Aston Martin fails in F1 review bid of Vettel's Hungarian GP DQ

Aston Martin has failed in its bid to seek a review of Sebastian Vettel’s disqualification from Formula 1's Hungarian Grand Prix, after an FIA hearing on Monday.

The Silverstone-based team had hoped to get the FIA stewards to look once again at its case, after Vettel’s car was excluded from its second-place finish in Budapest for failing to have a mandatory one-litre of fuel remaining for post-race checks.

Aston Martin initially believed that telemetry data from the car showed there to be 1.44 litres more fuel in the car than the 0.3-litres that the FIA initially was able to pump out.

It reckoned that a fuel system failure in the car had contributed to the circumstances and meant that the fuel had not been pumped into the tank where the FIA could access it. The team launched both a right to review request with the stewards, and also has formally appealed against the decision.

But at an FIA hearing on Monday, the FIA denied Aston Martin’s request to review the case because the latest indications from the team were that a mechanical problem potentially meant there was not one-litre of fuel left at all.

Read Also:

For the request to review to be accepted, Aston Martin needed to provide a ‘significant’ and ‘relevant’ new element that was discovered after the event and had been unavailable to the competitor at the time of the decision.

At the hearing, the team submitted analysis from more than 100 channels of fuel-system related data to show that there had been a fuel system failure in Vettel’s car.

This failure of fuel cell pressure meant the air pump in the fuel cell activated a maximum output which, by pumping air through the fuel cell, meant a significant amount of fuel was discharged from the car. It was this failure that meant only 0.3 litres of fuel could be extracted afterwards.

The FIA accepted that this evidence, which pointed to a malfunction of the fuel cell pressure relief value, was a new element.

However, in light of further investigations conducted by Aston Martin, it emerged that the team believes that there was actually less than one-litre of fuel remaining in the car at the end of the race due to the fuel system problem. Therefore, the FIA felt that the new evidence was not relevant to the case.

The key original stewards’ decision was based on there not being the mandatory one-litre of fuel remaining, rather than dealing with any reasons why, which is exactly what Aston Martin’s latest evidence supports.

An FIA statement said: “For the assessment of whether or not the one-litre requirement was broken, it does not make a difference why there was less than one litre.

“There may be a couple of explanations why at the end of a race the remaining amount is insufficient. In any case, it remains the sole responsibility of the Competitor to ensure that the car is in conformity with the regulations all times (Art. 3.2 FIA International Sporting Code) and it shall be no defence to claim that no performance advantage was obtained (Art 1.3.3 FIA International Sporting Code).

“In order to be able to affirm a “relevant” fact, Aston Martin would have had to present facts that actually more than one-litre of fuel was remaining. The explanation why this requirement could not be met is not relevant to the decision as to whether a breach of the regulations has occurred.”

The FIA also did not accept references that Aston Martin made to teams complying with the purpose of regulations but not the strict wording by having exemptions when parts have been broken or lost in races.

It was on these grounds that the FIA rejected Aston Martin’s request to review the matter.

Following the decision, Aston's CEO & Team Principal Otmar Szafnauer said: “Sebastian drove brilliantly in Hungary and we are pleased to have been given the opportunity to show significant new evidence that we discovered since the race.

“We felt that the evidence we presented was relevant and demonstrated to the FIA that he should have been reinstated following his disqualification.

“Unfortunately, the FIA took a different view and, despite the fact that that the accuracy of our new evidence was not contested, Sebastian’s disqualification has been upheld on the basis that the new evidence was not deemed ‘relevant’. That is disappointing, and we will now consider our position in respect of the full appeal process.”

shares
comments

Related video

How Hamilton has lifted Norris’ F1 self-belief: on and off track

Previous article

How Hamilton has lifted Norris’ F1 self-belief: on and off track

Next article

Ferrari to unleash ‘significant’ F1 engine upgrade

Ferrari to unleash ‘significant’ F1 engine upgrade
Load comments
Why dumping the MGU-H is the right move for F1 Prime

Why dumping the MGU-H is the right move for F1

OPINION: With its days apparently numbered, the MGU-H looks set to be dropped from Formula 1’s future engine rules in order to entice new manufacturers in. While it may appear a change of direction, the benefits for teams and fans could make the decision a worthwhile call

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots Prime

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots

Team Lotus ceased to exist in 1994 - and yet various parties have been trying to resurrect the hallowed name, in increasingly unrecognisable forms, ever since. Damien Smith brings GP Racing’s history of the legendary team to an end with a look at those who sought to keep the flame alive in Formula 1.

Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background Prime

Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background

OPINION: Formula 1 reconvenes for the Russian Grand Prix two weeks after the latest blow in ‘Max Verstappen vs Lewis Hamilton’. While the Silverstone and Monza incidents were controversial, they thankfully lacked one element that so far separates the 2021 title fight from the worst examples of ugly championship battles

How Mika Hakkinen thrived at Lotus Prime

How Mika Hakkinen thrived at Lotus

Mika Hakkinen became Michael Schumacher’s biggest rival in Formula 1 in the late-90s and early 2000s, having also made his F1 debut in 1991. But as MARK GALLAGHER recalls, while Schumacher wowed the world with a car that was eminently capable, Hakkinen was fighting to make his mark with a famous team in terminal decline

Formula 1
Sep 21, 2021
The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey  Prime

The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey 

Before Michael Schumacher – or anyone else – had driven the 191 (or 911 as it was initially called), Eddie Jordan turned to a fellow Irishman to test his new Formula 1 car. JOHN WATSON, a grand prix winner for Penske and McLaren, recalls his role in the birth of a legend…

Formula 1
Sep 20, 2021
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