The FIA stewards have rejected Ferrari’s call for Sebastian Vettel’s Mexican Grand Prix penalty to be reviewed, saying that there are “no new elements” in the case.
Vettel was handed a 10-second time penalty following the race in Mexico City last month for moving under braking while defending his position from Daniel Ricciardo.
Vettel had originally been classified third, but was demoted to fifth in the final standings as a result of the penalty.
Ferrari announced on Thursday that it had submitted a request to the FIA’s stewards from Mexico to review the penalty, claiming that “a number of new elements have come to light”.
However, the FIA has now confirmed that no review will be undertaken, rejecting the appeal made by the team.
“The Stewards of the 2016 Mexican Grand Prix convened a hearing today at 1645 hrs Brazil time to hear a request from the Entrant of Car 5, Scuderia Ferrari, to review the decision in Document 38 from that event,” a statement from the FIA reads.
“The request was lodged in accordance with Article 14.1 of the FIA International Sporting Code. The hearing was conducted by teleconference. Scuderia Ferrari was represented by Mr. Jock Clear. Red Bull Racing was represented by Mr. Christian Horner and Mr. Jonathan Wheatiey.
“Scuderia Ferrari argued in its written submission that the ‘new element’, in accordance with Article 14.1, existed. In its verbal submissions it also argued that there were two ‘new elements’.
“Sspecifically the Scuderia argued that the Race Director, pursuant to Article 27.4 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations, had the ‘power’ to instruct the driver of Car 33 Max Verstappen, to give back the alleged advantage he had gained when leaving the track on a previous lap to that of the incident involving Car 5 and Car 3 driven by Daniel Riccardo.
“Scuderia Ferrari also argued that the GPS data it presented was a ‘new element’. The Stewards heard extensive verbal submission and argument for at parties.
“In relation to the matter of the Race Director having the ‘power’ to instruct the driver of Car 33 to give back the alleged advantage, we note firstly that the relevant article gives the Race Director ‘absolute authority’ to allow the driver to give back a position. It does not imply an obligation to do so. The fact that the Race Director did not exercise his discretion is not relevant to the decision taken in Document 38.
“In relation to the GPS data we note that this data is available to teams during the race. It is also available to, and referred to by, the stewards, in the Stewards Room during the race.
“When asked if the GPS data in any way contradicted the telemetry and other evidence that the Stewards concluded showed that the driver of Car 5 had steered whilst under braking at Turn 4, Mr. Clear conceded that it did not.
“Article 14.2 of the international Sporting Code gives the Stewards the sole discretion to determine if a new element exists.
“Having received all the written and verbal submissions and carefully considered them. the Stewards decide there is no new element.”
