16/06/2025 07:25
The FIA has explained its verdict in rejecting Red Bull's protest against Canadian Grand Prix winner George Russell. Just under six hours after Russell took the chequered flag to secure the fourth win of his F1 career, he was finally able to savour his success after being kept on tenterhooks by Red Bull and the stewards at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve. The investigation was sparked following a shock collision involving McLaren duo Oscar Piastri and Lando Russell, resulting in the retirement of the latter and sparking the introduction of a safety car with three laps remaining at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve. Behind the safety car, Mercedes driver Russell braked sharply at one stage, causing Verstappen, following directly behind, to momentarily pass. The four-time F1 champion made his feelings clear over the radio to race engineer Gianpiero Lambiase. "George suddenly just aggressively braked," complained Verstappen. Lambiase responded: "Understood, thank you, we will check for any erratic driving." Russell, meanwhile, complained to his race engineer, Marcus Dudley, that "Verstappen just overtook me under the safety car." A few minutes later, and upon review, Lambiase then informed Verstappen: "That incident with Russell now being shown on the feeds, Max, it's pretty blatant. Just don't fall for the gamesmanship, OK? Thank you." There was seemingly the suggestion that Russell deliberately attempted to get Verstappen to pass, and get him charged with 'overtaking under safety car conditions', earning a penalty and additional points on his licence, so incurring a race ban. Red Bull felt obliged to protest, initially on two fronts; first against Russell's aggressive braking, and second, for not adhering to the rule of keeping within 10 car lengths of the safety car. The hearing was attended by Red Bull sporting director Stephen Knowles, Lambiase and Verstappen, along with Mercedes team manager Ron Meadows, trackside engineering director Andrew Shovlin and Russell. For the FIA, there was sporting director Tim Malyon and race director Rui Marques The stewards' hearing panned out as follows: The Claims of Red Bull * Red Bull claimed that during a safety car deployment, the driver of car 63 [Russell] had braked unnecessarily along the back straight between turns 12 and 13 as a result of which car 1 [Verstappen], 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 the 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 1 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 of car 63 that the race would end under a safety car, such that it was unnecessary for car 63 to maintain heat in tyres and brakes. Mercedes' arguments in defence * 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 the 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 the 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 the 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 did 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 the 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. On that basis, Red Bull's protest was rejected "as it is not founded". The team was also forced to forfeit its protest deposit of €2,000
