Ferrari and Haas - what took so long?

The wonder about Mercedes' official complaint re listed parts and aerodynamic testing, and subsequent verdict handed down 24 hours later over the Abu Dhabi Grand Prix weekend, is not that any form of intervention or clarity was requested, but that, as is so often the case in Formula 1, it took almost six months before the matter was formally raised.

Although neither Ferrari nor Haas F1 teams were mentioned in what was termed "Request for Settlement of a Matter" by the stewards, the contents made clear that Mercedes was requesting clarity on the relationship between the two teams - who had entered into a formal co-operative car design and development programme.

Nothing underhand had occurred, nor were there any secrets bar the usual commercial undertakings. After all, the modus operandi decided on - make that "discovered" - by Haas had been to known to all teams since it first applied to compete in F1, with approval granted by the governing body in April 2014.

Team chiefs Steiner (l) and Haas have made no secret of their Ferrari links © LAT

Indeed, during interviews undertaken by this writer before and after the team selection process - and during an exclusive visit to Charlotte in May this year - the movers behind what would become Haas F1 Team made absolutely no secret of the fact they believed they had discovered (that word again) a legal means of sourcing non-listed parts and aerodynamic services from Ferrari.

One of the pillar stones of the nascent team was that it would produce only what F1 defines as Listed Parts - components to which teams must own the intellectual property to in order to qualify as "constructor", to be eligible to enter the championship and lay claim to its revenues - which implied that all other components would be outsourced.

Guenther Steiner, Haas F1 team principal, made no secret of the fact that non-listed parts would be sourced from an associate team where possible, and that various prospective partners were approached before Ferrari was selected. During the FIA's inspection process - to which all prospective entrants have been subjected since 2013 - full disclosure was made.

The bone of contention within the paddock, though, was that Ferrari's Listed Parts were being developed in Ferrari's windtunnel before said parts were incorporated in the 2016 design by Dallara, which is designing (and building) Haas's 2016 car under the leadership of Haas chief designer Rob Taylor. However, the team had made no secret of this arrangement, either.

Still the rumour mill simmered, so following this year's Spanish Grand Prix, where various parties insinuated that underhand activities not unconnected to the Ferrari/Haas deal were responsible for the Scuderia's sudden upturn in form after the Italian team revealed an unprecedented number of aerodynamic upgrades, the governing body undertook an investigation in Maranello.

The inspection was headed by Marcin Budkowski - a Ferrari/McLaren senior aerodynamicist-turned-gatekeeper - during which time the Pole satisfied himself that "Chinese Walls" ensured that data generated by Ferrari did not benefit Haas, or vice-versa. Budkowski gave Ferrari a clean report, and his findings were not disputed by paddock folk.

Questioned by Autosport during the subsequent Canadian Grand Prix, Steiner said: "We have nothing to hide from our side".

He added: "I don't think from Ferrari what they are doing with us is anything to hide. We were no part of that inspection. They [the FIA] inspected Ferrari, not us. I was informed that there's an inspection, but they wouldn't give me any information and it's not my business, basically. So I was never worried at all because they didn't inspect us."

During F1's summer break rumours increasingly swirled that a number of Ferrari engineers - some suggest as many as 20 - had been "seconded" to Dallara, and would be transferred back to Maranello after the 2016 entry window closed on 30 November. Will the 2016 Haas resemble a Ferrari?

Of course there are bound to be similarities, as Steiner told this writer in May: "If you've got the battery box and fuel tank [both unlisted parts] from Ferrari, you can't do much different. But it's completely legal.

"We get the mounting points, we get the steering rack, we need to bolt it to a chassis. If we want the same suspension, we'd better put it in the same place, otherwise it won't work. It'll look similar [to Ferrari], yes."

Given the foregoing and that Listed Parts form part of the Sporting Regulations - to wit, Appendix 6 of the 2015 (and prior) Sporting Regulations - it must surely have been as clear as noon on an Abu Dhabi summer's day that the seconded aero staff would be working with two very similar cars, even if one ultimately bears Haas badging. However, as Steiner said, it would be "completely legal [under prevailing the regulations]."

Why, then, did it take Mercedes until October 15 - which is when the team wrote to FIA technical chief Charlie Whiting - to request clarification from the FIA whether or not Appendices 6 and 8 (the latter sets out the aerodynamic test restrictions) were ambiguous?

Equally, why did it take Whiting 28 days to respond, telling Mercedes technical boss Paddy Lowe "the questions do not fall within my remit, but that of the competent bodies for binding interpretation [stewards]"? In other words, Mercedes submitted its questions to Whiting immediately after the Russian Grand Prix, yet it was forced to wait until the Thursday before Brazil's race to receive effectively zero guidance.

Further, Whiting disclosed that he considered Mercedes's request for confidentiality inappropriate due to the general nature of the request, which was considered to be of interest to all competitors. Thus Mercedes had no option but to lodge its "Request for Settlement of a Matter" in Abu Dhabi - at least six months after Haas F1's modus operandi became public knowledge. Talk about lack of urgency.

