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.
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).”
Tristan
10th November 2016, 17:16
“a number of new elements have come to light”
Until we learn of them, it’s a mute point. Queue speculation and slander…
bosyber (@bosyber)
10th November 2016, 17:22
Hard to think of any really new elements that they unearthed now that would be sufficient to not make it a simple dismissal.
ColdFly F1 (@)
10th November 2016, 21:19
Maybe they can prove that the verbal rants caused the steering to malfunction ;-)
bosyber (@bosyber)
11th November 2016, 6:48
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 :)
BasCB (@bascb)
10th November 2016, 21:14
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.
Peppermint-Lemon (@)
11th November 2016, 7:56
Lol that’s exactly what happens to help Hamilton and keep his whinging at bay.
Hugh (@hugh11)
10th November 2016, 17:21
Sigh…
Stuart Becktell
10th November 2016, 17:26
Haha, like the FIA uses precedent to mean anything. Ferrari is making a pretty good joke here!
CarWars (@maxv)
10th November 2016, 17:49
They will make more jokes with strategy this weekend.
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.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
12th November 2016, 3:50
@petebaldwin – I think those decisions are pulled out of… well, let’s just say its not a hat.
Force Maikel (@force-maikel)
10th November 2016, 17:40
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.
Phylyp (@phylyp)
10th November 2016, 18:23
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.
Rockie
10th November 2016, 18:48
Exactly this, it’s quite interesting watching the drivers press conference.
SatchelCharge (@satchelcharge)
10th November 2016, 18:51
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.
markp
10th November 2016, 18:58
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.
sm
10th November 2016, 20:16
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
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.
evert
11th November 2016, 8:08
: 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 ;)
EC (@dutch-1)
10th November 2016, 19:44
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?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
10th November 2016, 19:57
@dutch-1 As noted above the penalty can’t be appealed so it can’t be changed.
ram
10th November 2016, 21:30
But track limits can not be exceeded either. Double his penalty so we can talk up a storm.
joe jopling (@jop452)
10th November 2016, 20:53
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
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
11th November 2016, 4:13
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.
Sensord4notbeingafanboi (@peartree)
11th November 2016, 4:27
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.
Aapje (@aapje)
11th November 2016, 7:32
So that is why Ferrari get a huge bonus that the other teams don’t get?
evert
11th November 2016, 8:16
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
Read more at http://www.crash.net/f1/news/221835/1/f1-2015-team-budgets-published-but-which-team-spends-most.html#JqopPuvm2uR8vouT.99
evert
11th November 2016, 8:28
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
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
11th November 2016, 7:19
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.
joe jopling (@jop452)
11th November 2016, 21:05
But to ask after 2 weeks?????
Hugh (@hugh11)
11th November 2016, 12:41
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.