The Prancing Horse’s complaint about the 5″ awarded to Carlos in Melbourne was rejected: the elements provided were not considered relevant by the marshals, the Spaniard remains 12th. Ferrari: “Respect for the process and the decision, but convinced that they presented new items”
Ferrari’s appeal on the penalty imposed by the stewards on Carlos Sainz at the last Australian GP, for the collision with Fernando Alonso’s Aston Martin after the restart following the second red flag, was rejected. The Melbourne GP had in fact seen the relegation of the Ferrari driver Carlos Sainz from 4th to 12th place, after the 5″ penalty inflicted on him for the accident: the Spaniard will therefore keep this position after the Prancing Horse has exercised the right of revision, however, it was rejected by the college of commissioners.The new elements provided by Cavallino were not considered relevant by the commissioners to change their opinion.
elements deemed irrelevant
—
The Prancing Horse had made use of article 14 of the sporting regulations, the right of revision, which teams and drivers can use if they have new tests not available to the marshals at the time of their first judgement. The complaint was assessed by Melbourne’s own commissioners, Enrique Bernoldi, Nish Shetty, Loic Bacquelaine and Christopher McMahon. However, the new elements presented by Ferrari were not considered significant in overturning the decision made on the Melbourne track. In particular, Ferrari presented three elements for the appeal: the telemetry of Sainz’s car after the second start; the written testimony of the same driver in which Carlos claimed there was “poor grip for the cold tyres, with the low sun not helping visibility”; the recordings of the statements of the other riders after the race, including Alonso himself, rear-ended at turn 1, which confirmed the low level of grip.
the motivations
—
The stewards, having examined these elements and after having heard the Ferrari Racing Director, Laurent Mekies, Carlos Sainz himself and the Team Principal Frederic Vasseur, considered them not significant in exculpating the driver. Specifically, it was considered that Sainz, like all the other riders, had to calculate these elements when approaching the first corner; instead, according to the stewards, in an attempt to attack Gasly, the Spaniard took an excessive risk which led to contact with Alonso. Hence the 5″ penalty, which led to Sainz’s relegation from 4th to 12th place. Position therefore confirmed after the rejection of the revision right requested by Ferrari.
the Ferrari note
—
Ferrari replied with a note in which it confirmed its reasons, but acknowledged the decision: “We are sorry for the FIA’s decision because we believed we had presented sufficient and significant elements to re-examine the decision, especially in the light of the context and the particular conditions with multiple accidents at the restart. We still respect the FIA’s process and decision. We look forward to more extensive discussions with the FIA, F1 and other teams with the aim of improving our sport’s procedures to ensure the highest level of fairness and consistency that our sport deserves it”.
© breaking latest news