McLaren's request for the appropriate to review the penalty imposed by Lando Norris in Austin was rejected by FIA stewards for last weekend's Formula 1 race in Austin.
McLaren argued that the stewards made an erroneous statement – and overall judgment – in awarding Norris the Document 69 penalty (from the FIA's timing system) of the Austin weekend.
It was this orange team that deemed “a significant and important new element that was unavailable to McLaren at the time the stewards made their decision” to penalize Norris.
McLaren tried to argue that Norris managed to overtake Red Bull's Max Verstappen at Turn 12 at the top of the United States Grand Prix and subsequently became the defending automobile relatively than the attacking automobile when Verstappen took a shot and reached the apex of the corner in front of him before the 2 ran away wide, and Norris overtook within the wide run-in area.
Lando Norris, McLaren MCL38, Max Verstappen and Red Bull Racing RB20
Photo: Red Bull Content Pool
In order for the Right to Review process to proceed to the second stage, which on this case would constitute a brand new case to evaluate whether Norris's sentence can be overturned, all teams initiating this process must prove to the judges what they claim, as the brand new evidence is “significant ”, “relevant”, “new” and “unavailable at the time of decision”.
The hearing within the Mexican GP paddock, with Austin stewards joining in via video, lasted just 25 minutes as McLaren team principal Andrea Stella and CHECK team manager Randeep Singh presented their arguments.
Red Bull representatives, including sporting director Jonathan Wheatley, and FIA officials, including single-seater chief Nikolas Tombazis, were also present, and Wheatley presented Red Bull's arguments on the matter.
Singh argued that McLaren believed that “Document 69” was a major and material latest element because “The Decision Document contained an incorrect statement and that [therefore] showed that the stewards had made an objective, quantifiable and provable error,” in response to an FIA document stating that the appropriate to review had been waived.
McLaren said: “it's a statement [in ‘Document 69’] was that “Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the skin but was not on the identical level as Car 1 at the highest” and that “the above statement was incorrect because McLaren had evidence that Car 4 had already overtaken and was overtaking Car 1” at 'brake zone'.
Stella argued that “the McLaren case was a 'legally sophisticated clarification' and urged stewards to recognize that it was a significant case, particularly compared to previous Right to Control cases.”
Wheatley stated that Red Bull considered that not one of the 4 criteria for right of control had been met on this case and stated, also in accordance with the relevant FIA document, that “in light of the 'very high bar' set (in Article 14 of the FIA Regulations) International Sporting Code) in order to successfully claim the right to control, establishing the existence of a new element is “extremely burdensome”.
McLaren, nevertheless, believed the evidence presented met the required bar and “stated that it believed another way was needed to correct the decisions made during the race.”
After adjourning the hearing, the Austin judges decided to focus solely on one element of the Right to Review – appropriateness – and declared that “the concept that the written decision (Document 69) was a major and material latest element or that an error in the choice constituted a brand new element , isn’t lasting and is subsequently rejected.”
The Austin stewards also explained that “McLaren appears to be arguing that the stewards' statement that 'automobile 4 was not on the identical level as automobile 1 on the apex' was an error and that automobile 4 overtook automobile 1 before the apex (and subsequently automobile 1 was overtaking automobile) and that this identified error is itself a brand new element.
The statement continued: “This is unsustainable. A request for reconsideration is made to correct an error (of fact or law) in a call. Any latest item must show this error.
“An error whose existence must be demonstrated cannot in itself constitute an element referred to in Article 14 (MKS).”
At the top of the petition denial document, the Austin stewards also commented on the “high bar” element of the ISC control right rule.
They decided to attract the FIA's attention to the indisputable fact that “the present 'high bar' that exists in Article 14 and the indisputable fact that it appears to have been designed more with a view to decisions resulting from a hearing by which all parties are present, relatively than than within the tense atmosphere of a racing session, when decisions are made (in accordance with the International Sporting Code) without all parties present.
It's a part of the best way Norris's penalty was administered in Austin – without his or Verstappen's view being heard – that frustrated McLaren last weekend.
The hearing within the Mexican GP paddock, with Austin stewards joining in via video, lasted just 25 minutes, with McLaren team principal Andrea Stella and racing director Randeep Singh presenting their arguments.
