Sebastian Vettel Remains 2nd After Ferrari Evidence is Rejected

Ferrari seem to have an ace up their sleeve with regard to the Canadian GP penalty. However, Sebastian Vettel has remained tight-lipped on what the new evidence actually was. Both he and Scuderia Ferrari believe that the penalty was quite harsh.

For the uninitiated, the stewards handed Sebastian Vettel a 5-second time penalty for an unsafe return to the track. The incident took place during his tussle with Lewis Hamilton in the latter stages of the Montreal race.

As a result Sebastian Vettel was robbed of the race win, as well as two penalty points on his superlicence. However, Ferrari elected not to appeal, but instead wrote to the FIA requesting a review.

So, Ferrari representatives will meet the Canadian Grand Prix stewards at the Paul Ricard circuit ahead of the race weekend. However, Sebastian Vettel chose to play dumb with regard to the new evidence being brought to the table.

“First thing of all is to open the case again and have another look,” he said. “We bring some information that maybe the stewards didn’t have at the time.”

When he was asked what the evidence was, his simple reply was: “Ask the team.”

“I still have the same view that I had two weeks ago,” he explained. “It’s fair enough that you have things that excite you more and less during the course of a grand prix.

“I wasn’t losing my temper, I wasn’t happy but I think I have reason not to be happy.”

Fascinatingly, Sebastian Vettel believes that the penalty turned the race on its head. However, he insisted that it did not feel like rival Lewis Hamilton was giving him any respite and wait for the penalty.

“It didn’t feel like he was easing off,” Vettel added. “But certainly it changed the race from that point onwards because I don’t know how much Lewis was backing off or not.”

Unfortunately, according to the latest information, the evidence was rejected by the FIA.

The evidence was as follows:

(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.

According to the stewards testimony, all of the elements were either not new or irrelevant or insignificant. The third element was deemed the opinion of a third party and the fourth element was rejected as the evidence contained in the video footage can be seen within other available videos