How F1's COVID goodwill broke apart on its birthday weekend

Formula 1 took advantage of holding two races at Silverstone by nodding to its history and celebrating its 70th birthday at the track where it all began in 1950.

In the fallow months between the cancellation of the Australian Grand Prix and the eventual season opener in Austria, steps were taken to safeguard F1's future and ensure it would honour many more anniversaries despite the devastating nature of the COVID-19 pandemic.

It led to a spell of consensus and unity rarely seen through recent F1 history. All 10 teams were aware of the necessity of drastic action, pushing through a reduced budget cap effective from 2021 and a carryover of the current cars into next year.

But on F1's birthday weekend, it became clear that the time for consensus is well and truly over, as two big political battles emerged off-track, showing clear fractures through the F1 grid.

The saga surrounding the legality of Racing Point's RP20 car has been bubbling away ever since the so-called 'pink Mercedes' broke cover in pre-season testing. It left rivals Renault and McLaren particularly perturbed and, had Australia not been cancelled, Renault would have launched a protest way back in March over the likeness of Racing Point's car to last year's title-winning Mercedes W10.

It was not until the Styrian Grand Prix that Renault finally took action, protesting the legality of the rear brake ducts on the Racing Point car, with a judgement eventually being handed down by the FIA stewards last Friday at Silverstone. The design process of the Racing Point brake ducts was deemed illegal, resulting in a 15-point constructors' championship penalty and a €400,000 fine, but the team could continue to use the part for the rest of the season.

It was a verdict that pleased no-one, and only acted to drag more teams into the debate. The likes of Ferrari, McLaren and Williams went from curious bystanders to planning their own legal proceedings, while Mercedes also found itself facing scrutiny from rivals for its involvement in the case.

PLUS: Why the FIA's Racing Point verdict pleases nobody

"They are dragging our name through the mud and I will not stand by nor accept this. I intend to take all necessary actions to prove our innocence" Lawrence Stroll

Things even got personal. After McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown said Racing Point's claim it had reverse engineered the entirety of its car based off photos of the Mercedes W10 was proved to be "B.S." by the stewards, Racing Point team boss Otmar Szafnauer shot back.

"I'm surprised at how little he knows about the rules of F1," Szafnauer said. "It seems to me he knows more about historic racing than he does about F1."

A 15-point penalty and fine was deemed lenient by many of the other teams, who found it baffling how a part that was judged to have been designed through an illegal process could continue to be raced. There are concerns it could set a dangerous precedent for the future, allowing teams to break the rules and get season-long benefits, only receiving a one-off penalty in return.

But even after the judgement had been passed down, Racing Point refused to accept it had done anything wrong. Szafnauer called the judgement "a bit bewildering" and said the stewards were "wrong" in their assessment the brake ducts' design had been like "tracing paper to copy a shape or drawing".

Racing Point team owner Lawrence Stroll even made a rare public statement on Sunday, speaking in a five-minute video to condemn the actions of the rest of the grid. Stroll emphasised that both he and Racing Point's integrity was "beyond question".

"I am appalled by the way Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and Williams have taken this opportunity to appeal, and in doing so attempted to detract from our performances," Stroll said. "They are dragging our name through the mud and I will not stand by nor accept this. I intend to take all necessary actions to prove our innocence."

Stroll's statement was a swipe back, proving Racing Point would not simply accept its sanction and get back to racing. It too has launched an appeal against the FIA, wishing to make its voice known against the F1 heavyweights. It wants to prove not just its innocence, but also its power.

But Racing Point is not the only team in the crosshairs of its rivals. Mercedes has also been dragged into the case for its role in supplying the brake ducts to Racing Point, largely down to a transfer of parts that took place earlier this year.

The FIA stewards report confirmed there had been the transfer of a set of brake ducts between Mercedes and Racing Point on 6 January, six days after they had ceased to be a non-listed part. However, the stewards deemed there to have been no significant breach as Racing Point already had sets of the same brake ducts, and therefore gained no additional information. The parts were transferred as Racing Point wanted more spares for pre-season testing, but ended up not using them anyway.

While the stewards did not deem the 6 January transfer noteworthy, some of Mercedes' rivals are flagging it as an area for concern, fearing it could set a precedent for deadlines to be flouted in a similar fashion.

