Aston Martin lodged a protest against the result following Ferrari driver Carlos Sainz’s off-track exit in Q2.
Sainz came out of the final corner and hit the tire wall on the opposite side of the circuit, causing a red flag after he was stationary for more than a minute.
Article 39.6 of the F1 sporting regulations states that “any driver whose car stops on the track during the qualifying session or the penalty shootout of the sprint qualifying session will no longer be allowed to participate in that session” .
But Sainz managed to get going again and, after quick repairs, was able to put in a lap that moved him into Q3. He thus eliminated Aston driver Lance Stroll, who missed the cut in 11th place.
The rule is intended to prevent drivers from rejoining the session after receiving assistance from marshals or recovery vehicles, and not those who are able to leave under their own power.
But the exact wording of the article doesn’t mention this, which opens the door for Aston to try to protest the result.
However, the stewards still rejected Aston’s protest as they believed “numerous examples” clearly demonstrated how the rule would be applied.
Carlos Sainz, Ferrari SF-24, crashes in Q2, causing red flag
Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images
“It is clear that the plain language of Article 39.6 suggests that as long as a car ‘stops’ on the track during a qualifying session, that car should not be allowed to participate further in the session,” it says. the verdict of the sports commissioners. .
“However, it is clear from the examples cited by a number of team principals present and by the FIA, that this is not how this rule has been applied by teams and the FIA in the past.”
One example mentioned is Williams’ Alex Albon rejoining qualifying for the 2022 Canadian Grand Prix after being stopped for 40 seconds, to which Aston argued that Sainz’s stop for a period of 1:17 s was too long.
The commissioners noted that the rule’s ambiguity about what constitutes a “stop” had actually been the subject of discussion in the past.
But as no agreement between the teams could be found on the time limit to be added to the regulations, this was left to the discretion of the race direction.
“The FIA team explained that as long as the car was able to restart and move away from a stopped position within a reasonable time, this would normally be permitted.
“The teams themselves have stated that they have already tried to agree on what they consider to be a reasonable time before a car is considered ‘stopped’.
Carlos Sainz, Ferrari SF-24, returns to the pits after a red flag crash in Q2
Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images
“Unfortunately, they failed to reach a final agreement on the maximum time limit.”
The stewards also said they had been shown notes from an F1 Commission meeting at Spa last year, where the consensus was to add the element “external assistance” to Article 39.6, but that this change was not made in the 2024 sporting regulations.
They concluded that “even if the simple wording of Article 39.6 warranted a harsher conclusion, the consistent practice in the sport to date did not justify setting aside the discretion exercised by race control by us as as sports commissioners”.
Aston Martin lodged a protest against the result following Ferrari driver Carlos Sainz’s off-track exit in Q2.
Sainz came out of the final corner and hit the tire wall on the opposite side of the circuit, causing a red flag after he was stationary for more than a minute.
Article 39.6 of the F1 sporting regulations states that “any driver whose car stops on the track during the qualifying session or the penalty shootout of the sprint qualifying session will no longer be allowed to participate in that session” .
But Sainz managed to get going again and, after quick repairs, was able to put in a lap that moved him into Q3. He thus eliminated Aston driver Lance Stroll, who missed the cut in 11th place.
The rule is intended to prevent drivers from rejoining the session after receiving assistance from marshals or recovery vehicles, and not those who are able to leave under their own power.
But the exact wording of the article doesn’t mention this, which opens the door for Aston to try to protest the result.
However, the stewards still rejected Aston’s protest as they believed “numerous examples” clearly demonstrated how the rule would be applied.
Carlos Sainz, Ferrari SF-24, crashes in Q2, causing red flag
Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images
“It is clear that the plain language of Article 39.6 suggests that as long as a car ‘stops’ on the track during a qualifying session, that car should not be allowed to participate further in the session,” it says. the verdict of the sports commissioners. .
“However, it is clear from the examples cited by a number of team principals present and by the FIA, that this is not how this rule has been applied by teams and the FIA in the past.”
One example mentioned is Williams’ Alex Albon rejoining qualifying for the 2022 Canadian Grand Prix after being stopped for 40 seconds, to which Aston argued that Sainz’s stop for a period of 1:17 s was too long.
The commissioners noted that the rule’s ambiguity about what constitutes a “stop” had actually been the subject of discussion in the past.
But as no agreement between the teams could be found on the time limit to be added to the regulations, this was left to the discretion of the race direction.
“The FIA team explained that as long as the car was able to restart and move away from a stopped position within a reasonable time, this would normally be permitted.
“The teams themselves have stated that they have already tried to agree on what they consider to be a reasonable time before a car is considered ‘stopped’.
Carlos Sainz, Ferrari SF-24, returns to the pits after a red flag crash in Q2
Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images
“Unfortunately, they failed to reach a final agreement on the maximum time limit.”
The stewards also said they had been shown notes from an F1 Commission meeting at Spa last year, where the consensus was to add the element “external assistance” to Article 39.6, but that this change was not made in the 2024 sporting regulations.
They concluded that “even if the simple wording of Article 39.6 warranted a harsher conclusion, the consistent practice in the sport to date did not justify setting aside the discretion exercised by race control by us as as sports commissioners”.