Aston Martin have lodged a protest against the results of today’s qualifying session over the handling of Carlos Sainz Jnr’s crash.
The FIA confirmed the protest concerns article 39.6 of the sporting regulations which states: “Any driver whose car stops on the track during the qualifying session or the sprint qualifying will not be permitted to take any further part in that session.”Sainz crashed during Q2, causing a red flag. A message from race control noted his car had ‘stopped on start/finish straight’ following his crash.
While the session was suspended he was able to rejoin the track and drive back to the pits. He continued in qualifying, reached Q3 and eventually took seventh on the grid.
Aston Martin would have benefited had Sainz not been allowed to continue in the session. Their driver Lance Stroll finished Q2 in 11th place and would have reached Q3 had Sainz gone no further after his crash.
An FIA spokesperson told RaceFans article 39.6 is intended to forbid drivers from rejoining sessions after they come to a stop and are assisted by marshals or a recovery vehicle. Sainz appeared to rejoin the session without any outside assistance.
Sainz said he altered the angle of his car as he approached the barrier to minimise the damage to it. “I managed to crash just in the right angle,” he told the official F1 channel.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“In the last moment I turned the wheel a bit to make sure that the crash was in the best possible angle and managed to hit the right angle there to don’t damage the rear suspension and the rear wing.”
Representative of Aston Martin and Ferrari have been called to the hearing, which will take place at 6pm local time at Shanghai International Circuit.
Pictures: Sainz crashes in Q2
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2024 Chinese Grand Prix
- Aston Martin petitions FIA to review Alonso’s penalty for Sainz collision
- “You need to be more on it”: 12 unheard radio exchanges from the Chinese GP
- Ricciardo needs to show “head-turning form” for 2025 chance – Horner
- With fourth format change in as many years, F1 relegated sprint races to a sideshow
- Williams accept ‘harsh but correct’ penalty for Sargeant
Jere (@jerejj)
20th April 2024, 11:09
Has such a rule existed this whole time?
Anyway, I don’t really see an issue in Sainz’s actions, & exclusion is effectively the only possible or at least the most severe possible sanction.
S
20th April 2024, 11:22
It was newly introduced for this season, in another of F1’s attempts to be more like Indycar.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
20th April 2024, 18:08
It was not introduced this year, it’s been in the rule book in one form or another for several years. It has been listed under different article numbers at times.
S
21st April 2024, 13:26
Too many revisions to keep track of…
A problem in and of itself.
SjaakFoo (@sjaakfoo)
20th April 2024, 11:43
It’s in the rule book so yes, it’s a rule.
Yellow Baron
20th April 2024, 16:42
We can remember a Ferrari went off caused a yellow and resumed in Friday’s qualification yet no Aston Martin complaint that time
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
20th April 2024, 18:17
@jerejj The regulation has existed since at least the 1990s. However, it was always intended to mean “if a car stops and does not resume”. Otherwise any car which stopped because the track was blocked would immediately be thrown out of qualifying, which would create a perverse incentive regarding safety.
In fact, adding “and does not resume” to the Article in question would neatly avoid any further questions on this point, at least pending the teams agreeing a measurable upper limit short of this threshold. It would certainly protect them from any pitwall lawyers attempting such an approach again. Alas, I think Aston Martin could do with a different pair of eyes reviewing potential protests before they are lodged – they are not cheap and the current approach does not appear to be productive.
Given that all those examples contradicted Aston Martin’s point, there even seemed to be a sense of mild irritation in the tone of the steward who wrote that ruling, which would be understandable and would be even less productive. Stewards do have memories and if the first response to a steward seeing a name associated with a protest is a groan, it causes problems for getting just desserts on subjective cases (I believe that’s already cost them the Sprint race case, because Alonso very much looked like the innocent party there).
Nick T.
21st April 2024, 4:15
The one thing everyone is forgetting is that this rule was introduced to prevent someone who has a high grid spot from spinning and preventing others enough time to set a better lap or having no more tires do so, especially in places like Monaco. In Sainz’s defense, you can say he only disadvantaged one person, which is Russell who only had either had one set of softs or lost one set to this spin.
Crawliin-from-the-wreckage (@davedai)
20th April 2024, 11:17
It says
Indeed, the rules state: ‘
I am sure they will be able to find an exception though.
Sad I like Fred & Carlos.
roadrunner (@roadrunner)
20th April 2024, 12:18
I believe the “exception” is that basically any driver who spins during qualifying comes to a stop at some point and still is allowed to continue.
In this rule the meaning of stopping is that the car does not reach the pits on their own.
