F1's 70th Anniversary Grand Prix Had All the Trappings of a 3-Ring Circus
When it comes to birthday parties, Formula 1 had a pretty miserable 70th.
There was a party but there were no candles, no cake and everyone was more than a little crochety The only person who got a present was Red Bull Racing driver Max Verstappen, but he had to work hard to get it. The Dutchman won the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix thanks to the Red Bull Racing team having a better understanding of what the tires were going to do than its rivals, and choosing the right rubber accordingly.
But even Red Bull strategists were hesitant, as Verstappen pointed out when they asked him to take it easy in the race. He was not, he said, going to "drive like a grandma." Racing drivers don’t driver that away.
The empty grandstands at Silverstone were a little bit depressing for a second consecutive weekend, which was the first F1 race ever to have a title that was not connected to something geographical. But the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix was rather overshadowed by the protest against Racing Point, with regard to its brake ducts. Only in Formula 1 could brake ducts cause such difficulties, and on such arcane points of detail as well.
To boil down the 14-page stewards’ decision into 100 words: Renault complained that Racing Point’s brakes ducts had been designed by Mercedes. Racing Point admitted it started with a Mercedes design but could no longer use that because of a rule change. The designers felt, however, that it was impossible to improve on the design but argued that making the decision was proof of a design process.
The FIA disagreed, saying that Racing Point should be fined and docked 15 points for the whole season, although the offence was minor. Thus, having paid its penalty, the team is allowed to use the same parts for the rest of the year.
This all seemed very reasonable, until McLaren F1 CEO Zak Brown waded into the story by saying that the car was illegal and that the claim that Racing Point had copied the design using photography was not true.
“It’s clear from reading the document that that’s BS. And therefore you have to question anything else around that car,” Brown said. “I think this is potentially the tip of the iceberg, the starting point of looking at what’s happened here.”
Brown seems to be the only one to think that way as the 14-page document said anything but that. His remarks upset the FIA, which went over the car very carefully in March and concluded that it was not a copy of the 2019 Mercedes—even if it looked like it and everyone called it The Pink Mercedes.
“We did a very extensive survey and found that what they claimed to be the methodology used was very substantiated,” the FIA’s technical head Nicholas Tombazis, a highly-experienced F1 engineer, said. “We were convinced that was the case.
“Copying has been taking place in F1 for a long time. People take photos and sometimes reverse engineer them and make similar concepts. We don’t think this can stop completely in the future. What we do think is that Racing Point took this to another level. They clearly decided to apply this philosophy for the whole car by doing what I would call a paradigm shift they actually used a disruption in the process that has been the norm in designing a Formula 1 car for the last 40 years. One should not penalise them for that because they were original in deciding to follow this approach.”
Brown also upset Mercedes—his future engine supplier—which continues to argue that it has done nothing wrong and would not do what it is accused of doing. But most of all, Brown upset Racing Point bosses. The CEO Otmar Szafnauer said, with some justification, that Brown did not know what he was talking about.
“He’s not an engineer,” Szafnauser said of Brown. “He’s got no idea what he’s talking about. Zero. And I’m surprised at how little he knows about the rules of F1. It seems to me he knows more about historic racing than he does about F1.”
Ouch!
Brown also upset Racing Point team owner Lawrence Stroll.
“I am extremely angry at any suggestion we have been underhanded or have cheated, particularly those comments coming from our competitors," Stroll said. "These accusations are completely unacceptable and not true. My team has worked tirelessly to deliver the competitive car we have on the grid. I am truly upset to see the poor sportsmanship of our competitors.
“I understand that the situation in which the FIA finds itself is difficult and complicated for many reasons, but I also respect and appreciate their efforts to try and find a solution in the best interests of the sport.”
Renault, McLaren, Ferrari and Williams have all announced the intention to appeal the decision.
Stroll said that by doing so, they are “dragging our name through the mud and I will not stand by nor accept this.”
Mercedes boss Toto Wolff was also clearly irritated by the fact that Mercedes now seems to be alone in its opposition to the terms of the new commercial agreements that have been offered. Originally, Wolff was in an alliance with Ferrari to try to negotiate a better deal, but in the finest traditions of F1 negotiation, Ferrari got what it wanted and so gave up the fight. Wolff is not impressed at that, coming as it does soon after Ferrari got away with a secret deal regarding the legality of its power unit in 2019. The team has not been found guilty of having run an illegal engine, but it is also fair to say that nor has it found to have been innocent.
The only satisfaction in all of this for Wolff is that Ferrari’s performance is woeful, and will remain woeful for some time to come.
So, it was an unhappy birthday for just about everyone with the possible exceptions of Verstappen and Red Bull.
But at least there was one clown who turned up for the party.
