In the aftermath of a thrilling Canadian Grand Prix, the FIA has finally laid out its reasoning for dismissing Red Bull’s formal protest against George Russell’s victory. After an intensive, nearly six-hour investigation on race day, stewards concluded that neither of Red Bull’s allegations erratic braking under the safety car nor an excessive gap behind it were sufficiently supported by the evidence to warrant action.
The genesis of the protest
Shortly after Russell’s Mercedes crossed the finish line just 0.228 seconds ahead of Max Verstappen, Red Bull lodged two distinct complaints. First, they claimed Russell had “braked unnecessarily” on the back straight, causing Verstappen to be forced into an overtake under safety car conditions normally prohibited under Article 48.12 of the sporting regulations. Second, the team argued that Russell had fallen more than ten car lengths behind the safety car, ostensibly breaching protocol designed to keep the field bunched for safety and fairness.
What the stewards heard
The hearing brought together representatives from both teams including Red Bull Sporting Director Stephen Knowles, Mercedes Race Manager Ron Meadows, and both drivers alongside FIA Sporting Director Tim Malyon and Race Director Rui Marques. Red Bull presented onboard footage, telemetry showing brake and throttle inputs, and radio communications intended to demonstrate that Russell had acted with “unsportsmanlike intent.” They even pointed to Russell checking his mirrors before braking as proof he knew Verstappen was close behind.
Mercedes, however, countered that periodic braking is routine when following the safety car to maintain tire and brake temperatures, and that Russell’s brake pressure measured at approximately 30 psi was mild. The team also introduced additional telemetry illustrating similar braking by multiple drivers on earlier laps under the safety car. According to Mercedes, Russell’s mirror glance was simply to ensure he hadn’t closed up too tightly on the safety car itself.
FIA’s findings
Based on Mr. Malyon’s observations and data review, the stewards accepted that:
Braking was normal: The pattern matched typical safety-car procedures and served to keep tire temperatures healthy rather than to trap Verstappen.
Gap tolerance: While the ten-car-length guideline exists, race control routinely allows flexibility to account for necessary deceleration and acceleration. Russell’s gap did not meaningfully exceed acceptable limits.
No unsportsmanlike conduct
Informing his team of an overtake was a factual radio message, not a deliberate attempt to manipulate stewards into penalizing Verstappen.
With these points, the stewards unanimously rejected Red Bull’s protest “as it is not founded,” and Red Bull forfeited its €2,000 deposit.
What this means going forward
The decision underscores the FIA’s deference to context and driver intent when policing safety-car behavior. Teams now clearly face a higher bar when bringing “gamesmanship” protests stronger telemetry anomalies or unequivocal rule breaches will be required. For Russell and Mercedes, the ruling cements a hard-fought win and affirms their racecraft. Red Bull, meanwhile, must weigh whether future protests will yield results or simply churn resources without payoff.
As F1 heads next to Austria, the episode serves as a reminder that margin-of-error debates will continue but only truly compelling evidence will shift results after the checkered flag.
Leave a Reply