Sports Thoughts: F1’s Fine Margins - McLaren’s Double Disqualification in Las Vegas

In true Vegas fashion, the Las Vegas Grand Prix delivered entertainment into the early hours.  

 

What happened in Vegas?

McLaren’s Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri were disqualified after finishing second and fourth, following a breach of Article 3.5.9(e) of the FIA Technical Regulations. This states the plank assembly on the underside of each car must be 10mm ± 0.2mm when new and “a minimum thickness of 9mm will be accepted due to wear.” 

The plank assembly is integral to regulating ride height and preventing excessive ground contact. Post-race checks revealed that McLaren’s plank assembly had worn to slightly below the 9mm minimum (with the breaches ranging between 0.04mm and 0.26mm).  

This suggests the McLarens ran lower than permitted, potentially improving their aerodynamic efficiency and grip around corners; advantages the Technical Regulations aim to neutralise for fairness and safety. 

 

McLaren’s Position and FIA’s Approach 

Following the checks, the drivers and team were called to a hearing by the race stewards. McLaren said there were mitigating circumstances, namely: 1) unexpected porpoising during the race (a phenomenon where the car ‘bounces’ at high speeds), increasing wear; 2) limited opportunity to test earlier in the weekend due to adverse weather and shortened practice sessions; and 3) accidental damage discovered post-race, which may have caused additional floor movement. 

Whilst the FIA accepted the breach was unintentional and not a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Technical Regulations, the breach is effectively a strict liability offence resulting in disqualification, as per previous decisions of the FIA’s International Court of Appeal (ICA). 

 

Could McLaren Appeal? 

The FIA’s Judicial and Disciplinary Rules govern the appeal framework within Formula 1. Articles 9 and 10 define the scope of the ICA’s authority and outline the procedural rules for hearings before it, including appeals from stewards’ rulings. 

Notice periods are strict: intention to appeal against a ruling must be lodged within one hour of the stewards’ decision (Article 10.1.1.a(d)), and formal notification within a further 96 hours (Article 10.5.1(a)). In this case, these deadlines have now passed.  

Where new evidence emerges, a “Right of Review” (Article 11.3) becomes available to those appealing an ICA decision. A similar provision in the FIA Sporting Code is relied on by Massa in the Crashgate case.  However, having not made an appeal to the ICA, McLaren will be unable to rely on this provision. 

This case underscores the uncompromising nature of F1’s technical compliance regime, and how what may be considered a minor breach of the Technical Regulations, could well have a major impact on the outcome of the Driver’s Championship.

The double disqualification means three drivers could still win the Championship with two races to go. With such fine margins, could the stewards or the ICA shape who wins in Abu Dhabi?