Welcome at RN365

You are logged in. Benefit directly from all the benefits of your account:

  • Share your thoughts and opinions about F1
  • Win fantastic prizes
  • Get access to our premium content
  • Take advantage of more exclusive benefits

Welcome at RN365

Become part of the largest racing community in the United Kingdom. Create your free account now!

  • Share your thoughts and opinions about F1
  • Win fantastic prizes
  • Get access to our premium content
  • Take advantage of more exclusive benefits
fri 26 mar - sun 28 mar
  • 1 HAM LAP 56
  • 2 VER + 0.745
  • 3 BOT + 37.383
fri 16 apr - sun 18 apr
  • 1 VER LAP 63
  • 2 HAM + 22.000
  • 3 NOR + 23.702
fri 30 apr - sun 02 may
  • 1 HAM LAP 66
  • 2 VER + 29.148
  • 3 BOT + 33.530
fri 07 may - sun 09 may
  • 1 HAM LAP 66
  • 2 VER + 15.841
  • 3 BOT + 26.610
thu 20 may - sun 23 may
  • 1 VER LAP 78
  • 2 SAI + 8.968
  • 3 NOR + 19.427
fri 04 jun - sun 06 jun
  • 1 PER LAP 51
  • 2 VET + 1.385
  • 3 GAS + 2.762
fri 18 jun - sun 20 jun
  • 1 VER LAP 53
  • 2 HAM + 2.904
  • 3 PER + 8.811
fri 25 jun - sun 27 jun
  • 1 VER LAP 71
  • 2 HAM + 35.743
  • 3 BOT + 46.907
fri 02 jul - sun 04 jul
  • 1 VER LAP 71
  • 2 BOT + 17.973
  • 3 NOR + 20.019
fri 16 jul - sun 18 jul
  • 1 HAM LAP 52
  • 2 LEC + 3.871
  • 3 BOT + 11.125
fri 30 jul - sun 01 aug
  • 1 OCO LAP 70
  • 2 HAM + 2.736
  • 3 SAI + 15.018
fri 27 aug - sun 29 aug
  • 1 VER LAP 1
  • 2 RUS
  • 3 HAM
fri 03 sep - sun 05 sep
  • 1 VER LAP 72
  • 2 HAM + 20.932
  • 3 BOT + 56.460
fri 10 sep - sun 12 sep
  • 1 RIC LAP 53
  • 2 NOR + 1.747
  • 3 BOT + 4.921
fri 24 sep - sun 26 sep
  • 1 HAM LAP 53
  • 2 VER + 53.271
  • 3 SAI + 62.475
fri 08 oct - sun 10 oct
  • 1 BOT LAP 58
  • 2 VER + 14.584
  • 3 PER + 33.471
fri 22 oct - sun 24 oct
  • 1 VER LAP 56
  • 2 HAM + 1.333
  • 3 PER + 42.223
fri 05 nov - sun 07 nov
  • 1 VER LAP 71
  • 2 HAM + 16.555
  • 3 PER + 17.752
fri 12 nov - sun 14 nov
  • 1 HAM LAP 71
  • 2 VER + 10.496
  • 3 BOT + 13.576
fri 19 nov - sun 21 nov
  • 1 HAM LAP 57
  • 2 VER + 25.743
  • 3 ALO + 59.457
fri 03 dec - sun 05 dec

F1 standings

  • 1 VER 351.5
  • 2 HAM 343.5
  • 3 BOT 203
FP1 fri 03 dec
FP2 fri 03 dec
FP3 sat 04 dec
Quali sat 04 dec
Race sun 05 dec
fri 10 dec - sun 12 dec
Quali sat 11 dec
Race sun 12 dec
Start Saudi Arabian GP
Lewis Hamilton

Why has Hamilton been disqualified in Brazil?

Lewis Hamilton's exclusion from qualifying in Brazil means his weekend has become a lot more difficult. Why was the Mercedes driver thrown out?

To news overview © Mercedes

Lewis Hamilton will start Saturday's Sprint Qualifying race from the very back of the grid, or possibly even the pit lane, as a result of the stewards finding that the rear wing he used for Friday's qualifying session broke the rules regarding the operation of the Drag Reduction System (DRS).

