Skip to content

Why did the FIA reject Red Bull's protest against George Russell?

By on

Having taken a brilliant victory at Sunday's Monteal Grand Prix, Mercedes driver George Russell was allowed to keep his win after the stewards rejected a Red Bull protest against the British driver.

It was an almost perfect weekend for Mercedes. George Russell secured his second consecutive pole position for the Canadian Grand Prix.

The Briton then made a great start, and although reigning champion Max Verstappen kept him honest, the Mercedes driver was seemingly controlling proceedings.

Russell completed the race distance with a conventional two-stop strategy, and did not put a foot wrong to convert pole to the win, his first of the year.

His team-mate Andrea Kimi Antonelli also had a brilliant getaway, a bold move saw the Italian gain a place by overtaking championship leader Oscar Piastri into Turn 3 on the opening lap.

He ran third from there, and came close to picking off reigning champion Max Verstappen when the Dutchman struggled for rear grip at the end of his opening stint.

With McLaren’s MCL39 coming alive in the closing stages of the race, Antonelli came under huge pressure from Piastri, but defended superbly to pick up his first career podium and become the third-youngest driver to stand on the rostrum.
Russell beat Max Verstappen to victory in Sunday's race to record Mercedes' first win of the season.

However, two hours after the chequered flag had dropped, it emerged Red Bull had challenged the result by lodging two protests about the Brit's driving behind the late-race Safety Car.

The Milton Keynes-based outfit alleged that Russell had broken the regulations by both driving erratically in front of Verstappen and committed unsportsmanlike conduct by, in their view, attempting to get his rival penalised.

However, after summoning drivers and representatives from both teams and reviewing data and video evidence during the course of their investigation on Sunday evening, the Montreal stewards ultimately threw Red Bull's case out almost six hours after Russell had taken the chequered flag.

What did Red Bull claim after the Montreal race?

Red Bull claimed that during a safety car deployment the driver of Car 63 had braked unnecessarily along the back straight between turns 12 and 13 as a result of which Car 1, which was following Car 63, overtook Car 63 and then dropped back behind Car 63 after Car 63 accelerated.

  • Red Bull also alleged that by complaining over team radio that Car 1 had overtaken him under safety car the driver of Car 63 had ‘displayed unsportsmanlike intent’.
  • The driver of Car 1 said that he was taken by surprise by Car 63’s sudden braking on the straight and had no alternative but to overtake Car 63 momentarily.
  • Red Bull tendered telemetry showing the throttle and brake applications of each Car.
  • Red Bull suggested that it could be inferred from the fact that Car 63’s onboard showed the driver looking in his mirrors before he braked that he knew Car 1 was immediately behind and he braked to force Car to overtake to force an infringement by Car 1.
  • Red Bull suggested that the driver of Car 63 complained about the overtake on his team radio knowing that it would be overheard by race control and in the hope that Car 1 would be investigated.
  • They also suggested that it must have been obvious to the driver for Car 63 that the race would end under safety car such that it was unnecessary for Car 63 to maintain heat in tyres and brakes.
    • How did Mercedes defend against the allegations?

  • The driver of Car 63 explained that:
    • - periodic braking is commonplace and to be expected during safety car deployments to ensure that temperature is maintained in tyres and brakes
    - on the back straight he found himself catching the safety car. He pointed to in-car video which showed him gesticulating with his hand which he said was to signal to the safety car driver to speed up;
    - he braked where he did for two reasons. First to ensure he kept a gap to the safety car.
    Secondly, to keep temperature in his brakes and tyres;
    - he looked in his mirrors before he braked to check whether Car 1 was immediately behind and only braked after he saw that Car 1 was to the side;
    - his telemetry showed that the brake pressure he applied was 30psi which he said was not severe;
    - the driver of Car 1 ought to have anticipated that he might apply brake to keep heat in his brakes and tyres;
    - it is not the responsibility of the Car ahead to look out for the following Car in any event;
    - by pointing out to his team that Car 1 had overtaken he was not intending to provoke an investigation into Car 1;
    - he did not know that the race would definitely end under safety car.

    Mercedes submitted that what the driver of Car 63 had said over team radio was nothing other than factual. The team lodged no complaint with race control about the Car overtake because the position was given back by Car 1.

    Mercedes also tendered telemetry showing brake patterns of both Car 63 and Car 1 on several laps under safety car which they said showed that the driver of Car 1 had been braking on the same straight on other laps under the safety car – which they said showed that what the driver of Car 63 was unremarkable.

    Submissions of the FIA

    Mr Malyon explained that the incident had been observed by the race control team and assessed to not warrant being reported to the stewards. He said that periodic braking under safety car is typical and to be expected.

    He said that for this reason, race control always allows a degree of tolerance with respect to the 10 car length rule recognising that there is a need for a reasonable degree of braking and acceleration.

    Conclusions of the Stewards
  • Having regard to the evidence of Mr Malyon, we accept the driver of Car 63’s explanation of the incident and we are satisfied that the driver of Car 63 did not drive erratically by braking where he did or to the extent he did.
  • We are not satisfied that by simply reporting to his team that Car 1 had overtaken that he engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct.
  • Even though the protest did not allege it, we are also satisfied that by braking where and when he did and to the extent he did, the driver of Car 63 did not engage in unsportsmanlike conduct.
    • Decision

    After regarding this evidence, the stewards accepted Russell’s explanation of the incident and were satisfied that he “did not drive erratically by braking where he did or to the extent he did”, as well as adding that they did not believe he had engaged in unsportsmanlike conduct by reporting to the team that Verstappen had overtaken.

    This resulted in the protest being rejected, meaning that the results of the race remained unchanged and Russell's victory was confirmed.


    Recent news