Abiteboul: 'A slight driving aid which does not make the car go faster'

Cyril Abiteboul readily admits: he hasn't slept well these last few nights. Not sure that the time difference with Mexico has much to do with it, however. 

The exclusion of Daniel Ricciardo et Nico Hulkenberg of the Japanese Grand Prix for non-compliance with the sporting regulations has added to the list of tiles which spoiled the 2019 season of Renault. Taking an exhaustive inventory is enough to make one's head spin. 

Accused by Racing Point of using an automated brake distribution system, the French team managed to demonstrate that its car was technically legal. The Losange, however, could not escape a heavy sanction because the Suzuka stewards considered that the Renault concept constituted a driving aid, which contravenes article 27.1 of the sporting regulations. The latter stipulates that the driver must drive his car “ alone and without help ». 

Sitting in the Renault reception with representatives of the French press this Friday morning in Mexico, Abiteboul recognized that the incriminated system provided “ a slight driving aid, in the sense that it reduces the workload of the rider behind the wheel but it does not make the car go faster » while regretting the opacity of the sporting regulations on this point.  

« It is still a real satisfaction to have been able to demonstrate that our system complied with the technical regulations because that has always been our feeling, confided the French manager. This was also our feeling when reading the very well documented but inaccurate file provided by Racing Point. Their understanding of how the system worked was not correct. 

The driver has two fewer presses to make on the small paddles he has on the steering wheel. I'll let you assess, taking into account everything they already have to do, taking into account the level and experience of our driver duo, whether this really makes the car go faster or not.

We are technically legal but we are not within the scope of this Article 27.1 of the sporting regulations, which is a little obsolete in the F1 modern. Because there are quite a few piloting aids. And nothing formally says which ones are allowed and which ones are prohibited. It creates a certain form of discomfort, unease. Some teams talked about it a little among themselves, because a lot of people have driving aids.

Let's take the example of deploying energy on a turn: there is nothing that formally says that it is authorized to do it automatically, but it is the case. It's a real driving aid because if it wasn't automated, it would really have to be taken care of. Suddenly, we enter into subjectivity and if we had appealed the decision of the commissioners, we were going to fight on this subjectivity and frankly, we did not want that ». 

Beyond the final verdict, Abiteboul is quite critical of Racing Point's way of proceeding, which was able to rely on information from a former Renault employee who joined its ranks.

« At some point we have to talk about what Racing Point did, which is completely contrary to the usual method, continued the general director of Renault Sport Racing. They had other options. They could have asked the FIA ​​to issue a technical bulletin, questioned them outside of a race weekend, or even asked that their discussions with the Federation be made public. These are processes that we use constantly. There, they broke the doctrine that prevents it from being the Wild West. Their 12-page file had been prepared for weeks. They waited for the right opportunity where a disqualification on our side would move them up the rankings ». 

• What impact on the future of Renault in F1?

Otmar Szafnauer defended himself later in the day by claiming that Racing Point had written to the FIA ​​after the British Grand Prix to inquire whether the system used by Renault was legal. The federal response, negative according to the CEO of the team based in Silverstone, then pushed them to file a complaint against the French manufacturer, whose image in F1 has once again been damaged. Enough to make the new management seriously think about the future of the Losange in Grands Prix? 

« F1 must be beneficial to the brand and the group, replied Abiteboul. We are not going to spend what we spend in F1 for a negative impact. There is a natural window of reflection around the agreements for 2021. We know that everything changes. We had already planned to watch all of this. We returned to F1 with a long-term commitment. Afterwards, the circumstances of the automobile market and Renault may change. Our sporting results will be examined, that's obvious, but above all our ability to achieve big results in the future, all at a reasonable cost given the current industrial environment and the new management.

We are committed for the long term but there are milestones and one of them will come when we have complete knowledge of the regulations for 2021 because we will have to commit for the 2021 period. -2025. The new governance will naturally ask itself the question of whether these are good agreements ». 

A short week before the publication of the three sections – sporting, technical, and financial – of the specifications which are preparing to govern the F1 of tomorrow, Abiteboul concluded on a positive note by affirming that the situation was for the moment favorable to Renault on paper. It will still be necessary to translate it into the track.