Sainz To Receive Penalty For Replacing Car Components After Hitting Loose Manhole Cover

Friday, 17 November 2023 at 17:00

Updated at Friday, 17 November 2023 at 17:14

Carlos Sainz will receive a penalty for components that need to be replaced on his Ferrari as regulations prescribe, besides unfortunate circumstances.

F1 driver Carlos Sainz fell victim to very unlucky circumstances during the FP1 practice session when he went over a loose drain cover that damaged his car from underneath and had to retire from the session.

His team principal, Frederic Vasseur, told the media the monocoque, the engine, and the battery were completely damaged due to the incident and called the event "unacceptable."

Read also

2023 Las Vegas Grand Prix - Free Practice 1 Results

Ferrari submitted an appeal to Stewards asking to be able to replace the damaged components on Sainz's car without receiving a penalty as the damage done to the car was a result of outside unlucky circumstances. FIA released a decision document that says:

“"Having heard from the Team Representative, the Director FIA Single Seater Department, having viewed video evidence and examined the Team’s declaration sheet, the Stewards, determine that notwithstanding the fact that the damage was caused by highly unusual external circumstances, Article 2.1 of the Formula 1 Sporting Regulations obliges all officials, including the Stewards, to apply the regulations as they are written."”

This means that Carlos Sainz will be set on a back foot for the rest of the Las Vegas Grand Prix weekend, as he will receive a penalty for all the components that need to be replaced by new parts outside of the original allocation.

“"Accordingly, the mandatory penalty specified under Article 28.3 of the Sporting Regulations must be applied."”

Stewards noted they do not have the authority to change the regulations, but if they did, they would allow Sainz to change his components without receiving a penalty.

“"The Stewards note that if they had the authority to grant a derogation in what they consider in this case to be mitigating, unusual and unfortunate circumstances, they would have done so, however the regulations do not allow such action."”