Carlos Sainz Jnr’s penalty for an incident with Andrea Kimi Antonelli briefly became a point of confusion after the Bahrain Grand Prix.
The FIA originally announced Sainz’s 10-second time penalty had not been served during the race and he must therefore serve a three-place grid drop at the next round.Shortly afterwards, the FIA cancelled that decision, noting: “Penalty was served and should not be converted to a grid position penalty.”
The Williams driver was given a 10-second time penalty for forcing Antonelli off the track at turn 10 during the race. Sainz later retired from the race due to damage.
The stewards originally stated Sainz’s retirement meant his penalty could not be served, and they had therefore given him a penalty for next weekend’s race.
“As the penalty was unable to be served due to the driver being unclassified in the race, in accordance with Article 54.3 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations, the penalty is converted to a three grid position penalty for the next Race in which the driver participates,” the stewards noted in their original decision.
They also gave Sainz two penalty points on his licence, which leaves him on a total of three. The stewards ruled: “at the entry to turn 10 car 55 [Sainz] locked the front wheels and understeered towards car 12 [Antonelli], missing the apex and forcing car 12 off the track. Car 12 lost two positions as a result.”
The FIA later issued a revised document noting that a 10-second time penalty had been issued along with Sainz’s two penalty points. Sainz served his penalty on lap 44, one lap before Williams retired his car.
Penalty box
What did you think of Sainz’s penalty? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.
Sainz's penalty for his incident with Antonelli is...
- No opinion (5%)
- Far too lenient (0%)
- Slightly too lenient (0%)
- Correct (51%)
- Slightly too harsh (15%)
- Far too harsh (29%)
Total Voters: 41
Loading ...Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Go ad-free for just £1 per month
>> Find out more and sign up
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
2025 Bahrain Grand Prix
- Hamilton making “drastic shift” in driving style to master Ferrari’s car
- Leclerc revealed Ferrari strategy details to Gasly before Bahrain Grand Prix
- Lawson made “very significant step forward” in Bahrain – Mekies
- Russell’s transponder was ‘frazzled and charred’ after Bahrain Grand Prix DRS drama
- “Don’t give me too much now”: Hamilton’s search for speed at Ferrari continues
BasCB (@bascb)
13th April 2025, 19:21
This was a mess. They didn’t even look into the banging around between Sainz and Tsunoda, they are looking into Russel for something that was at worst unintentionally (and followed by slowing down from Russel) but realistically an issue with the telemetry, electronics or even hydraulics of the car.
And I guess most of us agree that the full SC for the debris was overblown.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
13th April 2025, 19:34
After Losail last year, I’d say it was justified. I doubt they could have used a VSC for that.
Jere (@jerejj)
13th April 2025, 19:38
@keithcollantine I don’t see how VSC would’ve necessarily been insufficient to quickly pick up a carbon fiber pieces between T1 & 2 as well as on the following straight.
RandomMallard
13th April 2025, 20:19
@jerejj I think the cars were too spread out around the track for a VSC to be a useful option. The FIA generally don’t like sending marshals onto the track anywhere near the cars, whether at racing speed or slowly, which is why we often see a full SC even for some light debris. Had it been earlier in the race, when the gaps were smaller and there was a large gap between 20th and 1st coming around again, the FIA may have chosen a VSC.
Jere (@jerejj)
14th April 2025, 6:33
RandomMallard Good point as the field was indeed quite spread out at that point, although the track is long, so the spread-out impact is lower than on a short track.
MacLeod (@macleod)
14th April 2025, 8:02
They did look at the Yuki and Sainz incident but was dropped.
Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
13th April 2025, 19:25
I am confused. So did Sainz serve his penalty or not?
Jere (@jerejj)
13th April 2025, 19:38
Same
Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
13th April 2025, 20:16
To me it would be a bit like cancelling Bottas’ penalty for Abu Dhabi as he retired and couldn’t serve it, but it still will apply if he races again. I can’t find or understand any stated reasoning as to why this penalty has been cancelled.
RandomMallard
13th April 2025, 20:22
@thegianthogweed Sainz pitted the lap before he retired. During this stop, he served the penalty (and switched to softs), and then he came back in the next lap. Therefore, the penalty has been served so it won’t carry over.
Similar to Red Bull “un-retiring” Perez in Suzuka a couple of years ago, sending him round, pitting to serve the penalty, then going around again and retiring. From the teams’ perspective, if you know you’re not going to score points, I suppose it makes sense to clear the penalty so you don’t get a grid drop the next week.
Jere (@jerejj)
14th April 2025, 6:35
RandomMallard His last pit stop not only happened off the world feed coverage but I even failed to notice it on the live timing, so I thought he’d just dropped to last because of slowing down on his way to retire into the pit lane.
Anyway, that logically explains the carryover cancellation.
Doh
15th April 2025, 16:28
It doesn’t really matter it was a meaningless penalty anyway. Essentially the FIA are okay with drivers forcing another wide and ruining their race because they don’t meaningfully penalise it. It also took them 3 years to actually give a care.
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
13th April 2025, 19:35
I was going to vote “Far too harsh”
Then I switched to “Far too lenient”
I am prime material for an FIA toady.
Dph
15th April 2025, 16:29
It was definitely way too lenient. that’s why it keeps happening
Jere (@jerejj)
13th April 2025, 19:39
The penalty was definitely correct because he was simply out of control with his car & consequently forced Antonelli off track, not to mention he also left track limits.
Doh
15th April 2025, 16:30
Far too lenient, that’s why it keeps happening
David B
13th April 2025, 20:39
Not sure what the FIA was on today.
Ignored Tsunoda repeatedly causing a collision with Sainz, taking chunks out of the Williams & then gives Sainz a 10sec penalty for a non-contact incident. That should’ve been a 5sec penalty at most for Sainz & at least a 5sec penalty for Tsunoda, especially considering Lawson got 5sec & 10sec penalties for a similar collisions which didn’t even result in damage to other cars.
MacLeod (@macleod)
14th April 2025, 8:08
They didn’t ignored that incident but dropped the cause. If you listen to Sainz onboard his engineer told him that.
Reason unknown they deemed a race incident as Yuki got a moment of oversteer and Sainz moving to the right but I had not much video on that.
slowmo (@slowmo)
14th April 2025, 9:43
I thought the penalty was correct and what’s more he should have been penalised for forcing Hamilton off track at the start but we all know the stewards bottle it on the first lap. Pretty poor racecraft from Sainz throughout the race really.