Carlos Sainz and Liam Lawson revisited their F1 Dutch GP incident, as did George Russell and Charles Leclerc, while several voiced their opinions.
Williams’ Sainz was clearly not too pleased with the 10s time penalty and two penalty points on his superlicense for his incident with Visa Cash App RB’s Lawson in F1 Dutch GP at Zandvoort. The Spaniard revealed that he spoke with the FIA stewards for about 15 minutes after the grand prix.
He concluded that the stewards felt they took the decision in haste. For this reason, Williams launched a ‘right of review’ against the decision. It is unlikely that the penalty will be reversed, but the penalty points can be and Sainz will get bragging rights of being correct in assessment.
Williams will have the present the evidence and analysis for the FIA stewards to acknowledge the review and overturn their decision partially. Lawson, meanwhile, stuck to his guns and didn’t think the apex was Sainz’s. He noted that he followed the racing guideline and wasn’t the driver overtaking.
He is not sure why Sainz is mouthing in media, but hasn’t spoken with him directly. But Albon backed his teammate in his assessment. Considering that he was just behind the pair, the Thai had immediate thought that the penalty was unwarranted. He was surprised to hear about it.
He noted that he is not clear about racing rules, especially when the driver is on the outside. There is too much leeway and liberty handed to driver on the inside in a corner. Several F1 drivers voiced their opinion on the same topic, along with the one involving Mercedes’ Russell and Ferrari’s Leclerc.
The Monegasque tried a bold move at Turn 12 but seemingly went off in doing so. Since the evidence was not clear, the Ferrari driver was let go. Also, since he did not finish the race and Russell was fourth, that potentially swayed the decision making, as the Brit felt post-race photos shows otherwise.
He is not losing sleep over it but the photos that has been shared in the last few days, it clearly shows Leclerc to be outside the white line when overtaking. The Brit went at length talking about both the incidents and reiterated the need of permanent FIA stewards.
“Yeah, I did get the chance to go and speak to them after the race,” said Sainz. “There was a misunderstanding while I was in the TV pen where I thought I would not be able to go. But in the end, I had the opportunity to go and sit with them for 15 minutes to analyse the incident. It was very clear to me that as soon as they got all the evidence right and they looked at the places they needed to take the right decision, it was clear to me that I think they realised probably the decision taken wasn’t the best one.
“Now we are trying to see if we can come up with enough evidence to change the outcome of the penalty, because I still firmly believe it was a very poor penalty I received and a bad judgment, which can happen as long as you have the capacity to revisit it. If there’s been a misunderstanding or a lack of evidence or analysis, then there is still time to reanalyse it, reopen it, and change it. I do believe they had a very difficult Sunday looking back at it.
“They had a very busy afternoon, and maybe it was overwhelming because of the amount of stuff that happened in the race. But I still firmly believe what I thought after the race. Now in a cooler-headed state, I still believe the penalty was not acceptable, and I made it very clear. It’s very tough. I keep, especially after the race, trying to do my best to control my emotions. But there are moments where it’s very difficult to control them and it’s very difficult to understand certain things.
“I’ve always said it, and I will always support the idea, that in F1 we should have fixed stewards. The regulations are already incredibly complex, it would be very useful to always have the same people judging and applying them, because then what you’re dealing with. My belief is that’s the way forward. I’m not speaking for the GPDA or anyone here. That’s my individual belief. I think they have an incredibly difficult job, and sometimes they also have restricted time. I think what happened in my case in Zandvoort was a consequence of trying to rush a decision without looking deep enough in the analysis.
“If you just apply the rule in the rulebook, you could understand why they would want to penalise me. The moment you analyse the onboard footage and go into detail, you can clearly see why I should have never got a penalty. But the opposite can be applied for the incident Lewis. Maybe in the Lewis incident, the decision process took too long, and he’s now having to suffer a penalty in Monza when he did nothing wrong here. He had half an hour during the race to pay a penalty for his infringement.
“That shows how difficult the process is, how difficult everything is to handle, and why there’s always improvements to be made and it needs to be a collaboration between drivers, FIA, GPDA, to try and find better solutions. Zandvoort exposed why we are not at the right level yet for such a difficult but incredible sport to watch,” summed up Sainz, as Lawson shared his view on the same.
