Injustice is an inherent part of sports. It’s not just motorsport or Formula 1. As fans, we’re pretty used to it, but when some outrageous injustice happens, it lifts many of us out of our seats. It was the same in Las Vegas, when Carlos Sainz lost ten places at the start, his mechanics had a rough year and the team suffered seven-figure damage, all through no fault of their own. However, there seems to be nothing in the rules that can at least mitigate these harsh consequences.
Sainz received sympathy in the entire paddock and in the general public. However, if you do not eat from gratitude, sympathy will not help you to get a better result in the race. When Sainz destroyed his Ferrari driving over a canal cover, Ferrari mechanics had to build a virtually new car, with a new chassis, replaced internal combustion engine, electronic control unit and new battery.
It was the latter that became the bone of contention. The new chassis costs “only” money, the internal combustion engine and electronics control unit were already used components from earlier in the season, but Ferrari had no working older battery to fit and avoid the penalty. For exceeding the maximum number of components, Sainz received a penalty and no one was found to help him. At the same time, the boss of Ferrari Frederic Vasseur quite reasonably, he argued that installing a new battery would not bring any performance advantage to the Scuderia.
“I understand that it wouldn’t be easy to give someone a new set of tires or a new engine because that gives you a performance advantage. But the battery? After all, she won’t offer you any performance for the good,” declared the French manager. “We missed the first practice session, we suffered millions of dollars in damage, the mechanics had to scratch their elbows repairing the car, etc., so I don’t think it’s unreasonable to look at it as a force majeure.”
The rules could be changed
Well, the rules actually operate with the concept of force majeure, which is defined as “unforeseen, unavoidable and external event”, but it appears only in articles about the cancellation and postponement of events, withdrawal of applications, change of driver or testing on dynamometers. However, it does not apply to such a case. That’s why the FIA and the commissioners were so powerless. There is no article in the rules that would allow the FIA to act independently to cancel the penalty.
However, if the course of history could be changed, according to the CEO of AlphaTauri and the former secretary general of the FIA Peter Bayer was discussed some time ago exactly on this topic. As one of the most prominent representatives of the federation, he remembered these negotiations and, as he says, everything could have been different in Las Vegas, but the teams themselves refused to change the regulations.
“When I was still on the opposite side, we discussed a clause in the rules that would include force majeure,” he declared Bayer pre Motorsport.com. “However, in fact, it was rejected by the teams themselves, who, in their pursuit of perfection, but also because of their maximum paranoia, thought that the possibility of applying a higher power would entrust a great deal of power to the body, because many would refer to it in all sorts of cases. “
It is exactly the classic example of the teams in Formula 1 trying to keep as much power and all kinds of veto rights as possible. In such a case, you have the opportunity to throw a piece of wood under your opponent’s feet when it suits you. Of course, when it doesn’t suit you, you’ll throw up your hands and talk about safety or unfairness. “Teams said they didn’t want to open Pandora’s box. But in this case, I have to say that if we were asked to do so, as a team we would support Ferrari. It really wasn’t their fault,” said the former general secretary of the FIA.
2023-11-20 23:37:56
#rule #table #Ferrari #maximum #paranoia #teams #Magazine #F1online.sk
