- Joined
- May 8, 2002
- Posts
- 1,265,663
- Reaction score
- 59
0.1km/h. That’s the number that erased Pierre Gasly‘s Monaco Grand Prix podium. A margin so small it wouldn’t register as a rounding error on a motorway speed sign. We took a look at the specific regulations governing the penalties received by Gasly and several others, and it looks like there may be more to Alpine’s complaints.
Gasly was among an unusually large group of drivers penalised for exceeding the 60km/h pit lane speed limit in Monaco, with two separate infringements dropping him from third at the chequered flag to seventh in the final order.
Five drivers were penalised in total, with most found to be just 0.1km/h above the limit, and Gasly’s second infringement registered at 0.4km/h over. Alpine subsequently exercised a Right of Review petition, with mechanics seen measuring the pit lane distance with a trundle wheel after the race.
The Right of Review hearing was scheduled for Thursday (today). Whatever the outcome, the argument Alpine are making deserves to be understood properly.
Speed in the F1 pit lane is not measured by a camera or a gun. The car passes over multiple electronic timing loops embedded in the track surface, and the system calculates its speed based on the time taken to travel that distance.
The formula is really simple here: speed equals distance divided by time. The sensors weren’t malfunctioning. The calibration was fine. The problem was the input.
At Monaco, the pit entry can be cut slightly. There is a kink at the entrance where drivers can effectively continue straight on the right-hand side for a short distance, gaining a few metres.
According to an FIA spokesperson, the measurement begins the moment the first wheel of the car enters the fast lane — in the case of cutting the entry, that would be the front-left wheel. And because the system measures average speed through the pit lane using embedded timing loops and the FIA transponder, all of the infringements ended up being extremely small.
Even a marginally too aggressive cut of the line would shorten the measured distance.
Shorter distance, same time, higher computed speed – even if the car’s actual speed never crossed 60km/h at any point.
Article B1.6.3(a):
Article B1.6.3(a)(iii):
Article B1.6.3(a)(ii):
Alex Albon was warned that the penalties were related to “cutting the line around the Cadillac area,” with a school of thought suggesting the slightly different configuration of the pit exit this year to accommodate an additional F1 team tempted several drivers to stray over the fast lane line as it curves left towards the exit.
The sensors did exactly what they were designed to do. They just measured a shorter path than the one the enforcement methodology assumed.
This is where Alpine’s argument focusses, and this is where they have a point. The FIA’s sporting regulations impose a speed limit. Not a minimum transit time. Not an average-speed-over-assumed-distance limit. A speed limit. If Gasly’s telemetry shows his car never exceeded 60km/h at any point during either pit entry, and The Race understands that this is precisely the case Alpine planned to argue, then the car was within the rule as written. What the timing system logged was a product of a geometry problem, not a speeding car. And those are two different things.
Gasly was unequivocal about it after the race. “I know for a fact that what’s in the car is below the 60km/h,” he said. “I know on both occasions I’ve put it way before the line. That’s probably the most simple setting you can put in a Formula 1 car.”
Right of Review hearings run in two parts: the appealing party must first present “a significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the party seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned,” and if the stewards agree that threshold has been met, a further hearing determines whether the original decision should stand.
The trundle wheel measurement with the car’s telemetry showing actual speed through the entry clears that. But the FIA has a much bigger reason to hold the line: it can really screw up the Monaco results and shows a lack of credibility.
It seems highly unlikely that the stewards would reinstate Gasly to third in this scenario, given that his situation appears to be the same as those of the other drivers who were penalised, and something of a mess would be created by undoing all the penalties served during the race.
That mess is the real problem.
Alpine executive consultant Flavio Briatore said the team “strongly disagrees” with Gasly’s penalties, noting that “these penalties were inflicted to at least four teams on the grid, which makes it a strong case for review.”
He’s right about the strength of that argument. He may be less right about what the FIA will do with it.
Lewis Hamilton, George Russell, Oscar Piastri, and Colapinto were all caught by the same issue. Only Alpine filed even though the likes of Hamilton insisted he wasn’t above the speed limit despite being penalised for the offence.
Russell similarly questioned the FIA’s pit lane technology, telling Sky Sports F1 that he was “on the pit limiter before the line” and released it only “after the line,” adding “clearly there’s a problem in the software.”
If Gasly’s penalties are overturned, the asymmetry with those four drivers becomes a live wound. Their results stand regardless, and the FIA has no mechanism to revisit penalties already served during the race. The governing body knows this. The institutional incentive to deny stage one isn’t cynicism; it’s just an honest reading of what happens next if they don’t.
The deeper problem survives the hearing either way. A gap between what the regulation says and how it is enforced has now been publicly documented, and Monaco’s pit entry made it visible to everyone.
Because pit lane speed is calculated as an average using embedded timing loops and the FIA transponder system, even a tiny reduction in distance can produce an apparent speed gain. And in a sport where enforcement is this automated and penalties this consequential, “apparent” and “actual” need to mean the same thing.
The regulation says speed limit. The car, by all available data, was within it. That question should have a clean answer. We’ll find out what it is soon.
It is worth noting that this is not a new problem: Sebastian Vettel made exactly the same argument at Singapore in 2009, backed by the same telemetry data showing his car never exceeded the limit, and the penalty stood.
