Formula 1: why USA GP disqualifications are a sign of a struggling system. Why Leclerc and Hamilton disqualifications in Austin are a sign of a struggling system.

Mercedes and Ferrari made setup errors that led to the rightful disqualification of Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc from the United States Grand Prix for excessive plank wear. The events in Austin, however, highlight a shortage if both the teams and the FIA make it clear that there’s little time for checks and verifications in a weekend combining the Sprint format with a back-to-back race.

Lewis Hamilton (Mercedes) and Charles Leclerc (Ferrari) were excluded from the United States Grand Prix due to excessive plank wear. According to regulations, the plank can have a wear of up to 1 mm on its 10 mm thickness. The wear was not registered at the front, where the splitter is, but at the rear, near the diffuser elbow. The seven-time world champion loses a second-place finish, while Charles Leclerc ends up in a disappointing sixth. It’s reasonable to assume that the two teams won’t appeal the decision of the race stewards, but when they were heard on the matter, they were eager to show that there was no attempt to bend the rules but rather a simple mistake.

Indeed, it’s right to acknowledge the blunder and learn from it, underlining an aspect that may seem like an excuse: both Mercedes and Ferrari have emphasized their good intentions, dispelling doubts that there might have been an attempt to gain an unfair performance advantage. They mentioned that parc fermé rules were in place after just one practice session, followed by two qualifying sessions and the Sprint race, which limited the time available for thorough checks.

This situation is different from what happened at the 1994 Belgian Grand Prix when Michael Schumacher was disqualified due to excessive wear of the plank beneath his Benetton B194, specifically in the front splitter area. The German had won the race at Spa-Francorchamps but was disqualified because the wear exceeded the tolerances. That was the first incident to shake up the rankings since the introduction of the plank.

Austin sends a warning to the promoter about the race weekend format. This signal should not be underestimated, as it comes from two top teams. Of course, now it’s easier to understand why Max Verstappen couldn’t build a significant lead as usual: Red Bull had realized during FP1 that they couldn’t run with the minimum ground clearance without the risk of scraping the plank or damaging the bottom. Pierre Gasly’s team had raised the RB19, losing some aerodynamic load and consequently performance.

The decision was not due to a flawed setup deliberation, as was the case in Singapore, but they hadn’t accounted for the surface variations that change from year to year. Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc undoubtedly benefited from this. The Englishman enjoyed the new plank, which made the W14 less challenging, allowing Brackley’s engineers to adopt a lower setup. The final standings (the correct ones after the disqualifications) with Red Bull and McLaren ahead of Ferrari and Mercedes perhaps represent the true performance values.

This brings up another interesting point: the verifications. Why did the FIA choose to examine only four cars (Red Bull of Verstappen, Mercedes of Hamilton, McLaren of Norris, and Ferrari of Charles Leclerc) out of twenty? Two out of the four were found non-compliant, raising doubts that other cars might have not complied (especially the drivers who received penalties for repeated track limit violations), but Jo Bauer’s team didn’t examine them. The International Federation has the freedom to arbitrarily choose whom they want to check.

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!

In reality, the federal commissioners have the ability to remotely check the cars’ ride height and monitor the porpoising oscillations metrics. In any case, they focused on the four fastest cars. Jo Bauer didn’t have doubts about finding non-compliant cars; otherwise, he would have checked George Russell and Carlos Sainz‘s cars too. It’s reasonable to think that the violations result from individual setup choices that were not intended to break the rules, supporting the theory of errors facilitated by the Sprint race format.

However, some argued, noting that thirteen cars out of seventeen that finished the race were not checked, raising strong doubts about the possibility of other non-compliant F1 cars in parc fermé. The cars remain in parc fermé for half an hour, during which a complaint can be filed for a re-inspection.

Jo Bauer’s notification of the non-compliance of Mercedes and Ferrari came after the deadlines had passed, and further checks were impossible. Why? Theoretically, the FIA could have checked all the cars, but the process would have taken a lot of time. Not so much to ratify the results (we’re used to waiting for the verdicts during disputes), but to pack and ship the cars to the Mexico Grand Prix.

We are in the middle of back-to-back races, and the departure of cargo cannot be delayed if the cars are to arrive in the Mexico City paddock as planned. So what is becoming clear from Austin? Perhaps the limits are being pushed with 22 races on the calendar and six Sprint events with a tight format.

Formula 1 is leaning too much towards entertainment (every time a driver takes to the track, they must compete competitively for a result, a trophy, points, and prizes) at the expense of the purely sporting aspect. No one says it outright, but it seems that the FIA itself limits post-race checks to clear the paddock as soon as possible.

Does all this make sense? The teams claim that it’s challenging to carry out the usual checks during weekends with the Sprint format, and the FIA suggests that it’s difficult to conduct thorough post-race inspections. Is there something slipping through the cracks in the management of sporting events?

The issue should be brought to the forefront, as it risks changing the DNA of Formula 1.