“I mean, very similar comments to last week,” said Lawson. “The regulations are written as they are. As drivers, we all know that sometimes we don’t agree with it, or sometimes we feel it doesn’t feel right. And I had it in cases this year where I tried to make overtakes around the outside of cars and had my wheels even further alongside than Carlos did, and still wasn’t given space, and I always felt like it wasn’t fair. But it’s how the rules are. Obviously, as drivers, we’re going to try and maximise them. And the incident, it was his fault, that’s why he got a penalty.
“I don’t know why I was deemed as being aggressive when he was the car overtaking me. I was just defending. And, yeah, I think if the incident was my fault, I would have got a penalty. So to me it’s pretty clear. I mean, no, to me I’m surprised. It’s on a restart we have cold tyres, hard tyres. We’re all on new tyres after the Safety Car. It’s a naturally difficult corner. We’re all coming in there on lap one. He’s the car going for the overtake around the outside, and he didn’t get his axle where he needed to get it. And somehow I’m deemed as being aggressive. So I don’t really understand it. But it ruined my race.
“We were in a position to potentially have two cars in the top five, but I didn’t go on the radio and mouth off to everybody about it or to the media. So, yeah, it’s his approach after that race but I don’t know why he was so upset, honestly. If I was overtaking him, I would understand that he’s more frustrated, but he was the car overtaking, and he got a penalty for it. I haven’t heard from him. I would have thought because of how upset he was, he would probably want to talk about it, but he hasn’t. He hasn’t come to talk about it.
“I think the rules are something that we’re always talking about. We’re always trying to fine-tune them and make them a bit better and obviously they’re designed to make close racing and make it as exciting to watch. And I think the steps that were made this year were very positive from the last couple of years. And, yeah, like I said, maybe they’re not perfect sometimes, but also I can understand it’s quite hard to see guidelines exactly as you have 20 drivers asking for all these different things. So the main thing is, we understand them as they are, and to know that we’re making an overtake, that’s the way they’re written this year; if you don’t have your front axle to the car on the inside, I don’t know why you would expect to be given space, because it says that you don’t have to.
“I think you should at least have your car alongside the car on the inside to be given space. I think that’s naturally as a kid, when we’re racing go karts and we’re trying to go for these overtakes, I think that’s where you’d expect to position yourself to be given space. And at that point, then I think it’s maybe debatable where you should be given room, or you shouldn’t be given room, but you should at least have your front wheels alongside the car on the inside. I think it probably did at the start of the year when I had a couple of the incidents.
“One for me that stands out was Miami with Fernando where I tried to go around the outside and I felt like I wasn’t given space and at the time I remember feeling like it wasn’t, maybe I shouldn’t have got a penalty, but when you read the guidelines and you understand them, that’s how they’re written this year. So I think for us we need to understand them as they’re written and I think from that point for me I took a lot of learning from that and I know that if I’m overtaking I need to get my axle to a certain point, and same if somebody’s overtaking me. If the guidelines say I don’t have to give them space, why would I give them space and let them pass me? That doesn’t make sense,” summed up Lawson.
What other F1 driver said, includes Russell/Leclerc topic –
George Russell: “Yeah, I mean from my side obviously with how things panned out in the race, I didn’t really want to pursue something further because obviously he didn’t score in the race. I was pretty confident he was off the track but at the time there was no clear evidence, so I was kind of in agreement or understood from the steward’s standpoint that there was categorically at that time no evidence showing he was off the track even if you could kind of work out that he was. But obviously since then with the photos that have come out it was clear that he was off the track, so it’s often the case evidence comes up later. I don’t feel sore about it whatsoever because as I said I actually benefited from what happened and it all worked out as it should have in the end. Yeah, I think. Well, I personally thought it was a great overtake in terms of the spectacle and if you’re a neutral, yeah it was a great overtake but where do you draw the line.
