There is a big difference between the situation at Racing Point and that at Aston Martin. In the previous case, the allegation was that the Silverstone team had borrowed intellectual property from a friendly team, Mercedes, its power unit, gearbox and suspension supplier.
This time, the clear suggestion from Red Bull bosses Christian Horner and Helmut Marko was that the information had traveled from Milton Keynes via one of the seven employees who had switched from their team to Lawrence Stroll ‘s in recent months. .
These kinds of matters are taken very seriously in the top flight, where the teams have a series of strict controls within their computer systems, and that is why the FIA keeps such a close eye on possible infringements, whether due to planned cooperation or for possible theft.
By the time the new Aston Martin was on view in Barcelona, the FIA had already seen the team’s proposals for its new designs, and an investigation had been carried out at the factory.
It is clear that these staff know what they are looking for, and their conclusion was that Aston Martin had done nothing to break the rules. If any of the former Red Bull members had contributed their own knowledge, it was legal.
In parallel, being alerted by the FIA, Red Bull began its own investigation, looking for any digital trace that had been recorded in the company’s system by the seven employees who had left.
The unsubtle suggestion from the Austrians was that an anomaly might have appeared. It has not yet been clarified what this is about, nor if it will lead to a deeper investigation by the FIA.
This whole saga has been incredibly frustrating for Aston Martin technical director Andrew Green , who also took a lot of flak last time out.
Green stressed at the AMR22 unveiling in February that the car had been designed with a possible change in aero concepts in mind, and when the fuss started in Spain, he recalled that the design was underway long before the RB18 was seen in public. in the preseason, so his team couldn’t have copied him.
Horner ‘s response was to hint that Aston Martin might have seen it before launch. Poor Green and his team found themselves at a dead end.
However, Green is adamant that the two different concepts for 2022 were in the works long before the first worker from Red Bull arrived late last year.
“The main thing is that when we got to the month of August, when we had had the two projects running together for seven or eight months, at that point, we really couldn’t say which one was going to end up being the best,” said the Aston Martin boss.
“Both had different characteristics. This car [the new specification] had different qualities, but it didn’t seem to generate much downforce.
“The other one had relatively poor characteristics, but generated a lot of downforce. So we got greedy and went with the one with more downforce, thinking we’d fix the weaknesses later.”
Some argue that a team cannot afford to pursue two concepts within budget limits and aerodynamic testing limitations, but Green argues that it was all carefully managed.
“What we did was make sure that the chassis contained both concepts. So the chassis was designed so that it could support the old cooling system and this cooling system without any modifications. That was a very important thing, as the chassis didn’t mean no additional cost.
“And then we made sure that, for the A-spec car, we did the minimum number of spare parts that we needed to do to be able to get to race five. And that was the key, not to do more than that. So it’s possible”.
As for the aerodynamics, Green says the team focused on one idea at a time.
“There was a time when we had the two projects in parallel, but then for a period we stopped this car and developed car A to see where it went.
“We didn’t make the two work together all the time. We had both up to a certain level, then we widened car A, realized it was towing, and then we stopped that one and started developing car B.
What Green does not deny is that the team was inspired by Red Bull when they saw it. The RB18 reflected their own B-spec concept that was already underway, and when it performed well on track it was only natural that Aston would closely follow its progress and take a good look at it.
“We saw people going that way,” Green explained. “And then when Red Bull launched in February, it reinforced the route we were following. And naturally you can take inspiration from other teams. But we’ve already come a long way down that road.”
Green insisted that the FIA inspectors did their homework and were able to see a design trail through CFD and wind tunnel to the final manufacturing drawings. The sudden arrival of ready-made designs in the system, borrowed or “stolen”, would have been obvious.
Teams are also not allowed to reverse engineer or use any technology to copy a rival’s design, even from photographs. Following its visit to the Silverstone factory, the FIA was satisfied that nothing illegal had occurred.
“I think that is what we were able to demonstrate clearly to the FIA, that most of this package was developed by ourselves, clearly without any outside influence.
“They went in and looked and did a really deep dive, asking everyone who drew all the pieces, and they just randomly picked them and went to interview them.”
“And they came to the correct conclusion that we don’t use any other intellectual property. And we don’t use any other intellectual property. It was all generated internally.”
“Obviously when Red Bull comes out you’re going to be inspired by it, just like they’ve been inspired by our car, and they’ve got parts that they’ve been inspired by us. I think that’s natural. But the overall concept is something that we have developed independently.
