Mattia Binotto says Formula 1 needs “clarity, transparency for the fairness of the competition”, at least when it comes to the RP20.
Binotto, whose Ferrari team entered a secret agreement with the FIA regarding its engine and whether or not the power unit was legal, has once again weighed in the Racing Point saga.
Last time out at the 70th Anniversary Grand Prix, Racing Point was hit with a 400,000 Euro fine and docked 15 points for running what the stewards ruled were Mercedes’ rear brake ducts.
The stewards, though, felt that the Silverstone-based team had broken a sporting regulation, not a technical one, and therefore said Racing Point can continue to run the ducts.
Ferrari and Renault have appealed the verdict as too has Racing Point, but from a different standpoint.
Binotto, who had previously stated that Racing Point had “copied a test” with its pink Mercedes, was asked for his thoughts on whether he felt there was some ‘kind of inappropriate collusion’ between Racing Point and Mercedes.
He replied: “Honestly, I don’t think I have the answer and I don’t think it’s down to myself to judge.
“The reason why we have confirmed our appeal… I think it’s because we need to seek at least clarification and transparency.
“I think the brake duct is a point but I think that eventually the output and the decision of the International Court of Appeal will open up a more 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 Formula 1 for the future is important.”
Asked why he felt the need to get clarification from the International Court of Appeal instead of the FIA, the Italian explained: “I think, being an appealing party I don’t want to enter into too many details, I don’t think that would be appropriate.
“On the other side, I think no, I think that further clarifications are required which is not only… I think what, let me say, the decision of the International Court of Appeal will somehow open to our wider and broader discussion, which is of the entire car and not only the brake ducts.
“That’s what we are really looking for and as I said before, 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 and at least that since we have got that set of regulations 2009 and therefore I think that clarify 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.”