“He was maybe half a meter off track should that be acceptable or not because it was just spectacular, what if he was one meter off the track or 75 centimetres off, that’s I do appreciate. It’s not easy. I do yeah. It just isn’t easy and I think that’s at one point there does need to be a hard stop, so it’s clear and that we’re not having these conversations. The fact is, he was off the track while making the move, if I knew that was possible, I would have gone off the track myself to force him wider because that was my right to do. So, yeah, not not an easy answer I think there has to be a hard stop somewhere. No. I don’t think there’s ever going to be a time when everybody’s happy and when we have, I don’t remember the number, I think it’s 25 different stewards across the course of a whole racing season you can take 20 racing drivers when you see a 50-50 incident, probably we’ll all have slightly different views on this.
“So this is why, as always I believe having sort of these consistent stewards across the whole season. At least you will learn how their viewpoint to incidents and their interpretation to certain things whereas of course, I think Carlos’s penalty probably was not deserved and maybe with different stewarding it would have been different, maybe it wouldn’t have but at least you have that element of consistency across the races. For sure, you would have thought with the technology we have it, would be easier [to get photos of incidents sooner], but again it isn’t straightforward for the stewards when you’re dealing with so many different incidents. There’s pressure to get outcomes quickly for the benefit of the race. I think it’s like in football if there’s a tackle and it’s a bit 50-50, you could review it for an hour and you come to the perfect outcome but that isn’t what sport is about and I think we have to accept sometimes there will be incorrect decisions and we want to sort of mitigate that but I don’t think you’re ever going to get everything absolutely perfect. It always seems afterwards there is, sort of that new angle that shows something different. I do think you need the answers quick not only for the drivers but also for the fans and I remember in Canada I was on, I was already in New York and I wasn’t even sure if I had the win or not from Canada so that’s not how it should be.
“There’s argument both ways and now you remind me of that incident [from Abu Dhabi 2021] and then I have a different viewpoint. But that’s why I drive the car and I don’t make the rules. The guys aren’t stupid who write the rules. Everyone comes up with a good idea and they go back and they speak about it but then another intelligent person showcases a reason why that wouldn’t work if that makes sense. So unless you’re going to employ more people or have more tech I don’t know maybe there is a way that the teams can help, with the use of AI or whatever to make these decisions easier. But again I don’t know, I just sort of try and drive the car as fast as possible and leave it to the others but I assure you, it is not easy for every single person in this sport in every individual position if that makes sense. Everyone is trying their utmost to make it as fair as possible to try and make the right decision, trying to ensure FOM are happy with the television and it’s good maybe, for the fans but you’re not rushing decisions. There’s just so many hurdles that everyone’s trying to overcome. I think sometimes you accept there may be the the odd incorrect decision and of course we don’t want that, but maybe that’s just compromise you have to take rather than every decision taken six hours or a day or two to review.”
Charles Leclerc: “I mean I am satisfied with the outcome, for sure, because I wouldn’t have wanted the penalty. It is always depending on the side you are, looking the things at…I thought it was a great overtake, was it on the limit? It definitely was. Was I the only one at fault? I don’t think so. And this is how rules are written. So, we had this discussion, obviously the steward took the decision of not giving me a penalty, which again…I mean when things are on the limit, it is always going to split opinions and I am okay with that. I am happy with the way it went, I was very happy with the overtake as well.”
Alexander Albon: “I don’t know [about his mood], he was still in meetings with the FIA [after the race]. No [I didn’t get to talk yet]. I was the car behind, so I would say I had the best view of it. I think at the time on the radio, after coming out onto the back straight, I kind of said, ‘OK, well, I think Liam’s at fault there’. It was clearly at fault, from my point of view, from the back. I got told about Carlos’ penalty on the in-lap after the race, and that was also surprising. I think as a driver, you kind of have your version of the inter-combat rules as well, on top of what the FIA have. It looked to me like, at best, a racing incident, and then, if anything, a penalty towards Liam. Yeah, we will definitely discuss it. The FIA, in all honesty, are very open to discussions around these kind of things.
