Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Circuit de Catalunya, 2020

Ferrari wants “clarity and transparency” over Racing Point verdict – Binotto

2020 Spanish Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by and

Ferrari team principal Mattia Binotto says the team has appealed against the FIA stewards’ verdict on Racing Point to gain “clarity and transparency” over the protection of intellectual property in F1.

Racing Point’s RP20, which is closely based on last year’s Mercedes 2019, prompted an outcry from rival teams when it appeared in pre-season testing. Renault successfully protested the design of the car’s rear brake ducts, but Ferrari has appealed the decision and intends to take the matter further.

Binotto says the team wants to broaden the discussion around the car’s legality beyond the brake ducts to the wider issue of teams creating wholesale copies of rivals’ designs.

“Being an appealing party, I don’t want to enter into many details,” said Binotto in today’s FIA press conference. “I don’t think that would be appropriate.

“I think that further clarifications are required. I think the decision of the International Court of Appeal will somehow open to a wider and broader discussion, which is to the entire car and not only on the brake ducts. And that’s what we are really looking for.

“It’s a matter of sport fairness. It’s a matter of protecting the IP for the future. If I look back in the past, I can’t remember once where a team has copied precisely or most precisely an entire car, at least since we got that set of regulations in 2009.

“Therefore I think clarity is required because I don’t think it’s good for the sport. But again it’s not down to me to judge and that’s why I think that the ICA will be important in that respect.”

The FIA wrote to teams this week advising them it intends to introduce new regulations for the 2021 F1 season which will prevent them from using photographs and reverse-engineering techniques to copy rivals’ designs.

“Intellectual property is a very important asset of a company,” Binotto added. “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.

“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 Formula 1 for the future is important.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2020 F1 season

Browse all 2020 F1 season articles

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...
Dieter Rencken
Dieter Rencken has held full FIA Formula 1 media accreditation since 2000, during which period he has reported from over 300 grands prix, plus...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

40 comments on “Ferrari wants “clarity and transparency” over Racing Point verdict – Binotto”

  1. Are you kidding me? Clarity and transparency like your deal with the FIA?

    Give me a break!

    1. LMAO! Exactly.

    2. Exactly! Hypocrites of the year!

  2. I LOVE this!

    1. indeed. I’m hoping for a secret agreement.
      It’s only fair ;)

  3. +1. One rule for ferrari and different rules for every body else.

  4. Jeez, the nerve, a new low?

    1. NeverElectric
      15th August 2020, 0:20

      LOL…when I saw the headline, I headed straight to the comments section to look for this very comment.
      Brilliant lol

  5. Like when Brawn came up with the double diffuser and everyone copied it.

  6. Well, apart from this coming from Ferrari, the argument is not wrong Ithibk, though in this case the messenger does impact the message!

  7. Didnt Dallara copy the Ferrari and then pass it on to Haas, with the agreement of Ferrari?

    1. But glad this protest is coming from Ferrari and Renault. Both a byword for honestly, morality and integrity within F1.

  8. Actually laughing out loud. Just, wow…

    1. The definition of tone deaf!

  9. Clarity, transparency, Ferrari. Just trying to make that compute leaves my head spinning faster than Vettel on lap one.

  10. I bet he said that with a straight face.
    He did, didn’t he?

    I actually made a ‘ha’ noise, which I then had to explain to Mrs Sham – who just laughed.

  11. In other news Hamilton calls Vettel out for leading too much of a celebrity lifestyle and advises him to rein it in a bit.

  12. What did we expect? Ferrari is going to skip the chance to get constructor points off of RP? Appearing to be hypocritical is too little price for that, probably.

    Although they’ve to be careful to not be like Renault, fights tooth and nail…. off the track.

  13. Hahaha, and it’s not even April fools.

  14. Well, I think it is fair to say that Binotto’s comments about wanting “clarity and transparency” are going down about as well as could be expected with the majority of the fans…

  15. Good message, worst people to deliver it. Coming from anyone else it would be 100% right but coming from them it looks like ‘do as I say but not as I do’. Shame, because clarity and transparency over this issue is totally needed but Ferrari being champions of it is completely laughable.

    1. Well said, my thoughts as well @rocketpanda

  16. GtisBetter (@)
    14th August 2020, 18:50

    Next level trolling. I approve.

  17. There must be a ulterior motive behind these words since I find it difficult to believe that Ferrari would think that these words would be taken at face value. I just can’t figure out what it is.

    Maybe Ferrari have weighed up that they have more to gain by exposing RP than losing through any release of 2019 PU details that maybe bartered away as part of this process to save face. Only they know the balance of that calculation.

    1. I’ll play devils advocate on this since I went down this road the other day too. Firstly I don’t believe that the FIA is so blatantly sheltering Ferrari. So I believe that Ferrari’s trick was moreso a finding of a loophole than a cheat. I believe Ferrari had a leg to stand on with their device or trick, and the best FIA could do was what happened. In exchange for stopping using what they were, they got to keep their device or trick to themselves. ie. their IP was protected.

      So to the Tracing Point issue, and from Ferrari’s perspective, firstly they would feel every bit within their rights to protest, as this is a separate issue and nothing to do with their fuel flow issue. And they likely feel they have done nothing wrong that was not rectified with the agreement with FIA. So in a way, since the RP issue has much to do with defining what is Intellectual Property, Ferrari would be very interested in that. Their issue, however, was not to do with copying others, but with protecting one’s own IP.

