Carlos Sainz Jnr will start the Chinese Grand Prix from seventh on the grid after the stewards dismissed a protest by Aston Martin.
The team lodged a protest claiming Sainz should not have been allowed to take further part in the session after he stopped his car when he crashed during Q2. The session was red-flagged and race control noted his car had come to a stop, as Aston Martin noted in their protest.After sitting at the edge of the track for around 77 seconds, Sainz was able to move away and drive back to the pits. He took part in the rest of the qualifying session, reached Q3 and qualified seventh. By reaching Q3 he prevented Aston Martin driver Lance Stroll from doing the same, as he was eliminated in 11th place.
Aston Martin protested the results of qualifying, citing article 39.6 of the Sporting Regulations. This states: “Any driver whose car stops on the track during the qualifying session or the sprint qualifying will not be permitted to take any further part in that session.”
Aston Martin and Ferrari were represented at a hearing between the stewards and race control, plus FIA single seater director Nikolas Tombazis who requested to attend but did not participate. The stewards disclosed that ‘other team managers’ were present in the hearing, but did not outline which other teams were represented.
While Aston Martin argued the rules showed Sainz should not have been allowed to continue in the session, Ferrari claimed past practice showed Sainz should have been allowed to continue in qualifying.
The stewards agreed with the latter. “Taking into account the numerous examples where cars had stopped for different lengths of time and were permitted to restart and continue to participate in the session concerned, we considered that the decision taken by race control was not inconsistent with past practice nor in breach of article 39.6.”
“We considered that even if the plain wording of article 39.6 warranted a more stark conclusion, the consistent practice in the sport to date did not warrant a setting aside of the discretion exercised by race control by us as stewards,” they added.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Chinese Grand Prix
- Aston Martin fail in bid to have Alonso’s Shanghai penalty reviewed
- Mercedes cleared over Hamilton pit stop infraction as ‘nearly all teams in breach’
- Aston Martin petitions FIA to review Alonso’s penalty for Sainz collision
- “You need to be more on it”: 12 unheard radio exchanges from the Chinese GP
- Ricciardo needs to show “head-turning form” for 2025 chance – Horner
Palaboran (@palaboran)
20th April 2024, 15:04
Then change the bloody rule!
Laz
20th April 2024, 16:38
No need, we all already know that rule is only applied to someone who can’t make it back to the pits. It’s always been applied in this manner without any issue. AM were just trying to get Stroll one place on the grid. Because they arbitrarily decided that Sainz was dropped ‘too long’ even though there’s nothing about how long a driver maybe stopped.
It’s a complete non issue. If anything a change will create more problems as it so often does. What really needs to happen is for AM to respect how the rule has been managed for as long as I can remember.
Jere (@jerejj)
20th April 2024, 15:07
Unsurprising
MichaelN
20th April 2024, 15:21
Will Aston Martin now voluntarily withdraw their drivers if they ever come to a brief stop?
It’s time for Lance to step up. Not for no hope protests.
notagrumpyfan
20th April 2024, 16:31
Why should they?
If FIA’s stewards now say that even though that is the official rule, this rule doesn’t count, then AM doesn’t need to worry about it either. I wonder which other rules can be ignored by drivers.
MichaelN
20th April 2024, 17:22
That’s not what they said. The report is quite detailed, and shows the rules were applied correctly.
Discussions were held specifically about this rule, which Aston Martin knows.
The teams did not agree to a new procedure, which Aston Martin knows.
There was no change to this rule going into 2024, which Aston Martin knows
Their complaint that Sainz took too long to get going has no merit, which Aston Martin knows.
This was just a petty, possibly vindictive, attempt to get another competitor penalised. It’s unfortunate that this is how Aston Martin wants to go racing. Especially given the numerous penalties their drivers have already received this year for their on track antics.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th April 2024, 18:00
The regulation in 2023 specifically said that Aston Martin’s case was valid, as Aston Martin knew.
This means that, given the first three sentences in the 4-sentence argument you made, the 4th one must be false.
(You can argue that practice usually overrules theory in F1, and you’d be right, but that just means both sides had a case).
notagrumpyfan
20th April 2024, 19:00
Yes they did!
I assume you disagree with my statement “FIA’s stewards now say that even though that is the official rule”!
They clearly state that the rule is valid and breached by Sainz:
A rule should only stop to be a rule after the rule has been dropped/changed, not after there were some ‘discussions’.
Yellow baron
20th April 2024, 16:47
A Ferrari also stopped in Friday’s qualification, caused a yellow and then resumed but they managed to not protest then.
I assumed too that it’s for lance but if Carlos had gotten a 3 place penalty (by some out of ordinary lack of common sense by FIA)he still would be ahead of lance. Maybe they wanted him disqualified (sorry if I missed that point)
However, I wonder if they also recognise how slow Alonso was in the sprint compared to quali and hope to have at least one car further back that could pass Alonso in the race.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th April 2024, 18:02
A Ferrari stopped yesterday in a way that would have got Aston Martin’s case ruled out immediately had it tried it, because only teams directly involved can protest in the first place. Protesting a SQ3 crash gets nobody out of SQ2, Alonso wasn’t directly affected by the crash and therefore a protest at that point wouldn’t even have got as far as considering the merits or lack of same of the regulation under dispute.
Nick T.
20th April 2024, 22:28
Yeah, Alonso should just be banned from the race! He’s too slow. Sainz meanwhile is a god!
SjaakFoo (@sjaakfoo)
20th April 2024, 16:47
Good. Next time just tell the nepo baby to do his talking on the track rather than tattling to the stewards over technicalities in the rule book. If Alonso can get P3, the wonder kid should be able to get pole at least.
GmP (@gmp)
20th April 2024, 17:05
Good to see the stewards did their job correctly. First at the decision itself, and then rejecting the protest. AM were right to protest, that’s how the regulations work. Good outcome for everyone, great job FIA team.
Nick T.
20th April 2024, 22:29
They themselves admitted the rule stated Sainz should have been out. I’m always in favor of applying flexibility to let as many racers keep competing, but they didn’t do their job as far as the letter of the law is applied.
GmP (@gmp)
21st April 2024, 0:33
And that is why they did their job correctly. That nonsense that a rule as written is strict and must be followed always black and white is what the problem is. The stewards must take the intention of the rule, the circumstances on the infraction, etc. Into account and then make a judgement call. They did that perfectly in this case.
Nick T.
21st April 2024, 4:03
Well, I agree with you that the stewards are right when they ignore stupid rules, but it seems they’ll do that for some teams and drivers and not others.
The one thing people haven’t mentioned was that this rule was supposed to DQ drivers who spin out in a place like Monaco while on the front row. I hope this precedent isn’t used to then allow that to happen.
Sham (@sham)
20th April 2024, 21:54
FIA stewards in “failure to apply the rules as they are written” shock.
More at 11.
Nick T.
20th April 2024, 22:35
Shazam!
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
21st April 2024, 5:55
I am amazed at the blowback for not adhering to the written rule, when everyone knows the blowback would be even worse had this rule been applied literally in the past.