Mercedes are facing increased scrutiny over any potential role they played in helping Racing Point create their 2020 car.
Prior to the second race at Silverstone, the stewards handed Racing Point a 15-point deduction and 400k Euros fine after ruling their rear brake ducts breached the regulations on listed parts, ie. parts each team must design and develop themselves.
In their ruling, the FIA noted Mercedes had helped the Silverstone-based team with CAD drawings and sample brake ducts parts as late as January this year, though decided this was of little significance as much of the data was passed over in 2019.
However, speaking last week, Red Bull boss Christian Horner wasn’t totally convinced of the German manufacturer’s innocence.
“The most important thing for us is that we want total clarity about what is and is not allowed in the future,” he was quoted by the Dutch version of Motorsport.com.
Also Read:
- McLaren deny any Mercedes role in withdrawing Racing Point appeal
- Renault tout Suzuka precedent in push for further Racing Point points deduction
- Wolff playing provocateur and peacemaker in Racing Point case
“Red Bull is in the unique position of fully owning two Grand Prix teams and we have always adhered strictly to the rules because the constructors’ rules have been made very clear in the latest Concorde Agreement.
“For us, there is a broader picture. It’s not just about brake ducts, it’s about what is and is not allowed in terms of philosophy.
“As far as Mercedes is concerned, I’m sure there will be questions because if the team in question is guilty for receiving it [the information], then the team that delivered it also violated the rules, right? But that’s something for the FIA.”
While Horner didn’t go into specifics, veteran motorsport figure Colin Kolles, who was previously team boss at HRT as well as a Racing Point predecessor in Midland F1, claimed to have some inside knowledge.
“You can’t copy a car from photos,” he told Germany’s Sport1.de. “It’s not just about the brake ducts here. It’s about the whole concept of the car.
“It’s not just copied from photos, they not only had parts but also certain data.
“I was told [they had] a 60 per cent wind tunnel model and a show car as a template, from which parts were scanned and then converted into CAD data. Otherwise, the concept could not work.”
It should be noted Kolles does have a history with Mercedes boss Toto Wolff, after being accused of blackmailing the Austrian back in 2013 with an alleged voice recording of Toto criticising the then management team headed by Ross Brawn.
Regardless, responding to any suggestion of wrongdoing by his team, Wolff was adamant.
“First of all, copying the car more than from photos is something we would know [about],” he said. “That’s why from my perspective it’s total nonsense to pursue that argument.
“But I will be defending our brand firmly if somebody were to go down that route,” he added.
The matter is still far from closed with Ferrari, Renault and Racing Point all lodging appeals against the stewards’ decision.
As for any Mercedes role though, Ferrari’s Mattia Binotto chose not to comment.
“Honestly, I don’t think I have the answer and I don’t think it’s down to myself to judge,” he said.
“The reason why we have confirmed our appeal… I think it’s because we need to seek at least clarification and transparency.
“The decision of the International Court of Appeal will open up a wider and broader discussion on the copy carbon car concept, which for us is important.
“It’s important as well for the future of the Formula 1 because at the end it’s about discussing intellectual property and I think that intellectual property is an important asset or a very important asset of a company.
“If someone would somehow copy almost an identical car of the previous year of a competitor, I think the set of regulations should somehow protect the competitor itself and that’s why I think at the moment it’s important simply to move forward and understand.
“Clarity, transparency for the fairness of the competition and for the future of Formula 1 is important.”