Alpine Interim Team Principal Bruno Famin has denied that rival Formula 1 teams lobbied for Carlos Sainz’s penalty in Las Vegas, insisting the stewards had no other choice.
Last month, the first practice hour at the Las Vegas Strip Circuit was abandoned after Sainz ran over a water valve cover and sustained extensive damage to his Ferrari.
Ferrari had to replace the power unit on the SF-23 and asked the FIA for dispensation regarding the usage of a third energy store outside of Sainz’s allowance for the year.
Sainz lost out on a front-row starting berth because the stewards dismissed Ferrari’s appeal, despite acknowledging the “highly unusual and unfortunate circumstances”.
Derek Warwick, a steward in Vegas, admitted that it “felt wrong” handing Sainz a 10-place grid drop, adding: “We worked very hard for it not to happen but they’re the rules”.
When asked about the incident in Abu Dhabi a week later, Famin agreed with Warwick’s assessment that the rules had to be applied as they are clearly defined in the regulations.
Amid rumours at the time that rival teams had lobbied for Sainz to be punished, Famin said: “I think it’s the stewards’ decision and it’s not because the other teams said XYZ.
“I think it’s very unfortunate for Carlos but I don’t – frankly speaking – I don’t see what other choice FIA stewards had in that case. It happened that you are taken in a crash, you have nothing to do with the crash or somebody push you and you lose a gearbox, you lose an engine, you lose transmission and unfortunately you are for nothing in that, and you are penalised.
“But if we start opening the door to this kind of thing, it will be endless.
“I think the stewards took the right decision unfortunately for Carlos. It’s very unfortunate because he had nothing to do but there was no other option.”
Max Verstappen, who benefitted from Sainz’s grid drop that weekend, sympathised with his former team-mate, insisting “the rules have to change” for similar future situations.
That prompted suggestions that F1 should implement a force majeure clause to cover such episodes, but it was revealed that the teams had previously rejected that addition.
“It was very unfortunate for Carlos but the FIA made the correct interpretation of the regulation and therefore they penalised him,” AlphaTauri’s Franz Tost concurred.
However, Tost, who departed his team boss role at the end of this season, highlights that the issue would have been avoided if the track had been properly inspected prior.
“And it was force majeure. On the other hand, I must say, the main problem came up because the track maybe was not inspected in the way it should be,” he argued.
“Because if this would have been the case, then the problem would not have occurred.”
The Austrian compared the affair to the one involving Daniel Ricciardo in Brazil, when the Australian was put a lap down after suffering damage before the race was suspended.
“And we had in São Paulo, a similar issue with, you could also call it force majeure, when a tyre destroyed the rear wing from Daniel Ricciardo after the start,” he added.
“You could also say he couldn’t do anything, this tyre was just coming from the collision, which was before, in the first corner. It was unfortunate, but FIA came up with the correct decision.”
Discussion about this post