Ferrari ask for review of Vettel’s Mexican GP penalty

2016 Mexican Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari have requested the stewards of the Mexican Grand Prix review Sebastian Vettel’s penalty for his incident with Daniel Ricciardo.

The team allege “a number of new elements have come to light” following the decision which give grounds for it to be reviewed. Vettel was found to have broken article 27.5 of the sporting regulations.

Vettel was given a ten-second penalty for changing his line in the braking zone approaching turn four during the race. This dropped him from third place to fifth in the final classification.

Whiting explains why Vettel was penalised
As his penalty was handed down under article 38.3 (b) of the sporting regulations the penalty cannot be overturned*. The race classification therefore will not be changed, as Ferrari have acknowledged.

FIA race director Charlie Whiting explained Vettel was penalised following clarifications to the rules brought about in response to incidents involving Max Verstappen earlier this year. However Vettel denied he had caused a potentially dangerous incident due to his driving.

Ferrari statement

Scuderia Ferrari has submitted a request to the Stewards of the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix to review their decision to penalise Sebastian Vettel for breach of Article 27.5 of the 2016 F1 Sporting Regulations as a consequence of his driving behaviour in turn four of lap 70.

This has been the first application of article 27.5 of the 2016 F1 Sporting Regulations as interpreted on the basis of the race director’s notes on “defensive manoeuvres” and effective from the 2016 US Grand Prix.

Scuderia Ferrari considers that a number of new elements have come to light after the decision was rendered that make the decision review-able under Article 14.1 of the International Sporting Code.

Scuderia Ferrari is aware that championship rankings will not change, regardless of the outcome. But in light of its importance as a precedent for the future, and in order to provide clarity in the application of the rules in future events, Scuderia Ferrari believes that the decision should be reconsidered by the stewards.

*Article 17.2 (a) states “Appeals may not be made against decision concerning the following: […] Articles 38.3 a), b), , c), d), e) or f).”

2016 Mexican Grand Prix

    Browse all Mexican Grand Prix articles

    Author information

    Keith Collantine
    Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

    Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

    31 comments on “Ferrari ask for review of Vettel’s Mexican GP penalty”

    1. “a number of new elements have come to light”

      Until we learn of them, it’s a mute point. Queue speculation and slander…

      1. Hard to think of any really new elements that they unearthed now that would be sufficient to not make it a simple dismissal.

        1. Maybe they can prove that the verbal rants caused the steering to malfunction ;-)

          1. Good one @coldfly! Though thinking about it, admitting he was so unfocused that he lost control of his car might not be the best way forward :)

      2. Ferrari harking back to the “good old times” of the FIA breaking any rule needed if it helped Ferrari?

        I really don’t see any good reason to review that desicion.

        1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
          11th November 2016, 7:56

          Lol that’s exactly what happens to help Hamilton and keep his whinging at bay.

    2. Stuart Becktell
      10th November 2016, 17:26

      Haha, like the FIA uses precedent to mean anything. Ferrari is making a pretty good joke here!

      1. They will make more jokes with strategy this weekend.

      2. petebaldwin (@)
        11th November 2016, 9:44

        That was exactly my thought when I read it – the precedent has already been set….. Wait for a crash, write “no further action”, “issue penalty” and “issue confusing penalty hours after the race” on little pieces of paper, put them in a hat, pull one out and do as it says.

        1. @petebaldwin – I think those decisions are pulled out of… well, let’s just say its not a hat.

    3. Before we all dismiss this request for review as Ferrari being pigheaded. Let’s wait and see. They have nothing to gain points wise, so they must believe these new elements might actually have some merit. I’m intrigued to say the least.

    4. I’m assuming this request for a review was filed today?

      If so, the timing is interesting – what with Charlie present in the FIA interview earlier today rationalizing the stewards decisions, only to be followed by this request from Ferrari.

      1. Exactly this, it’s quite interesting watching the drivers press conference.

    5. Good on them. Vettel’s move was fine, albeit just barley. Had he moved over a tenth of a second later, or moved over farther than he did, I would agree with the penalty. But as it actually happened it was ‘on the limit’ but not worth any penalty.

      1. Agreed but stewerds decision is final. Under new rules it allowed stewerds to say it was illegal. It just seems really bad due to circumstance. A Red Bull cheated allowing the other Red Bull to have a go culminating in Red Bull being 3rd and 4th instead of 4th and 5th. Red Bulls pincer movement based on cheating got both infront of a Ferrari that was likely to get 3rd.

