How Red Bull made the FIA give Hamilton his F1 Austrian GP grid penalty

The drama in the Austrian Grand Prix began before the Formula 1 opener started when Red Bull reversed an FIA decision to see Lewis Hamilton penalised for a qualifying infringement. As ADAM COOPER explains, the ramifications are significant

How Red Bull made the FIA give Hamilton his F1 Austrian GP grid penalty

Red Bull's review into the steward's decision not to penalise Lewis Hamilton for speeding past yellow flags during qualifying for the Austrian Grand Prix was formally notified just 41 minutes before the actual start.

Hamilton was demoted from second to fifth, and much of the race strategy work that his team had done since qualifying was thrown out of the window as he was likely to find himself stuck behind Max Verstappen, the only front runner starting on the medium tyres.

So how did this highly unusual scenario play out? It was actually triggered by an official F1 Tweet on Saturday evening that showed a clip of the incident in question, as Valtteri Bottas went off in a cloud of dust at Turn 4 and Hamilton swept past to set his best time of the session - albeit one not quite good enough to beat his team-mate to pole.

The video then switched from the regular coverage that we all saw live to a 360-degree onboard view, which F1 has been experimenting with for a couple of years, but which hasn't really been fully exploited.

The editor knew clearly what they were doing, because when the shot showed Hamilton passing a yellow signal board they zoomed in and froze the frame.

The original decision that exonerated Hamilton was explained thus by the stewards: "The driver mentioned that he passed a green light panel in Turn 5. The video footage confirmed that there have been yellow flags and green light panels at the same time and therefore conflicting signals were shown to the driver. Taking this into account, the Stewards decide to take no further action."

The clip inevitably caused a stir on social media, as the yellow light panel appeared to be very obvious, making the "conflicting" argument irrelevant.

Naturally it soon came to the attention of Red Bull - the team with the most to gain as a penalty for Hamilton would put Verstappen on to the front row.

PLUS: How reliability overshadowed developments at the Austrian GP

Red Bull sporting director Jonathan Wheatley contacted the stewards and asked if they had seen the 360-degree video. Not only had they not seen it, but nor had they seen any onboard video of Hamilton passing the yellow flag scene.

"Quite simply, we didn't have onboard footage from Lewis's car," said race director Michael Masi (below). "And when we were made aware today quite late in the piece by Red Bull that there was a 360 [video], there was some additional new evidence available, is when it came to our attention.

"So we weren't actually aware that that existed, to be quite honest. It's not something that we knew was there. And obviously, we're quite fortunate that a couple of years ago now the right of review was included within the International Sporting Code."

In other words, decisions can now be challenged. The ISC article in question is 14.1.1, which states: "If [...] a significant and relevant new element is discovered which was unavailable to the parties seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned, the stewards who have given a ruling or, failing this, those designated by the FIA, may decide to re-examine their decision following a petition for review by either one of the parties concerned and/or a party that is directly affected by the decision handed down, or the Secretary General for Sport of the FIA."

Thus the stewards can't revisit a decision unless they are prompted by one of the key FIA executives, or by an affected party. In F1 terms, any team is affected by a decision involving a rival.


"Only the Secretary General for Sport for the FIA can effectively lodge a petition for review by the stewards," said Masi. "Or any of the parties concerned or directly affected by the decision. So the stewards cannot open it up of their own volition from my reading, but it's only those two sorts of separate entities, which is quite clear."

The key requirement is to have a new element of evidence. Red Bull couldn't ask for a review just because it didn't agree with the decision. However the 360-degree video that it brought to the attention of the stewards was clearly relevant.

There was a two-stage process. First the stewards had to look at that evidence and agree that it was new and "significant" and that a review was thus appropriate.

They explained: "The stewards determine that the additional video evidence represents a significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the parties at the time of the competition concerned.

"During the initial hearing, no on-board video footage of car 44 was available to the Stewards. Aston Martin Red Bull submitted 360-degree camera footage from car 44 including the passage of car 44 through the relevant section of the track."

Then they had to consider the impact on their original decision to let Hamilton off the hook.

"We saw that [the review] got used last year to deem that what was raised was not a new and significant element," said Masi. "I think there's been some misquotation that it was a protest from Red Bull. It wasn't actually a protest.

"It was a question that they raised of, is this a new and significant element? Which is why there's actually two separate decisions. That's why the first decision is, is it a new and significant element?

"The stewards determined that yes, it was, and then obviously went into a hearing as a result of that, and determined that effectively if they had had that footage yesterday or last night, they would have come to the same decision that they did prior to the race."

Perhaps the most surprising thing is the fact that the stewards didn't have access to the 360-degree video any earlier, and the unusual chain of events that led to Red Bull submitting it.

"It's actually something that we've been speaking this afternoon with FOM," said Masi. "It's not something that's available live due to bandwidth. Effectively it needs to be downloaded off the car, processed, etc.

"The right of review is there, a new and significant element was raised, it was determined as such and as a result effectively a new hearing was commenced based on that and as we saw the outcome was that a penalty was applied consistent with what we have, which is a three grid spot penalty for failing to slow for yellow flags."

The late timing of the whole saga also made it highly unusual. The first official word that something was going on came with an FIA document timed at 1.33pm - just 97 minutes before the start.