It’s like the white line infringement with Verstappen and Norris yesterday.
Sometimes, even in the overcomplicate F1 rulebook, common sense prevails.
Crawliin-from-the-wreckage (@davedai)
20th April 2024, 12:51
See that’s where I think it’s a bit of a stretch to compare spin, get your bearings then safely rejoin to being damaged and. stopped against the barrier for what 7 seconds or so, then limping back.
I wish they didn’t give Fred 3 points .And I don’t like the tit for tat penalty/accusations etc. from AM. But placing a third parties view of the intent of the rule is inappropriate.
Ronald
20th April 2024, 12:20
There have been plenty situations before where a car stopped, the red flag was shown and the car could finish the lap after all. So seems like bad sportsmanship on Aston Martin’s part to protest it this time.
Sham (@sham)
20th April 2024, 11:19
I don’t have a problem with what Sainz did, but it’s yet another badly worded rule from the FIA. And, unfortunately, Sainz and Ferrari broke it as it is worded.
If it’s intended to be ‘after receiving outside assistance’, then that’s what it should say.
As for this, I’m afraid Sainz should be excluded and start from the back.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
21st April 2024, 5:24
@sham
The problem being that many drivers have broken the rule ‘as worded’ and not been excluded. And as other commenters have noted ‘as worded’ would include drivers that have spun and stopped momentarily, stopped for other incidents / blocked track, to avoid wildlife, protesters, etc etc etc.
The moment you see ‘any’ of the above as reasonable exceptions is the moment you have to let go of your ‘as worded’ principles.
S
20th April 2024, 11:19
It’s a pretty terrible rule – but it is, nevertheless, a rule that is currently in place.
Sainz’ car did stop on track due to having an incident, and it did trigger the red flag which brought a stop the session.
That he got going again is (should be) completely irrelevant.
And if F1 don’t like the rule being applied properly, they should request that it be removed from the sporting regulations – don’t just ignore it, like they often so do with track limits incidents.
MichaelN
20th April 2024, 11:34
He didn’t stop, he was stationary. People that spin usually stop briefly, but that’s not the point.
Petty protest from AM.
Diego
20th April 2024, 14:03
Was he stopped on the track, or stationary on the grass?
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
20th April 2024, 14:10
Sainz was fighting Alonso for the majority of the sprint race. It’s in Aston’s indirect interest (keeping the Ferrari away) as well as their direct interest if a penalty moves Stroll up a place. Given Aston have caught the ire of overly officious stewards this season on multiple, highly contentious occasions already I don’t think it’s petty to highlight a broken rule regardless of how poorly written it is.
Iosif (@afonic)
20th April 2024, 12:24
I think we will get some creative definition of what “stopped” means. As far as I can see the red flag is totally irrelevant, as soon as you “stop” you need to retire from the session. So if you spin, stop, and get going again you need to retire. That seems a bit unsportsmanlike.
Depailler
20th April 2024, 12:28
There was some discussion around drivers who cause a red flag not being allowed to continue. But it never made it to the rule book I believe? Remember Schumacher in Monaco 2006? Think it’s a rule in Indy.
Keith Campbell (@keithedin)
20th April 2024, 13:23
I believe they are trialing some such rule in F2 and F3 this season where a driver loses their fastest lap time if they cause a red flag. Not sure of the specifics.
rprp
20th April 2024, 14:30
It’s a good point, and a shame it hasn’t happened in F3/F2 to show the gap in the rule. If they don’t take this opportunity to at least change the wording for future events, it’s an open goal missed.
MadMax (@madmax)
20th April 2024, 12:41
When a car stops it probably means, the engine is off. Lets see, what the stewards decide.
rprp
20th April 2024, 14:31
I think it goes further than engine off, because they can restart them these days. I think it it can’t make it back to the pits under its own steam. But then you’ll get drivers knocking their front wings off and triggering red or yellow flags.
grapmg
20th April 2024, 12:56
It’s the FIA who made the mistake for allowing him into Q3. I don’t see how they can penalize Sainz for this after the session. The rule seems to be a bit harsh in this situation but they declared a red flag because of a stoped car so it’s clear Sainz stopped on track
Jere (@jerejj)
20th April 2024, 14:02
They could disqualify him, meaning P20 for the race.
rprp
20th April 2024, 14:33
Disqualify him for driving back to the pits under his own steam without any outside help, and allowing himself to continue Q2 and Q3?
Neil (@neilosjames)
20th April 2024, 12:57
I can at least appreciate the F1-ness of having uncertainty over the results of a qualifying session while some lawyers argue about the definition of the word ‘stop’.
