Piastri penalty: Horner draws parallels with Russell in Canada

Oscar Piastri lost the victory at the British Grand Prix after receiving a 10-second penalty for erratic braking behind the safety car. A decision that is causing debate within both teams, especially when compared to a similar incident involving George Russell and Max Verstappen in Canada, which went unpunished.

What the commissioners criticized Piastri for

The incident occurred at the end of the 21st lap, just after the safety car lights went out. Piastri, leading the pack, suddenly braked between turns 14 and 15, reducing speed from 218 km/h to 52 km/h with a braking pressure measured at 59.2 psi. Behind him, Max Verstappen was forced to take evasive action to avoid hitting him. He briefly overtook him before giving back his position, as the regulations require.

The stewards deemed this braking as a clear violation of Article 55.15 of the FIA sporting regulations, which prohibits any behavior considered erratic or likely to endanger other drivers after the safety car lights are out. As a result, the Australian driver received a 10-second penalty and two points on the super license.

In his post-race interview, Piastri expressed his confusion about the penalty, noting that his maneuver was identical to the one made during the previous restart: “I pressed the brakes. At the same moment, the safety car lights went out, which was also extremely late. And then obviously, I didn’t accelerate because I can control the pace from there. And you saw the result. I didn’t do anything different from my first restart. I didn’t go slower. I didn’t do anything different,” he insisted.

A similar situation… but a different approach in Canada

The parallel with the Canadian Grand Prix was immediate. There too, Verstappen had been briefly forced to overtake George Russell under a safety car, after a braking maneuver considered sudden by the Mercedes driver. Red Bull had filed an official protest, accusing Russell of erratic driving and unsportsmanlike behavior. After several hours of analysis and hearings, the stewards nonetheless rejected the Austrian team’s complaint. Toto Wolff had, moreover, described the protest as petty and embarrassing, considering that it simply had no reason to be.

However, a fundamental element distinguishes the two cases, which led to different outcomes: The braking pressure. Indeed, Russell had braked with 30 psi, compared to 59.2 psi for Piastri. For the stewards, this difference made the Silverstone case clearer and more severe, hence the penalty.

Returning to the Russell case, Christian Horner, Red Bull’s team principal, did not hide his annoyance regarding the different treatment of these incidents: “I was not surprised to see him (Piastri) receive a penalty. It’s what we expected. It was probably more surprising that George didn’t receive one in Montreal, to be honest,” he said.

With this statement, Horner mainly highlights the lack of consistency between two decisions made in very similar circumstances. If Piastri’s action deserved a sanction, then Russell’s at Montreal should have been treated the same way, thus questioning the stewards’ criteria of assessment and suggesting that the severity of a maneuver is sometimes judged arbitrarily or too contextually.

Verstappen also expressed his surprise at seeing Piastri penalized, citing his own case as an example: « I found it strange that suddenly Oscar was the first to receive 10 seconds for that. This situation has happened to me several times. » Indeed, he mainly questions the timing when the stewards chose to crack down, while comparable cases had been “tolerated” until now.

McLaren criticizes the timing

On McLaren’s side, the frustration was as much about the decision itself as it was about how the restart was handled.

Andrea Stella, the team director, strongly criticized the late timing at which the race management recalled the safety car. « We certainly shared our opinion with the race management, particularly regarding our belief that the safety car was recalled relatively late. This didn’t give much room for the leading driver to take control of the group and proceed with the restart procedure. »

For Stella, this sudden recall drastically reduced the usual restart zone, where the leader manages the pack. In such a constrained space, Piastri was therefore forced to brake more aggressively to carry out his usual restart rhythm management maneuver, which may have made him appear erratic.

Zak Brown, CEO of McLaren, also felt that the penalty did not accurately reflect the facts. According to him, the telemetry did not show the same level of danger perceived visually. Brown even suggested that Verstappen’s acceleration, combined with Oscar’s braking, may have amplified the appearance of Piastri’s deceleration, making the situation appear more dramatic than it was in terms of raw data: « The safety car seemed to have been recalled a little late. The leader controls… I think Max accelerated, Oscar braked, which made things worse than they were. The telemetry did not look like what it appeared on TV. », he explained.

However, the Woking team did not file an official complaint to contest this penalty. Despite their disagreement, McLaren made a pragmatic choice because a protest would have required time and resources without any guarantee of success. The team likely preferred to take satisfaction in the fact that one of its drivers, Norris, won the race, and the team achieved a historic one-two finish at Silverstone, a result that largely offset the disappointment related to Piastri’s penalty.

Immediate consequences and broader questions

This penalty cost Piastri the victory, who was leading the race before the intervention of the stewards. Norris, his teammate, took advantage of it to win at home. In the championship, the Australian’s lead has been reduced to eight points.

But beyond the result, this episode reignites the endless debate on the consistency of decisions made by F1 authorities. Why is one penalized and not the other, for almost identical incidents? Is it solely a matter of numbers, or context? And above all, at what point does subjectivity outweigh the written rule? Even with the precise data justifying the penalty given to Piastri, disagreements persist.

In any case, the incident serves as a reminder that the margin for interpretation remains significant. The stewards deemed Piastri’s braking to be excessive during a critical phase, whereas Russell’s, considered more moderate, did not warrant a penalty. The Silverstone case simply demonstrates that consistency in the application of rules remains a point of contention, and that each situation continues to be judged on a case-by-case basis.