(Motorsport-Total.com) – After Pierre Gasly and Alpine received two five-second time penalties for speeding in the pit lane at this year’s Monaco Grand Prix, they successfully appealed against them and thus secured third place ahead of Isack Hadjar.
Read more Ralf Schumacher after press conference scandal: Stella should «slow down a bit»
Several months later, the original result at the finish line was reinstated following applications by McLaren and Red Bull before the International Court of Appeal (ICA). Gasly’s penalties were reapplied to his race time, dropping him back to seventh place in the results, while Hadjar regained his first podium for Red Bull.
Gasly therefore has to return the trophy for third place to Hadjar and loses nine points due to falling back to seventh place as a result of the two five-second penalties. It is worth looking at how this point was reached and what was presented to the ICA to force this turnaround.
Alpine’s delayed success after multiple speeding penalties
A speed limit of 60 km/h was set for Monaco in the pit lane – a lower value compared to the standard limit of 80 km/h to account for the tighter layout of the pit lane.
During this year’s Grand Prix, eleven violations were recorded; during the race this affected Oscar Piastri, George Russell, Pierre Gasly (twice), and Franco Colapinto. Gasly was the only one of the four drivers who did not serve his time penalty during the race; instead, the penalty was added to his race time.
Even before the race, there was a cluster of speeding violations in the pit lane: five vehicles were caught during free practice: Russell, Kimi Antonelli, Fernando Alonso, Alexander Albon, and Colapinto.
As can be seen from the document published by the ICA, four of these violations were the result of an apparent speeding in the “entry loop”.
To monitor the speed limit, a series of measuring loops are installed in the pit lane, the distances between which are measured. The speed is then calculated from the time a driver takes to travel from one loop to the next. This is derived from measuring distance over time.
The FOM, which provides the official timing solutions for Formula 1, measures the minimum distance between the individual loops. When speeds were recorded in practice showing that drivers were just above the 60 km/h limit, some teams felt that their measurements did not match those of the FOM.
Investigations, however, found that it was unclear whether there was a problem, and no changes were made to the positioning of the loops at the pit entry.
This remained the case until the race, when Alpine protested against the penalties imposed on Gasly, as the team believed that the FOM had used incorrect measurements. Alpine argued that the “applied distance” of 2,692 centimeters for crossing the second loop was too long and that due to the pit lane’s curvature, a shorter minimum distance of 2,615 centimeters should have been used.
Due to the vehicle width, this theoretical minimum would not have been possible, but Alpine estimated that Gasly had traveled 2,670 centimeters to stay at or below 60 km/h, which would take vehicle width into account.
The race stewards agreed with Alpine’s argument and removed his penalties, allowing Gasly to claim the trophy for third place.
McLaren and Red Bull disagreed with this decision. Naturally, both teams wanted to regain points, as both Hadjar and Piastri had lost points due to Alpine’s appeal. They also referred to the principle of “fairness,” as all teams were subject to the original measurement of 2,692 centimeters.
There is a 96-hour window to indicate the intention to file an appeal – a deadline both McLaren and Red Bull met. Alpine and Racing Bulls were included as third parties in the proceedings, while the British motorsport authority Motorsport UK also submitted its own statements.
Red Bull and McLaren submitted their grounds for appeal on July 28; the hearing took place on August 25.
FOM sticks to “consistent” measurement
The measurement of 2,692 centimeters at the second measuring loop of the pit entry was, according to Arbi Karapetian, head of technology and innovation at the FOM, carried out at the start of the weekend by “two experienced FOM employees with a measuring tape”.
Two lines were considered, and the shorter of the two was selected after verification by a global navigation satellite system (GNSS). This was also cross-checked with data from previous years to ensure it was in the correct range.
Although concerns were raised about the measurement, the FOM retained it after reviewing the data for reasons of “consistency”; theoretically, teams could calibrate their pit lane speed limiters accordingly.
After the race, the FOM reviewed the measurement again and arrived at the measurement of 2,615 centimeters using GNSS data, although Karapetian explained that distances measured with the tape measure could not be reliably reproduced at that time.
