Aston Martin Petition for Review Dismissed by FIA

Aston Martin Petition for Review Dismissed by FIA
Aston Martin driver Sebastian Vettel steers his car during the Hungarian Formula 1 GP at Hungaroring. Sunday, Aug. 1, 2021. (AP Photo/Darko Bandic).

The appeal process is ongoing though the team is considering its position.

On August 1st Sebastian Vettel finished the Hungarian Grand Prix in second place at the wheel of his Aston Martin AMR21.

Following a routine post-race procedure in Hungary, the stewards could not take a 1.0-liter sample of fuel from Vettel’s car.

As established in the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations and according to Art. 6.6.2, competitors must ensure that a 1.0-liter sample of fuel may be taken from the car at any time.

Failing to meet the criteria resulted in the German driver and Aston Martin’s disqualification from the race, losing the 18 points earned that Sunday.

The stewards’ decision outlined: “The team was given several opportunities to attempt to remove the required amount of fuel from the tank, however, it was only possible to pump 0.3 liters out.

Later that day, the FIA confirmed the reception of a Notice of Intention of Appeal from Aston Martin Cognizant F1 Team.

Besides the decision to appeal, the team also requested a Petition for a Right of Review of 2021 Hungarian Grand Prix disqualification.

On Monday 9th, a hearing by video conference was held between the FIA stewards and Aston Martin representatives, Team Principal & CEO Otmar Szafnauer, Chief Technical Officer Andrew Green, and Sporting Director Andy Stevenson.

Ultimately, the FIA denied the petition, and each side proceeded to inform their respective positions in official statements.


The analysis carried out by Aston Martin brought a new element to light, namely the conclusion that there was a fuel system failure which would have resulted in the ejection of fuel during the race.

Art. 6.6 in its entirety and Art. 6.6.2 of the F1 Technical Regulations unequivocally calls for a remaining amount of 1 liter and does not allow any exceptions under which circumstances or for what reasons it could be dispensed with.

In order to be able to affirm a “relevant” fact, Aston Martin would have had to present facts that actually more than 1 liter of fuel was remaining.

The explanation why this requirement could not be met is not relevant to the decision as to whether a breach of the regulations has occurred.

Based upon these points a right of review must be denied for reasons of admissibility.”


“Since the team’s data indicated that there was more than 1.0 liter of fuel in the car after the race - 1.74 liters in fact - the team requested a right of review, as a result of having discovered what it deemed to be significant new evidence relevant to the sanction which was unavailable to it at the time of the FIA stewards’ decision.

That review has now been completed, and, while the FIA stewards accept the team’s explanation of a fuel system failure as the cause of a leak resulting in an unexpected loss of fuel, their verdict was that the team’s petition for review be denied on the basis that its new evidence was not relevant to the requirement to provide 1.0 liter of fuel.

Otmar Szafnauer, CEO & Team Principal, said: “Sebastian drove brilliantly in Hungary, and we are pleased to have been given the opportunity to show significant new evidence that we discovered since the race.

We felt that the evidence we presented was relevant and demonstrated to the FIA that he should have been reinstated, following his disqualification.

Unfortunately, the FIA took a different view and, despite the fact that the accuracy of our new evidence was not contested, Sebastian’s disqualification has been upheld on the basis that the new evidence was not deemed “relevant”.

That is disappointing, and we will now consider our position in respect of the full appeal process.”

Cecilia demartini
Sports Pundit staff writer @ceci_2812
Cecilia is a writer and journalist, passionate about motorsport and tennis.Her articles are published in newspapers and international online publications.

Comment on This Article

Reply to