How a 30cm metal wire triggered open warfare in the F1 paddock

When the Mercedes W13 rolled out in to the pitlane for Friday morning’s tech show-and-tell session ahead of the Formula 1 Canadian Grand Prix, it didn’t even feature the tiniest of components that would end up kicking off one of the biggest political spats we’ve had in a while.

Instead, the team still needed a bit more time to get an extra metal supporting wire in place on George Russell’s car prior to the start of first practice. So, the only evidence of it coming were the slots that would hold it in place.

And while the now infamous Mercedes second stay was not even used after Friday – the team claimed it did not deliver a step forward in performance – its very presence caused some big rifts inside the paddock.
F1 teams had already been up in arms about the timing of an FIA Technical Directive it issued ahead of the weekend aimed at combatting porpoising.

Being sent on Thursday, as many technical directors and engineers were out of mobile data range on airplanes, meant there had been little time to digest and respond to all that was proposed in the documents before the weekend began.

The first reaction to the TD was whether or not it was realistic for the FIA to come up with a workable metric that could define and limit how much bouncing a car did. For once you start digging into the complexities of what was being proposed, technical chiefs were left scratching their heads about just how the FIA could define the limits.

Would 20 floor strikes a lap be alright, but 21 strikes be too much? Would 10 bounces at 4.9g down a straight be outlawed but 20 bounces at 4.8g be okay? And how would the rules differentiate between porpoising, bouncing and bottoming from just running the car too low?

Mercedes arrived at the Canadian GP with a second stay attached to the floor in a bid to help porpoising

Photo by: Giorgio Piola

The FIA’s plans appeared to have opened a can of worms and many senior figures believed that there were so many pitfalls and complications from what was planned, that the entire thing would most likely fall by the wayside. But matters took a big twist on Friday when the Mercedes ran with the second stay on its car for practice.

For while it was technically nothing that teams had not trialled before in test sessions, its presence triggered two key annoyances among rivals. The first was the fact that Mercedes had managed to get the second stay fitted to its car just 24 hours after the FIA had notified teams it was theoretically allowed to do so.

The fact that such a major intervention had come out, which appeared to help Mercedes, did not sit well in all corners of the paddock. As one senior team figure said about the situation: “It stinks….”

Speaking to technical figures in the paddock, they reckoned that, with modern CAD models and proofing techniques, it would take at least a couple of days to go from concept to reality. The speed of Mercedes’ response prompted suspicions that it may have been tipped off in advance about what was coming – having been the team pushing the hardest for FIA intervention on the porpoising front.

The conspiracy theories were also fuelled by the involvement at the FIA now of Shaila-Ann Rao as its interim director general of sport, taking over from Peter Bayer who left earlier this month. Having previously been a special advisor at Mercedes to Toto Wolff, her move to the governing body had already prompted concern from teams about a potential lack of impartiality at the governing body.

The fact that such a major intervention had come out, which appeared to help Mercedes, did not sit well in all corners of the paddock. As one senior team figure said about the situation: “It stinks….” But the situation went much deeper than just the question about whether or not Mercedes had got prior warning.

Team bosses with good knowledge of the way that rules procedures work in F1 were also quick to point out that any team running a second stay would be in breach of the regulations – and at risk of a protest. That is because FIA technical directives hold no regulatory value and have always been intended as advising teams on what an interpretation of a technical regulation is most likely to be. They cannot simply green light teams running things not allowed in the F1 rules.

Mercedes ran with the second stay during free practice before it was removed ahead of qualifying

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images

Indeed, as was written across the bottom of every page of the TD that the FIA sent on Thursday: “Any FIA opinions given above are advisory in nature and do not constitute Technical Regulations.” F1’s regulations do allow the FIA to change rules unilaterally on safety grounds, which was its justification for stepping in on this topic.

However, that needs to be done through the right process – which is a formal rule change that is rubber stamped by the FIA’s World Motor Sport Council and put into published regulations. The FIA could not simply allow teams to run with a second stay – banned in the regulations – based on its own advice.

The swirling doubts about a potential Mercedes tip-off, and the FIA not having followed the right procedures, bubbled away for much of Friday – and had raised eyebrows as much within FOM as it had the teams. The issue was ultimately as much about the FIA’s handling of matters, as it was Mercedes bidding to get rule changes in place to help improve its situation.

With the FIA’s running of the series having been under the spotlight regularly in recent weeks, the fallout of the TD did little to alleviate mounting concerns about how things are playing out under new president Mohammed Ben Sulayem. So it was no real surprise that matters reached a head in Saturday morning’s regular team boss chat with F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali.

What started out with the usual discussions about the latest developments in grand prix racing and a calendar update, ended with an outburst from a revved-up Wolff in accusing rival teams of putting politics over his drivers’ safety in their accusations over the porpoising issue. He later let rip with his belief that the behaviour of fellow team bosses was ‘pitiful’ and ‘disingenuous’.

That the whole meeting was caught on camera by Netflix, who were following Wolff around, all added to the drama of it all.

Toto Wolff blasted other team principals for not wishing to resolve the porpoising issue

Photo by: Carl Bingham / Motorsport Images

Before the official Canada GP ‘event’ got under way with Saturday’s final free practice session, Mercedes had removed the second stay so the threat of a protest went away. The FIA also clarified to teams by then that its aim to come up with an Aerodynamic Oscillation Metric was never planned to come into force in Canada and that last weekend’s event was simply about gathering data.

The can was firmly kicked down the road, with some breathing space now before the British Grand Prix. But while it is hoped progress can be made before Silverstone in sorting out sensible solutions long-term to the porpoising problems, there will be fallout from all that happened in Montreal.

The genie is out of the bottle now on the FIA’s involvement in porpoising, and the political wounds opened in Canada are unlikely to be healed quickly.

Rivals remain annoyed that Mercedes’ lobbying could impact the way they run their own cars, while Wolff is still angry at his rivals not seeing the need for the FIA help to reduce the problems drivers are facing. And the spotlight on the FIA remains intense after another weekend where things could have been handled in a better way to avoid the criticisms and annoyance that the TD prompted.

The genie is out of the bottle now on the FIA’s involvement in porpoising, and the political wounds opened in Canada are unlikely to be healed quickly.

Mercedes still came away with a podium from the Canadian GP with Lewis Hamilton

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images