Is there a ‘fair’ way to undo the Monaco penalties madness?

That’s just a classic Formula 1 mess, isn’t it? The championship built on perfection and precision, measured to the third digit after the decimal point both literally and figuratively, has descended into complete chaos because of a tiny error measured in just seven dozen (77, to be precise) centimetres.

Alpine’s right of review request over the outcome of the Monaco Grand Prix delivered a somewhat unexpected result – although it became almost inevitable following the admission from Formula One Management, which also acts as the championship’s official timing supplier, that the pitlane speed measurement system had been working inaccurately.

Yet the stewards’ decision to reinstate Pierre Gasly’s third place by cancelling his two penalties left many in the paddock shocked, or at least puzzled, as it hardly made the updated Monaco classification appear any fairer.

To some extent, it actually pushed the outcome in the opposite direction. Gasly’s eventual podium appeared to be a reward for the fact that many of his rivals – unlike Pierre – actually reacted to what now evidently were incorrectly issued penalties. And, as a result, got punished for it.

So it comes as no surprise that other teams – Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes – whose drivers now appear to be the biggest losers, are exploring ways to seek justice.

There’s one issue. Reaching a conclusion that reflects some form of said justice for everyone is impossible. There is literally no ideal way of getting out of this hole now. The question is whether there is any way to rectify the other penalties too, as Monaco stewards did with Gasly’s.

Arguably, there is one particularly thorny way of doing it – and that is by reducing the race times of drivers affected by the incorrect penalties in the final classification.

Brace yourself. It’s going to be complicated. And highly speculative.

In what can now only be described as the ‘provisionally final classification of the Monaco Grand Prix’, Gasly sits third with an overall time of 2h23m51.612s, 20.369s behind race winner Kimi Antonelli. Isack Hadjar is fourth, 3.025s behind the Alpine driver, with Oscar Piastri another 0.867s further back. George Russell remains 12th, 43.353s behind Antonelli, and – crucially – 19.959s behind Hadjar.

That’s exactly where all of them finished on the road. But with the 10 seconds added for his two penalties, Gasly was initially classified seventh. Following Alpine’s successful right of review, he gained those 10 seconds back – but Piastri and Russell, meanwhile, got nothing. Because the former had already served his penalty during the race, while the latter attempted to do so, failed and earned another penalty as a result.

In their final verdict in Alpine’s case, the stewards outlined: “The Stewards note that in relation to other cars that were penalised, some served their penalty and this regrettably, impacted their race strategies and therefore their race result. There will undoubtedly remain questions as to whether those breaches were genuine. There is no regulation that gives the Stewards the power to ‘undo’ a served penalty. In any case, it is impossible to imagine how such power could be applied. Notably, no other party petitioned for a Right of Review within the allowable time frame.”

‘Regrettably’ is a very fitting word.

Formally, it has not been established that either Piastri’s or Russell’s penalties were even unjustified. The Monaco stewards only had to deal with Gasly’s case, because Alpine was the only team that requested a review. Therefore, the timing supplier’s admission that there had been an error with the pitlane setup only gave the stewards grounds to revisit Gasly’s penalties – and, crucially, not those issued to other drivers.

Logic suggests that if Gasly was caught “speeding” in the Monaco pitlane without actually speeding, then Piastri’s and Russell’s penalties were also issued incorrectly. But neither McLaren nor Mercedes challenged them at the time.

Yet the outcome of Alpine’s review unquestionably left them puzzled. Because if Gasly’s penalties are now cancelled, how on earth does it make sense to leave the other drivers punished?

That is perhaps the most fascinating aspect of this entire saga. If the race result was built on faulty data, can you really restore one driver while leaving everyone else’s distorted race untouched?

There is an interesting debate over whether a fairer solution could still be found – one that would also make the final result more equitable for the drivers who reacted to penalties that should arguably never have existed in the first place.

One potential answer would be to reduce their overall race times by an amount equivalent to what they lost because of those penalties.

What would that look like?

Piastri effectively lost a position to Gasly only because McLaren decided to pit Oscar for a second time in the race – presumably and most likely to eliminate the threat of a five-second penalty being added to his race time. The Australian pitted under the safety car following Lance Stroll’s crash, remained stationary for five seconds and cleared the penalty. But doing so allowed Gasly to move ahead in real time, as Alpine opted not to pit.

If you remove those five seconds from Piastri’s race time, he immediately jumps ahead of both Hadjar and Gasly in the classification.

Would that be fair? Not entirely, no. He was ahead of Gasly before serving the penalty, but still behind Hadjar. Hadjar would effectively become collateral damage in a situation he played no role in creating. Would that satisfy McLaren, though? Most likely. Is that what they’re asking for with their appeal? Still unclear.

George Russell, Mercedes, Isack Hadjar, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Andy Hone/ LAT Images via Getty Images

Dealing with Russell’s situation would be even more complicated.

His initial five-second sanction turned into a drive-through penalty after Mercedes failed to serve it correctly during the race. And the drive-through came in arguably the most unfortunate circumstances imaginable – as George had to serve it immediately after the standing restart following the red flag.

However, there is one line in the Sporting Regulations that at least provides a useful benchmark. It’s Article B1.9.6.c.iii, which deals with cases where drivers have no time to serve their penalties during the race itself.

