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
