The stewards have given Carlos Sainz Jnr a formal reprimand for his actions after crashing out of the Brazilian Grand Prix.
They ruled the Ferrari driver created a “potentially dangerous situation” by trying to drive away while marshals were beginning to recover his car. The stewards concluded Sainz’s actions led to a misunderstanding between him and the marshals.Sainz crashed out at Laranjinha on the race’s 39th lap. “The marshals were quickly on the scene to recover the car,” the stewards explained. “The driver removed the steering wheel indicating to the marshals that he was abandoning the car.
“The team then informed the driver that they thought the car was safe to continue. The driver replaced the steering wheel while the marshals had started to feed the recovery loop through the roll hoop of the car.”
“The marshals, recognising that the driver was going to attempt to restart, aborted the recovery attempt just as the driver drove the car away.”
Sainz later came to a stop and did not continue in the race. “The driver admitted that he did not know that the marshals had started the recovery procedure and accepted that removing the steering wheel was a clear indication of his intention to abandon the car.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“A potentially dangerous situation was created that was avoidable by the driver solely,” they concluded.
The Ferrari driver crashed out of qualifying and the grand prix on Sunday in Interlagos. He said he did not understand why he experienced his difficulties in the wet conditions.
“I had two crashes that honestly I cannot explain very well,” Sainz told the official F1 channel. “It’s very unpredictable, this car this year in the wet has been extremely difficult to drive.
“At the same time I apologise to the team for two mistakes because obviously it cost us. But the starting from the line it’s not like we were going to get to a lot of points. So turn the page and come back stronger.”
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Brazilian Grand Prix
- “I didn’t really want to come back” – Hamilton explains cryptic Brazil radio message
- Ocon’s role in Gasly’s Q2 exit was almost another ‘flare-up’ at Alpine – Oakes
- Interlagos must improve “very bad” new track surface for 2025, say F1 drivers
- “That’s how we silence them”: Verstappen’s stunning Brazil win from start to finish
- Verstappen now has as many wins as F1’s first six world champions combined
Leksa (@leksa)
3rd November 2024, 23:14
So was the car damaged enough to justify a retirement, or intact enough to continue? Who makes the decision? If the race director judges incorrectly that the car cannot continue and starts a recovery procedure, whose fault is that? There are points and possibly millions of dollars of price money at stake.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
4th November 2024, 7:14
@leksa The marshals’ opinion is the overriding one. Which in this case was “this justified retirement on the basis of driver decision, as indicated by the removal of the steering wheel, thus the actual state of the car is moot. A car abandoned because the driver gave up is just as much a physical hazard as one abandoned because it’s broken”.
The fact that this sort of semi-hard reset would occur to most people with IT training as a troubleshooting step is not relevant here.
PeterG
4th November 2024, 0:42
If a car is able to continue then a driver should be allowed to try & do so as keeping more cars in the race is better than having cars that could potentially continue be forced to stop because the FIA say so.
Same with situations like Hulkenberg, He’d simply spun & beached the car on an uneven road surface. The marshal’s gave him a bit of a push & he should have been allowed to continue rather than been black flagged.
They changed that rule 20 years ago to allow cars to re-join the race in situations where they just needed a bit of a push and I have no idea why they seem to have now changed it so that they can’t be recovered & allowed to continue. More cars able to carry on in the race is better for fans than otherwise undamaged cars having to be retired.
Think it’s pretty clear that the current FIA president (who is introducing a lot of the changed regulations, procedures & increase in silly penalty call’s) doesn’t like seeing cars racing.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
4th November 2024, 7:15
PeterG For safety reasons, marshals are allowed to handle incidents involving stopped cars in any way that is believed appropriate to them, provided no regulation is broken. The marshals apparently believed that Sainz was trying to abandon the car at one point, so the question of whether the car could have continued became moot at that point.
someone or something
4th November 2024, 14:25
@ Sainz’s incident:
I think that’s still the case. It’s just that the marshalls reached the sensible conclusion that a removed steering wheel means the stranded car is out of the race, and that it’s in everyone’s best interest to recover it as quickly as possible, so that the race can continue unaffected. The unusual circumstance in this case was that Sainz was instructed to try again by his pit wall, while seemingly unaware of the marshalls trying to recover his car. Had he made it clear to them that he isn’t out of the race yet, giving them a chance to remove the recovery loop and step away from his car, everything would’ve been fine.
@ Hülkenberg’s incident:
I don’t know when exactly the rule/directive/whatever was changed, but I assume it happened because there were too many borderline cases, potentially leading to unfair situations where one stranded car were given a push whereas others didn’t get a second chance. Therefore, I understand why they’d want to simplify the rule and make it less arbitrary. Now you’re either able to continue without external aid, or you’re not. Marshalls can still decide to give you a push to clear the situation quickly, but as soon as that happens, you’re out. It was a pity for Hülkenberg, especially since it was just a minor mistake that ended his race even though his car wasn’t even significantly damaged. But in the grand scheme of things, it just makes sense that way.
Jere (@jerejj)
4th November 2024, 6:38
He should’ve been able to notice the marshals & JCB right beside him.
Mayrton
4th November 2024, 9:49
All clutter to distract from the things they (FIA) shouldn’t have done (VSC timing Sprint, penalising Max in Sprint, Red flag timing quali) and didn’t do (penalise for start infringement).
SteveP
4th November 2024, 19:29
Repeating the fallacious statement won’t make it true.
VSC timing Sprint – the timing is the timing, the drivers do not get to decide different and argue the case.
penalising Max in Sprint – exceeding the limits of the time delta is, like the pit lane speed rule, an absolute “slam dunk” penalty and even Max admitted he did it.
Red flag timing quali – Max was eliminated two seconds after the yellow flag when Leclerc posted a faster time. Since Max passed the yellow flag point, he was limited to not improving on his previous S1 time
penalise for start infringement – 5,000 Euro fine (as per a document posted a little under 10 hours before your comment here)
I’m afraid your anti-Brit bias is showing and developing flashing lights.
cdavman (@cdavman)
4th November 2024, 14:44
I thought the whole handling of the Sainz crash was a strange one. He had barely rebounded out of the barrier and the race director called a safety car. He still had 4 wheels on his wagon, and at the time was one of the last runners so there was space behind him. I’m surprised they didn’t give a short time delay to see if he could move the car under his own steam to a safer location.
Given the delays they allowed for incidents at other points in the weekend, this call seemed unusually quick. Too quick. Almost like they wanted a safety car to bunch the pack up again…