The Massa/Perez crash from 2014 used as an example by Ferrari in the case of Sainz

Ferrari has chosen to highlight a rare instance of a contested driving penalty being reviewed. This stemmed from a spectacular accident that occurred on the final lap of the 2014 Canadian Grand Prix, which saw Sergio Perez (Force India) and Felipe Massa (Williams) make contact while battling for position. Force India believed they had a case worth pursuing.

The previous Massa/Pérez

The two drivers had gone to the hospital for examinations after violent impacts with the tire wall at turn 1, with Perez recording a 32G impact and Massa a 27G impact. Consequently, neither of the two drivers were able to speak to the stewards at the finish. After hearing from the team representatives, it had been deemed that the Mexican driver was at fault as it appeared he had veered to the left in the braking zone before Massa collided with him. Perez was given a five-place grid penalty for the next race in Austria.

Rob Smedley, of Williams, complained that Perez continued to drive a car with braking issues. Frustrated by the penalty and the suggestion of brake problems, Force India filed a request for a right to inspect.

The regulation stipulated that such matters should be handled either by the same commissioners or by the commissioners of the next event. Therefore, the case had been entrusted to the commissioners of the Austrian GP and a hearing had taken place prior to the first day of racing.

Contrary to the Sainz case, the commissioners acknowledged that there were indeed new pieces of evidence.

« Pérez unable to attend the post-race hearing »

The main reasoning was that Pérez was not able to attend the post-race hearing in Montreal or inform his team of what had happened because he had been taken for a medical examination. Therefore, he had the opportunity to present his arguments, supported by Force India’s telemetry data.

The Austrian commissioners had noted that Pérez had claimed that, in defending his position, he exercised his right… to use the entire track.

However, they added that “the defense of his position occurred in the braking zone” and that the regulation stipulates that “any defense using the entire track must occur before the braking zone” and that, therefore, Pérez “did not have the right to defend his position in the way he did”.

They had then confirmed the decision made by their Canadian counterparts.

Two incomparable cases

Nine years later, this example was brought up by Ferrari while they were trying to build their case to obtain new evidence, which essentially consisted of Sainz’s point of view on what had happened, as well as the SF-23 telemetry and quotes from other drivers in the media.

In their decision, the Melbourne commissioners made a connection with Montreal 2014: « The contestant states that there are precedents for considering these issues as new, significant, and relevant elements.

However, they were categorical that the two cases could not be compared and that Pérez/Massa could therefore not be considered a precedent.

Referring to the 2014 case, the Melbourne commissioners stated: « The factual circumstances of the commissioners’ decision in this case are completely different. The driver was not available as he had been taken to the hospital following the incident. The hearing took place without the competitor being able to speak with his driver to obtain his version of events. The driver’s version shed a different light on the facts that had been presented to the commissioners. »

Another crucial factor: « The peculiarity of this case is that our decision was made during the race. We considered it unnecessary to hear from Sainz or any other driver to decide that he was fully responsible for the collision. »

Statement from Scuderia Ferrari ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/LFEgGZkzRB

— Scuderia Ferrari (@ScuderiaFerrari) April 18, 2023

The final decision was accepted by the Scuderia but is still considered disproportionate by the Spanish driver, who reacted in a statement published on his Twitter account, concluding that what happened in Australia is in the past.