The rare FIA U-turn on the penalty of Carlos Sainz in the Dutch Grand Prix of Zandwort has been appreciated by several Formula 1 team principals as it discussed the right to the review process of the series.
Sainz was fined 10-second and two penalty points on his license for his share in a collision. Liam Lawson In turn 1 of the zandwort, trying to overtake Sainz Racing bulls The driver around the outside was crowded by the road until the pair contacted.
According to the current racing guidelines of the F1, the Steovers held Sainz primarily guilty as the Spaniard was not sufficient with the room desiring, but Sainz disagreed and with it Williams The team launched a petition to review the incident.
James Walls, Williams’s Team Principal and Alan Parade, Visa Cash App Racing Bulls Team Principal, talks on the drivers parade.
Photo by: Mark Thompson – Getty Images
Review requests are rarely successful
Those rights of review petitions are rarely accepted as they have to clean a high bar. Any such request should be offered relevant and important evidence that was not available at the time of the event, the parameter that is judged by the steward and thus open to interpretation.
This is a difficult balance for the FIA, as the governing body wants to give contestants an opportunity to review punishment and other events, but also does not want to encourage them to make a trivial request that are not clearly cut.
Ahead of the 2024 season, failed and several times, the governing body reduced the window to submit them from 14 days to 96 hours after the incident, while also introduced a fee. Since 2023, only one request has been successful, Fernando Alonso Reinstalling Aston Martin driver’s podium finish, seeing a time fine in 2023 Saudi GP.
Many requests from Has since then, Ferrari, Mercedes, McLaren And Eston Martin was rejected, usually because whatever evidences were presented, they were not sufficient sufficient according to the stewers.
Therefore, according to the team’s boss James Walls, Williams took his time till the last possible moment to start his petition so that “we are not wasting anyone’s time”.
Photo: Samorganize / Motorsport Images
A potential “success” for F1 teams
In his zandwort request, Williams supplied the camera of 360 degrees from the already unavailable rear-faceing camera footage and Sainz from Lawson’s car, and also indicated that Sainz had not yet made available to offer his views as Steward had taken a Swift mid-race decision.
Williams’ request was accepted as its camera footage was new, relevant and important, as it was shown that Lawson had to face a snap of the overstaire, which saw him flow in Sainz, in which Stewards revised his decision in a racing event. While the loss was already done for Sainz, two of their punishment points have been canceled.
The fact is that the steovers have created a U-turn on a decision, distinguished by Sainz as “success”, as the bar was so much to be important for evidence in the past that the successful zandwort petition came as a surprise for many people.
“This is a success because this is the first time I managed to present new evidence and accept the right to review,” Sainz said in Baku. “We tried earlier and we have never been managed in other teams, so it shows that the mechanism is there and for a reason. I am happy in the end that we can use the mechanism in the case where it is black and white, as it was in my case.”
McLaren team boss Andrea Stella also welcomed the decision as the papaya squads were at the end of the defeat of the right to the review petition in the past. After 2023, Canadian GP Stella rejected the review of the punishment of Lando Noris for “Anceports’ behavior with the FIA, while last year McLaren was also denied requests to review the Noris punishment in Austin for more than the track limit in his fight. Max VerustapaneIn both cases, McLaren was disappointed how difficult it became to challenge the decisions.
When asked about the decision of Sainz, Stela said: “I am in favor of creating the possibility of reopening a case a little easier. The way it is actually translated into the real world becomes quite technical, but from the major perspective of a team, from the major perspective of a team, it is an easy way to rethink and make decisions, as long as you want to ensure that you can ensure that you can ensure that you can ensure that you can ensure that you can ensure that you can ensure that you can ensure. Too much. “
Save As a former Red Bull Sporting Director, Principal Jonathan Wheatley, the principal of the team to be experienced in this case, said: “There are many criteria that need to be met, which is why it is unusual for them to retain them.
Racing Bulls Team Principal Alan Parent also suggested that the Sainge was relevant as new evidence to be able to testify at the hearing, but according to the stewers, who was not eventually a factor behind the U-turn, as the steward is empowered to make in-race decisions without regularly being able to hear from any driver. Therefore, any interpretation is that now there is a theoretical example for any mid-day punishment, later it is not enough to review.
Photo by: Getty images via James Sutton / Late Image
There are questions on guidelines and professional stewers
The result of the right to the reviewing process of Williams is not necessarily clear to the Racing guidelines with the debate of F1. There is still a feeling that the drivers who are ahead from inside are currently given a lot of freedom, who want to do with what they are with them. If Lawson had not lost the moment -to -moment control over his car, the penalty of Sainz would probably be standing.
Sainz admitted that he was still not sure how the events are underwent and their support for the introduction of permanent stereots to assist in continuity is voiced: “I am not lying, I think (guidelines) did not have the influence that we all wished that they were in the context of clarifying it. This is not clear. ,
But the team owners agreed that in the case it was good for the series that the punishment of Sainz was canceled as the attacker driver.
“It is completely paramount to the game that the driver is free to the race, and one of our slogans has ‘race them’ in a group of team principal,” said wheatley. “We are trying to support this. It was a large part of on-track action, and it seems to me that the right decision was made in the right to the review process.”
Boss Person of Lawson’s team said: “I think everyone who wants to see is running; close racing and overtake. Of course, we were at its wrong end, but we do not want cars to follow each other and get tied to very harsh things, so if it only opens a little and it means that Karlos can be there, then I feel that all will be welcome.
“We do not want to drive cars in each other, but we also don’t want a procession, are we?”
