The evidence, arguments behind Ferrari’s Vettel review request

Ferrari’s decision to ask the FIA to review Sebastian Vettel’s Canadian GP penalty has left many questioning whether the Italian outfit has a strong enough case to back its claims that the sanction was unjustified.

The evidence, arguments behind Ferrari’s Vettel review request

Vettel lost his win in Montreal thanks to a five-second penalty that he was given for having rejoined the track in an unsafe manner and forcing Lewis Hamilton off the circuit after he made a mistake at the first chicane on lap 48.

Read Also:

While Ferrari elected not to go through with an appeal on the penalty – mainly because in-race time punishments like that cannot be appealed – it lodged paperwork with the FIA on Monday requesting a review under Article 14 of the International Sporting Code.

The team has not spoken in public about what it is pulling together, but it is understood that the ‘significant and relevant’ new evidence it will present includes GPS data, extra telemetry and the witness testimony of Vettel himself – who was not asked for his opinion about the incident before the stewards punished him.

Should the new elements be accepted by the stewards as enough to justify re-examining the case, then matters could get interesting because central to Ferrari's argument will likely be the use of the FIA's own rule book to show that Vettel did no wrong.

What the rules do and don't say

The first breach Vettel is accused of is rejoining the track in an unsafe manner.

The rules regarding this are covered in both the ISC and the Sporting Regulations, which are clear about what is expected of drivers who run off the circuit.

Article 27.3 of the Sporting Regulations states: "Drivers will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not. Should a car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining a lasting advantage.

The FIA says that Vettel moving across on Hamilton shows that he did not rejoin safely.

One of the key reasons for the FIA stewards coming to this conclusion was the use of secondary steering wheel movements from the German after an initial oversteer moment as he rejoined the track.

The argument was that at the moment Vettel was back in control of the car, rather than steer to the left to give Hamilton room on the right, it was felt that the German's release of the wheel was a deliberate attempt to edge wider and block Hamilton.

The rules are clear on when a driver will be deemed to be in the wrong when it comes to defending in this kind of situation – and there are three key regulations governing this.

Article 27.4 of the Sporting Regulations states: "At no time may a car be driven unnecessarily slowly, erratically or in a manner which could be deemed potentially dangerous to other drivers or any other person."

Appendix L to the ISC, Chapter IV., Art. 2 a) states "A car alone on the track may use the full width of the said track…

Article 2 b) adds: "More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted.

"Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

"However, manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are strictly prohibited."

Vettel's testimony, allied to video footage and the GPS and telemetry data, may provide a wealth of information as to why Ferrari feels the German did not 'deliberately crowd' Hamilton off, nor drive erratically – especially because when he rejoined the circuit the Mercedes car was still some way behind him.

GPS evidence

It is believed that a specific piece of GPS data comparing Vettel's line through the sequence of corners on the lap before the incident to when the moment with Hamilton happens shows that the positioning of his car at the exit of Turn 4 is not dramatically different.

In fact, Vettel was actually further away to the left from the edge of the circuit than he had been on the lap before, so there was more room on the outside.

Therefore, the argument is likely to be that Vettel did not put his car in a place that should have caused the pursuing Hamilton to be surprised.

Much has been made of the rule that says drivers must leave: 'at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track.' This has been especially valid when comparisons have been made between what Hamilton did against Daniel Ricciardo at Monaco in 2016 and what Vettel did in Canada.

However, that regulation does not strictly count in this instant, as that rule when read in full is only in reference to drivers who have earlier defended their position by moving off line. Vettel had made no previous move to defend his position away from the racing line.

Regarding the argument that Vettel should have steered more to the left after he rejoined the circuit, there is no regulation in either the sporting rules nor the ISC that states a driver must move away from the racing line and concede a position in such circumstances.

In fact, the only time that drivers are requested to let rivals through is if they have gained an unfair advantage.

That does not count in this case because Vettel did not gain any advantage from running off – as Hamilton ended up around 1.7 seconds closer to him after the incident than he was beforehand.

Hamilton's role

A factor to the Vettel punishment was the fact that Hamilton had to take avoiding action, by braking and edging himself off the circuit, to avoid a collision.

It was Hamilton's response that left the stewards convinced that Vettel had 'forced' the Mercedes driver off the track.

But there are two issues here that could be important to the positioning of Hamilton's car during the incident.

The first is that the normal racing line through that corner is already well over to the right, with drivers regularly dipping the right half of their car over the kerbs as can be seen in this image.

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes AMG F1 W10

Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes AMG F1 W10

Photo by: Zak Mauger / LAT Images

So in avoiding a collision with Vettel, Hamilton was still substantially in the same position as on a normal lap – and certainly not in an extreme position that could be spotted easily through Vettel's mirrors.