“They’re very welcoming to feedback around these kind of issues, and they don’t hide away from controversial decisions, and we do discuss them at length, generally, in driver meetings. So I will guarantee you it’s going to be a long one tomorrow. It happened to me in Barcelona, exactly that [going around the outside]. I lost the front wing getting squeezed off in Turn 1 in Barcelona and had to box and it ruined my race. Then came alongside the same driver later in the race and avoided the incident, and cut the corner to miss the crash, and then I got the penalty for it. So it was a lose-lose, in both situations. Realistically, it feels like the inside driver just has far too much power in the rulebook and he’s almost completely in control of his destiny, whereas the outside driver just needs to comply. In terms of racing drivers, there’s give and taken in every situation, and at the minute, it doesn’t seem like… there’s no remorse for the outside driver, and it creates these, what feels like, strange penalties.
“I’ll stick with what I said in Barcelona, I’m still not that clear, when I go racing in wheel-to-wheel, what I’m allowed to do and what I can’t do. I kind of play more under my own rules. What is a fair overtake, what is a fair defence kind of thing. It works for me, doing it that way. Generally speaking, the door is open for us to speak with the FIA, and they are constantly telling us that is the case, and that is the case. But it does feel like the water’s murky in terms of knowing how you can race. It is confusing.”
Lance Stroll: “I think it [racing guidelines] has gone pretty complex. There was a time where it was just…you leave a car’s width on a race track at all times if there’s a car beside. And now it has gotten weird with the mirror, having to give front axle in front of the mirror, if you do then it is your corner, outside if you do, it has gotten probably too complicated. I don’t write the rules but I think it is not surprising that we see these – the particular incident I don’t have much to say but – funny outcomes with incidents and decisions with the rules. Maybe it is a bit of that [of instinct vs racing guidelines]. I have had a couple of incidents in last couple of years where I was confused about the decision like everyone. Yes, a little bit [I am aware of axle thing in the moment] but I kind of race the way I think it is smart, I have always raced like that.”
Pierre Gasly: “I think they were working pretty much fine but I must say I am slightly confused certainly on my side and this will need some talking tomorrow night. I think it was all clear to me until that situation in Zandvoort which didn’t seem that straightforward. So we are all going to discuss about it. No, I wouldn’t make such a claim [that racing is a bit unnatural]. I think it is about looking at specific situations. At the end of the day, it is that grey area that sometime is swing in a favour of one driver to another.
“I think at the end of the day, we don’t want is big consequences on someone’s race, whether it is led by a driver’s driving or whether it is a forced penalty outside which can be too harsh for the situation, so I think that’s what we want to avoid. At the end, we all want to see close racing, we don’t want to back off from it and I think it is better for drivers and also from a fine point of view, so that’s what we all try to achieve, that’s what we have been doing pretty well. It is obviously that one situation from Zandvoort.”
Nico Hulkenberg: “I saw his [Sainz] incident, yeah. I also don’t understand why he got a penalty there. I’m sure he will bring it up [in drivers’ briefing], that’s for sure. But for me, it just looked like a Safety Car restart. It’s racing, it’s wheel-to-wheel racing and this can happen. I think it’s always difficult for the stewards as well to distinguish, to separate. At the end of the day, it’s racing, things happen, so I’m sure it will be discussed tomorrow. On investigating Russell-Leclerc, I don’t know, yeah, I think you have a point.
“To be honest, I saw he was off track, but it was still a great maneuver, so the racing fan inside me really liked it, that’s what racing is about, to squeeze yourself in the gap that maybe not really there but somehow to manage the maneuver. I think it was great racing. And Zandvoort is super-super difficult to overtake, so when you do a overtake, you always have to take some risk. There’s no different way in Zandvoort. I would have hated to see a penalty for that too, to be honest, as a racer.”
Andrea Kimi Antonelli: “I mean, not really [there was no conversation on Whatsapp about what happened with Carlos and Liam in Zandvoort]. I was already busy with my stuff and with what I did. So I didn’t really have to look at it.”
Franco Colapinto: “No. I don’t really know. I think he said he wanted a meeting with the stewards after, so we should ask him. We’re not in that meeting, so I don’t know.”
Fernando Alonso: “Yeah, same. No. I didn’t know anything further.”
