The FIA has revealed the results of an investigation into Ferrari star Charles Leclerc following Friday’s sprint qualifying session.
Leclerc was beaten in the session by teammate Lewis Hamilton, who took a shock pole, but the Monegasque’s fourth place was a marked improvement on his performance last weekend in Australia.
However, Leclerc and Ferrari were summoned to see the stewards after the session over an accusation of driving unnecessarily slowly, exceeding the set limit of 1:54.00 seconds between the two safety car lines.
Leclerc was cleared of any wrongdoing, with the administrators accepting that there were mitigating circumstances for him that exceeded the limit.
Positive signs for Ferrari in China
FIA drama or not, the first day of racing in Shanghai looked far more promising for Ferrari than last weekend in Australia, where the Italian team qualified seventh and eighth before failing to make a strategic decision to finish a chaotic race eighth and 10th.
Hamilton set the fastest time in two of Friday’s three Sprint qualifying periods, with both Scuderia drivers showing impressive pace, although the Briton’s pole position was still a big surprise.
Leclerc showed some confusion on a team radio call in SQ2, saying after being asked to swap positions on the track with Hamilton: “Yes, I will, but we’ve never done that. And I’m also a bit in the s***, so…”
Saturday morning will see the first sprint race of the season taking place at 3am, before qualifying for Sunday’s race at 7am.
The FIA Penalty Verdict in Full
“The stewards listened to the driver of Car 16 (Charles Leclerc), team representative and positioning system marshaling/positioning data, video, timing and in-car video evidence and determined as follows.
“Both Lec and Ham started their prep laps close to each other. Ham followed closely behind Lec and Lec had STR ahead of him on a prep lap. Lec had to wait for STR to start his push lap and in the meantime, LEC was passed by Ham on team orders.
“LeC maintained a reasonable speed at all times and ultimately tried to create a reasonable gap behind the ham. This was all done in an orderly manner and no car behind LEC was affected. Therefore, LEC did not impede other drivers and did not gain any sporting advantage from his course of action.
“The trustees therefore determine that LEC did not drive ‘unnecessarily slowly,’ and that evidently the reason he was above the maximum time was due to his appropriate actions and he took no further action.”