The stewards' ruling did not suggest Mercedes had wrongly passed any data concerning the brake ducts to Racing Point, with the 6 January transfer not expanding on the information that had been legitimately passed under the regulations.

Mercedes F1 boss Toto Wolff said there was "a little revolution" forming among the teams looking to fight the case against Racing Point. He not only voiced his opinion that Racing Point had done nothing wrong, but warned that dragging the case to the FIA International Court of Appeal would only be a longer, more painful process for all involved.

Wolff revealed on Sunday he has become a "mediator" in talks between some of the teams in a bid to avoid the case going that far. But it is understood that not all teams were present for this meeting, with Ferrari being a notable exception. Concerns have been raised by some about Wolff's role as a mediator given Mercedes' involvement in the case too.

Both Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto and Red Bull's Christian Horner queried Mercedes' role in the case after Sunday's race at Silverstone.

"I don't think that if anyone fails to meet the 12th, or large corporations need more time, that this is going to be an issue. I know why [FOM] put a line in the sand, to get basically everybody acting. I think they've been pretty successful with that" Toto Wolff

"Stroll and Wolff may be furious, but there has been a violation of the regulations here," Binotto said on Sky Sports Italia. "This is like copying a test. There are those who copy the test, and those who pass the test to have others copy it. I don't think there's anything to add to that."

Horner was also coy: "I'm sure those questions will get asked, because if the team in question are guilty of receiving, surely the team that has provided has been also in breach of those regulations? That's something for the FIA."

Another team figure said privately that Mercedes and Racing Point had been "caught with their trousers down" in this saga. But Wolff's message for those questioning Mercedes' role was clear: "If someone thinks that we have done something wrong, they should protest, and we're happy to go to court."

Intertwining with this brewing political battle was a ramp-up of discussions about the Concorde Agreement as F1 looked to hasten the drive to get the new commercial terms set for 2021. Most teams had been making fairly positive noises about the new Concorde Agreement in recent weeks, with McLaren being the first to say it was ready to sign up last month.

The new terms are set to introduce a more equitable distribution of revenue between teams, as well as altering the governance structure and making for a fairer, more sustainable sport, tying in with all the pandemic safeguarding measures. But with a 12 August deadline looming for the terms to be finalised, there was an eagerness to make the teams outline their position.

A question put to Wolff in Friday's FIA press conference sparked a strong response from the Mercedes team boss, who made clear his displeasure with the current state of negotiations and the proposals on the table.

"We are, I would say, the biggest victim in terms of prize fund loss in all of that," Wolff said. "Ferrari has maintained an advantageous position. For Red Bull it balances out with [AlphaTauri]. So it's us that are hurt the most.

"I feel that Mercedes has contributed to the sport over the last years. We have part from being competitive on track, we have the driver that has clearly the most global appeal and we feel that whilst being in those negotiations we weren't treated in the way we should have been.

"Therefore there are a bunch of open topics for us that are legal, commercial and sporting and in our point of view I don't feel ready to sign a Concorde Agreement."

Mercedes wants greater recognition for its contribution to F1 and its argument is a strong one. The marque has won the last six drivers' and constructors' titles, had a place on grid with a works outfit for a decade, been involved as an engine supplier for nearly 30 years and is set to supply power units to three teams next year. It is hardly a bit-part player.

But F1 was quick to fire back to Wolff's comments, stressing it would "not be delayed any longer" in getting the talks finalised. Many of the other team principals again said they were close to being ready to sign the agreement and voiced no real opposition, prompting Wolff to accuse them of being "up the arse" of Liberty Media publicly while holding concerns similar to his in private.

Wolff said he did not fear what would happen if any team missed the deadline, and understood why F1 had issued the response it did.

"I think what FOM wants to achieve is that it's not being dragged out any further," he said. "They've made it clear that we've got to get on and sign the Concorde Agreement.

"I don't think that if anyone fails to meet the 12th, or large corporations need more time, that this is going to be an issue. I know why they put a line in the sand, to get basically everybody acting. I think they've been pretty successful with that."

F1 now faces an important few weeks that could define where much of the power lies in the future. The sport's political landscape looks vastly different to the one filled with consensus and unity a few months back.

Granted, it was deeply needed then, with the very future of the sport at stake. But all teams have made clear they were not willing to let the goodwill shown in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak prompt them to let their guard down or back down from battles.

Not even F1's Silverstone birthday party was going to allow that to happen.