How Ferrari gets payback for ‘stupid’ F1 rule + Gary Anderson’s view

Ferrari is likely still reeling from what it feels was a “stupid” Formula 1 rule that cost it a chance to overhaul Mercedes for second in the constructors’ championship before the Abu Dhabi finale – but how can it get payback?

Ferrari’s anger

Ferrari’s Las Vegas Grand Prix got off to the worst possible start last Thursday night when Sainz struck a loose water valve inspection cover in FP1, which badly damaged his car’s floor, chassis, seat and engine.

Ferrari had to give Sainz a new battery among his replacement engine parts, which triggered an automatic 10-place drop because doing so exceeded his seasonal allocation for that component for the first time.

Even the stewards knew this was massively harsh, acknowledging “the damage was caused by highly unusual external circumstances” and admitting it would have waived the penalty if only they had a legitimate way to do so.

Ferrari’s Fred Vasseur was furious in the aftermath, calling it “unacceptable”, and his frustration still lingered after the grand prix.

“Considering we missed FP1, that we had a couple of millions of damage, the mechanics worked like hell to come back and so, it was not too stupid to consider the case of force majeure,” he said in the early hours of Sunday morning.

Gary Anderson’s verdict

I have sympathy with Sainz and Ferrari for the unfairness of the penalty. The water valve cover damaging the car and power unit components was nothing to do with anything the driver or team did and was entirely down to the circuit not being in a fit condition, so why should they pay the price for it?

You can’t turn the clock back as I found out when one of my F3 cars was destroyed in Macau in 1984 when a 40cm x 40cm manhole cover tore the bottom out of the chassis and was bent double when it got to the front of the engine. It basically exploded mid-track.

It was no surprise that the driver Claudio Langes – who saw nothing on the track – was totally surprised when the car simply exploded around him. At least then the race and circuit organisers paid me something like £3500 in compensation.

The money side is less of a concern as it’s so close to the end of the season that it won’t have such a big impact on spending given Ferrari can’t build a new monocoque overnight, but the sporting damage is significant. Had Sainz started in second place, the race at the front would have been very different and maybe Ferrari could have won by being able to deploy two cars against Red Bull.

The FIA stewards should not be put in a position where they say they want to do something but because of the rules in place they can’t. They should be the arbiters of what is or isn’t allowed and the cause of the damage was so obvious that it should have been changed.

So a way has to be found to allow the stewards to judge the situation how they see it and not stopped from doing so…