Ferrari Formula 1 team boss Mattia Binotto was sufficiently aggrieved by the handling of Charles Leclerc’s Japanese Grand Prix penalty that he personally inserted a discussion of it into his post-race media briefing.
As questions moved on from the Suzuka race events to the looming cost cap breach news, Binotto decided to adjust the agenda.
“Maybe before we come to the budget cap, we conclude on the race because no one asked a question about the penalties, the five-second penalty of Charles at the end,” he said.
“So just let me go through it.”
Binotto’s main concern wasn’t that the five-second penalty – for cutting the chicane while resisting Sergio Perez on the last lap – that dropped Leclerc from second to third was unfair, or that it officially ended Ferrari’s 2022 title bid as the awarding of full points for the shortened race allowed Max Verstappen to be crowned early.
The Ferrari chief’s issue was that Leclerc’s penalty was decided while drivers were still celebrating in parc ferme minutes after the race.
Whereas a week earlier in Singapore it had taken nearly three hours for the stewards to give Perez a 5s penalty for a safety car infringement, a decision that didn’t cost him the win.
“Very surprised. Very disappointed,” said Binotto.
“The reason why is I think that seven days after Singapore, where they took so many laps to decide and then after the race, we had to hear [from] the drivers to take a simple decision which was straightforward, today they took it in a few seconds.
“Surprised by such different behaviour between Singapore and here, after only a few days.
“Was the decision of a five-second penalty right or wrong? In our view, he honestly didn’t gain the advantage, he was ahead, he stayed ahead, he’s got the gap, he kept the same gap. So still arguable, but that is the way they decided, which we will accept.
“But certainly very frustrating to see such different timing in decisions seven days after, and at least in such a situation where you are not listening to the drivers where you are doing so in Singapore, or vice-versa, no?
“If you go straight for the decisions as they are obvious, as they should be, five seconds at least penalty in Singapore should have been given immediately, which would have certainly given us the opportunity to manage the situation a lot differently, and it could have been a potential victory.”
DID BINOTTO HAVE A POINT?
Binotto’s comments were debated on the Japanese GP episode of The Race F1 Podcast, with Scott Mitchell-Malm wondering whether the officials were aware of the title-settling implications of their decision.
“They’re apples and oranges, you can’t really compare them,” he said of the Perez/Singapore versus Leclerc/Japan penalties, “so I don’t think Binotto has much of a leg to stand on there.
“But when that penalty was rapidly applied we were all watching in the belief it would have no material impact because it was going to be a set number of points awarded.
“As it turned out that penalty was the only reason Verstappen won the championship here, because switching those positions meant he gained enough points on both drivers to have an unassailable lead.
“And I think the officials are aware of that – they know that because full points are going to be awarded they know that decision has an impact on whether he’s crowned champion or not, and I believe that is why they expedited that decision.
“They’re within their rights to, they don’t have to listen to the drivers afterwards.
“If they consider it a slam dunk they can just make the decision there and then, but I would be amazed if the reason they did that so quickly wasn’t because they knew it would be pretty rubbish of them to leave the result as it was, dwell on it for an hour or two, then later in the evening give Leclerc the penalty, promote Perez and then obviously after the fact declare Verstappen champion.
“I think they wanted to avoid that at all costs.”
Edd Straw wasn’t so sure that motivation would’ve applied – but he did agree that this was a case of a “slam dunk” that didn’t need a debate.
“It’s also a question of ‘what do you need to know?’,” suggested Straw.
“The facts of that were fairly obvious – what could Leclerc have said or offered as evidence that would have changed the interpretation?
“Nicholas Latifi was complaining about the penalty he got for hitting Zhou Guanyu in Singapore, saying he wanted to tell the stewards he couldn’t see him and it wasn’t deliberate.
“Well he wasn’t penalised because it was deliberate, he was penalised because it wasn’t correct.
“Ultimately some things take longer than others; as a general rule if you can get the right outcome quickly that’s to be encouraged.”
WHY THE PENALTY WAS JUSTIFIED
Though his primary complaint was over the rapidness of the decision, Binotto did also mildly question the fairness of the penalty.
Also on the podcast, Mark Hughes made the case for why Leclerc definitely deserved the penalty – and suggested what might have been in his mind when braking so late for the chicane.
“It’s one thing gaining a place by going off the track, that’s obviously not valid – but just as in-valid is not losing a place, because you brake so late that you’ve gone off the track,” said Hughes.
“He was a little bit unfortunate in that he probably hadn’t realised this was actually the last lap, in which case he was probably concentrating on not wanting to be passed down the straight.
“Whereas if he’d realised it was the last lap you would approach it in a slightly different way I guess.
“I don’t think he could really have any problem with the fact he was penalised – he didn’t suffer a disadvantage and he should have done. Five seconds was fair enough.”
WOULD A QUICK SINGAPORE PENALTY HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME?
Binotto’s suggestion that, had the stewards acted as quickly in Singapore as they did in Japan, Ferrari might’ve been able to beat Perez to victory doesn’t quite stand up.
One important element is that it was only Perez’s second safety-car infringement that earned him a 5s penalty.
Had he been given the penalty for the initial offence on lap 10 that he was only warned for, Perez would have had to serve that penalty when he pitted to change to slick tyres.
This might have influenced Ferrari’s handling of that pit sequence.
Leclerc was running around 2s behind Perez in that period and keeping pace, and Ferrari attempted an undercut.
In normal circumstances, Perez taking a 5s penalty there would’ve allowed Leclerc ahead. But it actually would’ve been doubtful in Singapore because the undercut proved the wrong tactic given how long the slicks took to come up to temperature on the still damp track. Leclerc also slightly missed his marks and had a slow stop. Perez’s advantage rose to 7s in the pit sequence before the safety car erased it.
The penalty was actually earned before the next restart, so was always going to be a post-race time addition as there were no more pitstops to come.
And rather than willingly allowing Perez to build a lead, Ferrari certainly did keep the pressure on. It took nine laps of racing before Perez was able to get more than 1.5s clear.
After that, Ferrari being harder on its tyres proved crucial. Perez managed to build the 5s margin he needed to penalty-proof his victory with two laps to spare, and eventually won by 7s on the road. The two cars’ relative pace and tyre performance was such that this would have been the outcome regardless of how quickly Perez was penalised.
