The discrepancy between the official F1 measurement and the possible shorter distance did not mean that the official measurement was incorrect, the court said.
While it was concluded after the race that a shorter line was possible, the court of appeal ruled that “sporting fairness absolutely precludes the retrospective replacement” of an established calibration parameter “by a different geometric or measurement approach for the purpose of re-adjudicating an individual competitor’s result”.
The controversy arose from the fact that there was a 77-centimetre discrepancy between the officially measured distance of the pit lane and the real shortest route a driver could take.
It was established at Alpine’s appeal in June that Gasly had not exceeded the pit-lane speeding limit by this new measurement, which was why the penalty was overturned.
However, McLaren appealed on the grounds of sporting fairness and their own competitive interests, as Piastri had lost two points as a consequence of the situation.
The Australian was one of several drivers who did serve a five-second pit-lane speeding penalty.
The court of appeal verdict rests on the following conclusions:
-
F1 is designated by the FIA to measure the pit-lane speed limit, which is applied by “average speed over the relevant timing sector rather than instantaneous speed”.
-
The distance applied should be the same for each car.
-
Although it was later established that Gasly never exceeded the 60km/h limit over a shorter distance it was possible to take, the “benchmark cannot be retrospectively displaced for one competitor after the competition has been conducted against it”.
-
Although F1 concluded after the event that a shorter distance, measured by a different method, meant it should have selected a different line for its calculation, that did not mean the original calculation was inaccurate of itself.
-
The pit-lane length applied “was physically tape-measured, checked before being entered, used throughout free practice sessions and the race, specifically re-examined when concerns were raised before the race, and reconfirmed again during the race when the stewards sought reassurance. At no point did F1 advise the competitors, race control or the stewards that a different distance parameter should apply”.
-
“The enforcement regime… is workable only if the benchmark against which all competitors calibrate is common, stable and applied equally throughout the competition”.
-
“Once the official timekeeper has established and adopted the distance parameter used… and competitors have been required to calibrate their cars and conduct the competition by reference to that common parameter, sporting fairness and equal treatment require that the parameter remains fixed”.
Alpine said in a statement: “While we disagree with the decision, and still fully maintain that car 10 (Gasly) did not exceed the pit-lane speed limit at any point during the race, the team acknowledges the decision of the judging panel from the recent hearing in Paris.
“While the result is not what we had hoped for, as we feel that we have been unjustly punished, the team is firmly focused on continuing to improve its performance on track and remains in a close and very competitive championship fight.”
McLaren said: “We welcome the decision of the FIA international court of appeal, a decision which provides important clarity for teams and all the sport’s stakeholders and helps protect the integrity of the sport and trust in its regulatory framework.
“Our appeal was not directed at any competitor or at the FIA. It was brought, and pursued to its conclusion, in the interests of the sport and to support the consistent and fair application of the regulations for all participants.”
The court of appeal did not address the question of whether the pit-lane speeding penalties awarded to Ferrari’s Lewis Hamilton, Russell and Piastri were correct under the established measurement, or whether their cars ever physically exceeded the 60km/h limit.
That was not relevant to the bounds of the hearing, which was to address McLaren’s and Red Bull’s protest against the decision to rescind Gasly’s penalty.
Mercedes also contend that Russell never exceeded 60km/h. He was running ahead of Hadjar and Gasly before his first penalty.
He was demoted out of the points because Mercedes failed to correctly serve the penalty at a subsequent pit stop. That offence earned a drive-through penalty which dropped him to 12th place.
Alpine say they have sent the trophy for third place over to Red Bull’s Milton Keynes base, and that they are considering their options as to whether to take the case further.
Their only remaining likely course of action, should they wish to pursue it, would be to go to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.