It was a long night in Las Vegas: the mere eight minutes of FP1 interrupted by a poorly maintained manhole, which knocked out Carlos Sainz’s single-seater, have left repercussions that will be debated for a long time. The impact, which occurred on the Strip at over 300 km/h, forced Ferrari mechanics into overtime. The red-clad crew had to replace a significant portion of car #55’s SF-23: the Power Unit, chassis, and battery. Moreover, due to the force unleashed by the collision, the Spanish driver’s seat and steering wheel also suffered cracks.
For Ferrari, in addition to the damage, there’s also the insult: what did the FIA decide
Despite the superb work of the mechanics, who rebuilt the car in record time to allow Carlos Sainz to participate in the second free practice session, the former McLaren driver’s weekend still looks uphill. The reason is simple: if the penalty has been averted for all the other replaced components, the same cannot be said for the battery. The latter has reached its third unit against the two allowed by the regulations, forcing the Spaniard to incur a 10-place penalty on the starting grid.
The Federation has, therefore, decided to uphold the regulations, denying Ferrari’s request for an exemption due to “force majeure” beyond the team and driver’s control. It cannot be said that the Prancing Horse has accepted the decision without frustration, to the point that, according to some rumors, they might have even “threatened” to withdraw both cars from Sunday’s Grand Prix (Saturday night in Las Vegas).
Fred Vasseur, Toto Wolff, and the rejected exemption
Even before the FIA’s difficult decision, the Team Principal of the Italian side had expressed all his frustration to the media: “We have completely damaged the chassis, engine, and battery. I think it’s simply unacceptable.” Toto Wolff responded somewhat unexpectedly: “These things happen; it was just a manhole. What happened is not an indelible stain.” The Mercedes boss went against the current, unlike other colleagues who showed solidarity with Fred Vasseur. Teams later confirmed their support by voting in favor of granting an exemption to Ferrari. All, except Mercedes. The Three-Pointed Star team clearly does not want to grant advantages to the team it is competing with for the second position in the Constructors’ Championship.
Nevertheless, the Brackley-based team has denied the existence of a vote, although Zak Brown, CEO of McLaren’s words, suggest otherwise: “We know about personal interests in Formula 1, but I think common sense should also be used. It was an unfortunate and unfair accident. I don’t know who opposed it, probably someone who didn’t agree with them.”
Was there really a risk of setting a precedent? What does the Regulation say
If one browses through the numerous pages of the Sporting Regulations, the reason is on Mercedes’ side, as there is no article that refers to the possibility of consulting with other teams or granting exemptions to prevent a possible penalty. Hence, the statement issued by the Stewards, explaining the reasons that led to the imposition of the 10 positions on Carlos Sainz: “Although the damage was caused by highly unusual external circumstances, Article 2.1 of the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations obliges all race officials (including the race stewards) to apply the regulations as they are 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!
The risk would undoubtedly have been to set a precedent, although it is not necessary to go so far back in time to find a more or less similar episode. During this season, precisely at Zandvoort, the Federation decided to bend the rules, allowing all drivers to start the race behind the Safety Car with intermediate tires instead of Full Wet, as the regulations dictate. This modification was adopted for safety reasons, given the particular condition of the Dutch circuit. The question arises: why, in this case, did they still want to proceed with the imposition of the penalty despite the damages suffered by the SF-23 being caused by unsafe track conditions?
Carlos Sainz is not happy: “Disappointed and incredulous, Formula 1 must improve”
At the end of the long day in Nevada, the Spaniard commented on the incident: “The accident damaged a large part of the car. Even my seat suffered damage.” Inevitably, there was a comment on the penalty he will have to serve: “At the end of the session, they informed me that I would be taking a 10-place grid penalty for something for which neither I nor the team are at fault.” Towards the end of the interview, Sainz did not hide his disappointment with what had happened, sparing no veiled criticism of Formula 1: “You can, of course, imagine how disappointed and incredulous I am about the situation. What happened today is a clear example of how this sport needs to improve on many levels. Somehow, there is always someone who has the opportunity to make the situation worse, and in this case, it’s me who pays the consequences.”
Perhaps the good pace shown by the Prancing Horse will bring at least a hint of a smile back to Carlos Sainz’s face, who can still count on a track layout that favors overtaking to try to climb the ranks as quickly as possible over the course of the 50 laps planned.
The show must not come before the sport: Liberty Media and FIA, what a missed opportunity!
“Ninety-nine percent is a show, one percent is sport.” Max Verstappen may not have been entirely wrong when, on the eve of the American weekend, he expressed this view, emphasizing the excessive importance that, in his opinion, Formula 1 has given to the surroundings compared to the on-track action. In Las Vegas, indeed, the red flag was waved, but it was for the event to end (after less than ten minutes) in the first free practice session due to a track that did not live up to expectations. A surreal situation considering the half-billion-dollar investment by Liberty Media, which, on this occasion, even decided to act as the event’s promoter.
To all this, Toto Wolff’s words must not be overlooked. It is true that such discomfort has occurred in the past (the last time in Baku in 2019 with the then rookie George Russell’s Williams), but if it had happened to Mercedes, would we be commenting on the same statements? It’s a legitimate question.
The fact remains that now Ferrari finds itself with half a car that can hardly be recovered, with damages amounting to about a million euros. The Spaniard is still in good company since Esteban Ocon and Zhou Guanyu also had to deal with damaged chassis and underbody, respectively, due to the passage over the incriminated manhole. In short, not exactly ideal in the era of the budget cap.
Leave a Reply