2021 ABU DHABI GRAND PRIX 9 – 12 December 2021
The Stewards Document 57
All Teams Date 12 December 2021
Time 22:14
Protest filed by Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team against Car number 33, driven by Max Verstappen (Red Bull Racing Honda)
Stewards Decision: The Protest is dismissed.

Procedure:
1. On December 12 the parties were summoned at 1945 hrs (Documents 52 and 53) and heard. The following persons were present during the hearing.
On behalf of Mercedes:
‐ Ron Meadows
‐ Andrew Shovlin
‐ Paul Harris (Team Legal Counsel)
On behalf of Red Bull:
‐ Jonathan Wheatley
2. At the hearing there were no objections against the composition of the Stewards panel. The parties set out oral arguments and addressed the questions asked by the Stewards.
3. At the hearing the parties referred to the documents submitted. None of the parties submitted further evidence or initiated the hearing of additional persons or conducting further investigations.

The claims of Mercedes:
Mercedes claimed that Car 33 overtook Car 44 during the Safety Car period at 1832hrs, in breach of Article 48.8 of the 2021 Formula One Sporting Regulations.
Red Bull’s arguments in defence:
Red Bull argued that Car 44 was not “overtaken” by Car 33, that both cars were “on and off the throttle” and that there were “a million precedents” under Safety Car where cars had pulled alongside then moved back behind the Car that was in front.

Conclusions of the Stewards :
The Stewards consider that the protest is admissible.
Having considered the various statements made by the parties. The Stewards determine that although Car 33 did at one stage, for a very short period of time, move slightly in front of Car 44, at a time when both cars where accelerating and braking, it moved back behind Car 44 and it was not in front when the Safety Car period ended (i.e. at the line).
Accordingly, the Protest is dismissed and the Protest Deposit is not refunded.
Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

Protest filed by Mercedes-AMG Petronas F1 Team against the Classification established at the end of the Competition
Stewards Decision: The Protest is dismissed.

Procedure:
1. On December 12 the parties were summoned at 2015 hrs (Documents 54 and 55) and heard. The following persons were present during the hearing:
On behalf of Mercedes:
‐ Ron Meadows
‐ Andrew Shovlin
‐ Paul Harris (Team Legal Counsel)
On behalf of Red Bull:
‐ Jonathan Wheatley
‐ Christian Horner
‐ Adrian Newey
‐
Red Bull, as an “interested party” was permitted to attend.
The hearing adjourned at 2050 to allow Red Bull to consider its response in further detail and reconvened at 2130hrs.
The Race Director was present for the reconvened hearing.
2. At the hearing there were no objections against the composition of the Stewards panel. The parties set out oral arguments and addressed the questions asked by the Stewards.
3. At the hearing the parties referred to the documents submitted. Red Bull submitted graphical information (Exhibit A).

The claims of Mercedes:
Mercedes claimed that there were two breaches of the Sporting Regulations (Article 48.12) namely that which states “..any cars that have been lapped by the leader will be required to pass the cars on the lead lap and the safety car” and “...once the last lapped car has passed the leader the safety car will return to the pits at the end of the following lap.”
Mercedes argued that had this been complied with, Car 44 would have won the race.
They therefore requested the Stewards to amend the Classification under Article 11.9.3.h of the FIA International Sporting Code.

Red Bull’s arguments in defence:
Red Bull argued that
1. “Any” does not mean “all”.
2. The Article 48.13 of the Sporting Regulations states that the message “Safety Car in this
lap” is the signal that it will enter the pit lane at the end of that lap.
3. ThatthereforeArticle48.13“overrides”Article48.12.
4. ThatArticle15.3givestheRaceDirector“overridingauthority”over“theuseofthesafety
car”.
5. Thatevenifallcarsthathadbeenlapped(8intotal,ofwhich5wereallowedtoovertake
the safety car) it would not have changed the outcome of the race.

Race Director’s Evidence
The Race Director stated that the purpose of Article 48.12 was to remove those lapped cars that would “interfere” in the racing between the leaders and that in his view Article 48.13 was the one that applied in this case.
The Race Director also stated that it had long been agreed by all the Teams that where possible it was highly desirable for the race to end in a “green” condition (i.e. not under a Safety Car).

Conclusions of the Stewards :
The Stewards consider that the protest is admissible.
Having considered the various statements made by the parties the Stewards determine the following:
That Article 15.3 allows the Race Director to control the use of the safety car, which in our determination includes its deployment and withdrawal.
That although Article 48.12 may not have been applied fully, in relation to the safety car returning to the pits at the end of the following lap, Article 48.13 overrides that and once the message “Safety Car in this lap” has been displayed, it is mandatory to withdraw the safety car at the end of that lap.
That notwithstanding Mercedes’ request that the Stewards remediate the matter by amending the classification to reflect the positions at the end of the penultimate lap, this is a step that the Stewards believe is effectively shortening the race retrospectively, and hence not appropriate.
Accordingly, the Protest is dismissed. The Protest Deposit is not refunded.

Competitors are reminded that they have the right to appeal certain decisions of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Rules, within the applicable time limits.

Als ik Mercedes was kan ik ze geen ongelijk geven. Volgens de FIA codex had Mercedes al lang door dat de finish zou vallen met de safetycar. Daarom dat ze Lewis buiten gelaten hebben. Het feit dat de safetycar regels en herstart procedure opeens overboord zijn gegooid mag op zijn minst als 'surprising' gemarkeerd worden. Dus daar heeft Mercedus juridische wel een heel sterk argument. Misschien niet bij de FIA zelf ... maar als ze het hogerop aankaarten ben ik wel eens benieuwd wat er dan geoordeeld zou worden.

Denk dat de sleutel in handen is van Lewis ... of hij persoonlijk dit zo wil laten aanslepen door Mercedes of niet.

Mercedes zit er niet in voor Hamilton, maar om jongeren in een Mercedes te krijgen en af te stappen van dat cigaren-rokende 60plusser image.