FIA rejected Ferrari’s appeal to review Vettel’s penalty in Canada
Ferrari lost his bid to obtain a review over the penalty of Sebastian Vettel in Montreal
Vettel was given a five second penalty after rejoining the track and forcing his rival Lewis Hamilton into evasive action. As a result, Hamilton became the race winner, with the 7th victory in a raw for Mercedes, at the expenses of Sebastian Vettel who lost the opportunity to win his first race in the 2019 Formula 1 championship.
Following the criticism over the episode and the anger of the five-time world champion, Ferrari summoned the request to have the incident reviewed. However, FIA confirmed that the bid has been rejected as the proofs provided by Ferrari was deemed insufficient.
Particularly, the stewards remarked how the telemetry data of the Vettel’s car, and different video-based evidence, included the analysis by performed by Karun Chandhok for Sky Sports after the race, were considered not relevant.
The FIA statement is reported as follows:
“The Stewards received a petition from Scuderia Ferrari for them to review, in accordance with Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code, the following decision made by the Stewards at the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix Competition:
Document 42 – 2019 Canadian Grand Prix.
The Stewards, summoned the team (Document 47) and held a hearing at 14:15 on Friday 21st June, 2019. The Stewards heard the team representative, Laurent Mekies, who made a presentation to the Stewards. Having examined the evidence presented by the team, the Stewards determine the following:
There are no significant and relevant new elements which were unavailable to the parties at the time of the competition concerned.
According to Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 2.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations, only those elements may be regarded as “new”, which have not been available to Scuderia Ferrari before the end of the Event (18:44 on June 9, 2019 – end of scrutineering).
Scuderia Ferrari presented the following elements in the hearing:
(i) analysis of the telemetry data of VET’s car, including car attitude channels;
(ii) a video analysis of the camera views (front view, top view, onboard cameras of VET and HAM) prepared after the race;
(iii) a video analysis performed by Karun Chandhok for Sky Sports after the race;
(iv) a video of VET’s face camera, which was released by F1 Limited after the race;
(v) post-race and video images;
(vi) analysis of the GPS racing line data of both HAM and VET in the Situation lap and in the previous race laps; and
(vii) Witness statement of VET (the “VET WS”).
Elements (i), (ii), (v), (vi) & (vii) were available before the end of the competition.
Element (iii) was new but not significant and relevant as this is a personal opinion by a third party.
Element (iv) was new but not significant and relevant as the evidence contained in this video footage can be seen within other available video.”