Kobayashi and Perez disqualified from results

2011 Australian Grand Prix

Sergio Perez, Sauber, Melbourne, 2011

Sergio Perez, Sauber, Melbourne, 2011

Both Saubers have been disqualified from the Australian Grand Prix due to a technical infringement.

Sergio Perez and Kamui Kobayashi therefore lose their seventh and eighth place finished in the race.

Their upper rear wing element was found not to conform to the regulations.

The change promotes Felipe Massa to seventh and Sebastien Buemi to eighth.

It also means both Force India drivers have moved up into the points, with Adrian Sutil taking nine and Paul di Resta scoring the final point on his debut.

See the revised results in full:

Update: Sauber have announced they will appeal the decision.

James Key said: “This is a very surprising and disappointing result.

“It appears that there is a question over the top surface of the uppermost rear wing element, this area is not the working surface of the component and therefore relatively unimportant to its function.

“Certainly this has not lead to any performance advantage. We are checking the design of the parts now to better understand the situation and we intend to appeal the decision made by the stewards.”

The FIA found them in breach of articles 3.10.1 and 3.10.2 of the technical regulations.

2011 Australian Grand Prix

Browse all 2011 Australian Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Sauber F1 Team

Advert | Go Ad-free


202 comments on Kobayashi and Perez disqualified from results

  1. somerandomguy said on 27th March 2011, 12:03

    i feel sorry for the drivers they didnt do anything wrong

  2. Fixy (@fixy) said on 27th March 2011, 12:04

    Noooo :'(
    At least Massa is 7th now.

  3. marcusbreese (@marcusbreese) said on 27th March 2011, 12:06

    That sucks! Why wasn’t this flagged in scrutineering before the race?

  4. Scribe (@scribe) said on 27th March 2011, 12:06

    aaaaaah, what a shame. That’s terrible, I hope they can keep it up adn make the points up in Malaysia. Bt it was just a tiny cock up at that, ah well the regs is the regs.

    Hope they fix it and kick on, they look a wonderfully exciting package.

    • It is a shame but it reminds me of Loeb who was disqualified in 2009 as his rally car was missing one tiny part. It seemed ridiculously strict but at the same time rules are rules unfortunately .

  5. marcello said on 27th March 2011, 12:07

    strange that the scrutineers disqualify perez and kobayashi on a small technicality, and let hamilton pass with “major floor damage” as described by hamilton himself! in fact half his undertray had ripped off and his plank was properly worn down altering dramatically the ride height. Welcome to F1 Perez, you are starting to understand how things are in F1..

    • zenman1 (@zenman1) said on 27th March 2011, 12:12

      Even as a devout Maclaren & Lewis fan, I have to agree…

    • Because McLaren purposely designed the floor to break?!?

      Sauber dropped the ball making a careless mistake like that, they can’t blame anyone else except for the person in the design team responsible for checking against the regulations.

      I’m really annoyed about this because now I’m unsure whether any of the Sauber drivers performance was aided by the wing not conforming to the regs. I doubt it would have made a significant difference but it will have to wait until the next race before we know for sure.

    • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th March 2011, 15:36

      You don’t get disqualified just for having a damaged car, you know.

      If you think that was some clever ruse by McLaren to lower the car’s ride height and gain extra performance, take a look at Hamilton’s lap times from the end of the race.

    • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 27th March 2011, 17:02

      The rules state that the plank thickness is measured in 7 or 8 holes that are put in it at specific locations.

      If Hamilton damaged the leading edge of the plank then that’s not where the thickness is measured.

      Even if he completely worn the plank off at that point he still would not be disqualfied.

      That’s how Red Bull got away with their flexing floor. They were putting a part of the floor on the ground where the thickness is not measured.

  6. box this lap (@sebashuis) said on 27th March 2011, 12:08

    But was this the reason that Perez could finish the race with only one stop? I really don’t know.

  7. zenman1 (@zenman1) said on 27th March 2011, 12:09

    How can this be???

