Haas launched a proper ‘proper to overview’ that, if profitable, stood to raise its driver Nico Hulkenberg into the factors at Austin after figuring out {cases} of vehicles exceeding observe limits that weren’t recognized by the stewards on the time.
Its case was primarily based round onboard footage displaying Alex Albon, Sergio Perez, Lance Stroll and Logan Sargeant straying with all 4 wheels past the painted white traces denoting the sting of the observe at Flip 6.
The stewards have acknowledged that the circuit CCTV digital camera was poorly positioned so didn’t totally cowl the nook exit and that the policing of observe limits must be urgently reviewed.
Nonetheless, counting on video proof that was already out there to rivals in the course of the grand prix doesn’t fulfill the FIA to standards for a profitable protest, so Haas’ case has been thrown out.
The total doc that outlines Haas’ case, the defence from Aston Martin, Williams, Purple Bull, McLaren and Ferrari and the stewards’ reasoning and remaining verdict will be present in full under:
Process
1. On November 3, 2023, the Stewards acquired a petition from MoneyGram Haas F1 Team
(“Haas”) requesting a Proper of Evaluation in accordance with Article 14 of the FIA Worldwide
Sporting Code (“the Code”).
2. The request associated to the Selections of the Stewards contained in paperwork quantity 59 (no
additional motion on Automobile 23 for alleged breaches of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2c) of the Code
and Article 33.3 of the FIA System One Sporting Laws) (“ALB Resolution”) and quantity
66 (Ultimate Classification) from the 2023 United States Grand Prix.
3. A listening to was convened at 15:00 hrs CET on November 8, 2023, and anxious events had been
summoned (doc numbers 68 to 71).
4. The Stewards of the US Grand Prix carried out the listening to.
5. Attending the listening to had been:
On behalf of MoneyGram Haas F1 Crew – Messrs. Ayao Komatsu and Andrea Fioravanti
(Exterior Authorized Counsel)
On behalf of Aston Martin Aramco Cognizant F1 Crew (“Aston Martin”) – Messrs. Mike Krack,
Oliver Rumsey and Andy Stevenson
On behalf of Williams Racing (“Williams”) – Messrs. Sven Smeets and David Redding
On behalf of Oracle Red Bull Racing (“Purple Bull”) – Mr. Jonathan Wheatley
On behalf of the FIA – Messrs. Nikolas Tombazis, Steve Nielsen and Tim Malyon
On behalf of Scuderia Ferrari (“Ferrari”) – Mr. Inaki Rueda
On behalf of McLaren F1 Crew (“McLaren”) – Mr. Randeep Singh
The primary 4 rivals talked about within the listing above had been summoned to the listening to, the final
two rivals requested permission to attend as involved events.
6. This listening to was devoted to figuring out, on the sole discretion of the Stewards (as specified
in Article 14.3 of the Code) if “a major and related new aspect is found which was
unavailable to the events in search of the overview on the time of the choice involved”. On this
case, the celebration was MoneyGram Haas F1 Crew and the selections involved had been paperwork
59 and 66 issued throughout the US Grand Prix.
7. Subsequently, the Stewards had been required to find out if any proof offered to them was capable of meet every one of many above standards specifically vital, related, new and unavailable to the celebration in search of the overview. Along with that, if the factors vital, related and new had been met, the Stewards must decide that such a component was found.
8. Haas cited 4 points which it considered assembly these standards. These had been:
a. On-board video footage of Automobile 23 and following vehicles displaying Automobile 23 allegedly leaving the observe on a number of events on the apex of Flip 6 in the course of the race.
b. On-board video footage of Automobile 2 displaying it allegedly leaving the observe on a number of events on the apex of Flip 6 in the course of the race.
c. On-board video footage of Automobile 11 displaying it allegedly leaving the observe on a number of events on the apex of Flip 6 in the course of the race.
d. On-board video footage of Automobile 18 displaying it allegedly leaving the observe on a number of events on the apex of Flip 6 in the course of the race.
9. In its written submission Haas additionally submitted that in the course of the Crew Managers’ Assembly held on October 27, 2023, earlier than the 2023 Mexican Grand Prix, the FIA Race Director and the FIA Single Seater Sporting Director allegedly made a number of statements indicating that the observe restrict supervision at Flip 6 throughout the US Grand Prix was not very best.
