Ferrari’s right of review into Carlos Sainz’s time penalty at Formula 1’s Australian Grand Prix has been dismissed.
Sainz received a five-second time penalty in Melbourne after he was judged to have caused a collision with Fernando Alonso at the chaotic final standing restart.
Due to the bunched nature of the pack at the finish the penalty relegated a furious Sainz from fourth to outside of the points.
Ferrari duly submitted a right of review, as is permitted under Formula 1’s regulations, and a virtual hearing was arranged for Tuesday in order to assess the validity of the team’s request.
For the original hearing to be re-opened Ferrari had to present significant, new and relevant information that was not available at the time.
It was concluded by stewards that they did not do so and consequently the right of review has not been deemed as admissible.
It means the original order from the Australian Grand Prix has been maintained.
Ferrari presented telemetry from the incident, along with witness statements from Sainz and other drivers, but this was not deemed relevant to consider the original verdict to be altered.
“We deemed it unnecessary for us to hear from Sainz or hear from any other driver to decide that he was wholly to blame for the collision,” read a statement.
“A decision that we, and other Stewards panels, routinely take and are encouraged to take, when the cause of the collision is clear and there is a need for time penalties to be issued as quickly as possible.”
In explaining why the telemetry was not deemed new or relevant, stewards wrote: “The Stewards have access to a considerable amount of telemetry data. We were also in a position to access such data. The telemetry data presented in the Petition is at best ambiguous and in our view did not exculpate Sainz but in fact corroborated our decision that he was wholly to blame for the collision.
“He says he braked harder but could not stop the car because of cold tyres. He states further that a slow formation lap contributed to the cold tyres.
“There are two short points. First, even if that is true, the presentation of telemetry showing his braking point is not a significant new element for the purposes of Art.14.
Second, the conditions of the track and the tyres was something that every competitor needed to take into account and adapt to. In trying to brake late while racing GAS, he adopted the risk that he, as a driver, would lose control of his car. In this case, that risk materialised, with the consequence of a collision that ensued, for which a penalty follows.”
