The FIA have rejected Ferrari’s bid to appeal Sebastian Vettel’s penalty from the Canadian Grand Prix.
The German was given a five-second penalty after he was judged to have rejoined the track and forced rival Lewis Hamilton into evasive action.
Hamilton became race winner as a result of the penalty to keep Mercedes’ 100% winning record in 2019 alive, while Vettel vented his anger after the race.
The Scuderia were summoned to a hearing on Friday ahead of second practice at the French Grand Prix with the stewards from Canada.
However, the FIA have now confirmed that their bid for the incident to be reviewed has been rejected, with Ferrari’s “overwhelming” new evidence, which included analysis from Sky Sports F1, deemed insufficient.
The FIA statement in full:
“The Stewards, summoned the team (Document 47) and held a hearing at 14:15 on Friday 21st June, 2019. The Stewards heard the team representative, Laurent Mekies, who made a presentation to the Stewards. Having examined the evidence presented by the team, the Stewards determine the following:
There are no significant and relevant new elements which were unavailable to the parties at the time of the competition concerned.
According to Article 14 of the FIA International Sporting Code and Article 2.2 of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations, only those elements may be regarded as “new”, which have not been available to Scuderia Ferrari before the end of the Event (18:44 on June 9, 2019 – end of scrutineering).
Scuderia Ferrari presented the following elements in the hearing:
(i) analysis of the telemetry data of VET’s car, including car attitude channels;
(ii) a video analysis of the camera views (front view, top view, onboard cameras of VET and HAM) prepared after the race;
(iii) a video analysis performed by Karun Chandhok for Sky Sports after the race;
(iv) a video of VET’s face camera, which was released by F1 Limited after the race;
(v) post-race and video images;
(vi) analysis of the GPS racing line data of both HAM and VET in the Situation lap and in the previous race laps; and
(vii) Witness statement of VET (the “VET WS”).
Elements (i), (ii), (v), (vi) & (vii) were available before the end of the competition.
Element (iii) was new but not significant and relevant as this is a personal opinion by a third party.
Element (iv) was new but not significant and relevant as the evidence contained in this video footage can be seen within other available video.