10. Through the listening to, Haas, represented by Mr. Fioravanti, specified that the petition to overview the ALB choice must be seen individually from the petition to overview the Ultimate Classification. The petition to overview the Ultimate Classification was submitted with the intention to take motion primarily based on the proof submitted regarding alleged observe restrict infringements by Vehicles 2, 11 and 18, which had been neither famous, nor investigated nor penalized by the Stewards, as mirrored within the Ultimate Classification.
11. Haas offered no further proof in the course of the listening to however bolstered its place outlined in its written submission.
12. Aston Martin, represented by Mr. Stevenson, said their perception that there have been no new parts. Specifically, they talked about that a number of assessments required by Article 14.1 of the Code wouldn’t be met as of their opinion the proof submitted was neither new, nor unavailable or found because the on-board cameras of all vehicles can be found to the groups in the course of the race. Additional, it was said that Aston Martin doesn’t take into account the on-board footage to be vital as no secondary proof similar to CCTV was offered and all groups had clearly been knowledgeable on many earlier events by the FIA that observe restrict infringements wouldn’t be judged solely primarily based on on-board digital camera footage as a result of inherent limitations of such footage
14. Purple Bull, represented by Mr. Wheatley, said their perception that there have been no new parts and agreed with the arguments made by Aston Martin. They added that there had been no Resolution made on Automobile 11 in the course of the occasion both. Moreover, they acknowledged that, of their opinion, the assertion made by Haas regarding any info given in the course of the Crew Managers’ Assembly earlier than the Mexican Grand Prix is totally irrelevant to this case.
15. Williams, represented by Mr. Redding, echoed the arguments made by Aston Martin and Purple Bull.
16. The representatives of Ferrari and McLaren indicated that they’d nothing additional so as to add to the factors already made.
17. The Stewards requested Haas if they may elaborate on the assertion made of their submission in regards to the unavailability of the on-board digital camera footage. In response Mr. Fioravanti, representing Haas, maintained that the proof submitted was unavailable to the staff on the time.
18. The Stewards adjourned the listening to at 1530 hrs to find out the existence or in any other case of any “parts” which complied with all the factors required in Article 14.1.1 of the Code.
19. The Stewards additionally word the selections of the Stewards in relation to the existence of such parts within the earlier {cases} of the Proper of Evaluation Requests (Aston Martin) Saudi Arabia 2023, (Ferrari) Australia 2023 and (McLaren) Canada 2023. Different petitions going again a number of years had been additionally famous. It’s honest to say that Article 14.1.1 units a really “excessive bar” to clear earlier than opening a brand new listening to and reviewing a choice.
20. Accordingly, the Stewards then assessed every of the “parts” submitted by Haas in opposition to every of the factors referred to in level 7 above.
Resolution
21. Relating to the on-board digital camera footage of Automobile 23 and following vehicles the Stewards:
a. Decide that it’s vital
b. Decide that it’s not new
c. Decide that it was out there to Haas (the celebration in search of the overview) on the time of
the choice
d. Decide that it’s not related
For the explanations for this evaluation please see factors 24 to 26.
22. Relating to the opposite three parts submitted (on-board digital camera footage of Vehicles 2, 11 and 18)
the Stewards:
a. Decide that they aren’t vital
b. Decide that they aren’t new
c. Decide that they had been out there to Haas (the celebration in search of the overview) on the time
of the choice
d. Decide that they aren’t related
For the explanation for this evaluation please see factors 27 and 28.
23. Subsequently, the Petition for the Proper of Evaluation is REJECTED as a result of there is no such thing as a vital
and related new aspect that was unavailable to Haas on the time of the Resolution.
