The damage done to Carlos Sainz Jnr’s car in practice at the Las Vegas Grand Prix could have been avoided if the FIA had carried out its track inspection correctly, according to AlphaTauri team principal Franz Tost.
However the FIA defended its inspection of the new Las Vegas Strip Circuit which was approved for use by Formula 1 before practice began.Ferrari had to replace the survival cell and power unit on Sainz’s car after he struck a water valve cover which had come loose eight minutes into the first practice session. The team was infuriated to then receive a 10-place grid penalty because it had exceeded Sainz’s maximum allocation of energy stores while repairing his car.
“It was very unfortunate for Carlos but the FIA made the correct interpretation of the regulations and therefore they penalised him,” said Tost. “It was ‘force majeure’.
“On the other hand I must say the main problem came up because the track maybe was not inspected in the way as it should be. Because if this would have been the case, then the problem would not have occurred.”
However an FIA spokesperson told RaceFans there was no delay or compromise to the inspection of the new Las Vegas Strip Circuit. As the track is a temporary venue, its certification was issued following the final inspection. The valve cover came loose because the concrete surrounding it failed – a problem which a track inspection is unlikely to detect.
Two cars were damaged in the opening session: Sainz’s Ferrari and Esteban Ocon’s Alpine. First practice was abandoned following the incidents and the second session was delayed by two-and-a-half hours while further checks of the circuit were carried out to ensure running could resume safely. No further problems with the track occured over the rest of the weekend.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Ferrari unsuccessfully lobbied the stewards to grant them a dispensation from the rules to avoid a penalty for Sainz. This was turned down as the stewards said they did not have the authority to deviate from the rules.
Tost compared Sainz’s incident to his driver Daniel Ricciardo’s at Interlagos. His rear wing was damaged when a flying tyre from a collision he was not involved in landed on it.
“We had in Sao Paulo a similar issue, you could also call it force majeure, when a tyre destroyed the rear wing of Daniel Ricciardo after the start,” said Tost. “You could also say ‘but he couldn’t do anything, this tyre was just coming from the collision which was before in the first corner’. It was unfortunate but the FIA came up with the correct decision.”
Alpine’s interim team principal Bruno Famin also supported the stewards’ handling of Sainz’s case, noting that giving Ferrari a dispensation would set a problematic precedent. “It’s very unfortunate for Carlos, but frankly speaking I don’t see what other choice the FIA and the stewards had in that case,” said Famin.
“It happens that you are taken in a crash, you have nothing to do with the crash or somebody pushes you are you lose a gearbox, you lose an engine, you lose transmission and unfortunately you are for nothing in that and you are penalised.
“But if we start opening the door to this kind of thing it will be endless, I think. I think the stewards took the right decision – unfortunately for Carlos, it is very unfortunate, because he had nothing to do, but there was no other option.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2023 Las Vegas Grand Prix
- Tost blames track inspection oversight for Sainz’s damage in Las Vegas
- Hard to repeat “rare” combination of factors behind Vegas shunt – Norris
- Las Vegas Grand Prix “got a lot more hate than it deserved” – Sargeant
- Williams’ “incredible” Vegas qualifying made us “poor” in race – Vowles
- Piastri is first rookie to take two fastest laps in a season since Hamilton
Martin Elliott
24th November 2023, 15:04
“The valve cover came loose because the concrete surrounding it failed – a problem which a track inspection is unlikely to detect.”
Which given the record of such failures at street circuits over recent years, indicates simply the the FIA protocol for track inspection (only visual) is not fit for purpose and exposing drivers to unnecessary risk!
Hardly in line with the declared FIA Safety Culture.
Give the visual inspection team a schedule of street furniture and a couple of pry bars. Visual inspection is not enough.
PacificPR (@streydt)
24th November 2023, 16:43
+1 I am puzzled why the FIA is so defensive in the media and putting so much energy in spinning the story their way (or Liberty’s?) They should keep their head down, investigate (apologize to Sainz / Ferrari) and come up with a beter protocol for street circuits. End of story.
reggie747
24th November 2023, 17:08
Because Mohammed bin Sulayem is at the helm and he’s crap at his job.
Why does he need to turn up at every race and be seen to be in the limelight ?
You hardly ever saw Max Mosley and Jean Todd yet this guy is always there….
S
25th November 2023, 8:24
You think the first time the FIA have anything to do with the circuit is race week?
The process starts many months – sometimes years – prior to the first event. Precedents are followed, but no two environments are identical.
The fact remains that you can’t know for sure exactly how strongly a cover plate is attached until it is ripped out of the ground. Other circuits have either learned this the hard way, or made them so ridiculously over-engineered in the first place that spectators see it as a complete non-issue – when in fact it was a significant engineering (and financial) exercise beforehand.
One thing you can be sure of is that this won’t happen again at Vegas.
However, there will never be any guarantees that it won’t happen again somewhere else.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
24th November 2023, 17:08
Why wouldn’t a track inspection pick up an issue with a concrete surround?
bosyber (@bosyber)
24th November 2023, 21:00
And If it currently can’t, surely that means they need to rethink the inspection for tracks like this @alianora-la-canta
Jere (@jerejj)
24th November 2023, 17:11
Good point, although race control’s decision with Ricciardo & Piastri was abnormal because allowing unlapping in race suspensions is equally standard approach rather than only during SC neutralizations.
SteveP
24th November 2023, 17:21
I thought the reports were that the FIA had said the inspection was difficult and done in a limited time, now they say there was no limitation.
Seems like two versions. Either misreported or “misspoken” by the FIA.
AlexS
24th November 2023, 17:37
“We had in Sao Paulo a similar issue, you could also call it force majeure, when a tyre destroyed the rear wing of Daniel Ricciardo after the start,”
It was not a similar issue. the track is supposed to be neutral.
AlanD
24th November 2023, 20:22
I am puzzled. If they are correct in saying that a track inspection wouldn’t detect the failing concrete, how could they declare the track safe after a second inspection following the Sainz incident? If they did a more detialed inspection second time around, what it their excuse for not inspecting properly initially? As we’ve repeatedly said, drain cover issues etc are far from niw on street circuits. The FIA/FOM is not ignorant of the problem, just incompetent at solving it.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
25th November 2023, 16:39
here we go, the covers have to hold 5x the force they could possibly experience. Test them at 3x, all of them for a safe period of time running a little truck with a small hydraulic contraption on it, on Thursday. Then at the end of the race, test 5-10 of the man holes with 5x and if anything fails, people learn after the race instead of during or right before. The problem probably stems from the requirements not being completely understood, as well as how to drill through concrete, if that was required, and what kind of concrete/etc material is suitable. Perhaps the standard needs to include several types of street surfaces, and several types of ‘fixing’ engineering controls which can be used. Sounds like the man hole issue isn’t really engineered well in the safety regs.