FIA makes Red Bull device stance clear as 'two-year revelation' made

The FIA has drawn a line under the Red Bull bib controversy at the United States Grand Prix, but has admitted, it cannot go back and check the full history of the device.

Heading to Austin, it was revealed that Red Bull's RB20 features a device that can adjust the ride height in parc ferme conditions between qualifying and the race - something that would be a serious breach of the technical regulations which forbid such actions.

The team invited the FIA into its garage on Friday after practice to show how the device is activated, with specialised tools in the footwell. When the car is on track, neither Max Verstappen nor Sergio Perez would be able to activate the device in any way. 

Given the steps and time required to use the system, it is clear that Red Bull has not used it previously to circumvent the regulations, with FIA seals being placed on both cars for the weekend. 

McLaren CEO Zak Brown has been clear in calling for further investigations, but FIA single-seater chief Nikolas Tombazis is sure that the matter is now closed, although he did concede the governing body could not go back and check the two years of parc ferme - the time the system has been on the car. 

"The open-source components need to be uploaded on a portal which is available to the FIA and the other teams," Tombazis explained to select media including RacingNews365.

"It is for some components which we consider not areas of desirable competition, but where we don't want to standardise parts, so they can at least see and check each other.

"It was pointed out to us, and the design has been around for a couple of years, and it was pointed out that this could allow a change under parc ferme which would be illegal. 

"So there is the provision that the teams need to convince us that they are running legally all the time, and we felt that unless it got sealed, we would not be confident that [the ride height] wasn't changing.

"That is where we asked for this to be sealed, it has now been done and to prove exactly what happened before is difficult. 

"We don't think we have the ability to go and investigate two years worth of situations - and when we decide to escalate the matter to the stewards, we want to have some reasonable indication that is not based on hearsay or just speculation.

"The design is not illegal, and we believe that the correct action is to say: 'Certain things need to happen in order to guarantee that there is no ongoing concern.'

"But we also have to draw a line in time and for certain things say: 'We can't go into much more detail than we already have.'

"Can I say with complete certainty about whether there has ever been anything irregular? No. Can I say that the matter is closed? Yes absolutely.

"I do think the amount of discussion around this topic has been a factor of 100 more than it deserves, but you guys (the media) decide what you like."