Haas protest against Force India is dismissed
A protest lodged by Haas Formula One team against the validity of Force India as a new constructor has been dismissed by stewards at the Etihad Airways Abu Dhabi Grand Prix.
Haas had argued that Force India, who went into administration in July and reemerged under new ownership in August, were in breach of the rules and the cars of Mexican Sergio Perez and Frenchman Esteban Ocon should not be allowed to race.
In a lengthy statement released ahead of final practice for today’s race at Yas Marina Circuit, the stewards ruled that the Force India had not broken rules that forbid teams from using parts designed by other competitors because the old entity could not be considered a competitor, as it had ceased to exist.
Haas can appeal the decision. The American team had to go two years without so-called “column one” money after arriving in 2016 as a new entry because the rules state payments are dictated by performance over previous seasons.
The team’s principal, Guenther Steiner, told Sky Sports Haas had filed an intent to appeal and would make a decision on whether to pursue once they had examined the stewards’ findings.
“In the end, it’s all about money,” he said of the dispute. “We don’t want more of the money, we just want that it is equal for everybody. We had to do two years [without prize money payments].
“In our opinion, this is a new team and therefore we asked for this to be clarified.”
Yesterday’s ruling, while clearing Force India as a legitimate constructor, also confirmed them as a new team which could lead to further argument over their rights to millions in prize money.
Force India boss Otmar Szafnauer questioned Steiner’s claim that the protest was part of a quest for equality.
“I don’t understand how they were claiming that ... we’re not a constructor when we clearly are,” Szafnauer told Autosport.
“We design and make more parts than most teams, maybe a hundredfold more than Haas do.
“The irony and hypocrisy of it is they are protesting us, saying that we’re not a constructor, when we are the definition of a constructor, and they aren’t.”