Continue reading...
Gasly was among an unusually large group of drivers penalised for exceeding the 60km/h pit lane speed limit in Monaco, with two separate infringements dropping him from third at the chequered flag to seventh in the final order.
Five drivers were penalised in total, with most found to be just 0.1km/h above the limit, and Gasly’s second infringement registered at 0.4km/h over. Alpine subsequently exercised a Right of Review petition, with mechanics seen measuring the pit lane distance with a trundle wheel after the race.
The Right of Review hearing was scheduled for Thursday (today). Whatever the outcome, the argument Alpine are making deserves to be understood properly.
What the Measurement System Actually Does and Where It Broke Down
Speed in the F1 pit lane is not measured by a camera or a gun. The car passes over multiple electronic timing loops embedded in the track surface, and the system calculates its speed based on the time taken to travel that distance.
The formula is really simple here: speed equals distance divided by time. The sensors weren’t malfunctioning. The calibration was fine. The problem was the input.
At Monaco, the pit entry can be cut slightly. There is a kink at the entrance where drivers can effectively continue straight on the right-hand side for a short distance, gaining a few metres.
According to an FIA spokesperson, the measurement begins the moment the first wheel of the car enters the fast lane — in the case of cutting the entry, that would be the front-left wheel. And because the system measures average speed through the pit lane using embedded timing loops and the FIA transponder, all of the infringements ended up being extremely small.
Even a marginally too aggressive cut of the line would shorten the measured distance.
Shorter distance, same time, higher computed speed – even if the car’s actual speed never crossed 60km/h at any point.
Here Are The Regulations on Pitlane Speeding
Article B1.6.3(a):
Article B1.6.3(a)(iii):
Article B1.6.3(a)(ii):
Other Drivers
Alex Albon was warned that the penalties were related to “cutting the line around the Cadillac area,” with a school of thought suggesting the slightly different configuration of the pit exit this year to accommodate an additional F1 team tempted several drivers to stray over the fast lane line as it curves left towards the exit.
The sensors did exactly what they were designed to do. They just measured a shorter path than the one the enforcement methodology assumed.
This is where Alpine’s argument focusses, and this is where they have a point. The FIA’s sporting regulations impose a speed limit. Not a minimum transit time. Not an average-speed-over-assumed-distance limit. A speed limit. If Gasly’s telemetry shows his car never exceeded 60km/h at any point during either pit entry, and The Race understands that this is precisely the case Alpine planned to argue, then the car was within the rule as written. What the timing system logged was a product of a geometry problem, not a speeding car. And those are two different things.
Gasly was unequivocal about it after the race. “I know for a fact that what’s in the car is below the 60km/h,” he said. “I know on both occasions I’ve put it way before the line. That’s probably the most simple setting you can put in a Formula 1 car.”
Stage One Is Where Alpine Win or Lose and Why the FIA Will Resist
Right of Review hearings run in two parts: the appealing party must first present “a significant and relevant new element which was unavailable to the party seeking the review at the time of the decision concerned,” and if the stewards agree that threshold has been met, a further hearing determines whether the original decision should stand.
The trundle wheel measurement with the car’s telemetry showing actual speed through the entry clears that. But the FIA has a much bigger reason to hold the line: it can really screw up the Monaco results and shows a lack of credibility.
It seems highly unlikely that the stewards would reinstate Gasly to third in this scenario, given that his situation appears to be the same as those of the other drivers who were penalised, and something of a mess would be created by undoing all the penalties served during the race.
That mess is the real problem.
Alpine executive consultant Flavio Briatore said the team “strongly disagrees” with Gasly’s penalties, noting that “these penalties were inflicted to at least four teams on the grid, which makes it a strong case for review.”
He’s right about the strength of that argument. He may be less right about what the FIA will do with it.
Lewis Hamilton, George Russell, Oscar Piastri, and Colapinto were all caught by the same issue. Only Alpine filed even though the likes of Hamilton insisted he wasn’t above the speed limit despite being penalised for the offence.
Russell similarly questioned the FIA’s pit lane technology, telling Sky Sports F1 that he was “on the pit limiter before the line” and released it only “after the line,” adding “clearly there’s a problem in the software.”
If Gasly’s penalties are overturned, the asymmetry with those four drivers becomes a live wound. Their results stand regardless, and the FIA has no mechanism to revisit penalties already served during the race. The governing body knows this. The institutional incentive to deny stage one isn’t cynicism; it’s just an honest reading of what happens next if they don’t.
The deeper problem survives the hearing either way. A gap between what the regulation says and how it is enforced has now been publicly documented, and Monaco’s pit entry made it visible to everyone.
Because pit lane speed is calculated as an average using embedded timing loops and the FIA transponder system, even a tiny reduction in distance can produce an apparent speed gain. And in a sport where enforcement is this automated and penalties this consequential, “apparent” and “actual” need to mean the same thing.
The regulation says speed limit. The car, by all available data, was within it. That question should have a clean answer. We’ll find out what it is soon.
It is worth noting that this is not a new problem: Sebastian Vettel made exactly the same argument at Singapore in 2009, backed by the same telemetry data showing his car never exceeded the limit, and the penalty stood.
Continue reading...
