The FIA has offered a clear explanation as to why a Red Bull protest against Mercedes' George Russell after the Miami Grand Prix was rejected.
Verstappen finished fourth at the Miami International Autodrome, one place and 2.312s behind Russell. A virtual safety car had compromised the four-time F1 champion's bid for a podium behind the dominant McLaren duo of Oscar Piastri and Lando Norris.
However, Red Bull sought to promote Verstappen to third by lodging a protest against Russell for not reducing his speed during a yellow-flag period at one stage during the race. Verstappen had radioed through to suggest as such.
Red Bull hinted late in the race that it would take action against Russell when it ordered Verstappen to try and remain within five seconds of the British driver. A five-second penalty would have demoted Russell behind Verstappen.
During the protest hearing, Red Bull claimed that although Russell lifted the throttle when the yellow flag was displayed, he did not reduce speed, so failing to comply with the requirements of Article 26.1 a) of the FIA sporting regulations.
The rule states that in a single-waved yellow-flag period, "any driver passing through a waved yellow-flag marshalling sector must reduce their speed and be prepared to change direction.
"For the stewards to be satisfied that any such driver has complied with these requirements, they are expected to have braked earlier and/or discernibly reduced speed in the relevant marshalling sector."
Red Bull suggested that “discernibly reduced speed” should be interpreted as passing the yellow-flag zone at an absolute speed lower than the speed before entering the yellow-flag zone.
Mercedes argued that the common practice accepted by all teams and the FIA was, and still is, that significantly lifting the throttle in a yellow-flag zone is considered an appropriate reaction, as performed by Russell. The team also suggested Russell had lifted more than Verstappen had observed.
In response, the stewards concluded that, from onboard footage and the telemetry from Russell's car, it was evident that he "lifted the throttle when passing the yellow-flag zone. The throttle was lifted by approx. 25 per cent, and this resulted in a reduction of torque of approx. 30 per cent."
In addition, a statement added the relevant article in the sporting regulations "requires the driver to have 'discernibly reduced speed' in a yellow-flag zone, but does not specify if that means reducing the absolute speed or reducing the speed relative to the regular racing speed in the relevant part of the track.
"The speed of car 63 [Russell] in the yellow-flag zone was considerably slower than the regular racing speed, but the absolute speed while passing through the yellow-flag zone increased slightly.
"The stewards determine that the requirement of Article 26.1 a) concerning the reduction of speed in a yellow-flag zone can only relate to a reduction relative to the regular racing speed as the reduction of the absolute speed can, depending on the part of the track in which the yellow flag is displayed, represent a compliance or a non-compliance with the regulations whereas a reduction of the relative speed always signals that the driver has acknowledged and respected the yellow flag.
"For instance, in a braking zone, the absolute speed can be reduced without necessarily complying with the regulations."
On that basis, the protest was rejected, with Red Bull's €2,000 deposit for launching the protest forfeited.
Most read
In this article
Join the conversation!