rather than Force India/Racing Point over performing when assessing the two teams in comparison to one another. As soon as McLaren returned to something approaching normal behaviour - they were well in front once more of the Force India/Racing Point team.

[MikeTekRacing]

\However, 2019, McLaren soundly whooped Racing Point/Force India fair and square once any Honda/PU swap related problems were properly out of the way.
 

conveniently ignoring Force India almost went bankrupt that year. Indeed, fair and square, but engineering wise Force India delivered the most impressive bang for the buck they were spending in this era

[MirNyet]

conveniently ignoring Force India almost went bankrupt that year. Indeed, fair and square, but engineering wise Force India delivered the most impressive bang for the buck they were spending in this era

 

And McLaren couldn't get a car to the grid at times in 2015 due to no actual fault of their own, but that's seen as fair game around here - so, horses for courses. 

[New Britain]

It doesn't seem likely to me that Mercedes, the team with the most to lose, would risk huge penalties for so little gain by blatantly selling parts or files that are clearly against the rules

 

This should be provable either way if the FIA demanded to see Racing Point's data history and CAD file history

I am not going to bother digging into the 2020 Technical Regs for the answer, but it would seem very likely that any hypothetical penalty would go not to the team selling the parts and files but, rather, to the team using the parts and files.

[theflyingwheel]

Sitting on the best PU in the sport for the entire era may have had something to do with that - just look at Williams in 2014, 2015 and 2016 - when the PU advantage was there, they were flying, Force India, the same. Meanwhile, McLaren were Honda's test mule for 2015, 2016 and 2017, with the car at times either not lasting a race, or occasionally, not even making it to the start line. For 2018, yes, McLaren dropped the ball, leaving the PU change too late, and then baking a massive flaw into the car while bending the design to accommodate the Renault PU and it's cooling requirements. However, 2019, McLaren soundly whooped Racing Point/Force India fair and square once any Honda/PU swap related problems were properly out of the way.

I think any honest assessment of the 2015-2018 period would say that it was McLaren that under performed, rather than Force India/Racing Point over performing when assessing the two teams in comparison to one another. As soon as McLaren returned to something approaching normal behaviour - they were well in front once more of the Force India/Racing Point team.

Well to be fair yeah force india had its advantages regarding a strong engine but sure lets not forget how a team with 40% of McLaren budget manage to overcome McLaren and even more with some budget caps coming up cant see McLaren doing that great either, I guess time will tell but whatever the excuse is Force India was a better team this hybrid era and the numbers show.

[Radoye]

Why doesn't F1 allow customer cars again? Is it to preserve the virgin purity of constructors and their accumulated IP?

I'm all for customer cars and part-time privateer entries bein allowed again - if you have a car that passed scrutineering and was deemed legal to race, you should be allowed to try to qualify.

 

But such entries should no be eligible for WCC points.

[New Britain]

The real risk here is not that a couple of pink cars will do better in 2020 than some might think they deserve to do.

The real risk is that, starting in 2021 under the cost cap, the rich teams will use their 'B teams' to share design and development work and testing data, thereby enlarging the effective budget of each above the cap.

[Paco]

The real risk here is not that a couple of pink cars will do better in 2020 than some might think they deserve to do.
The real risk is that, starting in 2021 under the cost cap, the rich teams will use their 'B teams' to share design and development work and testing data, thereby enlarging the effective budget of each above the cap.

That’s one of the effects but

more importantly it really causes a controversy on the whole CONSTRUCTOR aspect and the validity of the WCC and that as a primary means of determining team payouts...

RP in this scenario isn’t a Constructor! At the very least, Haas use Dalarra for some stuff even though that should have been internalized a long time ago. Toro Rosso didn’t even go that far and they tie up is clear as day... RP took it to the utter extreme and need to be slapped hard for it and eliminated as a Constructor but let their drivers into the WDC.. they shouldn’t get money either for what, paying a few Euros for last year w10. No thanks, they didn’t anything But allow Mercedes to race a w10 for another season. Screw them getting cash from F1 for that.

