Mercedes F1 boss Toto Wolff has called for a rethink of how incidents resulting from force majeure are managed by the FIA, following what he deemed an "unfair" penalty imposed on Carlos Sainz in Las Vegas last November.
At the penultimate round of the 2023 F1 world championship, Sainz's Ferrari sustained severe damage after running over a loose water valve cover just minutes into Friday’s opening practice session.
The incident inflicted severe damage on the Spaniard’s chassis and power unit and forced the Scuderia to replace the latter’s energy store which triggered a mandatory 10-place grid penalty.
Sainz, understandably upset about the situation, expressed his frustration, stating that the damage was a direct result of a safety hazard on the track. He argued that the penalty was unfair, as it was neither his fault nor that of the Ferrari team.
However, the FIA's black-and-white regulations, which lack a provision for force majeure, left the stewards with no choice but to impose the penalty.
The rigid interpretation of the rules drew criticism from several figures in the paddock, including Wolff, who believes the situation calls for a reassessment by the FIA of the force majeure clause.
“For me, as a racer, I am the first one to say that he didn't deserve the outcome,” Wolff told the media in Abu Dhabi at F1’s season finale.
“I think we should look at the rules. Force majeure is a difficult one. What happens with kerb strikes (and) you destroy your car by riding over a kerb? There's nothing you can do.
“You're riding over bumps with cold tyres like happened to Lando [Norris during the Las Vegas GP], and you smash into a wall? Are people going to say this is a force majeure event?
“What if another car T-bones you and you've done nothing? Is that force majeure? As a sportsman, nobody liked the situation.
“It was unjust what happened to him and it ruined the race weekend for him that he maybe could have won, so we've got to look and give it a hard think how we can change it.”
Amidst the uproar in the Ferrari camp over the controversial situation, eight of Ferrari's nine rival teams reportedly proposed a unique solution to allow Sainz to race without incurring a penalty.
However, this proposal was ultimately rejected, with Mercedes – through the voice of its team principal – being the sole dissenter.
As unfair as he deemed the situation to be for Sainz, Wolff's decision stemmed from Mercedes' close battle with Ferrari for second place in the Constructors' Championship at the time.
With a significant financial difference between finishing second and third, it appeared clear that Wolff's refusal to waive the penalty was motivated by a strategic move to gain a competitive advantage.
While Wolff empathized with Sainz's situation, he maintained that his decision was based on his duty to protect his team's interests. He argued that granting Sainz an exception would have set a precedent that could potentially disadvantage Mercedes in the future.
“As a team principal for a rival team that is fighting for P2, I need to look at the scope – I need to look at the regulations and the full scope of possible actions of ourselves in order to finish P2 in the championship,” the Austrian explained.
“If the regulation says so, I need to act for the benefit of the team and the 2500 people – that will have a very big difference in bonus between P2 and P3 – to act to the limit of the regulations.
“Because, if we lose the championship by five points because I have acted in sporting fairness and the rules would have allowed me to actually penalise the car – whatever driver – I need to do this.
“Every other team principal will do it, as much as it’s unfair. I need to decide, ‘Is it unfair for a rival driver?’
“It is. But I have 2500 people that I’m literally responsible for, that pay mortgages and school fees, so it’s a no-brainer. I think it’s important that we, sometimes, put ourselves in the other’s position.
“I have done that for Carlos and it’s awful. The other way around, I’m not sure whether the exercise was done.”
Wolff made clear that he is a strong advocate for a revised interpretation of force majeure in F1. But he has expressed concerns about the potential for loopholes and inconsistencies if the definition is left too open-ended.
The Mercedes boss highlighted the case of Lewis Hamilton's disqualification from second place in the United States Grand Prix due to the excessive wear of his car’s floor plank as an example of a situation that could fall into a grey area.
“Our plank disqualification, we could say the bumps were much more than we expected and we couldn't change it,” he said.
“It was a sprint weekend, it's force majeure, and we come up with all kinds of measurements that the bumps are higher than expected.
“But, for me, it's more like things you can't [control]. For me, riding the kerb and destroying your skids and falling foul of the regulations, striking a bird – unfair, but we haven't found regulations that would cover these things.
“I think hitting a drain cover and ruining your car is unfair for the driver, definitely.”
