What's next for the Green Red Bull controversy?

For anyone who loves low-brow courtroom drama, the public unravelling of the “Wagatha Christie” case has surely kept them satisfied. Coleen Rooney – wife of former England superstar Wayne - alleged that Rebekah Vardy – wife of Leicester City goal-botherer Jamie – had leaked fabricated personal stories to news outlets through a protracted period of Instagram-based sleuthing. Vardy took Rooney to court over libel, with an outcome due in the coming days.

But that’s nothing compared to the political, capricious and often ludicrous world of Formula 1. Scandals are a dime a dozen, with the “-gate” suffix used to a near-spurious degree in recent years. Spygate, Crashgate and Liegate have all been peppered through the racing lexicon.

A little over two years ago (and on the cusp of the, ahem, unpleasantness that plagued the world), the Racing Point team pulled open the shutters of its Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya pit garage and revealed a Formula 1 car that looked distinctly familiar. The Racing Point RP20 resembled something of a gamble, producing an ersatz-Mercedes W10 that the Silverstone squad hoped would shrug off years of financial misery prior to Lawrence Stroll’s takeover.

It proved controversial – not worthy of a moniker such as Copygate, but still drew the ire of many involved in the championship. Although it was not illegal within the F1 regulations to develop a car that appears overwhelmingly similar to another, it earned “Pink Mercedes” jibes from those within the paddock, and led to questions about the design process. Had the team been given Mercedes designs? Well, no – but also yes. The overall car itself was a facsimile of the Mercedes, sure, but the main gripe among the teams lay in the rear brake ducts.

Renault – now Alpine – protested the design of the rear brake ducts, alleging that the team had physically copied the designs from the previous year’s Mercedes. Crucially over that winter, the rear brake ducts had been removed from the transferrable parts list and onto the listed parts catalogue, enforcing their design upon the individual teams.

When the Racing Point RP20 first appeared it instantly became known as the 'pink Mercedes' and drew controversy in the F1 paddock

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images

Racing Point already had a set of Mercedes 2019 brake ducts kicking about the factory, and thus elected to heavily lean on their design. The team was caught, handed a 15-point deduction and a €400k fine, and presumably told not to do it again.

That previous incursion is probably why the team’s - now Aston Martin – decision to update its sidepods and floor for this year’s Spanish Grand Prix has courted considerable attention. The team’s AMR22 has shed its somewhat bulbous sidepods for a slightly... Red Bull-esque design. And that’s totally normal; convergence in the 2022 designs, of course, was expected – and teams are forever creating their own interpretations of other teams’ designs if they believe there’s a benefit to doing so.

Aston Martin itself explained that it had deliberately created a car that could adapt to incoming trends if its own concept was found lacking, which, on the evidence of the opening five rounds, it was. Although that might leave Red Bull slightly aggrieved and willing to accuse Aston Martin of lacking originality, it would simply be a footnote in the usual development cycle involved in F1.

"We were on a dual path. And it came as a shock, but also a surprise, that Red Bull came out with a similar concept, as well" Andrew Green

But here’s where the waters muddy a little bit: firstly, the team’s previous entanglement in a copying scandal is still fresh in the memory, and secondly, Aston Martin’s recruitment drive has brought in several new designers, with a handful of them having upped sticks from Red Bull to join up. That includes new technical director Dan Fallows, after a period of gardening leave.

Let the record show that all of this could be completely innocent. Aston Martin, as per its technical chief Andy Green, has contended that its similar design was already in the pipeline and was surprised to see Red Bull emerge in Bahrain testing in March with a similar design already on the car.

“If you look at the development of the car that is sitting out there right now, you'll see that this has all happened towards the end of last year before we've seen anybody,” Green explained in a Saturday press conference featuring key team members.

“We were on a dual path. And it came as a shock, but also a surprise, that Red Bull came out with a similar concept, as well. But I think that just reinforced our feeling at the time that, of the two paths that that we had open to us, we'd gone the wrong way. And I think that was confirmation of that.”

The upgraded Aston Martin debuted in Spain and drew quick comparisons to the Red Bull's sidepod and floor

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images

Sebastian Vettel also confirmed that he knew about the upgrade plans “I think before the launch, we were already going sort of two ways all winter.”

Red Bull, naturally, doesn’t agree. Christian Horner reckoned that Aston Martin had indulged in “imitation” and had responded to the Milton Keynes squad’s Bahrain update to produce its own interpretation. It must be stated at this juncture that the two designs are not exactly the same; the two teams have different philosophies with the leading segment of the sidepod and inlet. Red Bull’s RB18 has an ‘overbite’ where the lower part of the sidepod inlet extends forward, while Aston Martin has persevered with a slightly angled front portion to improve the interaction between wheel wake and the rest of the bodywork.

