Aston Martin’s challenge regarding the Chinese Grand Prix qualifying session outcome, spurred by Carlos Sainz’s continuation despite causing a red flag, has been resolved.
Sainz’s mishap occurred midway through Q2 at the Shanghai International Circuit when his Ferrari lost control exiting the final corner, veering into the gravel and colliding with the barrier, prompting a halt with the red flag.
Though Sainz managed to revive his car and limp it back to the pits, Aston Martin opted to contest the qualifying results. Their contention stemmed from Article 39.6 of the sporting regulations, stipulating that a driver whose vehicle halts on the track during qualifying cannot further participate in the session.
Despite Ferrari’s return to action and Sainz progressing through the session, displacing Lance Stroll, who qualified 11th, Aston Martin believed the regulation had been transgressed.
This was despite the prevailing interpretation of the rule centering on instances where a car cannot autonomously return to the pits.
In response to Aston Martin’s protest, the FIA examined the evidence but ultimately found it insufficient to uphold the challenge, resulting in the dismissal of the case.
In their official decision, the stewards articulated, “It is clear that the plain language of Art. 39.6 suggests that so long as a car ‘stops’ on the track during a qualifying session, that car should not be permitted to take further part in the session.”
This statement underscores the straightforward interpretation of the regulation.
Yet, the document also acknowledged, “However, it was clear from the examples cited by a number of the team managers present and the FIA, that this was not how this rule was applied by the teams and the FIA in the past.”
This highlights a historical disparity between the literal wording of the rule and its application by both teams and the FIA in previous instances.
The document further elaborated on the FIA’s perspective, stating, “In the FIA’s view, what was crucial was that the car would not receive any outside assistance in order to restart (e.g. from marshals).” This emphasizes the FIA’s focus on the absence of external aid in the car’s restart process.
Aston Martin’s stance was also clarified in the document, indicating that the team “accepted that there were prior examples of cars stopping on track and being allowed to continue, despite the plain wording of Article 39.6.
“However, they felt that stopping, in this case, for 1 minute and 17 seconds was too long and therefore should not have been permitted.”
Despite acknowledging past instances of leniency towards cars stopping on track, Aston Martin contended that the duration of the stop in this particular case exceeded what should have been permissible.
In their final determination, the stewards concluded, “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.”
This statement reflects the stewards’ assessment that the decision made by Race Control regarding the continuation of the session was consistent with previous instances and did not contravene Article 39.6.
The regulation stipulates that a car triggering a red flag cannot further participate in a session and is currently undergoing a trial in F2 and FIA F3. However, it has not been grounds for appeal in Formula 1 in the past.