      So for them to ask for clarity and transparency on this issue is (obviously) something they can utter, and to me likely is because they themselves went through a process, had to stop that which was giving them performance, and the ‘clarity’ from their end was the resolution that had them stop using their IP but to keep it to themselves, presumably to use in their road cars I would think.

      Put another way, as if they would think to themselves, gee a bunch of people are going to laugh at us asking for clarity and transparency on Tracing Point so we better not say anything. We’ve been naughty (which they don’t think they were) so we better never raise a fuss ever again over anything anyone else does.

      They’ve given their answer when pressed about their issue, that being…case closed. They’ve moved on from that via a legal document that put it to bed, no matter what anybody else is still saying. No matter how much people want to accuse them of cheating. For those many, as per the comments on this topic, who do think Ferrari is being hypocritical here etc I would say your bigger fight should be with FIA then, not with Ferrari. All Ferrari were doing (from their own perspective) was innovating. FIA would be the real criminals here if indeed they’ve covered up for Ferrari so blatantly.

      1. @Robbie I agree – well reasoned argument.

        The fact is the FIA has not done itself any favours and seems to be just digging itself into a deeper hole lately.
        For the life of me I still can’t see how anyone can justify the difference in penalty between Renault’s last year in Japan and RP’s this year when both were found to have not breached any technical regulations but had contravened the sporting regs. Surely the penalty and consequences should be the same.

        Ferrari’s “confidential” agreement certainly should have been managed much better, but I think, reading between the lines, we may be seeing a big hint as to what was found, given the new rulings about engine modes.

        Personally, I think it’s high time the FIA grew a pair and told both the FOM and the teams that it, not they, make and enforce rules. It would make their job a lot easier and would make it a lot easier for them to be transparent.

      2. @robbie Your arguments have every chance of being right but I’m still not convinced that Ferrari needed to be proactive and involved in this specific appeal to achieve their aims. I struggle to see the upside given the possible downsides of this approach.

        I see downside in that this is giving Ferrari’s rivals a chance to relight a fire over the PU issue. It may not achieve anything concrete but it just provides a chance for everyone to hit Ferrari with a stick given that the PU resolution was anything but “clear and transparent”. The idea that their competitors would treat these issues with no interdependence would be naive in my view.

        I just feel that since Renault were going to appeal that Ferrari had an easy way of sitting this one out and avoiding any.possible heat on the PU issue in the first place whilst still getting the answers they wanted. Not sure what they will specifically bring to the appeal over-and-above what Renault would have done.

        They say they want to broaden the copying debate but the appeal process may not allow this to happen as it will be targeted on this specific issue only. A better forum for this would surely be to wait for the proposed 2021 FIA anti-copying regulations and spark a debate then.

        Independent of my view, Ferrari must surely have done a calculation and determined that the possible benefits are worth the probable risks and will have a PR strategy to counter the arguments they will have thrown at them.

  18. haha, well said! :)

  19. WOW!! That is rich coming from a team who made a secret deal with the FIA after breaking the rules. Mattia Binotto whatever else he does well or not is trolling at the next level

  20. Mission Trollnow

  21. I guess he just wants to be save to use the 2019 Mercedes data on next year’s Ferrari too.

  22. Dutchguy (@justarandomdutchguy)
    14th August 2020, 21:28


  23. Love it. Be under no illusions, Ferrari know you’ll all get twisted up over them saying this.

    It’s a big middle finger.

  24. 1) I worked in 79/80 Fi seasons where Ferrari were scratching around the back of the grid. Come to the Italian Gp suddenly they had immense power out of the corners and straightaways Most qother teams including former champions were convinced of enlarged Engines. Back to Germany etc.Ferrari were scratching again.
    2) The FIA is run by ex Ferrari employee.Jean TODT. NO BIAS THERE THEN????????

  25. Last years fiasco with ferrari`s engine enhancement “intercooler combustible material”?? . Secret deal with FIA. Ex Ferrari Jean Todt still in charge. Smells like a run down fishing port.

  26. Oh, I would also like clarity and transparency… over Ferrari engine and FIA deal.

    Where should I send my appeal?

  27. LOL Binotto, are you sure you wanted that?

  28. ​This is rich coming from the team that signed a confidential agreement with the FIA that they were not penalized in a sporting manner (which may or may not be the fair call – cos we cant tell what happened).

    Regardless of your opinion on RP case, the details are out there for you to read. The fact findings as well as the and the official arguments presented by all the sides are all summarized in the official report that you can find after 5 minutes of Googling.

    You may think the RP punishment is harsh, fair or lenient (as well as potential culpability by Mercedes in the matter) but you can have an opinion on it and actually discuss and debate it.

  29. Oxymoron of the year! Ferrari – Clarity & Transparency!
    Most hypocritical statement ever from any Team Principal.
    FIA’s “deal” with Ferrari still stinks.
    RP’s issue will end up in court for sure.
    American owner. Muricans love & embrace litigation.
    Already been adjudged to not break any technical rule.
    Supposedly a sporting breach.
    If so. The massive slur both on RP & Merc will end in tears for the FIA.

Comments are closed.