Causes
24. In relation to level 21a, the on-board digital camera footage of Automobile 23 and notably the next vehicles are vital as they seem to indicate no less than some obvious breaches of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2c) of the Code and Article 33.3 of the FIA System One Sporting Laws when considered with out the extra context that Stewards apply, as famous in level
25. In relation to 21d, the footage is just not related. As already famous within the ALB Resolution (one of many topics of this overview request) after the race, the proof out there to the Stewards (each then and now) was not ample to precisely and constantly (that means for each automotive in each lap) penalize any [track limit] breaches occurring on the apex of Flip 6. Observe restrict infringements are nearly universally enforced primarily based on principal video proof from a set CCTV digital camera of sufficient decision positioned to obviously see a automotive’s place in relation to the observe restrict boundary. The CCTV digital camera for Flip 6 didn’t meet that commonplace because it didn’t cowl the apex of the nook. As a result of onboard cameras are solely helpful for verifying a breach when viewing a automotive in entrance of the digital camera automotive and never the digital camera automotive itself, the Stewards believed they may not precisely and constantly conclude whether or not a breach occurred for each automotive on each lap. Anecdotal utilization of trailing automotive video, which can or might not be out there for any given automotive’s potential breach at any given time doesn’t meet that correct and constant proof commonplace. Subsequently, the latitude offered to the Stewards within the Code was used to take no additional motion primarily based on the shortage of correct and constant proof for all vehicles, within the curiosity of Sporting Equity as stipulated in Articles 1.1.1 and 1.2.1 of the Code and delegated to the Stewards in Article 11.9.1 of the Code.
26. In relation to 21b and c, the onboard footage is just not new and was out there to the celebration in search of the overview (Haas) in addition to to the Stewards on the time of the choice. Opposite to the assertion of Haas within the listening to, they had been out there to the Stewards and will have been reviewed, nevertheless they weren’t reviewed by alternative of the Stewards for the explanations already famous. The take a look at of Article 14.1.1 is availability, not whether or not the weather had been found on account of that availability. Along with that, all on-board cameras are made out there to all groups in actual time throughout an occasion, so the onboard footage was out there to Haas on the time of the choice even when it won’t have been reviewed at the moment.
27. In relation to 22b and c, the onboard footage is just not new and has been out there to the celebration in search of the overview (Haas) in addition to to the Stewards on the time of the choice (see additionally the reasons made in level 26).
28. In relation to 22a and d, the weather submitted are neither vital nor related in relation to the Resolution (doc 66) petitioned to be reviewed. The petition for overview asks for Doc 66 (Ultimate Classification) to be reviewed. Haas submitted that the aim of this petition was to ask the Stewards to take motion on alleged observe restrict infringements by Vehicles 2, 11 and 18 for which no ruling was given by the Stewards in the course of the race. The Stewards reaffirm {that a} petition to overview the Ultimate Classification should concern the classification itself. It’s not potential to train the Proper of Evaluation on the Ultimate Classification to query choices taken previous to it. This additionally applies to incidents for which no ruling was made throughout an occasion. The suitable treatment to boost alleged infringements of the rules by different rivals throughout a contest is a protest as was carried out, for instance, by Aston Martin on the 2023 Austrian Grand Prix. The Proper of Evaluation is meant to allow rivals to hunt a overview for formal choice taken by the Stewards within the gentle of any vital and related new proof that was not out there to the celebration in search of the overview on the time of the choice.
29. The Witness Assertion submitted by Haas in regards to the Crew Managers’ Assembly earlier than the 2023 Mexican Grand Prix doesn’t represent vital proof because the submissions allegedly made by the FIA Race Director and the FIA Single Seater Sporting Director had no relevance for assessing whether or not the factors of Article 14.1.1 of the Code had been met for both of the selections petitioned to be reviewed.
30. On condition that, however the formal end result of this Resolution, the Stewards have seen particular person items of proof that present what seem like potential observe restrict breaches on the apex of Flip 6, they discover their incapacity to correctly implement the present commonplace for observe limits for all rivals fully unsatisfactory and due to this fact strongly suggest to all involved {that a} answer to forestall additional reoccurrences of this widespread drawback be quickly deployed. Whether or not the issue is correctly addressed by higher know-how options, observe modifications, a mixture thereof, or a special regulation and enforcement commonplace, the Stewards go away to these higher positioned to make such assessments. Nonetheless, primarily based on the timing of this Resolution, it’s clear {that a} full answer can not, as a matter of practicality, occur this yr. However given the variety of totally different circuits the place vital observe restrict points arose this season, acknowledging that the FIA along side the circuits have already made vital strides, additional options ought to be discovered earlier than the beginning of the 2024 season.
Rivals are reminded that, in accordance with Article 14.3 of the Code, this choice is just not topic to enchantment.
Selections of the Stewards are taken independently of the FIA and are primarily based solely on the related rules, pointers and proof offered