Silverstone stewards explain why Oscar Piastri was given a 10s penalty for erratic braking under the Safety Car during today's Grand Prix.

When the clerk of the course declared that the safety car was coming in that lap and the lights were extinguished, Piastri suddenly braked hard (59.2 psi of brake pressure) and reduced speed in the middle of the straight between T14 and T15, from 218 kph to 52 kph, resulting in Max Verstappen having to take evasive action to avoid a collision.

This momentarily resulted in the Red Bull driver unavoidably overtaking Car 81, a position which he gave back immediately.

Article 55.15 of the FIA Sporting Regulations required the Australian to proceed at a pace which involved no erratic braking nor any other manoeuvre likely to endanger other drivers from the point at which the lights on the safety car are turned off.

According to the stewards what Piastri did was clearly a breach of that article and in accordance with the penalty guidelines imposed a 10 second time penalty, along with 2 penalty points (giving him a total of 6 for the 12 month period).

Speaking immediately after the race Piastri refused to comment for fear of saying the wrong thing and incurring further punishment. However in the cool down room ahead of the podium ceremony he insisted that he braked at exactly the same time the lights went out on the Safety Car.

"The Safety Car seemed like it was called in a bit late," Zak Brown told Sky Sports. "The leader controls... I think Max accelerated, Oscar braked, which made it look worse than it was," he added.

"The telemetry didn't look like it looked on TV," he insisted. "But it is what it is. I think any time you get into these penalties, there's an element of subjectivity. I think when they're pounding on the brakes, they're 130-140 PSI, so trying to get temperature in the tyres, it's wet, late call... a close one."

"We certainly gave our input to the race director, especially related to the fact that we thought the Safety Car was called in relatively late," said team boss Andrea Stella. "This didn't give much space for the leading driver to actually take control of the group and go with the restarting procedure.

"We think overall that the penalty has been harsh," he added, "but we will review the data. As usual, we will see if there's any learning from that.

"At the moment, there's not much we can do. We just have to take it on the chin.

"A tough one for Oscar because he drove very well today. But it's just mid-season. There are many more opportunities and I think this will give Oscar more motivation."

Check out our Sunday gallery from Silverstone here.

LATEST NEWS

more news >

LATEST IMAGES

galleries >

Click to go to the main galleries section

READERS COMMENTS

1. Posted by Ricardo_sanchez, 10/07/2025 22:37

"@Kenji - I don’t think intent is relevant here because Article 55.15 imposes a strict requirement: no erratic driving once the safety car lights go out. The stewards didn’t need to establish whether Piastri intended to brake erratically, only that he did.

Turning to the issue of precedent; is there another recent example involving such heavy braking which is comparable to this one? "

Rating: Positive (1) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

2. Posted by kenji, 09/07/2025 2:59

"In all this debate there remains two unanswered questions. Did the Stewards establish 'intent' and secondly, did they base their decisions on 'precedent'? To date I've seen no argument that satisfies either of those criteria. If IMO, they have satisfied both those queries that Piastri was guilty then McLaren should still have pursued an appeal to show support to their N01 driver [ leading WDC ] To strip a driver of place is bad enough but the winning driver makes it worse. Piastri drove a superb race and was never headed. The only time that Norris hit the front was after Piastri sat motionless in the pits for 10secs! I do feel that he was played somewhat by Verstappen but that is only an opinion and not proved."

Rating: Negative (-1) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

3. Posted by Spindoctor, 08/07/2025 11:04

"@West York - maybe. That's Sport...."

Rating: Neutral (0) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

4. Posted by West York, 07/07/2025 20:58

"@Spindoctor - And of course Oscar wouldn't have known that Max would have to be within 5 car lengths behind him, likely on the racing line, or that Max would have somewhat limited visibility in spray and might have to over-shoot if he braked hard & potentially incurring a penalty?
No. Wouldn't have crossed his mind at all!"

Rating: Neutral (0) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

5. Posted by Spindoctor, 07/07/2025 10:53

"I suppose we have to accept the penalty, as it's clear that novice driver Max wouldn't have known that the lead driver would be trying to warm his brakes and also decelerating to get a decent gap to the pace car. He also wouldn't have realised that following Piastri's wheel tracks might be a bit dangerous for him....."

Rating: Negative (-4) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

6. Posted by JamesD, 07/07/2025 9:14

"@kenji - It was the stewards that imposed the penalty, nothing to do with McLaren. McLaren want to win the constructors championship and do not care which driver wins.

McLaren could question the steward's decision but not really appeal it as safety car infringements - especially by the race leader - are never rescinded or the penalty reduced. I certainly can't remember this happening.

And - not directed at yourself - before anyone starts say the 'British' stewards were biased, there were 4 stewards that made the decision and only 1 of them is British.