    Aren’t they supposed to be scrutinized and thoroughly checked to conform to the technical regulations BEFORE they are allowed to race or even be entered as a viable vehicle.
    Think the FIA need to give themselves a long hard look, seeing as they gave it the green light to race in first place…

    • It is the same attitude behind the FIA allowing HRT to enter the championship and give them money without actually making sure they will turn up with a reasonable car.

      “Take the money now and sort it all out afterwards”…

  8. James_mc (@james_mc) said on 27th March 2011, 12:11

    As has been pointed out elsewhere, why was this not picked up in pre-race scrutineering?

  9. F1iLike said on 27th March 2011, 12:11


  10. This reminds me Kubica’s debut – this was also place in points (7th afair) and he was also disqualified (weight problem) in Sauber car. Good sign for Perez :)

  11. Ilanin said on 27th March 2011, 12:15

    I’ll be interested to hear what Martin Brundle (fifth on debut, later disqualified for fuel irregularities) might have to say about Perez’s situation…

  12. Oliver said on 27th March 2011, 12:15

    Probably what happened was that the parts suffered from stress and their property changed. Or else the FIA should tell us how that car passed the post qualifying scrutineering. For all you know just 1mm caused the failure.
    Hamilton’s care will show uneven flore damage which will hamper performance than if the floor was uniformly worn out.
    So Coulthard just making noise about his ex team that lost patience with him.

    • zenman1 (@zenman1) said on 27th March 2011, 12:18

      I think with the floor it has to be over a certain area, rather than just the front edge, like you said it would have hampered rather than helped, and especially with the drag and resistance. To be honest he’s lucky he didnt do a Webber if it had dug in…

  13. WHAT!!! This sucks bigtime.

  14. newnhamlea1 (@newnhamlea1) said on 27th March 2011, 12:17

    bugger. thats a shame, but as they say, rules are rules.

    • Bazooka (@bazooka) said on 27th March 2011, 12:31

      But it looks like that’s not the same case with Hamilton. It seems rules are not same for everyone.

      • Jake said on 27th March 2011, 12:49

        there’s no reason to suggest hamilton’s car broke the rules

      • fordsrule (@fordsrule) said on 27th March 2011, 12:54

        Well its obvious McLaren didnt plan to make that happen, if indeed the plank was destroyed they may have been more lenient as it was accident damage, while Sauber put the parts on the car even if they didnt know they were against the rules, or they knew they were illegal and used them anyway.

        • bosyber said on 27th March 2011, 14:53

          Both cars having the same issue shows that it was at least by design – maybe design error, or wrong design, but it wasn’t coincidence. Could still be McLaren made Hamilton’s bib not strong enough, but for all we know, the wear wasn’t severe enough, or clearly enough “race damage” to still pass.

    • mateuss (@mateuss) said on 27th March 2011, 15:30

      I wondered how long it will take this year for the stewards to prove once more that they are inconsistent imbeciles. In past years RBR, Macca have been asked to change minor performance parts for the next race, because they don’t comply, thats fair enough. But now Sauber get DSQ’ed for non performance part and such formality as concave radius curvature of the wing flap, this is madness.

      • Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 27th March 2011, 15:40

        But now Sauber get DSQ’ed for non performance part

        Just because the guy who designed it says doesn’t give performance doesn’t mean it’s true.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 28th March 2011, 7:13

          Yeah, he would say that wouldn’t he.

          Hard to tell really. It does seem a very minor thing, but who knows what difference it might make in effect.

          As you pointed out, both Saubers were very high on the top speeds, so its no wonder their wings got closely looked at just in case.

          But its sad we have the first race and the first DSQ (although finding this only later in the season would be pretty bad as well) and the first appeal going.

  15. Oliver said on 27th March 2011, 12:19

    No it wasn’t the reason. By not making it into the top 10 in qualifying, Perez was able to save some fresh tyres. He could also start the race with brand new tyres, unlike his team mate. And new tyres last longer especially when not being driven very hard.

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.