Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari, Autodromo Hermanos Rodriguez, 2016

FIA rejects Ferrari petition over Vettel penalty

2016 Mexican Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

The FIA has rejected Ferrari’s petition against Sebastian Vettel’s penalty from the Mexican Grand Prix.

The stewards of the race rejected Ferrari’s claim to have obtained new evidence regarding the incident between Vettel and Daniel Ricciardo which led to Vettel receiving a ten-second time penalty.

Ferrari also argued their case by relating it to Vettel’s incident with Max Verstappen a few laps earlier. Verstappen was later judged to have broken the rules by leaving the track when defending his position from Vettel and was given a five-second penalty after the race.

However Ferrari’s argument that race director Charlie Whiting was required to tell Verstappen to let Vettel through on the track was also rejected by the stewards. They pointed out that although Whiting has the power to do so he is not required to.

In a series of fraught exchanges at the end of the race Ferrari informed Vettel on multiple occasions that Verstappen had been told to let him by. However the messages involving Verstappen which were broadcast included a discussion over whether to let Vettel by ended with the recommendation that the Red Bull driver should “stay there”.

FIA statement on Ferrari protest

Charlie Whiting, Interlagos, 2016
Whiting explains why Vettel was penalised
The Stewards of the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix convened a hearing today at 1645 hrs Brazil Time, to hear a request from the Entrant of Car 5, Scuderia Ferrari, to review the decision in Document 38 from that event.

The request was lodged in accordance with Articie 14.1 of the FIA International Sporting Code.

The hearing was conducted by teleconference.

Scuderia Ferrari was represented by Mr Jock Clear.

Red Bull Racing was represented by Mr Christian Horner and Mr Jonathan Wheatiey.

Scuderia Ferrari argued in its written submission that the ‘new element’, in accordance with Article 14.1, existed. In its verbal submissions it also argued that there were two ‘new elements’.

Specifically the Scuderia argued that the Race Director, pursuant to Article 27.4 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations, had the ‘power’ to instruct the driver of Car 33 Max Verstappen, to give back the alleged advantage he had gained when leaving the track on a previous lap to that of the incident involving Car 5 and Car 3 driven by Daniel Riccardo.

Scuderia Ferrari also argued that the GPS data it presented was a ‘new element’.

The Stewards heard extensive verbal submission and argument for at parties.

In relation to the matter of the Race Director having the ‘power’ to instruct the driver of Car 33 to give back the alleged advantage, we note firstly that the relevant article gives the Race Director ‘absolute authority“ to allow the driver to give back a position. It does not imply an obligation to do so. The fact that the Race Director did not exercise his discretion is not relevant to the decision taken in Document 38.

In relation to the GPS data we note that this data is available to teams during the race. It is also available to, and referred to by, the stewards, in the Stewards Room during the race.

When asked if the GPS data in any way contradicted the telemetry and other evidence that the Stewards concluded showed that the driver of Car 5 had steered whilst under braking at Turn 4, Mr Clear conceded that it did not.

Article 14.2 of the International Sporting Code gives the Stewards the sole discretion to determine if a new element exists.

Having received all the written and verbal submissions and carefully considered them, the Stewards decide there is no new element.

Decision handed down at 1815 hrs Brazil Time November 11, 2016.

All parties are reminded of their right of appeal under the International Sporting Code.

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.

Posted on Categories 2016 F1 season, 2016 Mexican Grand Prix

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 19 comments on “FIA rejects Ferrari petition over Vettel penalty”

    1. Okay, this must have been the most pointless appeal ever. Did Ferrari really not know the stewards have access to gps info???

    2. why why oh why did Ferrari do this.

      I was hoping for something ingenious by Ferrari. I read today that scientists have discovered that the Australian continent is shifting back and forth several millimetres every year. So maybe Ferrari was preparing a claim that VET did not move under braking, but that (similar to Australia) Mexico had moved below him, and it was actually RIC moving under braking.

