
Martin Brundle has described the fallout from Pierre Gasly’s Monaco Grand Prix podium reinstatement as ‘a mess with no easy solution’, after Alpine’s successful Right to Review reopened one of Formula 1’s most awkward recent officiating disputes.
Gasly had crossed the line in third place in Monaco before being demoted to seventh once penalties were added to his race time. Five drivers were reprimanded by the stewards for pit lane speeding incidents, but four had already served their penalties during the race. Gasly had not, allowing Alpine to challenge the penalty applied to its driver after the chequered flag.

Alpine’s appeal was accepted, restoring Gasly to third place and stripping Isack Hadjar of what had been his second Formula 1 podium. The decision has now prompted further action, with Red Bull, McLaren and Mercedes all understood to have filed appeals against the outcome. McLaren’s position has already been formalised, with the team appealing Gasly’s reinstated Monaco result in a separate development covered here: McLaren appeals Pierre Gasly’s Monaco podium reinstatement.
Writing in his Sky Sports F1 column, Brundle said the situation had become both complex and uncomfortable because the treatment of in-race and post-race penalties had produced different consequences for different drivers.

‘That’s a very complicated and uncomfortable decision,’ Brundle wrote. ‘Other drivers in Monaco had served their penalties and adjusted strategies accordingly, and Russell’s race was destroyed, but because they were not post-race penalties nothing was changed for them retrospectively in the results.’
He added that the appeals from Mercedes, McLaren and Red Bull were inevitable given the competitive damage involved, while Ferrari had less reason to object because the outcome cost Mercedes and McLaren points.
Brundle’s sharpest concern is the precedent this case may create. If teams believe marginal in-race penalties can be better contested after the race, the incentive to serve them immediately becomes less clear.
‘This also sets a precedent of not serving marginal in-race penalties to preserve the right to contest them post-race,’ he wrote. ‘It’s all a mess with no easy solution.’
The controversy began when multiple pit lane speeding offences were reported to the stewards. Brundle explained that the FIA was not relying on the conventional dashboard speed reading, but on a timing loop method.
‘It turns out one of the timing loops in the Monaco pit lane was 77cm shorter than calibrated hence lots of 60.1kph recordings when the limit was 60kph,’ he said.
According to Brundle, the issue had been the subject of correspondence since first practice, and some teams adjusted their limiters. He suggested crucial information had not been properly passed between the FIA and the stewards.
‘There was clearly something amiss with so many identical offences, and it’s surprising that the stewards hadn’t been made aware,’ Brundle added.
With Formula 1 now turning towards the Austrian Grand Prix at the Red Bull Ring in two weeks’ time, Brundle expects the Monaco story to keep running. His conclusion was blunt: lessons will be learned, but the sporting and procedural damage is unlikely to disappear quickly.

He’s a software engineer with a deep passion for Formula 1 and motorsport. He co-founded Formula Live Pulse to make live telemetry and race insights accessible, visual, and easy to follow.
Comments (0)
No comments yet
Be the first to share your thoughts!
Loading posts...