What we learned from the Gasly Monaco GP Court of Appeal hearing

After receiving two five-second penalties for pitlane speeding at this year's Monaco Grand Prix, Pierre Gasly and Alpine had successfully appealed against them to secure third place over Isack Hadjar. 

A few months later, following McLaren and Red Bull's submissions to the International Court of Appeal (ICA), the original result at the chequered flag has been reinstated. Gasly's penalties have been added back to his race time and he drops to seventh in the results, as Isack Hadjar reclaims his first podium for Red Bull.

Gasly thus will have to return the third-place trophy to Hadjar, and loses nine points as a result of that drop to seventh following the application of the two five-second penalties. It's worth looking at how we got to this point, and what was presented to the ICA to force the U-turn.

Alpine's initial successful appeal after multiple speeding penalties

For Monaco, a 60km/h pitlane speed limit was set - a lower value compared to the standard 80km/h limit to account for the narrower pitlane layout. Through the course of this year's Monaco Grand Prix, 11 infringements were recorded; during the race, this affected Oscar Piastri, George Russell, Pierre Gasly (twice), and Franco Colapinto. Gasly was the only driver of the four not to serve his time penalty during the race, and instead the penalty was applied to his race time.

Before the race, there was a high incidence of pitlane speeding; five cars were pinged for the offence during practice: Russell, Kimi Antonelli, Fernando Alonso, Alex Albon, and Colapinto. As the document released by the ICA states, four of these breaches were as a result of apparently exceeding the pitlane speed limit in the 'entry loop'.

To govern the speed limit, a series of timing loops is installed in the pitlane and the distance between each measured. The speed is then calculated from the time a driver takes to cross from one loop to the next. This is derived from the measurement of distance over time. 

Pierre Gasly, Alpine, Isack Hadjar, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Erik Junius

FOM, which provides the official timing solutions to F1, measures the minimum distance between each loop. When the speeds were recorded in practice, showing the drivers venturing just beyond the 60km/h limit, a handful of teams felt that their measurements did not correlate to those produced by FOM. However, investigations showed that it was unclear if there was an issue, and no changes were made to the positioning of the loops at the entry of the pitlane. 

This was until the race, and Alpine protested against the penalties served against Gasly as it perceived incorrect measurements had been used by FOM. It argued that the "applied distance" of 2692m needed to cross the second loop was too long and, due to the curvature of the pitlane, a shorter minimum distance of 2615m should have been used. Due to car width, this theoretical minimum would not be possible, but it decreed that Gasly would have travelled 2670m to stay at or below 60km/h, which would account for the width of the car.

As such, the stewards sided with Alpine and deleted his penalties, ensuring that Gasly could lay claim to the third-place trophy.

McLaren and Red Bull disagreed with this decision. Of course, both teams wanted to gain points back, as both Hadjar and Piastri lost points due to Alpine's appeal, but also noted the grounds of "fairness" as all teams were subject to the initial 2692m measurement. 

There is a 96-hour window to signal intent to appeal a decision, which both McLaren and Red Bull were able to reach. Alpine and Racing Bulls became third parties in the procedure, as Motorsport UK also submitted its own observations. 

Red Bull and McLaren submitted their grounds to appeal on 28 July, with the hearing taking place on 25 August. 

Pitlane speed board

Photo by: Marcel van Dorst / EYE4images / NurPhoto via Getty Images

FOM retained "consistent" measurement, but no certainty Alpine took 'estimated' trajectory

The 2692m measurement at the second pit entry timing loop, per FOM's chief engineering and innovation officer Arbi Karapetian, was measured at the start of the weekend by "two experienced FOM officials using a survey tape". Two lines were considered, and the shorter of the two was selected after reviewing them through a Global Navigation Satellite System. This was also checked against previous years' data to ensure it was in the correct ballpark.

Although concerns were raised against the measurement, FOM left it in place for "consistency" after reviewing the data; in theory, teams could set their pitlane speed limiters to account for this. After the race, FOM revisited the measurement and came up with the 2615m measurement using GNSS data, although Karapetian stated that tape-measured distances could not be replicated reliably at the time.

