Pierre Gasly’s Monaco podium restored as Alpine win right of review

Pierre Gasly has had his podium at the Monaco Grand Prix restored after Alpine won a right of review.

A hearing from the stewards determined that both of Gasly’s five-second penalties be removed, promoting him to the podium spots and demoting Isack Hadjar.

Pierre Gasly Monaco GP podium restored

Gasly crossed the line third, but the application of a second five-second penalty demoted him to seventh. However, Alpine submitted a right of review questioning the validity of Gasly’s penalties which came as a result of speeding in the pit lane.

Gasly was clocked at going 60.1 km/h, 0.1 km/h over the limit, on his first stop followed by 60.4 km/h on his second, handing him 10 seconds’ worth of penalties from the stewards.

However, evidence provided by F1’s timekeeper FOM admitted there had been an error with the distance measurement in the pit lane where speeds are calculated. The part in question was found to be 77 cm shorter than expected, causing the average speed to be miscalculated.

As such, both of Gasly’s five-second penalties were removed from his time, promoting him back to the podium at the expense of Hadjar who believed he had secured his first Red Bull podium.

Gasly was one of five drivers to be penalised for speeding but the other four – Lewis Hamilton, George Russell, Franco Colapinto and Oscar Piastri – will not have their penalties removed as their teams did not submit a right of review during the 96-hour time period.

In the document presenting their findings, the stewards stated:

“Whilst Car 10 could not have been driven along the ‘theoretical shortest distance’ between the two loops in question, there is still a significant delta in the distance used to calculate the speed and the distance which could be driven by Car 10, and which, from the evidence presented by Alpine, appears to have been driven.

“The Stewards note in particular the Official Timekeeper’s calculation that in the recorded times of Car 10 between the two loops in question (1.604 seconds and 1.602 seconds respectively) if an assumption was made that Car 10 was averaging 60 km/h, the distance travelled would have been 2673 cm and 2670 cm respectively. When these distances are compared to the applied distance of 2692 cm and the theoretical shortest distance of 2615 cm, we conclude that Car 10 was not exceeding the 60 km/h speed limit between those two loops.

“This conclusion is reached even taking into account the car width and the likelihood that the car was not driven on the theoretical shortest route.

More news on PlanetF1.com

George Russell admits F1 2026 title is ‘far out of reach’ after Antonelli surge

Hamilton questions FIA ADUO verdict over Red Bull engine edge

“Critical to the background of the Stewards’ conclusion is the wording of the formula referred to in the Official Timing Report, where reference is made (ref Point 21 above) to “the measured minimum distance between the loops”. In this case, there is merit in Alpine’s assertion that this should be the figure of 2615 cm as measured by the Official Timekeeper.

“The Stewards also conclude that the revised barrier layout at the entry to the pit lane may have enabled drivers to take a different trajectory to that used in previous years.

“The Stewards have sympathy for the argument that many other cars were not reported for exceeding the speed limit, however these two Right of Review petitions relate only to the two penalties that were imposed on the driver of Car 10 for allegedly exceeding the pit lane speed limit.

“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.

“In this case, following the acceptance of the petition, the finding of its admissibility and compliance with Article 14.1.1 of the ISC, the Stewards’ sole task is to determine if Car 10 exceeded the speed limit of 60 km/h in the pit lane. We determine that it did not.”

Read next: Ferrari unleash major Barcelona upgrade as intriguing front wing twist spotted