Why the FIA's 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.

PLUS: Why F1 has always been a "copying championship"

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.

"To be able to replicate the car as they've done, everything I've been told by people that are much smarter than me on that topic, say there is no way you can 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."

Brown added it was "potentially the tip of the iceberg, the starting point of looking at what's happened here."

There is a 24-hour window for teams to decide on whether or not to appeal a ruling. Renault team principal Cyril Abiteboul confirmed it was a move that was under consideration for the French marque.

"We need to balance carefully the interest of the sport, and the consistency of the sanction," Abiteboul said. "We are looking at whether or not we will appeal the sanction, not obviously on the decision."

That Racing Point was found guilty is not what Renault would appeal. It is the severity of the sanction, and the grey areas that have been created by the ruling. And the team would not be alone in fighting that case, with two main areas of uncertainty being opened up that have piqued the interest of others on the grid.

Firstly, there are concerns about a transfer of a listed part taking place between teams. The stewards detailed in the ruling that a transfer of parts - a complete set of brake ducts - had occurred between Mercedes and Racing Point on 6 January, six days after they had ceased to be a non-listed part on 1 January.

The FIA said there was "nothing in the transfer that had not been legitimately provided to Racing Point in 2019 under the then in force regulations" and was not a breach of the regulations.

Toto Wolff said there was "zero worry" for Mercedes on its involvement in the case, as the part had been supplied in 2019. But there still remains unease among other teams about this transfer taking place past the deadline. Even if the component had already been supplied at an earlier date, a transfer of a listed part did take place between the teams on 6 January, which is outlawed.

Secondly, it is understood that a number of rivals are highly alarmed by the fact that despite the design process of the brake ducts being deemed illegal, the team is not only allowed to keep the part for the remainder of the season, but also only received a material penalty for one race. There are fears that it could set a dangerous precedent for the future in which regulations could be flouted with a sanction for just a single race, but offer gains lasting an entire season.

"The very fact [the brake ducts] are continued to be raced has much broader implications on teams further down the grid when it comes to prize fund money, when it comes to the order of the championship, and I'm not sure I agree with that" Claire Williams

"The advantage that was obviously obtained will keep on going for all the season," said Abiteboul. "It's a very material advantage. To put it in perspective, any team would be spending 20% of its aerodynamic [testing] time developing those parts. It's not a small part."

"I don't think running the car with a part that's been deemed illegal, I don't see how that makes sense," added Brown. "I don't see how that's fair for the sport.

"It's pretty confusing for the fans out there. I understand the technicality behind that, when you go through technical inspection, something has to be a certain weight, size, dimension, and it passes that test. But how it actually arrived on the car has been deemed illegal.

"It continues on, because if you read the documentation, they were docked because of the unfair competitive advantage that they had in Austria. But aren't they still carrying that unfair advantage this weekend?"

Williams deputy F1 boss Claire Williams said she would "bite my tongue" on the leniency of the penalty, but also questioned how Racing Point would still be permitted to continue running parts that had been designed through an illegal process.

"To see now that a car that has been in breach of the regulations, to still be able to allowed to run those parts doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me anyway," Williams said. "Whenever we take our car and the FIA come to us and say that part's not quite right, you've got two races or whatever to rectify it, then that should be the case in the circumstance.

"But the very fact [the brake ducts] are continued to race has much broader implications on teams further down the grid when it comes to prize fund money, when it comes to the order of the championship, and I'm not sure I agree with that."

Ferrari is also taking a keen interest in the case, with team principal Mattia Binotto saying it would be "very careful" in understanding "what the next step" could be.

"It has been clarified there is a breach of regulation," Binotto said. "Now is the penalty and the verdict the right one? I think we've got 24 hours to go through the document and understand. I would not judge it right now. That's all."

Mercedes chief Wolff gave the view that the FIA had attempted to find a middle ground with its ruling, only to trigger anger on both sides of the fence.

"I think the FIA wanted to come up with a solution that kind of lets everybody live," Wolff said. "Now Racing Point is pretty upset. They believe they have a strong case, and they have lawyers ready to go and appeal.

"And on the other side, what I see, there is a group forming, a little revolution in every sense, and they are trying to go after Racing Point, because I guess they are upset they haven't got the performance Racing Point has."

By moving to resolve the case, the FIA appears to have only lit the blue-touch paper on all sides of the 'pink Mercedes' debate, dragging in the majority of the grid and appeasing no-one.

Racing Point may have its points deduction and fine, but this saga and the wider philosophical debate looks set to be one of the defining storylines for F1 in 2020.