The British Grand Prix at Silverstone delivered its usual dose of high-speed drama and unpredictable conditions. However, beyond the race results, a post-event debate has emerged, centered on a controversial penalty handed to McLaren driver Oscar Piastri during a Safety Car period. The incident and the subsequent ruling have prompted pointed remarks from the Red Bull camp, specifically Max Verstappen and Team Principal Christian Horner, who drew comparisons to a seemingly similar scenario involving Mercedes` George Russell earlier in the season.
The incident in question occurred on lap 21. As the Safety Car prepared to enter the pit lane, race leader Oscar Piastri was deemed to have slowed suddenly. This action, intended to control the restart pace, prompted the stewards to investigate. The ruling eventually resulted in a 10-second time penalty for Piastri, significantly impacting his race outcome and costing him a potential victory, which ultimately went to his teammate Lando Norris.
Speaking after the race, reigning champion Max Verstappen, who was immediately behind Piastri when the braking occurred and subsequently had a brief spin, voiced his bewilderment. “I only found out after the race that he got one (a penalty),” Verstappen noted. He added that he has encountered similar situations previously without penalties being issued. “I just find it strange that suddenly now Oscar is the first one to receive 10 seconds for it.”
This sentiment was strongly amplified by Christian Horner. The Red Bull Team Principal stated he was “not surprised” by Piastri`s penalty, implying that the action warranted investigation. However, he followed this by remarking it was “probably more surprising that George didn`t get one in Montreal, to be honest with you.” This is a clear reference to an incident at the Canadian Grand Prix where Red Bull protested George Russell`s driving behind the Safety Car, a protest that was ultimately rejected by the stewards.
The technical basis for the differing decisions lies in the specifics of driver input. Stewards noted that Piastri applied 59.2 psi of brake pressure during his sudden slowdown, a figure deemed excessive and erratic under the rules. In contrast, the stewards` decision rejecting Red Bull`s protest against Russell in Canada cited a maximum brake application of only 30 psi by the Mercedes driver, which was considered within acceptable parameters.
While Horner suggested Piastri`s action contributed to unsettling Verstappen before his spin, Verstappen himself attributed his off-track moment more directly to the inherent challenges of his low-downforce car setup in the damp conditions and attempting to get temperature into cold tyres.
McLaren leadership, naturally, viewed the penalty as stringent. Oscar Piastri felt the ruling was harsh, emphasizing that he had executed the restart procedure in the same manner as the first Safety Car restart earlier in the event. He specifically highlighted the timing of the Safety Car lights going out as being “extremely late,” arguing this limited the leader`s ability to manage the speed effectively before the restart point.
Both McLaren CEO Zak Brown and Team Principal Andrea Stella publicly supported Piastri`s view. Brown acknowledged the subjectivity inherent in such penalty decisions and pointed to the challenging conditions and late Safety Car call as mitigating factors. Stella reiterated the team`s communication with race control regarding the late timing of the Safety Car`s return and concluded that, from McLaren`s perspective, the penalty felt unduly harsh given the context.
The contrasting views and the comparison drawn by Red Bull figures highlight a recurring theme in Formula 1: the challenge of ensuring absolute consistency in stewarding decisions, particularly under dynamic and high-pressure situations like Safety Car restarts. While technical data informs rulings, the perception of fairness and uniformity remains a point of discussion among teams and drivers.
Gilbert Pendleton 
Wesley Dunham