F1 INSIDER
FIA moves to ban engine ‘party modes’
While discord continued to simmer in the Formula 1 paddock regarding the FIA’S handling of the Racing Point ‘car cloning’ affair, the governing body informed teams ahead of the Spanish Grand Prix that it plans to restrict the scope of engine modes used in qualifying. An official technical directive was expected shortly after this issue of GP Racing closed for press.
Throughout the hybrid engine era, manufacturers have sought to find an advantage by accessing extra power for short bursts during qualifying. It was Mercedes which coined the term ‘party mode’ in its internal parlance to describe the special engine map; others have struggled to replicate its success because of the compromises involved in trading off race pace and longevity.
A letter from FIA secretary general Peter Bayer outlined the governing body’s thinking, and which clauses within the technical and sporting regulations it would use to support its case. The ‘Duty of Competitor’ section of the technical regulations explicitly states that competitors must be able to prove their cars comply with the rules “in their entirety and at all times during an event”. It also enshrines the principle that physical inspection of “hardware and materials” is the gold standard. “No mechanical design may rely upon software inspection as a means of ensuring its compliance. Due to their nature, the compliance of electronic systems may be assessed by means of inspection of hardware, software and data.”
Essentially the FIA’S case is that it wants to “reduce the scope of adjustability” of power unit modes between qualifying and the race, because the “multitude and
complexity of modes being used make it extremely difficult for the FIA to monitor compliance with all the Pu-related regulations and provisions in selected critical moments of the event”. It also draws attention to the often-cited Article 27.1 of the sporting regulations, the principle that drivers must drive “alone and unaided”.
“The changes to ICE modes that are currently in force could potentially mean that the driver does not drive the car alone and unaided,” wrote Bayer. “In order to address the above concerns in the future, we will be requiring that during the qualifying session and the race, the PU should operate in a single mode.”
F1 insiders have interpreted this as an attempt to curtail at least one aspect of Mercedes’ dominance, though it is uncertain just how much effect it will have. It will also promote tensions at a time when several teams have expressed dissatisfaction with the FIA’S handling of the protests against Racing Point’s RP20, which is regarded by some as a clone of last season’s Mercedes.
WE WILL BE REQUIRING THAT DURING THE QUALIFYING SESSION AND THE RACE, THE PU SHOULD OPERATE IN A SINGLE MODE.” PETER BAYER
FIA SECRETARY GENERAL
Renault lodged protests after the Styrian, Hungarian and British races, then lodged an appeal against the FIA stewards’ verdict at the 70th Anniversary GP and continued to protest at subsequent events. Ferrari also appealed the judgement while Mclaren and Williams said they would follow suit, but dropped their objections after receiving assurances from the FIA that the regulations would be amended to prevent cloning in future.
While cloning a car from photographs, as Racing Point claims it has done, is not illegal (yet), the protests concerned the RP20’S front and rear brake ducts. Until 2020 it was permissible to buy brake ducts – or designs – from other teams. Since they have an aerodynamic effect and can therefore act as a performance differentiator, they are now so-called ‘listed parts’, which cannot be traded.
When designing its 2019 car, Racing Point legally acquired CAD data for front and rear brake ducts from Mercedes, from whom it also obtained the power unit, transmission and a number of suspension components.
At the time, however, since it was pursuing the ‘high rake’ aerodynamic philosophy pioneered by Red Bull, it used its own rear brake duct design. Having decided to clone the W10 and its much flatter aero concept, Racing Point then based its new rear brake duct designs on those previously obtained from Mercedes.
The stewards of the British GP presided over the case and faced a number of complexities, one of which was that delegates from the FIA’S technical department had visited Racing Point in March and given the all-clear. Later they conceded they had not closely examined the rear ducts, on which the case hinged. The verdict also conceded that the phrasing of the rules relating to non-listed parts changing status was ambiguous, and acknowledged “it is not realistic to expect Racing Point to redesign or re-engineer the BDS [brake ducts] in a way that would effectively require them to ‘unlearn’ what they already know.”
As such, the decision was to fine Racing Point €200,000 for each car at the Styrian GP along with a 15-point deduction in the constructors’ championship, followed by reprimands for using the cars at subsequent events. But rival teams felt this was too lenient.
Racing Point also signified its intention to appeal. Team owner Lawrence Stroll said he would “take all necessary actions to prove our innocence”.