The first time of the Las Vegas Grand Prix on the new track that includes the Strip brought many lights and shadows. Undoubtedly the race turned out to be quite eventful, given the long straights which offered a real chance to overtake, but the start of the weekend didn’t go so well.
During free practice one, in fact, a metal cover of the water valve that had detached from the asphalt destroyed the chassis, the engine, the gearbox and the battery of his SF-23, forcing him to replace numerous elements, including else ending up with a penalty. Similarly, Alpine was also forced to replace the chassis of Esteban Ocon’s A523, which was damaged after the Frenchman also ran over the lid recently hit by Sainz.
The Cavallino Team Principal immediately made clear his nervousness in this regard, not only because of the penalty, which the Scuderia tried to overturn by requesting an exemption, which was then rejected, but also because of the extensive damage sustained in the accident. Among the various hypotheses, one has also come forward that Ferrari could have asked for compensation from Formula 1, the direct promoter of the event.
Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images
Carlos Sainz, Ferrari SF-23
The compensation issue and the impact on the budget
In reality there is a precedent for this, when in 2017 Haas was compensated for the damage caused following the impact of one of its cars with a loose exhaust cover in Malaysia. Some time passed but, after reaching an agreement with the track’s insurance company, the American team managed to get compensation for the damaged chassis.
When Vasseur was asked if the Italian team will ask for compensation from Liberty Media, the Team Principal confirmed that there will be a discussion with all parties involved: “It will be a private discussion that I will have with the interested parties.”
Further additional costs will be incurred by the need to fly a spare chassis from Italy to Abu Dhabi next weekend, which the Maranello team began preparing immediately after the accident. “There is no provision in the budget to exclude accidents. Surely there are many additional costs. We cannot repair the chassis, even the seat was damaged. The gearbox was damaged, the battery was damaged, the engine died “.
“We have a lot of consequences from a financial point of view, from a sporting point of view and also with regards to spare parts stocks, and from a budgetary point of view it is certainly not easy,” added the Team Principal.
Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images
Frederic Vasseur, Team Principal and General Manager, Scuderia Ferrari
Vasseur said he will also raise the issue of damages resulting from similar incidents, outside the team’s control, to be placed outside the budget cap: “There will be a discussion. The decision is another thing.”
The red flag was displayed late
The accident occurred eight minutes into the first practice session, when a yellow flag had been displayed even before Sainz’s arrival in that area. Several pilots had passed through the area before Sainz arrived and hit the broken lid. However, at that moment he was still only under the yellow flag regime, with the red flag only displayed after the accident of the Madrilenian.
According to Vasseur, once the course marshals had noticed a stray object along the track, the race director should have intervened more quickly and immediately neutralized the session. With the red flag, in fact, the pilots would have had to maintain a lower pace, given that Sainz passed through that area at around 320 km/h.
“We should also discuss the circumstances of the accident. Because it’s not just about the lid that came off, but also about the fact that there was a minute between the yellow flag and the red flag. It means that when they put the yellow flag they saw something on the track. And they took a minute before putting the red flag. I think that’s too much.”
Photo by: Francois Tremblay
Repair work on the manhole hit by Carlos Sainz during Free Practice 1
“The main issue for me in this case is that when you put the first yellow flag it means that you saw something, you don’t put the yellow flag randomly. It means that whoever put the yellow flag, as well as the one displayed by race control , he saw something, and then he took a minute before putting the red flag, when it’s the straightaway, and you have a metal part, and you’re at 340 km/h.”
Vasseur confirmed that the teams did not receive any message warning of the presence of debris on the track, so it was also impossible to warn the drivers about how to behave on the track and what the danger was: “No, they didn’t talk about it at all. we knew the reason for the yellow flag.”
Failure to derogate
The Team Principal put pressure on the commissioners to obtain an exemption regarding Sainz’s penalty, underlining that, unlike a completely replaced Power Unit, a new battery would not have given an advantage from a competitive point of view, so much so that the regulation only allows two per season. “It’s not easy to give a set of tires or an engine, because it’s about a performance gain. But the battery? There’s no performance in the battery.”
“Considering that we lost FP1, that we are at a couple of million in damage, that the mechanics worked like hell to get the car back together and so on, I think it wasn’t too stupid to consider it a case of force majeure.”
Photo by: Simon Galloway / Motorsport Images
Carlos Sainz’s car, the Ferrari SF-23, returns to the pits after damaging a manhole
However, although the stewards were understanding, stressing that they would have granted an exemption if they had the authority, they at the same time stressed that the regulations must be applied as written. The International Sporting Code and the F1 Sporting Regulations contain several references in terms of force majeure, which in the first case is defined as an “unforeseeable, unforeseeable and external event”.
However, this mainly concerns areas such as the cancellation and postponement of Grands Prix, driver changes and aerodynamic and Power Unit testing regulations. AlphaTauri CEO Peter Bayer, who previously worked for the FIA, confirmed that it was also the teams themselves who blocked a possible review regarding this aspect, because there were fears that someone could force a clause to reasons of “force majeure” to one’s advantage.
“It was the F1 teams, in their pursuit of perfection and also in their absolute paranoia, who thought that if someone was able to trigger a force majeure, that person would have a lot of power, because many people would probably claim a force majeure force majeure on many occasions.”
#Ferrari #answers #compensation #sought #Sainz