Secondly, there may well be some scrutiny requested about whether or not Hamilton actually left the circuit during the incident.

F1's regulations are clear about what the definition of the track boundaries are.

Appendix L to the ISC, Chapter IV., Art. 2 c) states: "Drivers must use the track at all times. For the avoidance of doubt, the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not."

This is reinforced by F1's Sporting Regulations. Article 27.3 which states as follows: "Drivers will be judged to have left the track if no part of the car remains in contact with it and, for the avoidance of doubt, any white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not."

The explanation of the white line is crucial here because it is not crystal clear from video footage and photographs as to whether or not all of his wheels were outside the white lines that marked the edge of the circuit during the moments when Vettel was deemed to be moving across.

Ferrari's view may well be that it does not believe Hamilton ever actually officially left the circuit.

Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari SF90, leads Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes AMG F1 W10

Sebastian Vettel, Ferrari SF90, leads Lewis Hamilton, Mercedes AMG F1 W10

Photo by: Zak Mauger / LAT Images

While not all the arguments and rule interpretations may be accepted by the FIA – and the case could be closed off swiftly if it is deemed the new evidence is not good enough – what is clear is that the Vettel matter is not the open-and shut case that some have suggested.

And the matter could become critical to how F1 moves forward with regards to driving standards regulations.

For while the Vettel penalty prompted calls for an end to the nanny state of too much policing of driving, if it is ultimately decided that the German did no wrong - and the rules are only there to stop dangerous or deliberately unfair driving - then maybe it can be proven that their presence has a use.

shares
comments
Ferrari requests review of Vettel's Canadian GP penalty

Previous article

Ferrari requests review of Vettel's Canadian GP penalty

Next article

Absolute racing rules force drivers into bad choices

Absolute racing rules force drivers into bad choices
Load comments
The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog Prime

The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog

A podium finisher in its first outing but then never again, the BRM P201 was a classic case of an opportunity squandered by disorganisation and complacency, says Stuart Codling.

Formula 1
Sep 18, 2021
The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from Prime

The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from

OPINION: The headlines were dominated by the Italian Grand Prix clash between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton, who had the halo to thank for avoiding potentially serious injury. But two days earlier, Formula 1 had a lucky escape with a Monza pitlane incident that could also have had grave consequences.

Formula 1
Sep 17, 2021
How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum Prime

How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum

With two sprint races under its belt, Formula 1 must now consider its options for them going forward. While they've helped deliver exciting racing on Sundays, the sprints themselves have been somewhat lacking - creating yet another conundrum for F1 to solve...

Formula 1
Sep 16, 2021
Who should Alfa Romeo sign for 2022's F1 season? Prime

Who should Alfa Romeo sign for 2022's F1 season?

OPINION: With Valtteri Bottas already signed up for 2022, all eyes are on the race for the second seat at Alfa Romeo next year. Antonio Giovinazzi is the current incumbent, but faces a tough competition from appealing short and long-term prospects

Formula 1
Sep 15, 2021
The "forced break" that was key to Ricciardo's Monza excellence Prime

The "forced break" that was key to Ricciardo's Monza excellence

OPINION: Daniel Ricciardo has long been considered one of Formula 1's elite drivers. But his struggles at McLaren since switching from Renault for 2021 have been painful to watch at times. Yet he's recovered to banish those memories with a famous Monza win – built on a critically important foundation

Formula 1
Sep 14, 2021
Italian Grand Prix driver ratings Prime

Italian Grand Prix driver ratings

Two drivers produced faultless performances as, for the second year in a row, Monza threw up an unpredictable result that left many to rue what might have been

Formula 1
Sep 13, 2021
Why Ricciardo would have won without Verstappen/Hamilton crash Prime

Why Ricciardo would have won without Verstappen/Hamilton crash

The clash between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton was the major flashpoint the 2021 Italian Grand Prix will be remembered for. Yet by this point, race leader Daniel Ricciardo had already done the hard work that would put him in position to end his and McLaren's lengthy win droughts, on a memorable afternoon in Monza

Formula 1
Sep 13, 2021
Why Italian GP success is on for McLaren even if Verstappen dominates Prime

Why Italian GP success is on for McLaren even if Verstappen dominates

For the second time in 2021, McLaren will line up for the start of a grand prix from the first row. It knows it has the chance of "glory" if things go well for Daniel Ricciardo and Lando Norris at the start of the 2021 Italian Grand Prix, but even if they just maintain their grid positions, signs from the rest of the Monza weekend suggest success is very possible for Formula 1's other orange army

Formula 1
Sep 12, 2021