Carlos Sainz Jnr’s late decision to abandon his entry into the pits on lap 27 appeared to put him in breach of the rules.
Lewis Hamilton, who was following close behind, immediately alerted his team: “Sainz came into the pit lane but then he cut over.” However F1’s regulations indicate Sainz did not commit a breach.Sainz was running in fourth place behind Max Verstappen and ahead of Hamilton when Ferrari called him in to pit.
However, when Sainz committed to the pit entry, there was confusion at Ferrari which led to him being told to stay out. Sainz cut over the painted line separating the pit entry from the race track and rounded the final corner to continue without pitting.
After asking Ferrari “what happened”, race engineer Ricardo Adami admitted his team were “not ready” to receive him for a pit stop. An unimpressed Sainz told his team: “Wake up, guys. Come on.”
Sainz successfully completed his pit stop at the end of lap 28 and went on to claim the final place on the podium behind the two Mercedes drivers.
Some were surprised the incident was not noted by F1’s new race director Rui Marques. Penalties have been given for similar incidents at other circuits. F1’s regulations indicate why Sainz was in the clear.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
The FIA’s rules over pit entry are governed by their International Sporting Code, Appendix L, Chapter 4, Article 4 (d). This states that “except in cases of force majeure… any part of a tyre of a car entering the pit lane must not cross, in any direction, any line painted on the track for the purpose of separating cars entering the pit lane from those on the track.”
While Sainz’s tyres clearly crossed the dividing line between the pit entry and the race track, Sainz did not commit a breach as he never entered the pit lane. Had Sainz crossed the dividing line and still entered the pit lane to complete his pit stop, that would likely have resulted in a penalty.
Occasionally, the race director will add an extra instruction to the event notes that compels all drivers who have all four wheels to the left of the pit entry line to have to enter the pit lane and will commit a breach if they then cross it again to remain on track. This year’s Azerbaijan Grand Prix in Baku included such an instruction, but there was no such enforcement in the event notes for this weekend’s Las Vegas Grand Prix.
Sainz’s podium finish helped Ferrari to score 27 points in the race, with rivals McLaren adding just 15 points to their tally. McLaren’s lead in the constructors’ championship now sits at just 24 points with two rounds remaining.
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 Las Vegas Grand Prix
- Vowles clarifies Colapinto’s claim he was concussed in Las Vegas crash
- Norris lost title because McLaren weren’t competitive enough early on – Stella
- Ferrari are now in their longest-ever championship drought
- F1 “was trying too hard” in first year at Las Vegas – Sainz
- 2024 Las Vegas Grand Prix weekend F1 driver ratings
Avro Anson (@avroanson)
24th November 2024, 9:11
Yet another poorly worded rule – FIA need to get somebody with proper command of the written English language to revise the rule book.
I have absolutely nothing against Sainz, but this could have been a very hazardous situation if there was another car close behind.
Tristan
24th November 2024, 10:11
Yeah what a terrible rule. It clearly specifies in both directions, obviously that’s intended to mean you can’t cross back over it regardless if the car ends up in the pits or not, it would be a logically impossible clause otherwise.
A car “entering the pits” wouldn’t be able to cross back over the line in the “other direction” without crossing back in the first direction.
JOA20
24th November 2024, 9:23
I was sure Sainz would get a penalty there. It’s potentially dangerous if a car cuts towards the racing line that way. I think that once a driver is on the side of the “pitlane line” he has to commit to it everywhere, not just in Baku and the like.
Coventry Climax
24th November 2024, 9:24
Or they could have claimed ‘force majeur’, which is a completely unspecified concept that should have no place in a rule book, similar to a word such as ‘sufficient’.
Equally worrisome is probably the clownesque Ferrari pit wall and crew performance.
“We were not ready.” Can you believe the sheer amateurism of that?
It was more likely a miserably failing ‘covert operation’ to favour their golden boy over the driver they’ve sent off.
I doubted that decision straight away, and I still do.
Tristan
24th November 2024, 10:04
Force majeure has a purpose of the event being out of anybodies control. Not being prepared for a pit stop is not force majeure. Sufficient has meaning too, as long as the following describes what is sufficient. For example sufficient space so as not to cause a collision.
cswilly (@cswilly)
24th November 2024, 10:51
If you take the time to read the FIA’s International Sporting Code, you would know that force majeur is defined as an “Unpredictable, unpreventable, and external event”. It’s a specified concept in the rules.
Capnjc
24th November 2024, 17:49
* but not a loose manhole cover.
Tristan
24th November 2024, 22:33
There was actually no force majeure in the parts change clauses which was the reasoning for the penalty.
cswilly (@cswilly)
25th November 2024, 11:05
Somebody has read the FIA’s International Sporting Code before spouting off in the comments. Well done!
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 16:58
In fairness, the loose manhole cover was completely preventable, by the FIA having complied with its own regulations for examining circuits. Technically, it would not have been force majeure even if that concept was part of the relevant regulation.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 17:02
“We were not ready” was because Ferrari told Sainz to stay out and caved under pressure from its own driver. Unfortunately, due to the regulation breach not being penalised, Sainz was rewarded for this.
BMW P85 V10
24th November 2024, 10:45
Does anybody know if the incident was forwarded to the stewards of the race? If not it’s old wine in new barrels again with the new race director.
I think it should have been a slam dunk penalty. But hey, Max was on his way to claim the title let’s make the WCC Championship a bit more exiting?
Tristan
24th November 2024, 10:48
Sainz deserved some old wine after the just as ridiculous interpretation of the rules last year. Karma.
BMW P85 V10
24th November 2024, 18:32
I agree Sainz shouldn’t have been penalized last year in Vegas. On the other hand, Karma is not part of the FIA rule book.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 16:57
Not investigated at all, so not handed to the stewards. (And for me it made the race less interesting, not more).
