BRANDS HATCH: WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED?
That question now sits at the heart of FIA International Court of Appeal Case ICA-2026-12-13
Article 2 /10
The Alumitec Racing #11 car driven by Gianmarco Ercoli & Raphaël lessard passed Saturday’s technical inspections. Alumitec Racing’s engineers were still concerned. Less than 24 hours later, those concerns became reality.
Saturday evening at Brands Hatch left Alumitec Racing facing an unusual situation.
From a regulatory perspective, the #11 had passed its technical inspections.
The car had spent more than three hours in Parc Fermé. Officials had inspected the engine seals and performed a compression-ratio test using a K-Tec device.
According to the appeal filed in FIA International Court of Appeal Case ICA-2026-12-13, the compression ratio complied with the applicable technical regulations, the seals showed no reported anomaly, and the #11 was declared compliant before Parc Fermé was lifted.
But regulatory compliance did not mean that Alumitec Racing’s engineers and mechanics were free of mechanical concerns.
A PATTERN THAT RAISED QUESTIONS
According to the team, its engineers had observed repeated and significant drops in engine oil pressure, particularly when the car was entering or negotiating corners.
Those observations did not cause officials to declare the engine non-compliant.
For Alumitec, however, they raised a different and increasingly important question:
Could an engine be fully compliant with the technical regulations while simultaneously developing a mechanical problem?
The team suspected that the Engine lifters in the GM Chevrolet 604 were not operating at full capacity, potentially affecting the engine’s mechanical performance.
Alumitec therefore faced a difficult decision on Saturday evening.
One option was to replace the engine.
But after the lengthy technical inspection on Saturday evening, and with extremely limited time remaining before Sunday’s program, replacing the engine would have required the team’s engineers and mechanics to work through much of the night.
The other option was to play everything on Sunday.
Keep the inspected and officially compliant engine in the #11 and hope that Gianmarco Ercoli’s & Raphaël Lessard talent could compensate for the mechanical weakness the team feared was developing.
Alumitec chose the second option.
SUNDAY: THE WARNING BECOMES REAL
Sunday’s PRO/V8GP race initially appeared to justify that decision.
According to the team, Gianmarco Ercoli and Alumitec Racing were in complete control of the race.
Despite the mechanical concerns identified the previous evening, the #11 was running strongly at the front.
The gamble appeared to be working.
Then, with only seven laps remaining, everything changed.
The #11 experienced a sharp and abnormal drop in engine oil pressure, forcing Gianmarco Ercoli and Alumitec Racing to retire the car from the race.
The appeal confirms that a sudden, abnormal loss of oil pressure occurred during Sunday’s race.
A weekend that had begun with Ercoli fighting at the front had now produced a mechanical retirement.
But the sporting consequences were only beginning.
FROM A MECHANICAL PROBLEM TO A SPORTING DISPUTE
The engine involved was the same unit that had undergone extensive technical inspections the previous day.
It had spent more than three hours in Parc Fermé.
Its compression ratio had been tested.
Its seals had been inspected.
According to Alumitec Racing, no anomaly had been reported concerning either the seals installed under the promoter’s control or the original GM single-use seals protecting the engine from unauthorized internal access.
The engine had been considered technically compliant.
Now, less than 24 hours later, the same engine had suffered a sudden, abnormal loss of oil pressure during the race.
What happened after the #11 returned to the Alumitec Racing garage would transform the situation.
The issue was no longer simply why the engine had lost oil pressure.
Officials, following a request from the promoter, wanted the engine seized and retained for further investigation.
According to Alumitec Racing’s account, between approximately 4:20 p.m. and 4:35 p.m., the Technical Delegate, accompanied by a technician working for the promoter, arrived at the Alumitec Racing garage and requested that the engine be surrendered for further investigation.
According to the appeal, the equipment required to conduct the intended examination was not available at the Brands Hatch circuit.
The engine would therefore have to be retained and subsequently examined away from the circuit, at the promoter’s garage in Saint-Denis-sur-Loire, France outside the territory of the United Kingdom.
That request would trigger a disagreement whose consequences extended far beyond the Brands Hatch paddock.
THE CUSTOM ATA CARNET ISSUE
Because the engine was travelling internationally under an CUSTOM ATA Carnet, Alumitec Racing maintains that the issue was never whether the engine could be inspected.
The issue was how, where and under what conditions the engine could legally be seized, transported and retained while respecting the applicable international customs requirements.
For Alumitec Racing, this distinction was fundamental.
Participation in an international sporting competition does not, in itself, remove the obligation to comply with applicable customs laws and procedures. A sporting federation, promoter, professional racing team or individual remains subject to the applicable legal requirements governing the international movement and temporary importation of equipment.
Alumitec Racing’s position is therefore that it could not simply disregard the customs obligations attached to equipment travelling under an ATA Carnet in order to surrender the engine under conditions that, according to the team, had not been clearly established.
The potential consequences of deliberately circumventing UK customs requirements are not insignificant.
The Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 provides, for certain offences involving, in particular, an intent to evade a prohibition or restriction, for significantly more severe criminal penalties. Depending on the specific offence and circumstances, the Act provides on summary conviction for a fine of up to £20,000 or three times the value of the goods, whichever is greater, and imprisonment for up to six months. On conviction on indictment, the legislation provides for a fine of any amount and, for certain offences, imprisonment for up to 14 years.
For Alumitec Racing, however, the existence of potentially serious customs consequences reinforced the importance of ensuring that any removal, retention or international movement of the engine was handled through a legally compliant customs procedure.
The question was not whether the engine would be inspected.
The question was how that inspection could be conducted while preserving the engine, its seals and its traceability, and while complying with the applicable customs requirements.
Those distinctions would become central to the case.
ON THE NEXT ARTICLE 3:
INSPECTION OR SEIZURE?
Was Alumitec Racing refusing a technical inspection, or disputing the conditions under which an already inspected and sealed engine could be seized and retained outside the circuit?
That question now sits at the heart of FIA International Court of Appeal Case ICA-2026-12-13.
Alumitec Racing Press Room
In collaboration with AX SPORTS
