Romain Grosjean has been excluded from the results of the Italian Grand Prix after the floor on his Haas VF-18 was found to have been illegal.
Grosjean finished Sunday’s race in sixth position, a result that lifted Haas equal on points with Renault in the standings, and ahead on countback.
Renault lodged a protest against Grosjean’s car after the chequered flag, with F1 Race Director Charlie Whiting confirming that it concerned “a small detail on the floor, on the leading edge of the floor”.
Stewards requested that FIA Technical Delegate Jo Bauer inspects the floor of Grosjean’s car for compliance with Article 3.7.1 d) of the Technical Regulations.
Article 3.7.1 d) states that “the surface formed by all parts lying on the reference plane” must have a “50mm radius (+/-2mm) on each front corner when viewed from directly beneath the car, this being applied after the surface has been defined.”
Post-race checks deemed that the reference plane on Grosjean’s VF-18 was found not to be in compliance with those regulations.
Grosjean was duly excluded from the results of the race.
A detailed judgement from stewards, listed in full below, explained that Haas did not comply in time to a Technical Directive issued prior to the summer break, and was warned that a failure to do so would leave it open to a protest.
The disqualification means Haas now drops back behind Renault in the Constructors’ Championship on account of losing the eight points earned by Grosjean.
Force India has moved up to seventh in the standings, above Toro Rosso, having had Esteban Ocon and Sergio Perez elevated to sixth and seventh respectively.
Grosjean’s exit is also good news for Williams, as Lance Stroll moves up to ninth and Sergey Sirotkin into the top 10 for his maiden Formula 1 point.
Haas has the right to appeal the exclusion.
Stewards' decision and explanation:
Renault submitted that Art. 3.7.1.d of the Technical Regulations of the FIA Formula One World Championship state that a radius of 50mm (+/-2mm) must be applied to each front corner of the reference plane. (See Art.) The text of this Article was being applied differently by several different teams, and a clarification was sought. As a result, TD/033-18 was issued on the 25th of July, 2018 – which, in essence gave the teams until the Grand Prix of Monza to comply with the clarification indicated in the TD. Renault provided a picture that they claimed was of Car 8, which they stated shows that the part in question, at the start of the Grand Prix of Monza was not in compliance with art. 3.7.1.d of the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations, as clarified with the TD, and therefore they protested against the compliance of Car 8. Haas submitted that they understood the TD, and that they have been in contact with the FIA’s head of Single Seater Technical Matters. They submitted the email correspondence, which were also provided to the Stewards by the Technical Delegate. They provided details of their new solution and sought acceptance of that solution. In their final email in the chain, they provided both drawings of their solution and stated “Given the forthcoming summer break, we will endeavor to introduce this upgrade for the Singapore GP, but will be somewhat at the mercy of our suppliers so we would request some flexibility in this matter.” The response from the FIA’s head of Technical Matters did not respond to this point, but did make some technical points, along with general acceptance of the technical solution. Haas submitted that it was their understanding, based on a lack of response on the matter of timing that their solution and timing were accepted. The Stewards asked questions in clarification of the various points of the teams and permitted the teams to make concluding statements. The Stewards ordered the Technical Delegate to inspect Car 8, and his report to them (document 40) specified that the car was not in compliance with Art. 3.7.1.d as clarified in the TD.
The Stewards contacted the FIA’s Head of Single Seater Technical Matters, who confirmed the email chain referred to by Haas, but he also stated that in a subsequent conversation with Haas’ Head of Aero and representative on this matter, that he had stated that while he understood their supply problem, that if the car was not corrected by Monza – that they would leave themselves open to protest by other teams. Haas asked to be heard on additional points, and the Stewards re-convened the hearing. Haas noted that in their Head of Aero’s email, he proposed a solution and noted that this was as a result of their discussions “on how to best interpret the ambiguity associated with defining the front of the T-Tray.” As such, they noted that until that clarification was given, TD/033-18 remained ambiguous, and that as the TD had not been updated, they did not believe that their car was in violation of the TD. They further noted, that the time from the TD to the Grand Prix of Monza, taking into account the Summer Shutdown period was only three weeks, which is why it was not possible for them to come up with a solution within the time provided. The Stewards closed the hearing and considered the matter. The Stewards determined that, as per the Technical Delegate’s report, the car was not in compliance with Art. 3.7.1.d of the 2018 FIA Formula One Technical Regulations, as clarified by TD/033-18. As has been noted in previous decisions of the FIA International Court of Appeal, Technical Directives are advisory in nature, but they provide a manner in which a competitor may satisfy the Technical Delegates and the Stewards with proof that their car is compliant. In this case the Competitor did not follow the Technical Directive, and the outboard front corner of the car does not have the requisite 50mm radius. While the Stewards are also sympathetic to the difficulties of producing these parts, the Stewards noted that at least one other competitor was able to comply in the time provided. Further, it was made clear to the competitor from the outset that the FIA Technical Department did not consider their car to be in compliance, and further that they left themselves open to the circumstances they now find. It was therefore the obligation of the competitor to be in compliance, which they did not do.
