The Australian Grand Prix’s stewards have rejected Ferrari’s try to reopen the investigation into Carlos Sainz’s in-race penalty.

Sainz dropped from fourth place to final within the ultimate outcomes of the race as a result of a five-second penalty for making contact with Fernando Alonso at a late red-flag restart.

The stewards issued the penalty in the course of the third and ultimate crimson flag earlier than a security automotive end and located the Ferrari driver wholly responsible for the collision.

Sainz was furious with the choice over staff radio, saying it was the “most unfair penalty I’ve seen in my life”.

He additionally mentioned the stewards ought to have waited to listen to from him earlier than making a call — one thing the stewards shouldn’t have to do in the event that they situation an in-race penalty.

After the race, Ferrari lodged a petition to assessment the stewards’ choice, which, if profitable, would have seen the stewards rethink their choice and probably alter the results of the race.

Nonetheless, in an effort to reopen the case Ferrari was required to offer new and related data that had not been accessible to the stewards on the time of the choice.

Ferrari introduced the next three components:

a) the telemetry knowledge of Sainz’s automotive after the second restart.
b) Sainz’s witness assertion; and
c) different driver’s witness statements, which quantity to data of post-race interviews given by Alonso in addition to different drivers.

All three have been rejected.

Ferrari additionally believed there was a precedent for reopening the case based mostly on an accident between Sergio Perez and Felipe Massa on the 2014 Canadian Grand Prix.

The investigation into that incident was reopened as Perez, who was driving for Power India on the time, had been hospitalised after the crash and was unable to attend the post-race listening to into the accident.

Regardless of reopening the case, Perez’s penalty, which was a grid drop on the subsequent race, was upheld.

Nonetheless, the Australian Grand Prix stewards mentioned the 2 incidents weren’t comparable.

“The distinguishing function right here is that our choice [regarding Sainz in Australia] was made in-race,” a press release mentioned. “We deemed it pointless for us to listen to from SAI or hear from every other driver to determine that he was wholly responsible for the collision.

“A call that we, and different Stewards panels, routinely take and are inspired to take, when the reason for the collision is obvious and there’s a want for time penalties to be issued as rapidly as doable.”

The stewards went on to elucidate why that they had rejected all three components introduced by Ferrari.

“a) Telemetry: The telemetry knowledge of itself just isn’t a big and related new ingredient required to determine who was at fault for the collision. The Stewards have entry to a substantial quantity of telemetry knowledge. We have been additionally able to entry such knowledge. The telemetry knowledge introduced within the Petition is at finest ambiguous and in our view didn’t exculpate SAI however in actual fact corroborated our choice that he was wholly responsible for the collision. He says he braked more durable however couldn’t cease the automotive due to chilly tyres. He states additional {that a} gradual formation lap contributed to the chilly tyres.

“There are two brief factors. First, even when that’s true, the presentation of telemetry displaying his braking level just isn’t a big new ingredient for the needs of Artwork.14.

“Second, the situations of the observe and the tyres was one thing that each competitor wanted to consider and adapt to. In making an attempt to brake late whereas racing GAS, he adopted the danger that he, as a driver, would lose management of his automotive. On this case, that danger materialised, with the consequence of a collision that ensued, for which a penalty follows.

“b) SAI’s written witness assertion (the doc itself) just isn’t a brand new vital and related ingredient required to determine who was at fault for the collision. First, had we thought that this required a press release from SAI for us to analyse the occasion, we’d have summoned him after the race. We didn’t think about it needed then to listen to from him to determine that reality.

“His witness assertion, in essence, states how poor the grip was (we now have handled why that’s not a ample excuse above) and the way the solar was in his eyes. However logic would dictate that the place of the solar would have equally impacted different drivers too. It isn’t a justifiable motive to keep away from a penalty for a collision. The witness assertion is due to this fact not a brand new ingredient both.

“c) The opposite drivers’ statements usually are not new vital and related components required to determine in regards to the incident (not one of the statements contained new vital and related variations in regards to the collision). These statements have been all data of post-race statements given by the drivers to the media. These have been introduced to corroborate their place that the grip stage was low and that the tyres have been chilly.”