After the British Grand Prix, Carlos Sainz received one of the most unusual penalties seen in Formula 1 in recent years: a one-lap penalty for briefly unlapping himself when he was not entitled to do so. To understand why, however, it is necessary to look back at what happened, because the incident was far more complex than it first appeared and was closely linked to the unique design of Silverstone’s pit lane.
The British Grand Prix produced no shortage of unusual moments, from the mechanical failure that forced Kimi Antonelli to retire to Race Control’s communication error, which displayed the Safety Car “IN THIS LAP” message one lap earlier than the regulations allow. However, another fascinating case emerged after the race: the one-lap penalty handed to Carlos Sainz.
The sanction itself had no real impact on his final result. Sainz had already finished 12th, outside the points, before the penalty dropped him to 17th, officially classified one lap down. What makes the case so remarkable is not just the type of penalty, but the reason behind it: the Williams driver briefly unlapped himself at a moment when the regulations did not allow him to do so.
Sainz had already been lapped by Charles Leclerc when Max Verstappen ran off at Turn 15 after suffering a rear wing failure, becoming stranded in the gravel. The incident required the deployment of the Safety Car so marshals could safely recover the car.
Nothing seemed unusual at that stage, apart from the fact that the Safety Car changed the teams’ strategies.
Taking advantage of the neutralization, Williams brought Sainz into the pits to fit a fresh set of soft tyres, hoping that if the race restarted he might still have a chance of fighting for a point should incidents or contact occur further ahead. It was during this pit stop sequence that the confusion leading to the penalty began.
Before entering the pits at Stowe Corner, Sainz was only a few seconds behind both the Safety Car and Charles Leclerc. The Safety Car was travelling very slowly while waiting for the field to bunch up, so slowly that Leclerc complained over the radio that the pace was excessively low.
Sainz briefly unlapped himself by overtaking Leclerc in the pit lane
Silverstone’s unique layout created an unusual situation. Under Safety Car conditions, the pit entry is excluded from the neutralized zone. This means drivers entering the pits are allowed to continue at racing speed through that section, effectively under green-flag conditions, before activating the pit lane speed limiter.
That alone allows drivers to recover some time compared to those remaining on track. However, Silverstone’s pit lane also completely bypasses the final chicane, saving even more time.
As a result, Sainz effectively overtook Leclerc while entering the pits, whereas the Ferrari driver remained on track and had to negotiate the entire final chicane at Safety Car pace before crossing the start-finish line. For a few seconds, Sainz had therefore unlapped himself before being lapped again by Leclerc during the actual pit stop.
The problem was that, under Safety Car regulations, lapped cars are only permitted to unlap themselves after Race Control issues the official “LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE” message, which normally happens only once the field has fully regrouped.
Although it was clear Williams had no intention of gaining an unfair advantage and that the situation was largely created by Silverstone’s unusual pit lane layout, the stewards still ruled that the regulations had technically been breached.
“Although Car 55 was a lapped car at Safety Car Line 1 when it entered the pit lane, due to the unique configuration of the Silverstone circuit and pit lane, it temporarily became unlapped when it crossed the Control Line at the end of the lap during which it had passed Safety Car Line 1 for the second time after the Safety Car had been deployed,” the stewards explained.
“Consequently, Car 55 was no longer considered a lapped car under Article B5.13.4(c) and was therefore not entitled to overtake the Safety Car when the message ‘LAPPED CARS MAY NOW OVERTAKE’ was displayed. However, Car 55 did overtake the Safety Car once that message had been issued by Race Control.”
Even though he was lapped again, Sainz was no longer eligible to unlap himself
“The stewards noted that after completing its pit stop, Car 55 was once again a lapped car when it rejoined the circuit. Given the exceptional nature of the Silverstone pit lane layout, the stewards understand how this sequence of events may have contributed to the team’s confusion.”
There was, however, another important detail.
Although Leclerc lapped Sainz again immediately after the Williams driver completed his pit stop, the regulations clearly define which cars are eligible to overtake the Safety Car once permission is given.
Article B5.13.4 states: “This shall apply only to cars that were lapped when they crossed the Control Line at the end of the lap during which they passed Safety Car Line 1 for the second time following the deployment of the Safety Car.”
In practice, because Sainz had temporarily unlapped himself while entering the pit lane—even though he was lapped again only moments later—he no longer met the regulatory definition of a lapped car when Race Control later authorised cars to overtake the Safety Car.
Not surprisingly, when Race Control issued the list of drivers permitted to unlap themselves, every lapped car was included… except Sainz.
Williams nevertheless instructed the Spaniard to overtake the Safety Car, allowing him to regain a lap he was not entitled to recover. That action ultimately resulted in the FIA imposing the highly unusual one-lap penalty.
The stewards concluded:
“The team acknowledged that it made two mistakes. First, it failed to recognise that Car 55 was not a lapped car at the reference point specified in Article B5.13.4(c). Second, it failed to notice that Car 55 was not included in the Race Control message identifying the cars authorised to overtake the Safety Car. The team representative accepted that the car regained a lap when it was not entitled to do so.”
Leave a Reply