Red Bull's protest against George Russell for failing to slow under yellow flags has been rejected.

Following the publication of the Provisional Classification for the Miami Grand Prix, Red Bull filed a Protest against Car 63 (George Russell). Red Bull claimed in its protest that Russell had not complied with the regulations regarding a single yellow flag (Article 26.1 a) of the FIA Formula 1 Sporting Regulations by not slowing down in a single yellow flag zone. The parties were summoned and heard. The following persons were present during the hearing:

On behalf of Red Bull: Stephen Knowles, Gianpiero Lambiase
On behalf of Mercedes: Ron Meadows, George Russell
On behalf of the FIA: Olivier Hulot

2. None of the parties requested the hearing of additional persons or requested conducting further investigations.

Admissibility

3. The Stewards find that the Protest is admissible as all requirements of Article 13 of the FIA International Sporting Code have been fulfilled.

4. The Hearing of the Protest then proceeded.

The Claims of Red Bull

5. Red Bull claimed that, while Russell lifted the throttle when the yellow flag was displayed, it did not reduce speed and therefore has not complied with the requirements of Article 26.1 a) of the Sporting Regulations.

6. In their mind "discernibly reduced speed" as required by the regulations means passing the yellow flag zone at an absolute speed which is lower than the speed before entering the yellow flag zone.

7. They stated that Max Verstappen, the driver running directly behind Russell had done that.

Mercedes' arguments in defence:

8. Mercedes argued that the common practice accepted by all teams and the FIA was and still is that significantly lifting the throttle in a yellow flag zone is considered as an appropriate reaction and they therefore complied with the relevant regulations.

9. Russell stated that he saw the single yellow flag and the stranded car next to the track and therefore significantly lifted the throttle to react to the yellow flag.

10. The team further argued that the lift by Russell was more significant than what was observed from other cars.

Conclusions of the Stewards

11. It was evident from the onboard footage as well as from telemetry that Russell lifted the throttle when passing the yellow flag zone. The throttle was lifted by approx. 25 percent and this resulted in a reduction of torque of approx. 30 percent.

12. Article 26.1. a) requires the driver to have "discernibly reduced speed" in a yellow flag zone but does not specify if that means reducing the absolute speed or reducing the speed relative to the regular racing speed in the relevant part of the track.

13. Russell's speed in the yellow flag zone was considerably slower than the regular racing speed, but the absolute speed while passing through the yellow flag zone increased slightly.

14. The Stewards determined that the requirement of Article 26.1 a) concerning the reduction of speed in a yellow flag zone can only relate to a reduction relative to the regular racing speed as the reduction of the absolute speed can, depending on the part of the track in which the yellow flag is displayed, represent a compliance or a non-compliance with the regulations whereas a reduction of the relative speed always signals that the driver has acknowledged and respected the yellow flag. For instance, in a braking zone the absolute speed can be reduced without necessarily complying with the regulations.

Decision

15. The Protest is rejected as it is not founded.
16. The Protest Deposit is forfeited.