It states: “If any such penalty is not served before the end of the TTCS [Total Time Classified Session], thirty (30) seconds will be added to the elapsed time of the driver concerned in the case of a Stop-and-Go Penalty, or twenty (20) seconds will be added in the case of a Drive-Through Penalty.”

That is perhaps the single most relevant point Mercedes could rely on.

Russell effectively served a penalty which only existed because an earlier penalty – one that may itself have been incorrectly issued – was not served correctly. And the FIA’s own regulations consider a drive-through penalty to be worth 20 seconds.

If you grant those 20 seconds back to Russell in the final classification, he ends up just in front of Hadjar – with a margin of 0.041s! An important note: there were two other drivers penalised for the same pitlane speeding infringement during the race – Lewis Hamilton and Franco Colapinto.

Hamilton served his penalty in the same way Piastri did. Colapinto, like Gasly, did not and was demoted post-race to 14th instead of the 12th place where he finished on the road. Returning five seconds to either driver would not dramatically alter the classification. Hamilton would remain second, as his final gap to Antonelli was still 6.271s. Colapinto would still end up outside of top-10.

Isack Hadjar, Red Bull Racing

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Sutton Images via Getty Images

Following that logic, the final classification would read as follows: Antonelli and Hamilton remain first and second, Piastri moves to third ahead of Gasly, Hadjar drops to sixth, while Russell moves up to fifth – with Liam Lawson, Arvid Lindblad, Alex Albon, Esteban Ocon and Fernando Alonso all moving down one position.

That would certainly be the best possible outcome for Mercedes, with Russell scoring 10 points instead of none after what was a disastrous weekend – and it would also slightly reshape the championship battle.

Sounds like a mess, doesn’t it?

Yes. But right now there is virtually nobody in the paddock who understands how this story will ultimately end.

There is no clear procedure in the regulations that would make all of these potential adjustments legally straightforward, simply because there is no precedent to rely on and too many unanswered questions.

But it is increasingly clear that granting Gasly a Monaco podium upset far too many people in the paddock.

There is one fundamental issue with the Frenchman receiving that trophy (which he still hasn’t received, as Red Bull is understood to be unwilling to hand it over until the final outcome is clear). If the process of revising the Monaco Grand Prix result was supposed to pursue justice – as it arguably should in an ideal world – then reinstating his third-place finish on the road may have very little to do with that objective.

There is no doubt Gasly drove an outstanding race. Qualifying best of the rest was an excellent effort. Overtaking Lando Norris at the start and putting himself in contention for a strong finish was equally impressive. But none of that changes the fact that had the timing system been functioning correctly, he would probably never have been in realistic contention for a podium in the first place.

Lewis Hamilton, Ferrari, George Russell, Mercedes, Pierre Gasly, Alpine

Photo by: Andrej Isakovic / AFP via Getty Images

Gasly was running well behind Russell, Piastri and Hadjar before the penalties truly started affecting the race. Yet he somehow ended up ahead of all three in the final classification.

No wonder the decision came as a shock.

Piastri summed up the situation perfectly in Barcelona.

“It’s just very tough to know what’s right,” he said. “Because I kind of see that they’ve admitted that there was something wrong with the pit lane. But when you’ve got five or six cars penalised for that. I wasn’t speeding either. And then you change one penalty and you don’t have the possibility to change all the others.

“It creates a very, very tough situation for everybody. We’ve obviously lodged our intention to appeal it.

“For me, it’s not really about the points or whatever. It’s more just I don’t think that’s really how we should be looking through things. And it sets a very awkward precedent. Because now it incentivises finishing where you want on track, not taking penalties. And then arguing about it later. Rather than having the race result when we should.”

It is impossible to predict what happens next. At this point almost no solution seems entirely off the table – even, as one paddock insider joked, simulating the race with AI and recalculating the result without the penalties.

Joking aside, there is still uncertainty over how McLaren, Red Bull and Mercedes can make their cases in challenging the outcome. There are also questions over whether there is still a legal route to change the results, given that more than a week has passed since the chequered flag fell in Monaco.

And even if there is, how much longer can this still drag on?

Because among the challengers there is also little agreement on what the outcome should actually be. Mercedes and McLaren would probably favour compensating their drivers through revised race times. Red Bull, meanwhile, would likely prefer Gasly’s reinstatement to be overturned entirely, allowing Hadjar to keep the podium.

Oscar Piastri, McLaren

Photo by: Anni Graf – Formula 1 via Getty Images

In Russell’s case, there’s an additional complication too – rival teams may argue that his drive-through penalty was the result of Mercedes’ own communication error, which led to the team failing to serve the original penalty correctly.

Still, an outcome in which all affected drivers receive some form of compensation is not entirely off the table, meaning the Monaco podium could yet change again.

Could it be that instead of sending the third-place trophy to Enstone, Red Bull will be ordered to ship it to Woking instead?

There is one unavoidable problem, though. Once strategy, pit stops and race positions have all been influenced by penalties based on incorrect data, there is simply no way to reconstruct what the race would actually have looked like.

And there’s an obvious following question.

How does any of this make sense?

And the only reasonable answer is… that none of it does.

We want to hear from you!

– The Autosport.com Team