The most creative attempts to challenge Formula 1 race results

(Motorsport-Total.com) – Formula 1 teams basically have the option to appeal penalties or warnings imposed by the stewards during a race weekend. However, they must present “new evidence” that was not previously available.

As a result, the racing teams have scoured all areas of the series in the past to find new, creative, and clever evidence they believed could help them overturn a race result.

While McLaren and Red Bull prepare to take their approach against the result of the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix to the appeals court, here are five examples of ingenious and creative evidence that Formula 1 teams have used to support their cases.

Off to the “Sky Pad”

German Formula 1 viewers also know the so-called “Sky Pad,” which TV presenters of the eponymous broadcaster use during a Formula 1 race weekend.

With a huge touchscreen, experts analyze the action on the track frame by frame and give their assessment. Normally, this serves information and entertainment purposes—and is not something that would hold up in court.

Apparently, Ferrari saw it differently and submitted still images from a Sky Pad analysis of the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix of Sebastian Vettel to appeal a penalty imposed on the German driver.

During the race, he received a five-second penalty for rejoining the track unsafely and forcing another driver off the track. To contest this, Ferrari submitted telemetry, GPS, and other important data as well as a “video analysis by Karun Chandhok for Sky Sports after the race.”

However, the stewards found that the submitted material was “new but not significant and relevant” as it represented the personal opinion of a third party. The appeal was therefore rejected, the penalty stood, and Vettel officially finished second behind Lewis Hamilton.

Beware of Social Media

The 2020 Austrian Grand Prix was remarkable for several reasons. It opened the season after the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic, featured podium robots presenting Lando Norris with his first Formula 1 trophy, and marked a difficult start for Hamilton.

After teammate Valtteri Bottas went off track in qualifying, the then six-time world champion was summoned to the stewards for not sufficiently slowing under yellow flags.

Initially, Hamilton was cleared as both yellow and green signals were shown when he passed his teammate. However, analyses circulated on social media included 360-degree camera footage from the front of Hamilton’s Mercedes.

This material was initially not available to the stewards because only a live feed can be broadcast during the race. Other perspectives are recorded and reviewed only after the event.

Formula 1 Quiz

Lewis Hamilton’s best grid position in Formula 1 was?

1 10 4 5

Test yourself now in the Formula 1 quiz and compare yourself with other users

In these recordings, the flashing yellow light panels were much less ambiguous. Red Bull used this as part of their appeal to obtain a penalty against Hamilton.

The material initially distributed via the official Formula 1 Twitter account “clearly shows that a yellow light panel was flashing,” the stewards said at the time.

Hamilton then received a three-place grid penalty less than an hour before the race start. This promoted Red Bull drivers Max Verstappen and Alexander Albon to second and fourth places, while Hamilton dropped to fifth.

All Just Simulation

A year later, Red Bull had another creative approach when the team again sought a penalty against Hamilton. After the collision between the Briton and Verstappen at the 2021 British Grand Prix, the Dutchman retired—in a season where every point was crucial.

The stewards mostly blamed Hamilton and imposed a ten-second penalty. Red Bull considered this insufficient as Hamilton still won the race at Silverstone. New evidence was needed for an appeal.

Race by Race: The 2021 World Championship Duel between Verstappen and Hamilton

The team therefore had simulator driver Albon replicate the lines through Copse in a two-year-old Red Bull car during a filming day. Red Bull wanted to show that Hamilton’s line and speed inevitably had to lead to the collision.

However, the stewards did not follow this argument and stated that the additional information was not a “significant and relevant new element.” Furthermore, the material was not “discovered” but created specifically for the appeal.

A Question of Timing

While evidence in appeal procedures often relies on complex data such as GPS traces, telemetry, or detailed reports, Alpine overturned a penalty with something much simpler: a clock.

At the 2022 United States Grand Prix, Fernando Alonso was retrospectively given a 30-second penalty for allegedly driving his car in an unsafe condition. The trigger was an appeal by Haas, which benefited as Alonso dropped out of the points and Kevin Magnussen moved up to eighth place.

Haas filed the appeal after the race ended, although it must be submitted within 30 minutes of the result’s publication. The stewards initially admitted that this was “not possible” and allowed the appeal despite a 24-minute delay.

Alpine then appealed the penalty and submitted as new evidence the FIA’s own statement that Haas had submitted its appeal too late. Alpine prevailed, and Alonso’s penalty was overturned.

Meeting Minutes

After this story, one thinks twice about what to say within earshot of a team principal. McLaren even submitted meeting minutes when trying to appeal a penalty against Norris at the 2023 Canadian Grand Prix.

The Briton had received a five-second penalty in Montreal for unnecessarily slow driving behind the safety car, which the stewards deemed “unsportsmanlike behavior.” This cost him a points finish that McLaren wanted to recover.

The team filed an appeal and submitted a dossier with notes from an FIA team manager meeting held before the next race in Austria. McLaren argued there had been an “understanding among the teams that the alleged offense should not be penalized.”

Williams disagreed, stating there was “no general consensus.” The stewards also clarified that “discussions, informal ‘gentlemen’s agreements,’ and so on” do not constitute new evidence. The appeal was therefore rejected, and Norris remained in 13th place.

Translated from