Why was Leclerc handed a hefty penalty after the Miami Grand Prix?

What had already been a bruising end to Leclerc’s race — a spin at Turn 3 on the final lap, a brush with the wall and a frantic limp to the finish — became even more costly once the stewards opened three separate investigations into his final‑lap conduct.

After the Miami Grand Prix, Ferrari driver Charles Leclerc was investigated for three different reasons: whether he drove the car in an unsafe condition after his last-lap spin, whether he left the track and gained an advantage, and whether he caused a collision with George Russell at Turn 17.

After reviewing video, telemetry and radio, and hearing from Leclerc and a Ferrari representative, the stewards issued a detailed explanation of their decision.

They noted that “Car 16 spun on the last lap at Turn 3 and hit the wall but continued on track.” Leclerc told them that the car “appeared fine save that the car would not negotiate the righthand corners properly.”

Because of this handling issue, he cut multiple chicanes on the way to the finish. The stewards acknowledged the mechanical difficulty but made clear that it did not justify the repeated shortcuts.

“Given this problem, he was forced to cut chicanes on the way to the chequered flag. We determined that the fact that he had to cut the chicanes (i.e. to leave the track) meant that he gained a lasting advantage by leaving the track in that manner.”

They added that “the fact that he had a mechanical issue of some sort did not amount to a justifiable reason.”

On that basis, they imposed a drive‑through penalty — the standard sanction for repeated track‑limits violations that bring a competitive benefit. Because the decision came after the race, it was converted into a 20‑second time penalty, dropping Leclerc from sixth to eighth.

The stewards also considered whether Leclerc should be penalised for continuing with what appeared to be a compromised Ferrari. After reviewing the footage and data, they concluded that there was no clear evidence of a car so damaged that it should have been stopped.

“We also considered whether there was an additional breach in continuing to drive a car with an obvious and discernible mechanical issue. We determined that there was no evidence of there being an obvious or discernible mechanical issue. We therefore took no further action in relation to that potential infringement.”

A separate hearing examined Leclerc’s brush with George Russell at the final hairpin. Both drivers described the contact as minor and part of normal racing, and the stewards agreed, stating that “both drivers considered the contact to be minor racing incidents and we agreed.”