McLaren’s attempt to overturn the penalty which cost Oscar Piastri a third-place start in Austria was thrown out on a technicality. As a result, the stewards’ ruling that he had gone beyond track limits at turn six in qualifying was not examined.
The decision gained greater significance after the race as George Russell, who inherited Piastri’s third place on the grid, took the victory as front row starters Max Verstappen and Lando Norris collided.McLaren remain convinced that the available evidence did not meet the standard the FIA has previously used for deciding track limits cases. By the standard used to penalise Piastri, McLaren believe one of the drivers who gained a place from him should also have been moved back on the grid.
The team argued the stewards’ handling of the case contradicted precedent established late last year when other drivers avoided penalties. Piastri said the evidence used to prove he exceeded the track limits at turn six on his final flying lap came from a camera which did not capture similar images of other drivers’ lines through the same corner.
“[It] is a bit painful when there’s other people that potentially also went off but didn’t have a [camera] on them,” said the driver.
This stewards’ decision to accept the evidence of Piastri’s infringement when the same footage was not available of other drivers on the same corner goes against the practice used at the United States Grand Prix last year.
After Haas protested the stewards’ decision not to penalise Alexander Albon and others for cutting turn six during the race, the stewards determined evidence showing the Williams driver leaving the track could not be used partly because they could not rely on the same footage “for every car in every lap.” They also ruled onboard footage from one car showing a potential infringement by another “does not meet that accurate and consistent evidence standard” partly because it “may or may not be available for any given car’s potential breach at any given time.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Team principal Andrea Stella said this requirement is part of the criteria the stewards must fulfil when imposing track limits penalties. “These criteria [are] that it needs to be beyond ‘any reasonable doubt’, that the camera needs to have adequate resolution, and that if you use one view, one camera for a competitor, this needs to be available to all competitors. So these are three elements that form a set of criteria, which in that case I think was not satisfied.”
“[It’s] their interpretation of a face view, but from a camera that is pretty far [away], doesn’t allow you to see the position of the rear tyres and doesn’t allow to see the position of the edge of the front tyre with respect to the white line. That’s why I think certainly one criteria of the ‘beyond any reasonable doubt’ wasn’t met in this kind of decision.”
Adding to McLaren’s frustration, the team subsequently discovered what they claim is footage showing an identical infringement by Carlos Sainz Jnr at the same corner, which went unpunished.
“We have the same exact image of Carlos Sainz in qualifying, of that shot, he didn’t get a penalty,” said McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown in response to a question from RaceFans. “He’s outside the line. It’s like an identical shot.”
RaceFans understands the FIA is not aware of any footage showing an incident involving Sainz.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Despite their frustrations at the time, McLaren were keen to draw a line under the matter following the rejections of their protest. In much the same way as their response to the FIA’s belated admission Verstappen should have been given a warning during the Austrian Grand Prix weekend, the team is eager to see more consistent application of the rules in future.
“We talked a lot about this matter and we have passed on to the FIA all our possible input,” said Stella. “We are satisfied that this input has been taken onboard by the FIA, and I think we will see better criteria in the future for excluding car in a way that respects some of the criteria that were stated by the FIA themselves in some of the decisions.”
However Brown said turn six at the Red Bull Ring should be remodelled in the same way turns nine and ten were to prevent the problem recurring next year.
“You put in gravel traps, which were intended to be the track limits, so you’re putting in gravel traps but then kind of leave the white line. Oscar’s right-rear was kind of half in the gravel. So it’s like ‘well, wasn’t the gravel trap intended to be the line?’
“To kind of have the gravel trap, but then a white line that maybe was painted six inches too far in – that’s what the gravel traps were put in for. So I think that particular corner needs to be reviewed.”
Become a RaceFans Supporter
RaceFans is run thanks in part to the generous support of its readers. By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the same in whichever currency you use) you can help cover the costs of creating, hosting and developing RaceFans today and in the future.
Become a RaceFans Supporter today and browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Formula 1
- Poll: Are Briatore or Symonds welcome in F1 so long after Crashgate?
- Helmet Senna wore in 1992 sells for record-breaking £720,000
- Albon did not disobey team orders in Miami says Vowles after Sainz’s complaint
- McLaren score their most emphatic win since Hamilton’s 2008 Silverstone triumph
- Mercedes bringing “more obvious” upgrades for first European races
MacLeod (@macleod)
16th July 2024, 7:49
One of the reasons to discard this nonsense just gravel closer to the line and you don’t need to watch it as the drivers will punish them selfs if they doesn’t make the corner.
This from a guy were i was on track saw a lot of drivers going off grass and gravel and they never got punished for it. I know differen times but still i find the white line not part of a circuit it’s where the asfalt stops that is is the end of the circuit…….
Jere (@jerejj)
16th July 2024, 7:50
The gravel edge should simply be immediately beside the curbing.
