Why the FIA stripped Fernando Alonso of Jeddah podium…then gave it back : PlanetF1

Fernando Alonso was reinstated in third place at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix after receiving a post-race time penalty that dropped him to fourth place.

Alonso finished third at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, climbing onto the podium behind the winning Red Bull drivers and celebrating after the race.

Shortly after that celebration, however, it was revealed that Alonso had received a 10-second time penalty and as a result had dropped to fourth place behind Mercedes’ George Russell.

Minding his media duties, Alonso lamented that the FIA ​​had taken far too long to tell Aston Martin the possibility of a penalty and felt he could have opened a bigger gap with Russell had he known that he is under investigation.

The crux of the matter lies in some controversial wording in the FIA’s Sporting Regulations, with Alonso’s time penalty being awarded on the basis of an initial earlier penalty.

Starting from second on the grid, Alonso was slightly off track on his grid position and was investigated for the offense – race control decided on a time penalty of five seconds.

Alonso came in under the safety car on lap 18, served the five-second penalty and resumed the race en route to third on the road. However, the stewards ruled that Alonso had not served the first penalty correctly, which is why a second penalty was imposed.

What did Fernando Alonso do wrong while serving his first sentence?

Article 54.4 of the FIA ​​Sporting Regulations states: “While a car is stationary in the pit lane as a result of a penalty, no work may be carried out on it until the car is stationary for the duration of the penalty.”

Replays showed quite clearly that when Alonso had to serve his sentence, Aston Martin’s rear jack pushed the jack under the car’s rear lifting point. While touching the underside of Alonso’s car, he didn’t lift it off the ground. So the question mark over Alonso’s punishment related to what constitutes ‘working on the car’ – is it contact or is it actionable movement?

The stewards explained why the first penalty was imposed: “[Alonso] had come into the pits during the safety car period to serve out the five-second penalty that had been imposed [him] due to misplacement in the starting grid.

“As usual, the race control, with the support of the Remote Operations Center (ROC) in Geneva, checked whether [Alonso] duly served his sentence. Stewards were informed that both race officials and the ROC had determined that the penalty had been properly served. The sports stewards did not investigate the matter any further after that.”

PlanetF1.com recommends

Late FIA ​​drama as Fernando Alonso reclaims 100th podium after post-race penalty overturned
Concern for Ferrari after being ‘surprised’ by Mercedes race pace
Max Verstappen unhappy with Red Bull’s reliability: I’m not here to finish second

While matters seemed closed, the situation appears to have been reignited on the last lap of the race – most likely by a complaint from a competitor.

“Then, on the last lap of the race, the stewards received a report from race officials that they felt the penalty had not been properly served [Alonso] and they asked the stewards to investigate the matter. The matter has been reported to ROC Race Control,” the FIA ​​said.

“The stewards were shown video evidence of how [Alonso] served the penalty by the Race Director and Sport Director. They explained what was agreed at the SAC [Sporting Advisory Committee] Discussions with the teams was that no part of the car could be touched while a penalty was being served as it would be tantamount to working on the car.

“In this case it was clear that the car had been hit by the rear jack. Based on the statement to the stewards that there was an agreed position that touching the car was tantamount to ‘work’ on the car, the stewards decided to impose a penalty.

“Article 54.4(e) gives the Stewards the power to disqualify a vehicle for failure to comply with Article 54.4(c). However, since no work was done while the car was touched, we felt a disqualification was too harsh a result. Under these circumstances, the Stewards imposed a 10-second penalty [Alonso].”

Take a closer look at this important pit stop 🔎#Saudi ArabianGP #F1 pic.twitter.com/P9O1lnqWaN

— Formula 1 (@F1) March 19, 2023

Aston Martin files appeal

As they believed that Alonso had served his time penalty correctly, Aston Martin submitted a “request for review” under Article 14.1.1 of the International Sporting Code (ISC), allowing a review of the stewards’ decisions provided: ” a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was not available to the parties requesting the review at the time of the relevant decision, to the stewards who made a decision or, failing that, to persons designated by the FIA.”

The FIA ​​has detailed how the stewards were shown video evidence of seven separate instances where cars serving penalties were hit by a jack without being penalized.

The documentary describes, as Aston Martin says, the “alleged presentation of an agreement between the FIA ​​and the teams that ‘touching the car in any way, including with a jack’, was ‘wrong’ and therefore the basis of the stewards’ decision ‘incorrect'”.

As part of the review request, the stewards noted that Aston Martin’s submitted evidence in conjunction with the minutes of the recent SAC meeting showed that the “substrate of the original decision” could be “challenged”.

After reviewing the evidence presented by Aston Martin, the stewards have ruled that there is no clear agreement that can be relied upon to determine whether all parties have agreed that a car touched by a jack will be treated as “work.” on the car” is viewed.

As a result, the stewards decided to overturn the 10-second time penalty imposed on Alonso and put him back in third place.

As might be expected in a situation like this, the FIA ​​has confirmed that another SAC meeting will be held ahead of the Australian Grand Prix to clarify the definition of ‘working on the car’.