The cutouts in the floor’s edge are quite similar, it must be said, and the inclination of the bodywork louvres (i.e. the cooling vents) are also largely the same in shape. Those characteristics are probably where the bones of contention hinge; although likenesses could be purely coincidental, it does appear somewhat unlikely.

“Imitation is the biggest form of flattery, at the end of the day,” Horner told Sky Sports F1. ‘It’s no coincidence that we’ve had a few individuals that have transferred from Red Bull to Aston Martin over the winter and the early part of this season. It was brought to our attention by the FIA, earlier in the week, when they said, ‘We’ve got a car that looks remarkably like yours, can we have a list of your leavers to see where they went?’ So that immediately raises alarm bells. Now what is permissible, we see it up and down the paddock, individuals move from team to team after a gardening leave period. What they take in their head, that’s fair game. That’s their knowledge. What isn’t fair and what is totally unacceptable which we wouldn’t accepted is if there has been any transfer of IP at all.”

As Horner alludes to, transfer of information from a designer’s head is part of the game. It’s very plausible that an Aston Martin engineer had considered the design of the Red Bull sidepods and explained it to the team during the design process. It could even be the case that Aston Martin saw the sidepod design in testing, came up with its own version and put it into production. Again, that’s normal in the incestuous world of Formula 1. Following the Racing Point RP20 farrago, the FIA has introduced more rules to stop teams from copying intimate details of cars from photographs and scans, but Horner alleges that Aston Martin’s design process probably started before Red Bull’s version publicly appeared - which thus prompts his discussion of intellectual property.

Red Bull hasn't accused Aston Martin of any wrongdoing yet but will hold its own investigation to check if any sensitive technical information was taken

Photo by: Carl Bingham / Motorsport Images

Any insinuation that IP might have fallen into Aston Martin’s hands is another claim entirely. Let’s be clear, Horner has not categorically stated that any intellectual property had been transferred. However, there is more than just a hint of pot-stirring from the Red Bull head honcho, the wheels greased by Aston Martin staff having been formerly of his parish.

The FIA has investigated Aston Martin’s design path and okayed it, but Red Bull says it will continue to work with the governing body and complete its own internal investigations to check whether any information was downloaded and fell into the wrong hands.

"We’ve got our own software protections,” Horner added. “We know exactly what software is looked at, where that software is controlled. But I think it’s the job of the regulator, the FIA, because they have the access, and we rely very much on them to ensure that there is no transfer of IP, that there has been no abuse of that. So it’s very much their job to go and police that.

"This car was conceived in the middle of last year as a dual route with the launch car, and the majority of the releases were made before anybody from Red Bull even turned up. So I think the accusations are very wide of the mark" Andrew Green

“In reality, it’s the precedent that is set. It’s not the biggest of issues for us unless Aston Martin start beating us. But for the teams that are in that midfield, it could have a material effect on them. The biggest thing that we want to ensure is that our IP is protected and it hasn’t been abused.”

Green was not particularly impressed with Horner’s comments, nor with Dr Helmut Marko’s - who said to Sky Germany that data had been downloaded and questioned if Aston Martin could so accurately copy a design from memory. One wonders how Marko, effectively an advisor, would know that and Horner wouldn’t - but that’s a question for another day.

“I don’t know what these accusations are that Red Bull are talking about,” he said. “All I can say is that at no stage did we ever receive any data from any team or anyone. The FIA came in and did a thorough investigation, examined all the data leading up in the history of this car, they interviewed all the people involved and concluded that it was completely independent development.

“To that point where you were talking about potential employees, this car was conceived in the middle of last year as a dual route with the launch car, and the majority of the releases were made before anybody from Red Bull even turned up. So I think the accusations are very wide of the mark.”

Green says Aston Martin's design started in the middle of last year before any ex-Red Bull staff arrived at the team

Photo by: Carl Bingham / Motorsport Images

So what’s next? Red Bull will conduct its own investigations and check if anyone downloaded any sensitive technical information – and if so, determine their identity. If that comes to pass, the controversy is going nowhere, and you can trust Red Bull to continue its narrative within an increasingly juicy storyline. If not, any copying accusations will be quietly dropped and Red Bull could concede and concentrate on its title aspirations. The FIA will do its due diligence, and Aston Martin will comply.

Or in an alternative storyline, Aston Martin’s dual development path was proven correct and the team was simply unsure about its second sidepod design – and it somehow fell into Red Bull’s hands via a departing or rogue engineer.

“It’s... Red Bull’s account.” Wouldn’t that be a twist?

Could the Green Red Bull saga continue into the coming races?

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images