Deeming that he wasn’t predominantly guilty, the Zandvoort stewards have eliminated Carlos Sainz’ penalty factors for the collision with Liam Lawson.
Introduction
1. On September 4, 2025, the Stewards obtained a petition from Atlassian Williams Racing (“Williams”) requesting a Proper of Overview in accordance with Article 14 of the FIA Worldwide Sporting Code (“the Code”).
2. Williams’ request associated to the choice of the Stewards contained in doc quantity 45 issued on the 2025 Dutch Grand Prix and issued in the course of the race at that occasion that the Driver of Automotive 55, Carlos Sainz, induced a collision with Automotive 30, Liam Lawson, and in so doing contravened Appendix L, Chapter IV, Article second) of the Code. The Stewards imposed a ten second time penalty on Automotive 55 (which was served in the course of the race) and a couple of penalty factors on the Driver of Automotive 55 (“Determination”).
3. A listening to was convened on 12 September 2025 at 15:30hrs CEST by video convention to find out the admissibility of the Petition and Williams was summoned accordingly (doc 62).
4. A summons was additionally issued to the Crew Supervisor of Visa Money App Racing Bulls F1 Crew (“VCARB”) and the Driver of Automotive 30, Liam Lawson, to attend a subsequent listening to if the Stewards decided after an preliminary listening to that the standards in Article 14.1.1 of the Code was glad (doc 63). Nevertheless, VCARB requested that they be afforded a possibility to attend the preliminary listening to and make submissions. That request was granted. In granting the request, the Stewards have been cognizant of the truth that related requests had been granted previously to these concerned within the incident.
Attendees
5. The Stewards of the 2025 Dutch Grand Prix carried out the listening to. Not one of the events raised any objection to the composition of the panel.
6. Attending the listening to on behalf of Williams have been:
– Sven Smeets, Sporting Director;- Dave Redding, Crew Supervisor; and- Carlos Sainz, Driver of Automotive 55.
7. Attending the listening to on behalf of VCARB have been:
– Marco Perrone, Crew Supervisor; and- Liam Lawson, Driver of Automotive 30.
8. Attending the listening to on behalf of the FIA was the FIA F1 Sporting Director, Tim Malyon.
Function of listening to
9. This preliminary listening to was to find out, on the sole discretion of the Stewards (as laid out in Article 14.3 of the Code), if “a big and related new component is found which was unavailable to the events searching for the assessment on the time of the choice involved”.
10. Due to this fact, the Stewards have been required to find out if any proof introduced to them was:
a. “important”;b. “related”;c. “new”; andd. “unavailable to the occasion searching for the assessment on the time of the unique choice” (“Overview Standards”).
11. Provided that the Overview Standards is met, would the Stewards be required to convene an extra listening to to rethink the Determination.
12. Article 14.1.1 units a excessive bar for reviewing a choice of the Stewards. This has been the constant place taken in earlier requests to train the proper of assessment.
Submissions
13. Williams asserted that the next 3 components, stated to be important and related new components, have been unavailable to it on the time of the Determination:
a. footage from the 360° digital camera on Automotive 55;b. footage from the rear going through digital camera on Automotive 30;c. testimony from the Driver of Automotive 55,
(collectively “the alleged new components”).
14. Williams submitted that the footage from the 360° digital camera on Automotive 55 and the footage from the rear going through digital camera on Automotive 30 weren’t out there to the group in the course of the race as a result of it was not transmitted in the course of the race and solely recorded on a card in every digital camera which may solely be downloaded after the race and made out there by System One thereafter. This was confirmed by the FIA F1 Sporting Director and acknowledged by VCARB.
15. Williams additionally submitted that the group couldn’t acquire the Driver of Automotive 55’s account of the incident which led to the Determination till after the race.
16. Because the Determination defined, in arriving on the Determination the Stewards reviewed “video, timing, telemetry, group radio and in-car video proof”. That proof didn’t embody the footage from the 360° digital camera on Automotive 55 or the footage from the rear going through digital camera on Automotive 30. Nor did it embody the Driver of Automotive 55’s account of the incident.
17. The Stewards acknowledge that not one of the new components have been “out there” to Williams, the occasion searching for the assessment, when the Determination was issued. It follows that every of the brand new components are “new”.
18. The brand new components are all proof referring to the incident between Vehicles 55 and 30 which resulted within the Determination. The footage from the 360° digital camera on Automotive 55 and rear going through digital camera on Automotive 30 present the relative positions of each vehicles main as much as and together with the collision. They’re subsequently “related”. The account of the Driver of Automotive 55 of the incident was additionally related.
19. Nevertheless, are these new components “important”? Williams submitted that they have been for the next causes:
(a) each the footage from the 360° digital camera on Automotive 55 and the footage from the rear going through digital camera on Automotive 30 are additional proof of the relative positions and proximity of the vehicles earlier than, throughout and after the collision; and
(b) the footage from the rear digital camera on Automotive 30 reveals the rear wheels of Automotive 30 (which can’t be seen within the footage from the ahead going through digital camera from Automotive 30) transferring to the left in direction of Automotive 55 after the apex of flip 1 and the rear left tyre of Automotive 30 collide with the entrance proper tyre of Automotive 55. This footage, Williams submitted, confirmed that what they described as a ‘slight snap’ – a momentary lack of management by the Driver of Automotive 30 which required corrective steering enter – resulted in Automotive 30 colliding with Automotive 55, not the opposite manner round;
(c) the testimony of the Driver of Automotive 55 defined what could be seen within the footage from the rear going through digital camera on Automotive 30 and in different video proof which was out there when the Determination was made.
