Norman Nato’s race ended in the barriers at Sanya and it was the second consecutive race he did so, after Taylor Barnard fed him in to the wall at Monaco last month.
Two likely points scoring positions, and a possible podium in Sanya, were curtailed by other competitors overly aggressive moves. And it has left Nissan collectively furious
Just as Norman Nato has been forced to swallow the ill-fortune, Nissan has not only had to accept the scenarios on track but also off it too.
The team has had to pivot and ensure that Nato’s damaged gearbox on his NISSAN e-4ORCE 05 is replaced for the next race in Shanghai, for which ironically he is set to take a grid penalty for the Saturday race.
Speaking to Formula E Notebook this week, Nissan Formula E team boss, Tommaso Volpe said that “personally, I think that this race didn’t show a good level of consistency of the penalties and the policing during the race.”
“We have seen many accidents, and that were many actions that were punished, but we believe that the penalties, which were very similar to be honest, did not reflect the very different level of gravity and consequences determined by the different actions.”
Valid points from Volpe. The impact on logistics and spares is considerable for Nissan at Shanghai. From their standpoint the penalty for the Wehrlein triggered incident does not encompass any hint of justice. Plainly, the penalty does not fit the crime.
“Norman finished his race this way with no fault from his end, when he was in good position, so he could have scored strong points,” expanded Volpe.
“On top of this, the paradox is that we had to change the gearbox, and we will have to pay a 20 grid position penalty in the next race, and this accident was punished with five seconds, which is exactly the same as many other accidents during the race, which had far lower consequences for the drivers involved.
“So, I guess that is not exactly the best example of consistency that we have seen in the recent years.”
Is this just racing, or does Volpe have strong points here?
The rules are clear on the amount of technical replacements that can be given over to key perimeter parts over a season. For a gearbox, as well as inverters and motors it is two. Beyond that penalties will be taken irrespective of the cause of the failure/damage.
But the context of a driver being penalised for another’s error, which is then validated with a penalty, feels from a sporting perspective anyway a bit wrong. Additionally, the ramifications for Nissan on a cost-cap and spares allocation stan-point can also become critical too.
Overall, though, there is also the argument to be had that both Barnard and Wehrlein, the perpetrators of Nato’s race ending impacts with the walls in Monaco and Sanya respectively, have been significantly punished via their respective penalties, but to what degree?
Yes, Wehrlein lost points with his penalty, although in the overall view his title chances were untouched due to all his rivals – Mitch Evans, Edoardo Mortara and Oliver Rowland – also failing to score.
But did Barnard’s grid drop for his indiscretion(s) (he also took out Jean-Eric Vergne in Monaco) really affect him hugely in Sanya? Had it not been for his attack mode being wiped out by a Full Course Yellow in Sanya, ironically to retrieve Nato’s shunted Nissan, then the DS Penske driver would possibly have ended the race on the podium after penalties to others.
Cause and effect! A future penalty solution?
The ‘snakes and ladders’ of motorsport do not often feel fair or equitable. The racing way is to get on with it and be grown up about it all, despite the clear frustration. It is felt that the ‘yin and the yang’ does even out for most drivers over the course of a season. Whether it does or not would need forensic analysis after the campaigns.
That won’t be much consolation for Nissan and Nato right now though. They will doubt that philosophy, and they have good reason to as well, after what has happened in the last two races, which will now compromise a third EPrix this Saturday.
Will it change much for Gen4?
Hopefully, but also doubtfully. Will it change much for Nato in Season 12? He will possibly take the view that others may have affected his ability to potentially stay in Formula E for another season and he might have a decent point there, although the bigger picture is undoubtedly more complex too.
Looking at it progressively, one idea for the FIA to consider could be “a “collateral (penalty) consideration” according to Volpe.
“Maybe one thought could be that in the future, and this can happen to us as well, so it’s really a neutral consideration, that if one driver causes clearly by their fault from an accident that generates a penalties to the other driver, it is paid for in the following races because of the change of components.
“The FIA could consider that there is something to be applied to the driver who caused these accidents. That could be an idea as a collateral type consideration maybe.”
The FIA have already confirmed that drivers will face grid penalties if they receive three reprimands, as per (Article 9.3.h) of the sporting regs from next season onwards.
A three strikes and you are out type solution with a 10-place grid drop guaranteed after three reprimands. But that scenario would not have tangibly helped Nato or Nissan with the Wehrlein incident.
Whatever happens, a firmer sense of justice at a world championship may need to be explored from a sporting standpoint at the very least.