Hamilton was summoned for an alleged breach of the Technical Regulations when the FIA's F1 Technical Delegate, Jo Bauer, referred the matter to the stewards after standard post-session scrutineering at Interlagos on Friday evening.

Two hearings were held, with an initial one between the stewards and Mercedes on Friday evening, and a second one on Saturday morning. The issue was complicated by an investigation into Max Verstappen, who was seen touching the Mercedes rear wing in parc ferme after qualifying - this situation has since been resolved separately after being found to have had no impact on Hamilton's wing.

With the technical investigation into Hamilton's rear wing now complete, the full findings of the stewards verdict can be revealed.

The stewards confirmed that the testing of Hamilton's DRS slot, done using an 85mm gauge, was carried out on four occasions with two separate gauges. This was done in the presence of the stewards and Mercedes representatives.

The Friday hearing was held with the FIA's Jo Bauer and Nicholas Tombaszis, along with Mercedes represented by Ron Meadows and Simon Cole. The Saturday hearing was further attended by Mercedes' Chief Designer, John Owen, with Bauer absent from that hearing.

"The competitor [Mercedes] asserted that the design is intended to meet the regulations," read the verdict from the stewards.

"It was clear to the stewards that the additional deflection was due to additional play either in the DRS actuator or the pivots at the end, or some combination or other fault with the mechanism, or incorrect assembly of the parts."

The design has been tested regularly during the season, without incident, and the FIA clarified that the design meets the intent of the regulations and that there is no doubt that this particular failure indicated any intent to exceed the maximum limit, either by action or design.

"[Mercedes] alleged that the fact that the car passed the test in the centre section of the wing is both a mitigating factor and shows that there was no intent to breach the regulation," continued the stewards' document.

"While the stewards accept that the latter point may be true, the stewards believe that which sections failed is not relevant to the fact that the wing did fail the test. [Mercedes] noted that this is not a systemic breach, and is indeed unique. It was, rather, something gone wrong. They further noted that they would have liked to have had the opportunity to inspect the parts with a view to having some explanation for the stewards as to how the problem arose.

"However, the stewards fundamentally accept [Mercedes'] explanation that the cause of the failed test was something 'gone wrong' rather than a deliberate action. The stewards, therefore, chose to keep the assembly under seal and preserve the evidence of the failure, rather than altering the parts in an inspection which would have involved some handling of the parts and thus some alteration of the evidence."

Were there mitigating circumstances?

Mercedes also made the plea that it is usual practice for the FIA Technical Department to allow teams to fix minor problems that they find with their cars, even in parc ferme conditions.

"Had [Mercedes] recognised this problem during qualifying they surely would have sought, and the FIA Technical Department confirmed, they would have received permission to fix the parts or tighten bolts if needed," explained the stewards.

"The stewards were sympathetic to this argument and analysed whether they felt this was a mitigating circumstance. It is often a mitigating circumstance to make allowances for crash damage.

"However, the stewards could not extend this argument to cover parts that were found out of conformity in post-session checks with no obvious reason in evidence other than considering normal running at this event.

"In the end, the regulations are clear and at the moment of the conformity check, the car did not comply."

What was Verstappen's role in all of this?

With Verstappen investigated for a breach of the International Sporting Code for touching the Mercedes rear wing in parc ferme, he has simply been given a fine.

In their conclusions, the stewards explained that Mercedes had also agreed that Verstappen's touch was unlikely to have contributed to their car breaching the Technical Regulations.

"The stewards, however, were fully satisfied, having extensively reviewed the totality of the evidence regarding that incident, that it has no bearing on this case," they noted.

"Finally, therefore, the stewards decide that car 44 [Lewis Hamilton] failed the test and is therefore in breach of Art 3.6.3 of the FIA Formula 1 Technical Regulations.

"The stewards agree with [Mercedes] that this is something gone wrong, rather than an intentional act or design but did not find there to be mitigating circumstances.

"Further, Art 1.3.3 of the International Sporting Code states that 'it shall be no defence to claim that no performance advantage was obtained.'"

Mercedes do have the right to appeal the stewards' decision but, at the time of writing, Hamilton is set to start the Sprint Qualifying race from the very back of the grid.

RN365 News dossier F1 2021 Brazilian Grand Prix

The latest news about the Sao Paulo Grand Prix straight from the Interlagos Circuit.