Edited by Paco, 20 February 2020 - 19:15.

[MirNyet]

Well to be fair yeah force india had its advantages regarding a strong engine but sure lets not forget how a team with 40% of McLaren budget manage to overcome McLaren and even more with some budget caps coming up cant see McLaren doing that great either, I guess time will tell but whatever the excuse is Force India was a better team this hybrid era and the numbers show.

 

Given the same PU, which team do you actually believe would have done better?  So, the comparison is far from fair, for all of McLarens budget, they couldn't speed up Honda's development time.  Any team running the Honda PU in 2015, 2016 and 2017 would have had an equally bad time as McLaren did, purely because Honda was forced to play catch up in full public view.  To Honda's credit, once they discovered the correct layout/design, they've since done far better - but this doesn't mean that we should ignore the problem they had in 2015, 2016 and 2017 and try and lump all the blame on McLaren. 

[boomn]

I am not going to bother digging into the 2020 Technical Regs for the answer, but it would seem very likely that any hypothetical penalty would go not to the team selling the parts and files but, rather, to the team using the parts and files.

I was already looking at the regs this morning because I was curious about the "listed parts" rules.  The section is Appendix 6 in the Sport Regs.  It does state that a competitor may not "pass on or receive any information on Listed Parts (including but not limited to data, designs or drawings) directly to or from another competitor or via an external entity or third party."

 

So Mercedes would be just as responsible as Racing Point for any prohibited data sharing

[boomn]

Those who say reverse engineering or 3D printer or AI or whatever have no idea. It's not about making Tamiya plastic scale model or one single component. Making a whole car is not about photo copying. Toy rocket does not go to the moon. When there is new words there are always people who want to use them. While ago it was IT or big data or whatever. Current fad is AI, EV, autonomous etc.

 

There are:

- crush structure which is so complex and difficult to make it to the exterior shape, carbon layering to achieve crushable structure to pass the test with such narrow and delicate shape for nose and monocoque is so high standard, it's not something smaller teams can just copy top team's by just looking at photos.

- chassis rigidity and torsional character which spans from front wheel nut to upright to front suspensions to monocoque to engine to casing to rear suspensions, which is mindbogglingly complex

- aero is so sensitive and holistic which spans from tip of fw to tip of diffuser/rw, guiding and channeling air to intended way is so difficult and requires R&D time, just tiny misshape disrupts whole thing, again, mindbogglingly complex and cannot copy by just looking at photos

- mechanical calculations and manufacturing like suspension is so complex, you cannot just photo copy it to make exact same geometry. Resource Haas and AT can save by receiving full suspensions set alone is so enormous, go figure.

- internal pipings and wirings and radiators and all the mechanism, it is possible to copy and make tight bodywork covers like Merc but it is impossible to arrange all the internals to be fit in that space and shape.

 

Engineering is all about incremental and parametric, step by step accumulation, so intricate and requires huge amount of time. it's just impossible to make whole sale change and work immediately if you really do everything by yourself. If photo copying is such effective and easy, Williams etc would be doing that and running at the front of midfield already.

 

Whatever in legal forms there was whole car design transfer from Brackley. Haas since entering, AT since last year, are getting the transfer too to some degree, but they still design their car by their own. But this one is about whole car transfer, totally different level.

Again it's legal, it's done whatever way allowed in the current reg, so legal. But saying it's 3D printing or reverse engineering or whatever is just utter nonsense.

 

One huge and obvious benefit to Mercedes is clearly double time for wind tunnel. With budget cap incoming and reduced R&D time, teams like Merc Fer RB will have extra floating money, so sharing and collaborating development with satellite team can give them double wind tunnel time to develop and refine the facility's correlation.

