Independent Renault Forums banner

1 - 1 of 1 Posts

Premium Member
163 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Romain Grosjean has been disqualified from sixth place in the Italian GP after the floor on his Haas car was ruled illegal.
The haas team said "We do not agree with the Stewards' decision to penalize our race team and we feel strongly that our sixth-place finish in the Italian Grand Prix should stand. We are appealing the Stewards' decision.” -- from Guenther Steiner, team principal.

What did Haas do wrong?

The matter at the heart of Renault's protest centred around technical regulations concerning F1 floors.

In a detailed explanation of the situation, the FIA said it had previously emerged that the 'text of this Article was being applied differently by several different teams' and that a technical directive clarifying the issues was issued to all teams on July 25 ahead of the Hungarian GP.

The technical directive 'in essence gave the teams until the Grand Prix of Monza to comply with the clarification'.

In their defence to the stewards, Haas said they had contacted the FIA's technical chief, Nikolas Tombazis, to say that 'given the forthcoming summer break, we will endeavour to introduce this upgrade for the Singapore GP, but will be somewhat at the mercy of our suppliers so we would request some flexibility in this matter
However, the FIA said that Tombazis had told the team's aerodynamics chief that 'while he understood their supply problem, that if the car was not corrected by Monza - that they would leave themselves open to protest by other teams'.

The stewards heard several further submissions from Haas' representatives on Sunday evening, but ultimately ruled against the American team.

'While the Stewards are also sympathetic to the difficulties of producing these parts, the Stewards noted that at least one other competitor was able to comply in the time provided," read the stewards' verdict.

'Further, it was made clear to the competitor from the outset that the FIA Technical Department did not consider their car to be in compliance, and further that they left themselves open to the circumstances they now find.

'It was therefore the obligation of the competitor to be in compliance, which they did not do.'
1 - 1 of 1 Posts