Ben
24th November 2024, 10:56
Seriously who cares. It wasn’t dangerous in any way. Just let them race and things like this just make it more exciting.
SPArtacus
25th November 2024, 7:55
That’s too much for this new generation of fans who both seemingly want everything penalized and have zero tolerance for even the slightest amount of danger yet will also take to Twitter savage the RD and stewards whenever they throw safety car, RF, etc. that hurts their favorite driver’s race, give their favorite driver a penalty or fail to give their favorite’s rival a penalty.
There is no winning.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 16:56
Ben, it was dangerous. All it would have taken was a misjudgement on the slippery line and that would have been a crash caused by breaking the regulations. We’ve already had one crash this weekend where marshals were fortunate to escape significant injury, there’s no need for another.
Chris Horton
24th November 2024, 12:56
Ferrari fan here. That rule is illogical.
In the spirit of the rule, which is surely written with safety in mind, that should be a penalty.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
24th November 2024, 13:43
I don’t know what people are complaining about. Before they reprofiled the pitlane entry at Interlagos this happened on every lap, for every driver…
RicoD (@ricod)
24th November 2024, 19:14
I was thinking about Interlagos as well. And how about Montreal?
SPArtacus
25th November 2024, 7:56
Don’t use facts. That will just confuse them.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 16:55
@fer-no65 And at that location was specifically permitted. Here, it is specifically forbidden. That’s a significant difference.
Jim from US (@jimfromus)
24th November 2024, 19:28
I’m fairly certain that similar moves like SAI move have been penalized even though the wording makes the move is “legal”. It gives the car in front extra time to fake going into the pits until the wall at pit entrance. Apparently the rules are written in English by people that have English as a secondary langue but then the rules are interpreted by people that are scholars in the precise meaning of English words.
Roy Beedrill
25th November 2024, 7:49
People sure have short memory.
Hamilton did exactly the same but twice in the infamous “in-in-in-in…stay out!” moment at Hokkenheim in 2018 and wasn’t penalized either.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 16:54
Hamilton was reprimanded for that incident. It was only a reprimand because the foul weather was held to be mitigation (a nod to the force majeure clause).
Grapmg
26th November 2024, 8:36
Norris 2021 Russia. He was excused because of the extreme conditions.
Dave
25th November 2024, 6:34
Clown show, in any racing series down to kids series, that would have been an penalty, but it’s Ferrari… He could have hit tire barrier or another car at that flat out corner. F1 rules application is “fluid”….. Lol
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 16:53
I don’t think it’s because he’s in a Ferrari. I also don’t think this was done properly and do consider it suspicious, as well as pointlessly dangerous.
Ri (@natari)
25th November 2024, 8:49
The bigger question for me is why weren’t they ready? He was telling them to change tyres like for 2 laps, then they tell him to box and then 2 seconds later to stay out? Why weren’t they prepared for so long? Why did they call him if they weren’t prepared? Why did they tell him to not overtake Leclerc if he had a risk of getting a penalty and lose more points? Did they know right away that there will be no penalty? What the hell happened? The whole situation is fishy
Dave The Drummer (@davethedrummer)
25th November 2024, 10:01
Why isn’t this defined by a line on the track?
That you have or have not entered the pit lane should be down to the position of the car with reference to the lines painted on the track. There should be no decision or prior statements involved. It should be straight-forward and clear.
Put a coloured line, at ninety degrees from the start of the pit entry line so it meets the track limits line. You cross that line and you’re in the pit entry. You cut the corner and you’re in the pit entry. You cross the pit entry line and you’re in the pit entry.
You could make the line angled or curved and not a straight line to the track limit line, so that it better fits with the expected path of cars coming around the corner such that no one on the racing line would cross it in normal circumstances.
Simple, cheap, straight-forward, clear.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 16:53
@davethedrummer It is defined by a line on the track. The pit entry line. The one Carlos himself asked to be painted blue for greater visibility (and got his wish).
SPArtacus
25th November 2024, 19:35
Wasn’t that Russell?
David
25th November 2024, 13:26
Wait until they pull the clown show on Lewis.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
25th November 2024, 16:52
Revisiting the regulation as written:
The regulation as quoted by RaceFans does not have a “but it’s OK if the car does not enter the pits” clause, nor anything resembling this. There is a force majeure element, but no force majeure appears to be relevant here.
Either RaceFans’ quotation of the regulations is wrong, or the regulation requires investigation (and most likely penalty) for Sainz crossing the pit entry line. I am disappointed that the regulations were not parsed correctly by the stewards, as this appears to be one of the more straightforward ones to parse.
F1 is supposed to be a sport. A sport where rules are ignored repeatedly (especially when it’s happened on the back of a race that, according to the regulations, is at risk of being deleted from the rulebooks) is at risk of not only not being a sport, but not being an ongoing activity.
hrvoje zecevic
25th November 2024, 21:37
Sky Sports F1 reporter Ted Kravitz has revealed that he spoke to Ferrari team principal Frederic Vasseur about the incident and the reasoning he was given by the FIA for the decision not to have resulted in a penalty.
He explained: “Sainz didn’t get a penalty for crossing the line on the way into the pit lane because, but Vasseur explained it that the race director treated it as a track limits infraction, not contravening any rule or any race direction notes.
“Carlos Sainz would have said, ‘Thank you very much’, because it meant he was on the podium and not Charles Leclerc.”
Additionally, an automatic time penalty for crossing the white line of the pit entry line isn’t mandated in F1 rules. It can be added as a race director’s instruction before each race, though it wasn’t included in the notes before the Las Vegas Grand Prix weekend.