Formula 1® teams have long sought ways to challenge steward decisions and race penalties, often turning to inventive sources of evidence to support their appeals. Recent years have seen a variety of creative approaches, ranging from video analyses by pundits to simulator recreations and social media footage. These efforts highlight the lengths teams will go to protect their race results within the strict framework set by the FIA.
According to a review of incidents between 2019 and 2023, teams such as Ferrari, Red Bull Racing, Mercedes, Alpine, McLaren, Haas, and Williams have all been involved in appeals that relied on unusual types of evidence. For example, Ferrari once used a video analysis by Sky Sports pundit Karun Chandhok to dispute Sebastian Vettel’s penalty at the 2019 Canadian Grand Prix. However, this was rejected by the stewards as it was considered a third-party opinion rather than new evidence.
Red Bull Racing has been particularly active in this area. At the 2020 Austrian Grand Prix, they successfully used 360-degree camera footage from social media to appeal a penalty against Lewis Hamilton, which resulted in a grid penalty for the driver. The following year, they attempted to bolster an appeal against Hamilton’s penalty at the 2021 British Grand Prix by submitting a simulator recreation performed by Alex Albon. This was ultimately dismissed by the stewards because the evidence was created after the event and was not deemed genuinely new.
Other teams have also explored different avenues. Alpine managed to overturn Fernando Alonso’s 30-second penalty at the 2022 United States Grand Prix by demonstrating that Haas’s appeal had been lodged too late, based on FIA timing records. Meanwhile, McLaren submitted minutes from an FIA team managers’ meeting to support an appeal against Lando Norris’s penalty at the 2023 Canadian Grand Prix. This appeal was rejected because informal discussions do not qualify as new evidence under FIA rules.
The FIA requires that any appeal must be supported by new evidence that was not previously considered during the race weekend. This rule ensures that appeals are based on fresh information rather than reinterpreted or previously available data. As a result, teams have become increasingly creative in their search for such evidence, but the stewards maintain strict criteria when evaluating these submissions.
These examples illustrate the balance between teams’ efforts to safeguard their competitive interests and the regulatory framework designed to uphold fairness and consistency in Formula 1®. While some appeals have led to changes in penalties, others have been dismissed, reflecting the challenges teams face in meeting the FIA’s standards for new evidence.
Overall, the use of unconventional evidence in penalty appeals shows how Formula 1® teams continuously explore every possible angle to influence steward decisions. This dynamic adds an additional layer to the sport’s complex regulatory environment, where technical data, timing, and even social media content can play a role in shaping race outcomes.