    3. Far from a Ferrari fan but they got screwed. RIC made a daring move and VET defended hard although he left RIC enough room – it’s called hard racing!!
      Then RIC throws his toys out of the pram and gets his way. F1 drivers have become nothing less than a bunch of prima donna pansy asses.

      1. Did you actually see the race? Ricardo was alongside as Seb lost time behind verstappen, Seb moved under braking and almost took Ricardo and himself off

        1. Well, they I saw it, Vettel was aiming for the corner, and didn’t change direction under braking. Yes, he was closing in on Ricciardo, but he was doing that before the braking zone.
          I loved the move and don’t fault either driver for it, and I love that Ricciardo got the podium, but I think the penalty was uncalled for.

        2. Hey Bob. Did YOU actually see the race? SV gave DR plenty of room on the inside. I’m sure Vettel’s outburst didn’t help his cause, but it was far from the Verstappen-chop of previous races.

          1. Yeah I did, I saw Seb move under braking.apparently so did the stewards and the FIA, so what exactly is your point?

            1. Seb went right then left, Stevie Wonder could of seen what happened!!!..what is wrong with the Vet fans they blind??

          2. A big difference with the verstappen move : Verstappen does it while the other car is behind hem.(and on the edge of the brakezonde) Vettel did it while there was a car next to him in the brake zone, during braking.
            Vettel got what he asked for. A penalty for moving under braking.
            He lost the virginity of the rule there ;)

        3. Of course I watched the race. My viewpoint is basically the same as Sara’s and close to Jame’s except RIC didn’t deserve a spot on the podium.

      2. It’s not Ricciardo’s fault, actually it’s RB getting their way as Rb strategy on penalties was perfect. RB needed to get something out as otherwise Ham would have gotten more of a hard time for that get out of jail free card turn 1…

    4. FIA growing some. That message for Charlie might have been just what was needed.

    5. Vettel spoke very clear and with the right words about Mr. “Godfather II” Race Director. Nobody did that before. Stewards gave Vettel a penalty. End of history.

    6. It’s all about Vettel bad language I think.
      Otherwise it was a rasing like shoud f1
      used to be before this stupid rules.

    7. Ferrari’s rationale for the petition was that:

      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

      However, their argument was based on the following two elements:
      1. Race Director having the power to instruct VES to give up a position during the race
      2. GPS data availability

      I don’t see how either of those elements has any bearing on a precedent being set nor how rules are applied for the future. Its not the first time a racing incident was investigated after the race, particularly when it occurred in the closing stages, and GPS data… really? Their wording in the petition, particularly when they used the phrase “first application of article 27.5 … defensive manoeuvres” would have led one to believe that the new data was something specific to the ‘movement under braking’ rules.

      Honestly Ferrari, you needn’t have bothered. Just get your act together on the track.

    8. Ferrari keep embarrassing themselves. Ferrari keep getting belittled and discriminated against. The stewards belittle and the press discriminates, on the other hand, I think we now know the limit of the new “made to stop verstappen… from still getting an advantageous outcome” rule.

    9. In my opinion Vettel got screwed, but on another note it is the irony of fate, that he was speaking very much in favour of punishing the “VES” move, and then VET was the first to be punished for it.
      It is a case of VET pointing out Whitings lack of competence, by not punishing VES during the race, as he should have done, and then VET is unjustly punished, maybe because he couldn’t keep his mouth shut.

      1. VES is punished during the race.. did you missed that part?
        He got a 5 second penalty for leaving the track and gaining an advantage. A small misdemeanor in regarding to what Vettel did.(according to the rules as interpreted now)
        Btw, the entire verstappen rule is rubbish.. let them race!

    10. Actually I totally agree with Ferrari here, gaining an advantage should never be a time penalty, otherwise quicker cars stuck behind slower cars unable to overtake will just overtake off-track and disappear into the distance knowing that only 5 seconds will be added to their time. It’s a joke to say the least.

      The way it should be is that you get told that you have to give the place back immediately. Otherwise, some black flag is waiting for you for disobeying instructions.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.