The FIA has dealt with Aston Martin’s appeal request on Monday, which has presented new evidence about what happened at the Hungarian Grand Prix with Sebastian Vettel’s car.
Finally, the FIA has ratified the exclusion of Sebastian Vettel from the Formula 1 Hungarian Grand Prix, so that his second starting position remains in the hands of Lewis Hamilton, with Carlos Sainz third and Fernando Alonso fourth.
After analyzing what happened, Aston Martin found a fuel system failure which had caused the loss of a greater quantity of fuel than desired, which made it impossible for the FIA to determine that it was possible to extract at least one liter of it, as required by the regulations.
Although the FIA supports the team’s explanation of the problem, it also recalls that This rule is mandatory without any exceptionTherefore, the appeal is not admissible and the exclusion is now definitive and permanent.
Official statement from the FIA stewards
Decision
Hereby, the Stewards reject the Competitor’s Review Request in accordance with Art. 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code (ISC).
Process
The delegates received a request for the right of review under art. 14 of the ISC on August 4, 2021. This was within the 14 calendar days specified in Art. 14.4.1 of the ISC.
A hearing by videoconference at 15:00 CEST with the following people present:
- Aston Martin Cognizant F1 Team: Otmar Szafnauer, Team Principal and CEO; Andrew Green, technical director; Andy Stevenson, athletic director.
- FIA: Michael Masi, Formula 1 race director; Nikolas Tombazis, single-seater technical director; Tim Goss, deputy director of technical affairs; Cedrik Staudohar, F1 data analyst.
The commissioners deliberated by videoconference and made this decision.
Reasons
The competitor provided the commissioners with a letter dated August 4, 2021 with attachments setting out their arguments in support of the petition. It consisted primarily of what the competitor claimed to be “New Evidence” for the purposes of article 14.
Art. 14 establishes the following:
«14.1.1 If in competitions that are part of an FIA Championship, cup, trophy, challenge or series, or of an international series, a significant and relevant novelty is discovered that was not available to the parties requesting the review at the time of the decision in question, the stewards who have passed judgment or, failing that, those appointed by the FIA, may decide to re-examine their decision after a request for review.
Consequently, stewards must first determine that what is presented is new evidence:
i) is a new element;
ii) is significant and relevant;
iii) is discovered (as opposed to created); Y
iv) was not available to the competitor at the time of the decision.
Using this criteria, the stewards determined the following:
a) Summary of Aston Martin’s own post-race analysis.
The so-called “New Evidence” was derived from the analysis of more than 100 channels of fuel system related data. Conclude that there was a fault in the fuel system in car # 5. As a result of the loss of fuel tank pressure, the air pump in the fuel tank activated a maximum output. By pumping air through the fuel tank, a significant amount of fuel was inadvertently discharged.
As a result of that, it was only possible to obtain a sample of 0.3 liters of fuel, significantly less than the volume expected to be present. The fuel tank pressure relief valve failure is the main suspect, but any leak en route from the fuel tank would have caused the loss of fuel pressure and resulted in the loss of fuel.
b) Is there a “new element”?
Whether what was presented to the stewards was a new item depends on whether the term ‘new’ applies to the telemetry data itself or to the ability to analyze and interpret the figures. The telemetry data itself was available immediately after the race.
However, Aston Martin has admitted that careful analysis, interpretation and evaluation of this data was only possible significantly later due to their large volume and complexity.
In any case, the analysis by Aston Martin brought a new element to light, namely the conclusion that there was a fault in the fuel system that caused fuel to be ejected during the race.
c) Is the new element “significant and relevant”?
To determine the relevance of the evidence presented, the above procedure should be briefly recalled. According to art. 6.6.2 of the Technical Regulations, it is necessary that at any time, that is, also at any point after the race, it is possible to take a sample of 1 liter of fuel of the car. However, it is an accepted fact by Aston Martin that only 0.3 liters could be pumped out of the # 5 car after the race.
At the first hearing on August 1, 2021, Aston Martin claimed that based on their calculations using the fuel flow meter (FFM) and taking into account the amount loaded into Car # 5 before the race, it still there should be 1.44 liters in the tank.
However, as Aston Martin now explains, an analysis of various data carried out after August 1, 2021 showed that there was actually less than 1 liter remaining at the end of the race due to an initially unnoticed malfunction in the fuel system.
In the original decision, the stewards only assumed the fact that there was not enough fuel in the tank. The question of what caused that situation was out of the question.. The regulations unequivocally require a remaining quantity of 1 liter and allow no exceptions.
Therefore, to assess whether the 1 liter requirement has been violated, it does not matter why there was less than 1 liter. There may be a couple of explanations as to why at the end of a race the amount remaining is insufficient. In any case, it remains the sole responsibility of the competitor to ensure that the car is in compliance with the regulations at all times (Art. 3.2 of the FIA International Sporting Code) and it will not be a defense to claim that a performance advantage was not obtained (Art. 1.3.3 FIA International Sporting Code).
In order to assert a “relevant” fact, Aston Martin would have had to present facts that were actually there was more than 1 liter of fuel left.
d) The purpose of art. 6.6.2 of the Formula 1 Technical Regulations
The commissioners do not accept Aston Martin’s reference to decision examples by the FIA where the approach has reflected the fulfillment of the purpose, but not the wording of the Sporting and / or Technical Regulations.
These are different cases where, for example, accident damage Motor vehicles result in parts replacement or added weight due to parts loss during the race. As long as such exemptions are not expressly mentioned in the regulations writing, the commissioners must adhere to the wording.
On the basis of these points, the right of review as detailed in article 14 of the CDI should be denied for admissibility reasons.