Controversial: Ten race winners at the green table
In this respect, the findings from the race stewards’ investigation after the race were correct, but the FOM had neither evidence that Gasly had taken this racing line nor that he had traveled the distance of 2,670 centimeters that would have been necessary to stay under the speed limit.
Alpine presented a reconstruction of Gasly’s pit entry using video footage and vehicle data to demonstrate the path of a CAD model of his A526 chassis.
Read more Mercedes vs. Ferrari in Monza: Long runs raise big question marks
However, the ICA document states: “The reconstruction was therefore unable to demonstrate with the precision required to clarify the difference between the relevant thresholds the distance actually traveled by car 10 on both passes.”
Alpine states that for its own distance calculations, the previously submitted GNSS calculations from the FOM as well as its own measurements with a laser rangefinder and an independent survey were used. However, the accuracy of the footage could not be guaranteed due to variables such as “camera lens distortions”.
Appeal by Red Bull and McLaren declared admissible
Red Bull and McLaren argued as follows: If penalties had already been imposed on other drivers for the same violation (McLaren had served Piastri’s five-second penalty during the race), the withdrawal of Gasly’s penalty violated “sporting fairness”.
Furthermore, they argued that the evidence presented by Alpine to the race stewards should not have been admitted at all and that Article B1.6.3a of the Sporting Regulations had been misapplied.
The argument was that the official timing system should have been the only official metric to determine whether a driver was speeding – even if there were doubts about the distance used for the measuring loop.
This was supported by Racing Bulls and Motorsport UK. The latter argued (as the national sporting authority) that otherwise official timing systems could be challenged by a team’s own recalculations.
In short, the appellants stated that the timing system was the same for everyone and it would be unreasonable if penalties for exceeding the limit set by it were imposed but then later revoked.
Formula 1 fails: These rule changes were a flop
The FIA supported the decision of the race stewards and stated that the official timing was not the sole arbiter in a penalty for speeding in the pit lane. It added that it is “the right of a participant to find evidence of errors in the system”.
Furthermore, the rules stipulate that a team cannot appeal against a penalty already served during the race – which is at the discretion of the teams.
The FIA essentially argued here that the teams should have stayed on track, waited for the penalty to be added after the race, and only then could have challenged it. It was also noted that none of the teams had requested a review after the race in light of their penalties.
“Sporting unfairness” proven by the court
After reviewing the evidence, the International Court of Appeal found that the measurement of the measuring loops at the pit entry of 2,692 centimeters “was not proven to be an inaccurate physical measurement” and that the multiple checks as well as the subsequent use of this distance across all sessions were satisfactory.
Moreover, there was no suggestion throughout the event – neither from the FOM nor from race control or the stewards – to change the measurement.
Additionally, neither Alpine nor the FOM could officially disclose which distance Gasly had actually traveled in the pit lane. While 2,670 centimeters (and 2,673 centimeters for another penalty) were presented as the maximum required to avoid a penalty, there was no evidence that Gasly had actually taken this route.
Thus, this distance applied to everyone before the Monaco Grand Prix, and all participants had the opportunity to calibrate their pit lane speed limiters to the measuring loops used.
Instead, the court was disturbed by the idea of first using one distance for the measuring loop and then applying a different one retroactively. Gasly, like the other penalized drivers, was recorded as speeding in the measured loop; therefore, it was wrong to apply a different distance to a single participant after the race.
It added that the decision not to remove a penalty imposed under one measurement system and then subsequently complain about that measurement system was not justified – especially if the first system applied to the rest of the field.
The ICA also questioned whether this could be considered “new evidence” – a prerequisite for a justified appeal – if a new standard is applied retroactively.
As a result, the original penalties were reinstated and the appeals based on sporting fairness were upheld – as one participant was unjustifiably measured by a different standard compared to the other cars on the grid.
The court ruled that official timing systems are neither infallible nor unchallengeable, but stated: “What sporting fairness absolutely excludes, however, is the subsequent replacement of the common, event-wide calibration parameter by another geometric or measurement approach for the purpose of reassessing the result of a single participant after the competitors have calibrated to it and competed against each other.”
Alpine and the FIA must also bear the legal costs of the other teams as a result of this decision.
Read more Kimi Antonelli: «I would have said he should shut up!»