As such, the findings from the stewards' inquiry post-race did apply in that regard, although FOM had no evidence that Gasly had travelled upon that trajectory, nor the 2670m distance needed to keep Gasly below the speed limit. 

Alpine produced a reconstruction of Gasly's pit lane entry using video imagery and car data to demonstrate the path of a CAD model of its A526 chassis. However, the ICA document states that "The reconstruction therefore did not establish the actual distance travelled by Car 10 in either passage with the precision necessary to resolve the difference between the relevant threshold distances."

Alpine says that its own distance calculations used FOM's own GNSS calculations, as presented previously, and its own measurements taken with a laser distance meter and an independent survey, but could not guarantee the veracity of its imagery owing to variables such as "camera lens distortion". 

Isack Hadjar, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / LAT Images via Getty Images

Red Bull, McLaren appeal deemed admissible; FIA, Alpine argue against

Both teams argued thus: when penalties had already been applied to other drivers (McLaren having served Piastri's five-second penalty in-race) for the same breach, walking back on Gasly's penalty was against "sporting fairness".

Furthermore, they argued that the evidence presented to the stewards by Alpine should not have been deemed admissible in the first place, and that the sporting regulations' Article B1.6.3a was applied incorrectly. The argument was that the official timing service should have been the only official metric to determine if a driver was caught speeding, even if there was a quibble with the measurement used for the timing loop.

This was supported by Racing Bulls and Motorsport UK, the latter arguing (as an ASN) that official timing systems could then be appealed against by a team's own recalculation. 

In short, the appellants stated that the timing system was the same for everyone, and that it would be unreasonable for penalties to be applied for transgressing the limit set by them if they could be later overturned.

The FIA stood in favour of the decision made by the stewards, stating that the official timing solution is not the sole arbiter of a pitlane speeding penalty, adding that "it is a competitor’s right to find evidence of any error in the system". 

Furthermore, it is enshrined in the regulations that a team cannot appeal an already-served in-race penalty, and served at the discretion of the teams. The FIA essentially argued here that the teams could have stayed on track, waited for the penalty to be applied post-race, and then appeal against it later. It was also noted that neither team asked for a review post-race in light of their penalties. 

Pitlane atmosphere

Photo by: Shameem Fahath / Motorsport Network

"Sporting unfairness" proven by court, which upholds initial measurements

On reviewing the evidence, the International Court of Appeal found that the 2692m measurement of the timing loops of the pit entry were "not shown to be an inaccurate physical measurement" and that the multiple checks and subsequent usage of the distance throughout all of the sessions were satisfactory. Furthermore, there was no suggestion through the event that the measurement should be changed, neither from FOM, race control, or the stewards.

Additionally, Alpine nor FOM could officially disclose the distance that Gasly had travelled in the pitlane. While 2670m (and for another penalty, 2673m) was presented as the maximum needed to avoid a penalty, there was no evidence that Gasly had taken this route. 

As such, the distance applied to everyone ahead of the Monaco Grand Prix, and all competitors were given the opportunity to calibrate their pitlane speed limiters to satisfy the timing loops used. 

Instead, it took issue with the idea of using one timing loop distance, and then retroactively applying another. Gasly, among the other drivers to pick up penalties, were caught speeding in the measured loop; thus, applying another distance after the race to one competitor was incorrect.

It added that choosing not to serve a penalty granted under one measurement system, then later choosing to appeal against that measurement system, was not justified - especially when the first system is applied to the rest of the field. The ICA also questioned if this could be considered as "new evidence", something needed to provide adequate grounds for appeal, if a new benchmark was applied retroactively.

As such, the original penalties were reapplied, and the appeals based on sporting fairness were upheld - as a competitor was being unfairly held to a different benchmark compared to the other cars on the grid. 

The court decreed that the official timing systems were not infallible, nor immune from a challenge, but stated that "However, what sporting fairness absolutely precludes is the retrospective replacement, after competitors have calibrated and competed against it, of the common event-wide calibration parameter itself by a different geometric or measurement approach for the purpose of re-adjudicating an individual competitor's result."

Alpine and the FIA will also have to pay the other teams' legal costs as a result.