In Spain it was clear that parts of the AMR22’s aerodynamic package, around the side rails and floor area, closely resemble the RB18. Green stressed that many elements are not similar.
“There are a lot of details throughout the car that are completely different,” he said. “The whole concept of the front wing, the front suspension, the chassis are completely different.
“Obviously we run a completely different power unit. The cooling system, the gearbox, the rear suspension, the rear brake ducts, the rear wing, the bottom of the rear wing, everything is completely different.”
“There is a downwash philosophy in the sidepod area that we have adopted, and not just Red Bull, but there are a couple of other teams that have taken a similar approach.
“I think there are a lot of differences. And everyone seems to be focused on a small section.”
So why was the decision made to change? Green insisted the team realized early on that their original design relied too much on being low to the ground, something that has manifested itself in porpoising and the need to go higher, which in turn costs performance. Specification B addresses this issue.
“Throughout the generation of these rules we thought we were going to get stuck, trapped, and that development would be hampered if we continued with car A,” Green explained.
“You’re always dealing with the fact that you’re trying to run the car very, very low to the ground, where things fall off and break aerodynamically. And that can induce instabilities.
“So the decision to say, ‘Okay, forget about it, we’re going to take the car away from that, and we’re going to try to develop [and have] performance further off the ground,’ it just made sense.”
“I think you’re going to find that some people are going to insist on the alternate route. And the alternate route may eventually lead you to a better place, but we made the decision, right or wrong.”
Green has suggested that the B specification is so different from the original that it should be considered a new car , so there is still much to be learned.
“The aero characteristics are quite different. And it’s deliberately quite different, to try to allow us some freedom of setup.”
“We were stuck in the old car, and we had to run very stiff to avoid porpoising , and we also had to have it very high, which was completely out of how it was designed to run. So we had two problems.
“Now we have acceptable rebound and we have it in the ride height range where it’s supposed to work. Now we have to fine-tune it, now we have to set it up.”
“It’s different, and the drivers felt the difference. And we have to work and find out where the sweet spot is.”
Barcelona was, basically, a test weekend for the team. From the beginning it was seen that the cooling was insufficient for the unexpectedly hot conditions in Spain, and without the resources that the manufacturers’ teams have to carry out power bank simulations and others, some estimates had to be made. There were also issues with the brittleness of some of the new aero parts.
Drivers reported that the car felt different and it appears that, once the team understands it better, it will represent a step forward that its predecessor could not.
“This car was in the tunnel six or eight weeks ago,” Green said. “Since then we’ve continued development at the factory and it’s still delivering, so it’s getting more and more performance, so we’ll end up doing a nice update to it in a few races.”
“It does feel like it’s early in its evolution, although it’s a reasonable step and an improvement from where we were.”
The copy hype has been an added headache for team manager Mike Krack , who has only been on the job a few months. He acknowledges that the team hoped there would be a stir once the new car was seen.
“It would be a lie to say that we are surprised by this,” Krack said. “For us, the situation is now what it is, the explanations were given. And for me, we look forward. We have enough work on our side not to get too distracted by this.”
He also cited the inspiration provided by the AMR22 to rivals that Green referenced earlier: “Remember on the underside of the chassis, the wing we had on our chin that was also adopted by others? We didn’t make a big deal out of it. We could have done, but I think it’s not worth it.
“It is something that we have had in F1 for many years, that you are inspired by small details. But you cannot copy the content of the cars, it does not work.”
“There is a very, very clear definition in article 17.3 of the technical regulations. I think it is well defined, obviously to copy or be inspired, then it is the FIA that has to judge what is copying and what is not, how did you get to this?
As noted, Aston’s ability to pull off two different concepts with limited resources has come under some scrutiny. However, Krack’s predecessor in the role, current Alpine boss Otmar Szafnauer , believes it is possible.
Given the history between Silverstone and Enstone on technical issues – the 2020 copygate case was just one example – his team would have good reason to deliberately cause controversy.
“Those kinds of decisions were made a long time ago,” says Szafnauer. “And yes, I was there at the time to decide what kind of aero philosophy [we were going to] push forward.”
“But those decisions are made after learning things. And then when you learn, you’re like, ‘Ooh, this route might be better than that, let’s take it.'”
“And I’ve done it before, but for different reasons, at Force India we had a B-spec car that we put out at Silverstone one year. So it can be done.
The question now is whether Red Bull will go ahead with the matter with the FIA, prompting a second investigation. If that happens, things could get complicated.