        1. Under which rulebook is taking corners slowly to defend illegal?

          In fact, its a known defensive tactic, and works really well. It’s not cheating if its legal

          1. petebaldwin (@)
            11th November 2016, 9:47

            No – slowing down a driver is legal. However, being in front of a driver because you decided to shortcut the track is illegal. If the stewards/Charlie had acted as they should and told Max to give up the position quickly, he wouldn’t have been able to back Vettel into Ricciardo as he would have been behind him.

      2. Vettel’s move was fine,

        : Nope, just what Vettel and some other wanted Charlie to forbid. In fact as VES stated, he did it better the other car was always behind him. Vet did it while Ric was at his sidepod.
        Well it’s hard te be the vrigin of a new rule of course ;)

    6. And then, change the penalty from 10 to 5 seconds ? What is the point? Then he still is 5th because Verstappen ended in front of him and also got 5 seconds. I may assume that they don’t expect that there is no penalty at all, don’t they?
      Maybe the FIA should review the penalty (a few dollars) for his comments on Charlie Whiting too and give him 5 extra seconds for that?

      1. @dutch-1 As noted above the penalty can’t be appealed so it can’t be changed.

        1. But track limits can not be exceeded either. Double his penalty so we can talk up a storm.

    7. If Ferrari had not protested Max in 3rd…..then Red Bull would not have protested Seb being 4th as they could have lost Max his 3rd……but Ferrari just had to….and now they want a pointless review….Flexing muscles nowhere as big as they used to be??????….come on Ferrari get the action back on the track

    8. My only problem with the enforcement of the new rule (I despise this new “grey” rule) is what preceded it. The fact Vettel sees himself behind 2 cars that he shouldn’t be behind in the first place, is in fact the biggest sin the race directors committed, that weekend. What they did is the equivalent of booking an hand ball after an offside. F1 is becoming more and more like wrestling. It’s a show not a competition.

    9. I stunned to read how people seem to find more bad things to say about Ferrari, more remarkable still are the ones saying that Ferrari brought this penalty on themselves. Honestly if I had been humiliated and discriminated against as Ferrari was last weekend, I would have given up. The decision if final and the stewards are the one’s flexing their muscles, pumped up from all that red bull. Let me end by stating that Red Bull is not only a big investor in f1 and current team of superstar Max Verstappen, but also that RB revenue is several times that of Ferrari. Ferrari is not a big player in today’s f1, it cannot match the power of global brands as such as Red Bull and Mercedes, Ferrari may have brand recognition but in an era that teams supersede F1, Ferrari cannot play their hands like they use to, the protection from Phillip Morris is not there anymore.

      1. So that is why Ferrari get a huge bonus that the other teams don’t get?

      2. Ferrari has a problem spending their money.

        F1 2015 team budgets:
        the figures in brackets show income from sponsors, then partners and then from TV/FOM…

        1. Red Bull Racing (€266m + €35.7m + €167m) = €468.7m
        2. Mercedes (€122m + €212.4m + €133m) = €467.4m
        3. McLaren Honda (€144.5m + €216.5m + €104m) = €465m
        4. Ferrari (€208.5m + €34.5m + €175m) = €418m
        5. Williams (€52.5m + €22.9m + €111m) = €186.4m
        6. Lotus (€69.5m + €13.6m + €56m) = €139.1m
        7. Toro Rosso (€68m + €9.45m + €60m) = €137.45m
        8. Force India (€49.5m + €12.2m + €68m) = €129.7m
        9. Sauber (€44m + €9.25m + €50m) = €103.25m
        10. Manor (€0.5m + €32.5m + €50m) = €83m

        TOTALS: (€1025m + €599m +€974m) = €2598m

        1. According to Bild the 2016 budgets are different.

          1. Mercedes: 470 miljoen euro
          2. Ferrari: 470 miljoen euro
          3. Red Bull: 440 miljoen euro
          4. McLaren: 350 miljoen euro
          5. Renault: 250 miljoen euro
          6. Toro Rosso: 135 miljoen euro
          7. Williams: 130 miljoen euro
          8. Force India: 100 miljoen euro
          9. Haas 100: miljoen euro
          10. Sauber: 90 miljoen euro
          11. Manor: 90 miljoen euro

    10. I am glad Ferrari asked for a review because the original decision seemed to me to be wrong. As far as I can tell this decision just makes F1 a laughing stock.

      1. But to ask after 2 weeks?????

    11. Just live on Sky which one of the Ferrari people, basically saying they want more clarification of the rule rather than appealing to try and overturn the decision.

    Comments are closed.