Why Audi was right and wrong in Formula E's loophole row

So many were so quick to direct so much anger towards Lucas di Grassi and Audi when the Brazilian emerged from the short indoor pitlane at the ExCeL in London leading Sunday’s Formula E race. But, by the letter of the law, the team delivered a strategy masterclass. Or at least it had in theory, were it not for a minor brake lock-up on the slippery surface that meant bullets were dodged.

The precedent for the 2016-17 champion to gain seven places and jump the Mercedes of polesitter Stoffel Vandoorne was set in Berlin last season, when both Mahindra Racing cars gained places by heading for the pits during a full-course yellow period. While the FIA closed that particular loophole, the amendment to the rules only applied to said FCY conditions and didn’t carry over to a proper safety car intervention. That meant di Grassi was “free to pit provided that [he would] stop in front of their pit”, according to the sporting regulations.

For all the outcry that it was unsporting and not in the best interests of the championship, in a series of extremely fine technical margins, it was a legal move that was illegally executed.

Audi is a manufacturer that will quit Formula E after one more double-header event in Berlin next month. The squad that won the teams’ title in 2017-18 has slipped to sixth in the standings for the past two seasons. So, with the potential to create a bit of controversy but to come away having fought for one last trophy, it wasn’t in the marque’s best interests to help the image of Formula E by falling into line.

PLUS: Why Audi and BMW have pulled the plug on Formula E

Perhaps if Audi was hanging around for another year or two then such a move wouldn’t have been executed. Maybe Audi would have played it safe should it have been leading the teams’ championship and didn’t want to risk a penalty. Similarly, if London and its quirky pitlane had have been the second or third round on the calendar, and not the one before last, a more conservative approach might have been the order of the day.

But these are hypotheticals.

The safety car and Lucas di Grassi, Audi Sport ABT Schaeffler, Audi e-tron FE07

Photo by: Simon Galloway / Motorsport Images

Very few, in a racing or wider context, wouldn’t seize such a chance to legitimately gain the upper hand.
In truth, the FIA had a lucky escape when di Grassi locked up on the slippery pitlane, which didn’t receive the same grippy epoxy sand finish as the proper track in the exhibition hall. That meant, although his wheel speed hit zero, the car was never truly stationary and so di Grassi earned what was initially a drivethrough before later being disqualified when he didn’t serve the penalty, having been oblivious to the reprimand.

PLUS: Why Formula E's London return delivered anarchy in the UK

Frederic Bertrand, the FIA director of Formula E, when asked by Autosport, wouldn’t budge on what might have been had di Grassi nailed his braking. He said: “I cannot say what would happen if he had [done] something right.” But, should it have gone to plan, di Grassi would have stood to win the race in scenes that had the potential to embarrass a world championship to a greater degree.

Last weekend’s saga was yet another poor look for the series and the governing body during a season where the regulations have been made to look incomplete, to put it mildly. But was there any hypocrisy on show last weekend?

The blame should lie with the hole-filled regulations that had the capacity to accommodate a less than sporting, albeit somewhat admirable, tactic

When Audi sacked long-time Formula E driver Daniel Abt for having a professional sim racer take his place in a UNICEF-supported Esports competition, a statement was released that read: “Integrity, transparency and consistent compliance with applicable rules are top priorities for Audi.”

There’s no doubt the initial move down the pitlane conformed to that “consistent compliance” with the rules and team principal Allan McNish never shied away from the media in his justification. He was open, ‘transparent’ even. From that truthfulness, the standards of “integrity” were met. Whether it was an honourable move... that’s where the lines are blurred to a much greater degree.

The team reached for a low-hanging fruit, missed by its rivals, and oh so nearly picked it. The blame should lie with the hole-filled regulations that had the capacity to accommodate a less than sporting, albeit somewhat admirable, tactic.

Audi engineers at work in the garage

Photo by: Simon Galloway / Motorsport Images

This comes in a season where big-spending manufacturers and their vastly talented engineers were made to look foolish by the mass retirements and slowing cars in Valencia when aggressive energy reductions caught almost the entire paddock off-guard. It comes in a season where the patience towards a group qualifying system that hurts the best performers has worn perilously thin.

PLUS: Why Formula E is plotting a major change of philosophy

In that context, while hastily conceiving an almost inspired strategy that was so nearly executed perfectly by di Grassi, Audi didn’t owe the championship or the FIA any favours to save face.

As ever, though, some good comes from these situations. A couple of hours after the chequered flag fell in London, Bertrand was telling Autosport that the loophole would be closed. An event of this type shouldn’t happen again, and people have learned lessons.

The concern after the precedent set so far in this turbulent campaign is which vague article of the sporting regulations will be exposed next to create another image problem. When prevention is so much better than cure, the clauses and subclauses of the rulebook need going over with a fine-tooth comb so that Formula E’s credibility can be improved upon.

A Monaco thriller that upstaged Formula 1’s races in the principality was this championship at its very best. London wasn’t.

Lucas di Grassi, Audi Sport ABT Schaeffler, Audi e-tron FE07

Photo by: Andrew Ferraro / Motorsport Images