Crawliin-from-the-wreckage (@davedai)
20th April 2024, 13:05
They could probably argue that being in the barrier was not “on track” as outside track limits. (I’m only joking).
Two good blokes racing hard cop it sweet (3pts and whatever comes of this).
Tommy C (@tommy-c)
20th April 2024, 13:24
Cars stop all the time for various reasons, such as recovering from a spin or locking up and sitting stationary while trying to find reverse down an escape road. I think the rule will be rewritten for clarification but I don’t think Aston Martin will be successful here. Resuming safely without assistance is not stopping on circuit in the sense of a mechanical failure or damage preventing the car from being driven. Surely this rule is to differentiate from practice sessions where a car can rejoin the session if repairs are made and the car can again be driven.
Bullfrog (@bullfrog)
20th April 2024, 13:40
Felipe Massa heartily endorses this protest.
Nick T.
20th April 2024, 14:07
There’s no way Alonso would have been allowed to continue had it been him. Definitely a driver not from the top 4 teams would never have been allowed to continue. Ferrari still gets special consideration. The craziest part was how they even made sure to stop the session forever for absolutely no reason giving Ferrari an eternity to have Sainz’s car fixed 5 mins before the session even restarted.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
21st April 2024, 5:31
I must say, you are fond of stating beliefs as facts. I, of course, cannot say that you are wrong, because this did not happen. What I can do is really really really hope it happens to Alonso in some point in the future to see if there is a difference between ‘Facts’ and ‘Nick. T Facts’.
Maybe I should be using the term ‘conspiracy theory’, instead of ‘facts’.
Nick T.
21st April 2024, 7:50
God, do we have to really add IMO to every single statement we make?
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
20th April 2024, 14:16
Another rulemaking blunder neatly packaged with a stewarding group with no idea what to do in real time or post event. Why did we even have a red flag here? For some plastic signs being knocked over? That was a kneejerk reaction that penalised anyone on a lap (and ruined the tyres they were on) and let Carlos have a 5 minute break to recover to the pits and have the car looked over. Another rule where it’s inadvertently better to crash than to watch someone crash in front of you.
This season has been farce after farce from the stewards. The whole process needs cleared out and started again.
MadMax (@madmax)
20th April 2024, 15:16
Any reasonable decision (double yellow, VSC conditions, red flag) would have ruined the laps of those behind. And red flag is the common decision in those situations for years now.
RBAlonso (@rbalonso)
20th April 2024, 15:54
I don’t think that’s true. Carlos got going within half a minute, a double yellow in the final turn does not impact someone halfway round the lap – a red flag clearly does.
Just because a decision is common doesn’t mean it is correct or just. For years we had off track passes being issued with drive through penalties then a decade later awarded the same foul 5 seconds. Now it’s agreed that it should be 10s. Our past shouldn’t dictate our future – this is a needlessly confusing and embarrassing episode, one that could be avoided with a sensible understanding of when a red flag is essential or not. The stewards don’t seem to be learning – they received huge criticism for a kneejerk red flag in Australia last year.
Nick T.
20th April 2024, 14:17
It was more like a 20 minute break. It was an absolute joke.
Nick T.
20th April 2024, 14:19
Not sure why didn’t show up as a reply to @rbalonso
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
21st April 2024, 5:44
It was a little under 12 minutes. So you are correct, the 20 minute assertion was indeed an absolute joke.
Nick T.
21st April 2024, 7:50
You sure got me!
NoelyNoel (@noelynoel)
20th April 2024, 14:25
It’s been dismissed:
https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/decision-document/2024%20Chinese%20Grand%20Prix%20-%20Decision%20-%20Aston%20Martin%20Protest.pdf
Nick T.
20th April 2024, 14:30
It was always going to be.
NoelyNoel (@noelynoel)
20th April 2024, 15:01
Of course. Hopefully they’ll finally clarify and change the wording of the “stopped on track” rule.
MichaelN
20th April 2024, 15:18
The stewards have done well this year to describe their process in detail.
So apparently Aston Martin wasted everyone’s time knowing full well that this was an issue that does not come with a strict time limit. The rule could be improved, but at the same time, in the interest of safety it’s not advantageous to put a strict time limit on the rejoining.
Aston Martin would be better off hiring a better second driver than trying to weasel him into Q3 with spurious complaints.
Not a good look for the team.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
21st April 2024, 5:46
Have to agree that it’s not a good look for AM. If their intent was to get clarity regarding the permitted amount of time one may be ‘stopped’, or if a red flag should impact the situation, then they should have made this clear at the outset. As it stands it looks petty and unsportsmanlike.