Motorsport Week takes a look at the key details and reasoning in Renault’s complete exclusion from Formula 1’s Japanese Grand Prix, and what it means for the manufacturer moving forwards.
What happened at Suzuka?
Renault endured a fraught qualifying session as Nico Hulkenberg was slowest in Q2, hampered by a hydraulics issue, while a suspension complaint left Daniel Ricciardo out in Q1. A few hours later Ricciardo had climbed to seventh at the chequered flag, which became sixth when Charles Leclerc was penalised, while Hulkenberg – who allowed Ricciardo through in a case of team tactics – capped the top 10. It boosted Renault’s grip on fifth in the Constructors’ Championship.
What happened that evening?
Racing Point filed a 12-page dossier against Renault, alleging that both cars were using a pre-set automated brake bias system that did not comply with Article 27.1 of the Sporting Regulations dictating that the driver must drive the car alone and unaided. That night at Suzuka the stewards deemed Racing Point’s appeal admissible and the FIA impounded the standard ECUs and steering wheels from Renault. Due to the complexity of the situation it was confirmed that a hearing would be held at a later date and, after time was given to gather information, the parties reconvened on Wednesday.
What did Racing Point say?
Racing Point’s 12-page dossier clearly underlined that this was not the work of a whim and that it had its suspected evidence for some time. Along with its initial allegation it also claimed that Renault was in breach of Articles 11.1.3, 11.1.4 and 8.6.3 of the Technical Regulations; these cover the “prohibition of powered devices altering the brake balance; brake system changes to be made solely by driver physical input; driver controls only affected by driver actions”. Racing Point highlighted onboard footage showing the brake balance display changing without the input of a driver. It concluded by stating that “Renault must use one of the illicit possibilities described in more detail. However, as Racing Point does not write the software, the options are purely illustrative and cannot be exhaustive”.
.jpg)
What was Renault’s defence?
Renault firmly stated that it “did not use a lap distance dependent brake bias adjustment system” and outlined that the brake balance on the steering wheel dash may change due to the operation of a Renault-specific system. This was outlined in a document handed to stewards and which was not shared with Racing Point due to intellectual properly contained within. Renault stressed that there is “no conclusive video evidence” and also described Racing Point’s accusations as “speculative” based on the input from “a former Renault employee who was not aware of all the pertinent details of Renault’s brake control system.”
What did the stewards say?
The stewards heard the cases put forward by both teams and also raised their own questions in order to fully understand and analyse the situation. It also used evidence from the FIA’s technical experts based on their thorough investigation of Renault’s components. The stewards determined that Renault used “innovative solutions” to “exploit certain ambiguities” in the Technical Regulations but clearly stated that the team had not breached any current Technical Regulation. It emphasised that Renault’s system was in compliance and that “it is not pre-set, lap distance-dependent as alleged”
So why did Renault get excluded?
This brings us on to the second part of proceedings. Any breach of the Technical Regulations could have had far-reaching consequences. In effect, the Renault R.S.19 was legal as per the Technical Regulations – even if Renault unearthed a loophole – but they did break the Sporting Regulations that stipulate the driver must drive the car alone and unaided. The stewards determined that the Renault system “constitutes a driver aid” and that “the brake balance adjustment system acts as a driver aid, by saving the driver from having to make a number of adjustments during a lap.” The stewards noted that “there is a clear distinction between this system and one which provides actual feedback control, which would be a substitute for driver skills or reflexes.” To cut a long story short, a driver aid was present that was deemed against Sporting Regulations, but which did not breach the Technical Regulations. It was a slap on the wrist rather than a full evisceration, as some had feared.
.jpg)
What happens next?
Renault, should it wish to do so, has until 10:00 local time (GMT-6) on Thursday to appeal. In responding to its exclusion Renault acknowledged the stewards’ decision but stated that “considering the subjectivity of the qualification of a system as a driver aid and the variability of the associated penalties in recent cases, Renault F1 Team will consider its next course of action within the timeframe laid out by the FIA.” Racing Point has not commented.
What does it mean for the Constructors’ championship?
It is very bad news for Renault. Not only has it been disqualified for, effectively, cheating – and for a major car manufacturer this is a PR nightmare – but it has been stripped of the nine points it accumulated in Japan. McLaren is now all but secure in P4 in the standings, on 111 points, but Renault has now slipped back to 68, with Toro Rosso (62) and Racing Point (58) both boosted by the manufacturer’s exclusion. For a team that had aspirations of closing the gap to Formula 1’s top three it is now at risk of dropping as low as seventh.
And what about the Drivers’ battle?
Leclerc moves back up to sixth place, giving him an extra two points, meaning he now holds an 11-point advantage over Max Verstappen and Sebastian Vettel in the battle for P3 overall. Sergio Perez has moved up to P9 in the standings, with Lando Norris moving ahead of the Renault drivers, who have been jumped by Daniil Kvyat, on account of the Russian receiving a point at Suzuka. Ricciardo and Hulkenberg now hold P12 and P13 respectively in the championship, equal on 34 points.
Discussion about this post