Yes, I'm a Lando supporter but I would be happy to see McLaren win the constructors championship this year and don't care if Oscar or Lando win the drivers title."

Rating: Positive (5) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

7. Posted by kenji, 07/07/2025 7:41

"@ Superbird70. I fully agree with your summary. Oscar outqualified Norris and the went on to dominate the race. Piastri drove superbly in atrocious conditions. The wrong driver is still heading the WDC and McLaren will do anything they can to ensure a Norris win. It was a hollow victory for Norris and should be seen as such. A win by anything less that 10 secs is proof of that, IMHO."

Rating: Negative (-4) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

8. Posted by ffracer, 07/07/2025 2:17

"Sorry, for those that think that McLaren hung Piastri out to dry, I agree with the others that Oscar hung himself with that move. McLaren brass knew better to argue on his behalf and promptly "take it on the chin" rather than pull a Horner RB assault on the FIA, even when it is most obvious to the world that he is trying to catch the FIA in a hasty ruling. Kudos to Brown and Stella there. In my view, the leader has the responsibility and the right to control the pace in a safe and prudent manner. He's lucky that Max didn't ram the back of him and destroy both their races... visions of Coulthard/Schumacher Spa collision in that torrential spray, quickly came to mind. Hadjar/Antonelli crash showed how bad the spray was today... well done to all driving Silverstone in the most tricky conditions. Hats off to Max driving with that tiny Monza wing and Hulkenberg getting his first well deserved podium, driving like a champ!"

Rating: Positive (7) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

9. Posted by Superbird70, 06/07/2025 22:25

"@WEST YORK- McLaren hung Piastri out to dry. Zak Brown wasn't convinced it was penalty, during the race and in the post race interviews, but they chose to cave instead to guarantee Norris the win.

Even with a double penalty for ignoring the time penalty, Piastri would have been only 20 seconds back, well clear of Hulkenberg in third.

It says a lot that McLaren wouldn't even make a show of protesting to support Piastri. Piastri did make a mistake but I think McLaren made a bigger one not protesting. I think we can throw 'Papaya Rules' out the window going forward."

Rating: Negative (-9) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

10. Posted by West York, 06/07/2025 21:41

"@GREG - If they had not served the penalty at the pit stop then they would have still had the 10 sec applied post race and a further penalty for not complying with the original penalty.

If Oscar hadn't pitted for new tyres then Lando would have passed him on his fresh rubber, and Oscar would still have had the 10 secs applied at race end.

Either way Lando would have most like won, and the chance of any appeal lodged for Oscar being successful, very, very slim.

McLaren don't care who won, just as long as they got the 1-2. If they wanted to ensure that Lando won, then they would have pitted him ahead of Oscar to ensure that he got the undercut, not the other way round - he was after all the de facto leader - where as Lando lost time having to pit a lap later, through no fault of his own.

What cost Oscar the race was his own (intentional or not) on track action - nothing more, nothing less."

Rating: Positive (7) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

11. Posted by Schrodinger's cat, 06/07/2025 21:26

"The real issue with Article 55.15 is that it doesn't define what erratic braking is, so it's completely subjective.

It's about time that the behaviour of the leading driver behind the safety car was defined more tightly, in terms of braking, accelerating and minimum and maximum speeds.

There's been far too many accidents and incidents, after the safety car lights have been turned off, because of the behaviour of the leading driver.

Leaving it to the drivers is unfair, because they don't have as much information as Race Control, and stupid because it should not be up to the drivers to infer what the rules mean. It's like being told to drive at a safe speed (highly subjective), but fined for speeding, when they didn't even define a speed limit!

Could Piastri accurately determine whether or not his actions were likely to endanger other drivers, given the spray, limiting his view behind him?"

Rating: Positive (4) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

12. Posted by Obsidian, 06/07/2025 19:47

"I am an Oscar fan, but the penalty was deserved. He dropped 103 MPH due to the hard braking. IMO, he was trying to get a penalty or Max, and it backfired."

Rating: Positive (9) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

13. Posted by Greg, 06/07/2025 19:36

"@ Superbird70. Fully agree. They should have held station not do the penalty and then sought the claim. They didn't appeal when they should have. Cost Oscar the race. British team British driver. Don't like the colonials showing up better"

Rating: Negative (-5) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

14. Posted by Superbird70, 06/07/2025 18:24

"No support for Piastri from McLaren. They could have ignored the penalty, protested and brought their evidence like the other teams do. We would have had to wait an hour or so for official results but at least they would have done right by Piastri.

With the constructors championship all but wrapped up it looks like they may be backing Norris for the driver's title. The next races will be interesting when Piastri and Norris get wheel to wheel."

Rating: Negative (-4) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

Stewards explain Piastri penalty

LATEST NEWS

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST IMAGES

POST A COMMENT

Post your comment

READERS COMMENTS

Share this page