Mexico City, October 26 (HS). Formula 1's governing body has rejected McLaren's request to review the penalty given to Lando Norris during the United States Grand Prix. A five-second penalty issued for throwing title rival Max Verstappen off the track saw Norris slip from third to fourth in the final race standings.
It was confirmed on Thursday ahead of the Mexico City Grand Prix weekend that the walking organization had appealed the five-second penalty Norris received for overtaking Verstappen off the track while battling for third place in Austin last time out.
This was followed by a hearing on Friday, in which a team representative was required to participate in a video conference with the stewards.
In a document released by the FIA confirming the request, it was stated that the hearing would determine whether there were any significant and relevant new elements that were not available to the party seeking review at the time of the relevant decision, if found to be so If it goes, there will be a second hearing. However, it has been announced that the stewards have rejected the request.
In a document explaining the outcome of the case, it is stated that McLaren argued that a statement on the original decision document was incorrect, which was that “Car 4 was overtaking Car 1 on the outside, but on top The car was not equal to 1”.
The team suggested this was an error as they had evidence that Norris had already overtaken and was ahead of Verstappen at the “braking zone”. Red Bull, represented by Jonathan Wheatley, expressed its belief that the criteria for a successful petition for a 'right of review' were not met in this case.
The document adds: “With regard to relevance, McLaren appears to submit that the stewards’ conclusion was that “Car 4 had overtaken Car 1 before the apex (and therefore Car 1 was the overtaking car). And this claimed error is a new element in itself. It is unstable. A petition for review is made to correct an error (of fact or law) in a decision. Any new element should display that error. The defect whose existence must be proved cannot itself be an element referred to in Article 14. “In this case, the concept that the written decision was a significant and relevant new element, or that the error in the decision was a new element, is not sustainable and is therefore rejected.”
Comments are closed.