Aston Martin fail in bid to have Alonso’s Shanghai penalty reviewed

The Chinese Grand Prix stewards have dismissed Aston Martin’s request to review Fernando Alonso’s penalty for colliding with Carlos Sainz Jnr during the sprint race in China two weeks ago.

Aston Martin requested an official review before teams arrived in Miami for this weekend’s round. Representatives of the team and Ferrari were summoned to a video conference on Friday morning in Miami.

Alonso’s team submitted forward-facing footage from his onboard camera which had not been available when the original decision was made. “Aston Martin suggested that the new camera angle showed that the incident in question was a racing incident and not one for which their driver should be penalised,” the stewards noted.

However, although the stewards agreed the footage was both new and relevant, they did not accept it was significant. The stewards said the existing footage they had access to was “would not have caused us to question our decision or otherwise give us a perspective that we did not already have of the incident” and “added nothing material to the visual perspective that we already had.”

As a result the stewards decided the evidence submitted by Aston Martin did not satisfy the criteria to justify holding a review of the decision.

The stewards ruled the same way in a similar case which occured in the 2021 season. Mercedes submitted previously unavailable forward-facing footage from Max Verstappen’s car in a bid to have an incident between him and Lewis Hamilton at the Brazilian Grand Prix reviewed. The stewards also turned down their request.

Alonso was given a 10-second penalty for the collision, which did not affect his finishing position as he retired due to damage from the contact, and three penalty points on his licence, putting him on a total of six.

The collision occured as Alonso and Sainz fought over third place with four laps remaining in the sprint race. Sainz overtook the Aston Martin driver out of turn six and through the sweepers of turns seven and eight.

Alonso attempted to re-pass the Ferrari into the left-hander at turn nine but made contact with Sainz, pushing both of them wide and allowing Sergio Perez, who was behind the pair, to overtake both of them.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Stewards’ decision in full

Petition for the Right of Review

1. On April 23, 2024, the stewards received a petition from Aston Martin Aramco F1 Team (“Aston Martin”) requesting a Right of Review in accordance with Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code (“the Code”).
2. The request related to the decisions of the stewards contained in documents number 40 (Infringement on car 14 for a breach of Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article 2d) of the FIA Internation[al] Sporting Code) (“ALO Decision”) and number 41 (Final Sprint Classification) from the 2024 Chinese Grand Prix.
3. A hearing was convened at 0800hrs EST on 3rd May 2024 and the concerned parties were summoned (document numbers 78 to 79).
4. The stewards of the Chinese Grand Prix conducted the hearing.
5. Attending the hearing were:
On behalf of Aston Martin – Messrs. Mike Krack and Andy Stevenson
On behalf of Scuderia Ferrari (“Ferrari”) – Mr Diego Loverno
On behalf of the FIA – Messrs Nikolas Tombazis and Tim Malyon
6. This hearing was to determine, at the sole discretion of the stewards (as specified in Article 14.3 of the Code), if “a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned”.
7. Therefore, the stewards were required to determine if any evidence presented to them was:
a. “significant”;
b. “relevant”;
c. “new”; and
d. “unavailable” to the party seeking the review at the time of the original decision.
8. Only if that criteria is met, would the stewards be required to convene a further hearing to reconsider their original decision.

The Test under Article 14.1.1

9. Article 14.1.1 sets a very high bar for reviewing a decision of the Stewards. This has been the consistent position taken in previous requests to exercise the right of review.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Alleged New Element

10. The alleged new element presented was a forward-facing video footage of car 14 which was unavailable to Aston Martin and the stewards at the time of the original decision – it was downloaded post the sprint session by F1.
11. While the Stewards had various other footage of the incident from different camera angles, they did not have this footage.
12. In its written submission seeking the review, Aston Martin suggested that the new camera angle showed that the incident in question was a racing incident and not one for which their driver should be penalised.
13. They contended, among other things, that:
a. The new footage was “significant” because it showed “more clearly than any other evidence considered by the stewards and/or the parties to date, that car 14 was in a position of the incident which entitled it to be given room whilst attempting to overtake on the inside of turn nine pursuant to the Guidelines”;
b. The new footage was “relevant” as it showed for the first time the entirety of the incident; and
c. The new footage was “new” as it was not available during the hearing.
14. During the hearing, Aston Martin maintained the above points and sought to convince us that this satisfied the threshold in Article 14.

Our Decision

15. While the footage was undoubtedly “new”, as it was unavailable to us during the hearing, there was sufficient footage from other camera angle to give us a clear basis to make the decisions in Documents 40 and 41.
16. The footage would also be “relevant” given that it related specifically to the incident in question.
17. However, even though we did not have this footage at the time we made our decision, we did not consider the footage to be a “significant” new element. The new footage would not have caused us to question our decision or otherwise give us a perspective that we did not already have of the incident.
18. While it showed the incident from a different angle, it added nothing material to the visual perspective that we already had.
19. We accordingly dismissed the petition for review, without the need for us to proceed to the second stage of the review.

Competitors are reminded that, in accordance with Article 14.3 of the Code, this decision is not subject to appeal.

Decisions of the stewards are taken independently of the FIA and are based solely on the relevant regulations, guidelines and evidence presented.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

2024 Chinese Grand Prix

• Alonso and Sainz incidents prompt changes to Formula 1’s rules
• Aston Martin fail in bid to have Alonso’s Shanghai penalty reviewed
• Mercedes cleared over Hamilton pit stop infraction as ‘nearly all teams in breach’
• Aston Martin petitions FIA to review Alonso’s penalty for Sainz collision
• “You need to be more on it”: 12 unheard radio exchanges from the Chinese GP

Browse all 2024 Chinese Grand Prix articles