20. VCARB didn’t make any submissions relating to the Overview Standards. The Crew Supervisor adverted to the applying of the F1 Driving Requirements Pointers to the incident however acknowledged that the submissions he wished to make in that regard would solely be related if the Stewards have been glad that the Overview Standards are met.
21. The Stewards agree that the footage from the rear going through digital camera on Automotive 30 and the 360° digital camera are important. As that proof can be new, related and unavailable to Williams on the time of the Determination the edge is met.
22. As for the third component, specifically the testimony of the Driver, the Stewards categorical reservations as as to if the testimony of the Driver on this case is important. First, the testimony of a driver concerned in an incident, whereas doubtlessly related, won’t ever be out there to the Competitor involved or to the Stewards if the Stewards, of their discretion, decide that they’re able to arrive at a choice on that incident throughout a session. The Stewards have the ability and authority to challenge a choice in session with out listening to from a driver. Secondly, the testimony of the Driver of Automotive 55 in relation to this incident, whereas related and of some help to the Stewards, doesnot materially add to an analysis of the incident by reference to the entire video proof, together with the brand new video proof.
23. Having discovered that the footage from the rear going through digital camera and the 360° digital camera on Automotive 30 satisfies the entire Overview Standards, the Stewards determined to re-examine the Determination.
Second Listening to
24. After adjourning briefly, the Stewards commenced a second listening to to re-examine the Determination. The identical representatives for Williams, VCARB and the FIA have been in attendance and the Stewards granted permission for representatives of the McLaren System 1 Crew and Aston Martin Aramco System 1 Crew to watch.
Submissions
25. Williams referred to the out there video proof which appeared to indicate Automotive 55 making an attempt to overhaul Automotive 30 on the surface of the lengthy radius flip 1 and the collision between the 2 vehicles occurring between the apex and the exit. Williams submitted that whereas the entrance axle of Automotive 55 was not forward of the entrance axle of Automotive 30 on the apex, such that Automotive 55 didn’t have the proper to the nook making use of the F1 Driving Requirements Pointers, Automotive 55 was entitled to aim to race alongside Automotive 30 by means of flip 1. They submitted that Automotive 55 left house for Automotive 30 on the within and the collision solely occurred as a result of the motive force of Automotive 30 had a momentary lack of management. They described the collision as a racing incident. They have been at pains to clarify that they weren’t suggesting that the Driver of Automotive 30 needs to be penalised, solely that the penalty to Automotive 55 was unjustified.
26. The Driver of Automotive 55 acknowledged that he was not strictly entitled to house on the surface of flip 1 and that the Automotive 30 may have used the entire of the observe on the exit forcing Automotive 55 to yield or take evasive motion and go off observe. He acknowledged that if he had left the sting of the observe on the exit and rejoined forward of Automotive 30, he may want to offer the place again. Nevertheless, he stated he was able to take care of these potential eventualities. What he wasn’t ready for was Automotive 30 having a second mid nook and colliding along with his automotive.
27. VCARB pointed to the Driving Requirements Pointers and submitted that Automotive 55 had no proper to house on the surface however that Automotive 30 had nonetheless left important house for Automotive 55. They submitted that the collision solely occurred as a result of Automotive 55 selected to drive too near Automotive 30. The Driver of Automotive 30 denied that he was not in charge of his automotive and stated {that a} slight snap of the sort which occurred is just not uncommon when vehicles are racing intently facet by facet, on this case each on recent tyres after a security automotive restart.
Determination
28. Having thought of the matter extensively and having reviewed the brand new video proof and heard from the drivers of each vehicles and their group representatives, the Stewards decide to rescind the Determination. The Stewards agree with Williams’ characterisation of the collision as a racing incident.
29. The Stewards are glad that the collision was brought on by a momentary lack of management by Automotive 30. Nevertheless, within the Stewards’ evaluation, no driver was wholly or predominantly guilty for that collision. Automotive 55 contributed to the incident by taking the chance to drive near, and on the surface of, Automotive 30 when Automotive 55 had no proper to room there and there was an actual risk that, if the collision had not occurred the place it did, Automotive 55 would run out of observe on the exit and/or a collision would have occurred on the exit for which the Driver of Automotive 55 would probably be predominantly if not wholly guilty.
30. The time penalty imposed by the Determination was served by Automotive 55 in the course of the race. The Stewards haven’t any energy to treatment that served time penalty by amending the Classifications however be aware that the hole between Automotive 55 to the automotive forward within the Closing Classification of the race (coincidently Automotive 30) was 17 seconds. The Determination having been rescinded, it follows that the two penalty factors imposed on the Driver of Automotive 55 are to be eliminated.
Opponents are reminded that they’ve the proper to attraction sure choices of the Stewards, in accordance with Article 15 of the FIA Worldwide Sporting Code and Chapter 4 of the FIA Judicial and Disciplinary Guidelines, inside the relevant deadlines. Selections of the Stewards are taken independently of the FIA and are based mostly solely on the related rules, pointers and proof introduced.
“We’re grateful to the stewards for reviewing Carlos’ Zandvoort penalty and are happy they’ve now determined he was not at fault and that this was a racing incident,” stated the Grove outfit in a subsequent assertion.
“Whereas it’s irritating that our race was compromised by the unique choice, errors are a part of motor racing and we are going to proceed to work constructively with the FIA to enhance stewarding processes and assessment the racing guidelines for the longer term.”
