Aston Martin Drops Intention to Appeal Vettel´s Disqualification in Hungary

Aston Martin Drops Intention to Appeal Vettel´s Disqualification in Hungary
Aston Martin driver Sebastian Vettel during the Hungarian F1 GP weekend at the Hungaroring, 2021. Photo Credit: (David W Cerny/Pool via AP).

The team issued an update addressing the reasons to withdraw the appeal in opposition to Vettel’s disqualification from the Hungarian Grand Prix.

Having considered our position and having noted the FIA stewards verdict that there was clear new evidence of a fuel system failure, we have nonetheless withdrawn our appeal on the basis that we believe doing so outweighs the benefits of it being heard,” reads the statement released by Aston Martin on Thursday.

The original ‘mini series’ debuted on prime time on Sunday, August 1st; the story began to unfold as soon as Sebastian Vettel crossed the finish line at the Hungarian GP.

Over the radio, the four-time Formula One world champion was instructed to stop the car (Turn 12), then started running on foot to Parc Ferme to celebrate his second-place finish with the team.

By doing so, he did not complete the cooldown lap, the usual procedure drivers follow after a grand prix race.

Conflict, essential to every plot, soon found a place on the table once the FIA announced that following a routine post-race procedure on car number 5, driver and team had lost their second-place finish, getting disqualified from the event in Hungaroring.

According to the FIA Formula One Technical Regulations, teams must be able to provide the mandatory 1.0-liter fuel sample from a driver’s car at any time.

Nonetheless, the stewards could only pump 0.3 liters out from Vettel’s car; the breach in the regulations led the stewards to apply the standard penalty for technical infringements, an action which caused an immediate reaction from the squad.

The Aston Martin Cognizant F1 Team proceeded to file a Notice of Intention of Appeal to the FIA and requested a ‘right of review’ as the team understood to have found new and relevant evidence to present to the stewards, seeking for the German to be reinstated.

On Monday 9, a hearing, by video conference, was held between the FIA stewards and Aston Martin representatives.

The Silverstone-based team explained to have found “a fuel system failure as the cause of a leak resulting in an unexpected loss of fuel”.

However, the stewards dismissed the petition for review, accepting the team’s explanation but outlining the new evidence, not relevant to the matter in question.

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,” the official document issued by the FIA remarks.

Otmar Szafnauer, CEO & Team Principal, commented after the verdict: “We felt that the evidence we presented was relevant and demonstrated to the FIA that he [Vettel] 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’.”

Szafnauer further said that they would “now consider our position in respect of the full appeal process.”

The final chapter aired early this morning, with the team revealing the decision to withdraw the appeal process.

As a result, the final race classification confirms seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton promoted to second place with Mercedes, and Scuderia Ferrari Carlos Sainz Jr. in third, completing the podium.

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