Williams Formula 1 team principal James Vowles has revealed why the team waited until the final hours of the 96-hour period to submit a Carlos Sainz penalty review following the Dutch Grand Prix. This penalty, issued after a collision with Racing Bulls driver Liam Lawson, resulted in a 10-second time penalty and two penalty points on Sainz’s superlicence.
The review request has now been accepted, with a hearing scheduled for Friday, 12 September. Both Williams and Racing Bulls representatives will attend to discuss the incident and the merits of the appeal.
Deliberate Decision to Thoroughly Assess the Situation
When asked about the reason for waiting until near the end of the allowable timeframe to submit the review, Vowles explained that the decision came after careful reflection rather than an immediate reaction.
“So, the decision to do a right of review actually took place on the Monday,”
he said during The Vowles Verdict. He emphasized the need to calmly evaluate the incident by reviewing all available footage and consulting with Sainz before moving forward.
Vowles described the process as requiring compliance with specific criteria for the review: the evidence must be new, significant, and unavailable to the stewards at the time of their initial decision. Given the stewards had access to a wide variety of angles including onboard and helicopter footage, finding new and meaningful evidence was challenging.
Gathering Evidence with Respect for the Process and All Parties
The team spent much of the allowable period analyzing what fresh information could be presented to strengthen their case. Vowles stressed that Williams wanted to present a detailed and well-founded argument to the stewards rather than rushing the review submission.
“Quite a bit of that time was assessing what evidence can we gather that enables us to get the case to where we need it to be,”
he explained.
Williams also placed importance on respecting the FIA and the stewards’ time, aiming to submit a review request that justifies the need for further assessment.
“So, in part it’s making sure we’re really assessing the situation correctly. In part, making sure we gather the right evidence and then in part, making sure that we’re respectful of everyone’s time and not wasting anyone’s time as a result,”
Vowles said.
Upcoming Review Hearing and Its Implications for Sainz and Williams
The right of review hearing will provide both teams a platform to present their perspectives on the collision, and the stewards will reassess the incident based on new evidence or arguments. The outcome will influence Sainz’s standing in the championship and Williams’ strategic approach to such incidents in the future.
Delaying the review submission until the last permissible moment allowed Williams to carefully weigh the strengths and weaknesses of their case, underscoring the team’s measured approach amid frustration over the penalty. This meticulous preparation may enhance their chances of a successful appeal or at least provide clarity on the stewards’ position after reconsideration.