Mercedes made Ferrari aware of its FIA query 'as a courtesy' © XPB

There even existed suspicions that Mercedes wished to have Ferrari thrown out of the championship - Force India's Otmar Szafnauer drew parallels with McLaren's spy scandal from 2007 - although Mercedes boss Toto Wolff denied this to be the motivating factor, telling this writer it was "an incorrect interpretation".

After Mercedes was embroiled in the tyre test controversy in 2013, Wolff of all team bosses should know that second-guessing stewards is no easy task given they found Mercedes in breach of testing regulations in 2013 even after the FIA had granted approval for the test...

That said, the most likely explanation is (delete as appropriate):

1) Mercedes wished to enter into a similar project with another team(s) - one such as Manor or own a fledgling AMG operation, much as Red Bull operates two outfits

and/or

2) This biggest spending of all teams, decided 2017's technical regulations, which likely bring with them significant aerodynamic changes, are best attacked with a secondary team in tow.

Again, talk about lack of urgency, until someone realised something was amiss just as F1 prepared for its off-season.

Intriguingly, in direct response to questions posed by this writer as to whether Ferrari had been informed before Mercedes lodged the document, Wolff responded with a pensive "Yes", while Ferrari team boss Maurizio Arivabene concurred during his team's post-race session, stating, "Yes, as a courtesy they did [inform us],", then added with a slow smile, "Of course we asked them not to (lodge the request), but they did".

The stewards were requested to deliver their verdict before the race started, which, indeed they did at 15:30 on Sunday, having received written and/or oral submissions from Mercedes, Ferrari, Williams, Force India and Manor.

Haas, not officially a competitor until its entry, due 30 November, is accepted - which confirmation is expected shortly - was not present in Abu Dhabi, nor was the team represented during the process. The outcome was, though, that Ferrari/Haas had legally exploited a regulatory loophole, which the stewards closed forthwith, with the bottom line reading:

"Having examined the reports (including audit reports team facilities) provided to us, the Stewards confirm that there is no evidence that competitors have not complied with the requirements of Appendices 6 and 8 as they were interpreted prior to today's date."

The statutory 60-minute appeal window came and went as the cars lined up on the grid, and, rather intriguingly, no one commented on a tiny gem buried within there:

"All competitors in the 2015 FIA Formula 1 World Championship and all competitors intending to compete in the 2016 FIA Formula One World Championship, must comply with the [verdict] with effect from today's date."

The verdict includes the following clauses:

1) No employee or consultant of a competitor who is involved in aerodynamic development may pass any information obtained under their own ATR quota to an employee or consultant of another competitor.

2) No employee of a competitor who is involved in aerodynamic development, who leaves that company and takes up a similar position with another competitor, may do so without a suitable (or normal) period of "gardening leave" or "isolation".

3) No employee of a competitor who is involved in aerodynamic development, and who leaves that company and takes up a similar position with another competitor, may then return to the original competitor without a suitable (or normal) period of "gardening leave" or "isolation".

A footnote added: "The Stewards recommend to the FIA that in future once a potential competitor (as opposed to Official Entry) applies to be a competitor in the FIA Formula One World Championship and this application is accepted, that competitor should be bound by Appendices 6 and 8 (and for that matter any other appropriate sections of the Formula One Sporting and Technical Regulations)."

Which begs the question: were any Ferrari personnel members, more specifically aerodynamicists still on secondment to Haas at midnight on Sunday? If so, were they given proper instructions to return to Maranello post-race on Sunday, and is such proof available?

Failing which, will they placed on periods of isolation (gardening leave in F1-speak) as outlined, and what will the effect be on Ferrari's and Haas's programmes going forward? The essence of these questions was put to both teams, with Ferrari responding as follows:

Mercedes wanted to know what sort of tie-up with another team was possible © LAT

"All the team has to say with regard to that matter is: The FIA looked into our plan, and so did the stewards in Abu Dhabi. No infringement was found to the current regulation and no retroactive actions (sic) was taken. They had also been aware of movement/secondment of personnel. The people in charge of a decision had full access to all the information they needed in order to form their judgment.

"Since the rulers of the championship (and those of the relevant event when the request for clarification was lodged) had nothing to object, we believe that no other unbiased individual or company should doubt our bona fide.

"Every other aspect is subject to confidentiality, as you may expect when the governing body of motorsports is involved."

Steiner, speaking on behalf of Haas, chose not to make any comment - refusing even to confirm the number of heads said to be affected - while the governing body was similarly silent. "Anything we know about the operations of Ferrari and Haas are and remain confidential," a spokesman said.

Regardless of silence or carefully worded statements, the matter has clearly created its intended impact. Before being transferred back, seconded Ferrari personnel will need to enter six-month periods of isolation or remain with Haas for the foreseeable future. Equally, aero folk wishing to move to other operations could well discover that their progress will be complicated by the new provisions.

Whether all this directly impacts on Ferrari's 2016 season remains conjecture, but Haas certainly seems to have come out on top: not only will newcomers in future not enjoy the technical freedom permitted to the US team so far, but co-operative development is, to all intents and purposes, now banned.