McLaren protesta la qualifica del GP d’Austria di F1 a causa di una ‘penalizzazione dura’ per Oscar Piastri

McLaren has lodged a complaint over the qualifying results of the Formula 1 Austrian Grand Prix. The issue concerns a lap eliminated by driver Oscar Piastri during Q3. The Australian finished seventh, but his best time was cancelled for allegedly breaching track limits at Turn Six – a situation that also happened to four other riders. Piastri recorded a time of 1m04.786s on that lap, a time that would have earned him third place just behind teammate Lando Norris. Faced with what happened, McLaren decided to file a formal complaint, which was confirmed by the FIA. Quoted by the PlanetF1.com website, team principal Andrea Stella explained the decision: We have lodged a complaint, which has been acknowledged, but no action has yet been taken. Because we want to have a chance to continue the conversation. Our approach to racing is that we don’t want what we don’t deserve. But when the penalty is so severe, then, in the interests of the sport, not in the interests of McLaren. There is a need for clear evidence. We have taken the next formal step. I believe that if there has been no action in some way in terms of follow-up and hearing for the complaint, maybe there is a discussion going on – I can’t say. The ball is not in our favour now.’ According to the Italian opinion, the main idea of the Woking formation is to obtain clarifications and evidence on the violation, defending: ‘I cannot say that beyond reasonable doubt he is satisfied. There are a few principles. One is that the system used must have the proper resolution, and the second is that the methodology used for one machine must be applicable to all machines. If you are using a helicopter view for one machine, you must use the helicopter view and it must be available for all machines. We are usually very supportive of the FIA, we always recognise that everyone is doing their best. But, in this case, we are not able to agree that the car is beyond track limits beyond a reasonable doubt and meets the two conditions I mentioned earlier, so the discussion is still ongoing.”