Did Mercedes really oppose Ferrari's request for exemption and what does the regulation say?

Did Mercedes really oppose Ferrari’s request for exemption and what does the regulation say?. Did Mercedes really oppose Ferrari's request for exemption in Las Vegas?.

During the first free practice session for the Las Vegas Grand Prix, Carlos Sainz’s SF-23 suffered severe damage after colliding with a manhole cover at over 320 km/h. The Ferrari team’s mechanics had to work overtime to allow the Spaniard to participate in the second practice session, replacing various components of the car.

Among these, the third battery was installed on the Ferrari number 55, triggering a 10-place grid penalty as stipulated by Article 28 of the Regulations.

The circumstances that led to the damage to the component, entirely independent of the team and the driver, understandably displeased the team. Nevertheless, the stewards showed adherence to the rules.

“Despite the fact that the damage was caused by highly unusual external circumstances, Article 2.1 of the F1 Sporting Regulations obliges all race officials, including the Sports Commissioners, to apply the regulations as written,” the statement reads.

But is it really so?

According to reports from SkySportUK, it seems that the stewards considered the possibility of granting an exemption from what is stipulated by the Regulations. In doing so, representatives of all teams were consulted, all of whom were in favor except for Mercedes. The lack of unanimity would have condemned Carlos Sainz and Ferrari.

Regulation analysis:
However, an analysis of the regulations contradicts this version of events. There is no article that allows such a procedure, nor any provision that permits, in the presence of particular circumstances, exemptions from the application of penalties for component replacements.

Reading Article 29.3, which contains exceptions related to these elements, there is no possibility of consulting other teams.

The stewards thus remained faithful to the dictates of Article 2, which requires the application of the Regulations “as written.”

Show your support for Scuderia Ferrari with official merchandise collection! Click here to enter the F1 online Store and shop securely! And also get your F1 tickets for every race with VIP hospitality and unparalleled insider access. Click here for the best offers to support Charles and Carlos from the track!

Therefore, there is no possibility that Mercedes wanted to hinder Ferrari in the battle for the second position in the overall standings.

The precedent: FIA exemption in the Netherlands?
During the Zandvoort GP, the FIA applied a correction to the Regulations, waiving the obligation for all drivers to start with extreme wet tires in the event of starting behind the Safety Car.

However, on that occasion, the decision was made for safety reasons and in favor of all teams. No consultation, but simply a choice unilaterally made by the FIA considering the particular conditions of the track.

This made the provision perfectly in line with the Regulation, which at Article 1.3 allows for the adoption of changes, even without notice, provided they concern track safety.

In any case, this rule could not apply to Carlos Sainz, the only driver to have damaged the car in the unusual circumstances in Las Vegas.