Tomcat173 (@tomcat173)
16th July 2024, 12:08
Even when we get the solution to track limits that we always wanted (gravel trap, a physical limit), F1 still finds a way of being inconsistent. So Piastri stays out of the gravel, but is technically off the track.
If they had the gravel trap start right on the edge of the kerb, or even a foot closer, it would have eliminated all doubt.
Coventry Climax
16th July 2024, 13:15
Completely agree.
As the picture clearly shows, in corners like this, where there is a gravel trap, crossing the white line is irrelevant.
Couple more centimeters and he’d have been in the gravel anyway.
That would mean they would all try to get as close to the edge as possible (in corners with gravel traps), but hey, that’s fine, nothing new and part of the essence of motorracing anyway.
Other than that, I’m in favor of regarding (the outside of) the white line as the edge of a cliff.
That literally defines it as track limits. What the FiA does now, is make a farce of the word ‘limit’.
(But that’s nothing new for the FiA, as most of their words are a farce, as far as I’m concerned.)
Basically, that supports what you say: have the white line next to the gravel trap.
MacLeod (@macleod)
16th July 2024, 13:47
Just remove the white line is the best and you can even lose 4 pages of the rulebook!
notagrumpyfan
16th July 2024, 9:21
One would expect that camera evidence to show that the white line has been passed would at least show that white line.
But the simplest solution is to put the deterrent (wall of gravel) well within a car’s width of the white line. In that case any exceeding of track limits would only be on ruined laps anyway.
Coventry Climax
16th July 2024, 13:27
Or have the camera’s that provide the footage that they use to base decisions on, all be put on the inside of corners?
Such a simple, basic solution to such controversy. But it seems we are all very happy to think for ourselves, now that AI is here.
Basically, the FiA could just as well use footage of camera’s that look the other way, to determine if someone is guilty or not.
There’s a huge opportunity here to compare this to systems in use in a lot of countries worldwide, some very big, that they themselves call a ‘robustly reliable judiciary system’ or ‘democratic’.
Coventry Climax
16th July 2024, 13:29
.. to no longer think for ourselves, ..
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
17th July 2024, 14:41
“We’re” happy to think for ourselves. We just know that implementing physical solutions to the issue will only work if there is a corresponding will to consistently penalise offences. Given that this is how we got to this point…
SteveP
16th July 2024, 17:21
They don’t need AI, they have RS
M2X
16th July 2024, 10:40
Ofcourse FIA criteria where met. The ruling was arbitrary and therefore completely up to FIA standards.
Coventry Climax
16th July 2024, 13:33
I think McLaren risk a massive fine, for pointing out to the FiA that their decision making is based on footage of camera’s that look at things from the wrong angle.
I’m sure the FiA themselves regard this as bringing discredit to the sports and its regulating body.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
17th July 2024, 14:43
Coventry Climax, some of it was looking at the correct angle (in that it depicted the issue) but wasn’t acted upon. Which is a heavier risk of a penalty than the interpretation you have (itself is hardly a non-zero risk of McLaren raising the FIA’s ire).
MichaelN
16th July 2024, 15:15
What is Brown even saying? Of course the gravel isn’t the track limit. The white line is. It doesn’t matter if the kerbs are 10 meters wide and the gravel starts halfway down the run-off.
Now of course it would be better to have kerbs that aren’t as wide. If it was impossible to be beyond the white lines and still out of the gravel, this wouldn’t be an issue. And that’s what they did in other corners. So presumably there are good reasons to keep this situation at this particular corner? Or maybe they just ran out of budget for this year to make the necessary changes. Either way it’s not ideal.
sam
16th July 2024, 17:15
Mr. Piastri deserved the penalty.
SteveP
16th July 2024, 17:39
I believe the point being made by McLaren is that in a level playing field situation, a penalty for Piastri should be matched by a penalty for ALL other drivers that demonstrably exceeded limits in a similar fashion.
Quote: “We have the same exact image of Carlos Sainz in qualifying, of that shot, he didn’t get a penalty,”
Since the penalty for others demonstrably did not happen, the penalty imposed on Piastri was not fair and equitable.
Rhys Lloyd (@justrhysism)
17th July 2024, 4:01
His right-rear tyre is touching the line. Indeed it’s not even clear that the bulge of his right-front has exceeded the limit.
ryanoceros (@ryanoceros)
16th July 2024, 19:32
If the FIA is going to enforce track limits based on camera footage, maybe they should have cameras installed that can be used to make a valid judgement. Not okay, especially in this instance where there was an adjacent gravel trap. Idiotic.
Arklos
18th July 2024, 13:43
All the teams and fans want is consistency. It can’t be that difficult to apply the precedents set in previous rulings. Unfortunately F1 has a very long and storied history of just making it up as they go along. It may give everyone something to talk about but it’s certainly not what everyone wants to be talking about.