Take a closer look at the cars, for example the sidepods and bodywork between the driver and the rear wheels, and you can clearly see that the RP20 and W10 are different cars underneath and packaged differently.  The RP20 does not have bodywork as tight as the W10. 

 

I agree that modern F1 design and especially aero is very complex and all the details matter a lot.  Which is what makes this so fascinating to me.  The closer and longer I look at the car the more little differences I see that point to the RP20 being a very thorough reverse engineering of the W10 and its aero philosophy.  But to do that and make it work well enough to be topping timesheets would also take a lot of engineering work to understand and apply the design ideas to the car they actually have

 

Copying the external shape of the nose doesn't mean they had to replicate the exact internal structure.  Chances are high that the RP20 has a heavier nose with more material in it to meet crash standards than the W10 did.  Unless they really did receive illegal design data

 

Racing Point has already been buying Mercedes transmissions that have suspension pickup points designed around a low-rake car while trying to keep pushing forward with their own high-rake car.  So now they are just buying the matching suspension components from Mercedes to go with the transmission, as is fully allowed in the regulations

[MirNyet]

I was already looking at the regs this morning because I was curious about the "listed parts" rules.  The section is Appendix 6 in the Sport Regs.  It does state that a competitor may not "pass on or receive any information on Listed Parts (including but not limited to data, designs or drawings) directly to or from another competitor or via an external entity or third party."

 

So Mercedes would be just as responsible as Racing Point for any prohibited data sharing

 

Because Racing Point have softened a curve here and there, and altered some component construction slightly - they'll try and use the argument that it's an adaptation, or heavily influenced car, rather than a clone.  The problem is, it's clearly the W10, and while there's a legal argument for softened curves, and slightly different components constructions, the overall car is a W10, and will perform like a W10 - and that's against the rules.  I'm all for allowing them to race, but no constructors points for this year for the team.  Drivers - whatever, this is not their doing, but the team itself should be excluded from the WCC.

[boomn]

Because Racing Point have softened a curve here and there, and altered some component construction slightly - they'll try and use the argument that it's an adaptation, or heavily influenced car, rather than a clone.  The problem is, it's clearly the W10, and while there's a legal argument for softened curves, and slightly different components constructions, the overall car is a W10, and will perform like a W10 - and that's against the rules.  I'm all for allowing them to race, but no constructors points for this year for the team.  Drivers - whatever, this is not their doing, but the team itself should be excluded from the WCC.

Within that rule, there isn't a legal argument for using a modified version.  Any data sharing is illegal

 

And if it comes to legal arguments, any case would probably go directly to the CAD file history that would prove how they started and how they incremented forward to the current car.  

[Lights]

It's a signal that something is wrong with the sport. The argument shouldn't be that it's good to have a tighter midfield, if it's done in such an artificial manner. Ideally there wouldn't be B-teams at all, as they influence the politics and the fight at the front of the grid.

Question is though whether Racing Point will be able to fully understand and utilise the Mercedes. We've seen this in recent years with Haas: one day they impress, the next day they seem to have no clue why their car behaves terribly. In the long run this strategy will never make you the best, and ideally that's what each of the 10 constructors in F1 should individually aim for. But if this is seen as just a gap year for Racing Point until the new regulations which they can fully focus on, then it hurts extra for the real constructors around them in the long run.

It's not fair play, but it's made possible by the poor state of the sport in which there's such inequality between the powers in the paddock. And that's caused by stuff like poor prize money distribution, outdated Ferrari agreements, Red Bull effectively buying 2 teams, and the shift in power that comes with customer PU deals which create some kind of parent-child relationship. Teams like Haas, Racing Point and Alpha Tauri are simply grid fillers that lack the essential goal of being here to win. And without them there wouldn't be much cars left, so it's better than nothing. But as long as the state of the sport is as such, we'll have these kind of discussions. F1 should make itself more attractive for other manufacturers to join.

Edited by Lights, 20 February 2020 - 19:51.