This was a simple notification that the review was happening, and that Mercedes team manager Ron Meadows had been summoned to see the stewards.

In fact the process was already well underway, as the stewards had studied the video. Shortly after that a decision was reached.

As part of the COVID-19 protocols, teams begin the process of going to the grid half an hour earlier than usual to minimise the chances of a human traffic jam at the pitlane gates.

Red Bull took its equipment to second place rather than third, while Mercedes went to the fifth spot, suggesting the teams already knew that the order had changed long before the official process of publishing a decision had been completed.

"Generally, we try to publish the final starting grid an hour before the start of the formation lap," added Masi. "In this case people may have seen on the grid that when the teams were lining up on the grid, which started about an hour before the start of the formation lap, Mercedes went straight to positions one and five.

"From an administrative perspective, obviously the first part that needed to be raised was Mercedes had to have a hearing and due process and be heard on that front.

"From a timing perspective, that decision was made and obviously needed to be reached and then published, and then subsequently, a new grid sheet has to be published as a result, because it may have gone the other way."

The actual formal decision came at 2.29pm. In it, the stewards said: "The new video footage clearly shows that a yellow light panel was flashing on the left side of the track in Turn 5. A green light panel was flashing at the end of marshalling sector 9. Taking into account these facts, the stewards determine that decision 33 will be reversed and the above mentioned penalty is being imposed."

In truth the whole process was cut a bit fine, and Red Bull were fortunate that the video was discovered in time to make a difference. In the end, justice was done, even if Hamilton and the Mercedes team were not very happy.

"I'd say that the cut-off point, the very latest would be when pitlane opens," said Masi. "I would suggest that for all of us we'd much prefer the right decision based on the evidence that we have, and the correct starting grid, rather than being held back by that side of it.

"The stewards in my view made absolutely the right call to do what they did."

shares
comments
AlphaTauri almost retired Gasly from Austrian GP with braking problems

Previous article

AlphaTauri almost retired Gasly from Austrian GP with braking problems

Next article

Mercedes: W11 F1 car design means gearbox troubles "will appear" again

Mercedes: W11 F1 car design means gearbox troubles "will appear" again
Load comments
The ‘backwards step’ that is the right move for Formula 1 Plus

The ‘backwards step’ that is the right move for Formula 1

OPINION: With its days apparently numbered, the MGU-H looks set to be dropped from Formula 1’s future engine rules in order to entice new manufacturers in. While it may appear a change of direction, the benefits for teams and fans could make the decision a worthwhile call

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots Plus

The floundering fortunes of F1’s many Lotus reboots

Team Lotus ceased to exist in 1994 - and yet various parties have been trying to resurrect the hallowed name, in increasingly unrecognisable forms, ever since. DAMIEN SMITH brings GP Racing’s history of the legendary team to an end with a look at those who sought to keep the flame alive in Formula 1

Formula 1
Sep 22, 2021
Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background Plus

Why the 2021 title fight is far from F1's worst, despite its toxic background

OPINION: Formula 1 reconvenes for the Russian Grand Prix two weeks after the latest blow in ‘Max Verstappen vs Lewis Hamilton’. While the Silverstone and Monza incidents were controversial, they thankfully lacked one element that so far separates the 2021 title fight from the worst examples of ugly championship battles

Formula 1
Sep 22, 2021
How F1’s other champion to emerge from 1991 thrived at Lotus Plus

How F1’s other champion to emerge from 1991 thrived at Lotus

Mika Hakkinen became Michael Schumacher’s biggest rival in Formula 1 in the late-90s and early 2000s, having also made his F1 debut in 1991. But as MARK GALLAGHER recalls, while Schumacher wowed the world with a car that was eminently capable, Hakkinen was fighting to make his mark with a famous team in terminal decline

Formula 1
Sep 21, 2021
The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey  Plus

The forgotten F1 comeback that began Jordan’s odyssey 

Before Michael Schumacher – or anyone else – had driven the 191 (or 911 as it was initially called), Eddie Jordan turned to a fellow Irishman to test his new Formula 1 car. JOHN WATSON, a grand prix winner for Penske and McLaren, recalls his role in the birth of a legend…

Formula 1
Sep 20, 2021
The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog Plus

The squandered potential of a 70s F1 underdog

A podium finisher in its first outing but then never again, the BRM P201 was a classic case of an opportunity squandered by disorganisation and complacency, says STUART CODLING

Formula 1
Sep 18, 2021
The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from Plus

The other notable Monza escape that F1 should learn from

OPINION: The headlines were dominated by the Italian Grand Prix crash between Max Verstappen and Lewis Hamilton, who had the halo to thank for avoiding potentially serious injury. But two days earlier, Formula 1 had a lucky escape with a Monza pitlane incident that could also have had grave consequences

Formula 1
Sep 17, 2021
How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum Plus

How Monza only added more questions to F1's sprint race conundrum

With two sprint races under its belt, Formula 1 must now consider its options for them going forward. While they've helped deliver exciting racing on Sundays, the sprints themselves have been somewhat lacking - creating yet another conundrum for F1 to solve...

Formula 1
Sep 16, 2021