Five hours and 34 minutes after the checkered flag fell at the Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, the result of the Canadian Grand Prix was declared final.

In that time,Max Verstappen,who crossed the line second for Red Bull,had already made it onto his private jet to head back to Europe so he could test a GT car at the Spa circuit in belgium the next day. The majority of the pack-up operation in the F1 paddock was already complete, leaving those still at the track to dodge between freight boxes on their way out in the Montreal darkness.

The lengthy delay between the end of the race and the result being made official was a source of frustration for many.

Fans in Europe would have gone to bed without knowing if George Russell had actually won the race, after Red Bull lodged multiple protests against the Mercedes driver.

The stewards eventually deemed Red Bull’s protests – made on the grounds that Russell had driven erratically behind the safety car and been “unsportsmanlike” by complaining about Verstappen on the radio – to be unfounded. They finalized the race result at 9:10 p.m. local time (2:10 a.m. Monday BST).

Red bull’s protest drew a dim response from Mercedes team boss Toto Wolff, who said in an interview with sky Sports at the premiere of F1: The Movie in New York the following day that the action was “so petty and so small”, before suggesting the protest process may need an FIA review.

“I guess the FIA needs to look at that, because it’s so far-fetched and was rejected,” Wolff said.”(If) You race, you win and you lose on-track. That was a fair victory for us, like so many they had in the past.It’s just embarrassing.”

Red Bull’s protest rationale in the spotlight

Shortly after the protest had been lodged in Canada, Red Bull team boss Christian Horner told reporters in his regular post-race media session that it was within a competitor’s rights to take issues to the stewards – noting it cost €2,000 (£1,487) to do so – and that he was surprised Russell’s actions had not been noted by race control in the first place.

Red Bull argued to the stewards that Russell had driven erratically in his braking during the late safety-car period, resulting in Verstappen momentarily moving ahead of the Mercedes. Russell noted on the radio that the Dutchman had overtaken him, which was the basis of Red Bull’s “unsportsmanlike conduct” claim. it was also unhappy with Russell dropping too far back behind the safety at times – around the 10-car-length rule – but this was ultimately withdrawn and the stewards didn’t rule on it.

None of the above held much water with the FIA-appointed stewards, who said that the kind of braking seen from Russell was vrey normal for cars behind the safety car, notably when drivers are warming up their tires.

They also didn’t feel Russell’s radio message was enough to constitute being unsportsmanlike, nor were his braking habits at the head of the field. Had the former been deemed a breach, it would have opened the floodgates for all routine radio snitching to face scrutiny moving forward.

It wasn’t the first time this season that Red Bull had lodged a post-race protest – and it wasn’t the first time its protest was made against Russell.

At May’s Miami Grand Prix, when Russell finished third, again just ahead of Verstappen, Red Bull claimed that Russell had failed to slow for a yellow flag. It prompted both Wolff and Russell to seek out Horner in the paddock to ask why his team had protested.This was also thrown out by the stewards.

Horner said on Sunday in Canada it was nothing personal against Russell, and a mere coincidence it was his car being questioned once again, and also told Sky Sports at the same movie premiere on monday that there were “no regrets” over the protest, again repeating that it was a team’s right to have done so. “We saw something that we didn’t think was quite right, and you have the ability to put it in front of the stewards,” Horner said. “so, that’s what we chose to do.”

While it may have been Red Bull’s right, the questions over the basis of its complaints may revive the debate about protest rationale in F1.

Zak Brown feels there should be stricter deterrents for F1 teams making allegations against rivals. (Photo: 🔶ZAKBROWNIMAGECREDIT)

On a related matter in Miami,McLaren boss Zak Brown said he thought the FIA needed to change the rules to stop what he called “bogus allegations” around technical matters,having poked fun at a suggestion his team’s current advantage is due to water inside tires somehow helping cool them down. Although Brown did not name Red Bull as having made those allegations, he appeared to make reference to it by saying “one team focuses on that strategy more than others”.

Brown’s suggested solution was to introduce greater financial deterrents for making allegations against other teams on technical matters, saying $25,000 would be a good figure to stop it being a “distraction tactic”. Brown feels this should be deducted from a team’s cost cap figure that is otherwise spent on car growth.

Horner is correct in saying it was within Red Bull’s rights to make its protest against Russell in Canada. The low cost – €2,000 isn’t going to hurt the overall budget of any F1 team – meant it was low effort with a high upside. Potentially, Red Bull could’ve snatched away the race win, even if its argument was flimsy. This played a role in making it a very long evening for the stewards.

If this becomes a recurring habit and leads to more race results being thrown into doubt, the FIA may start to consider if there needs to be more serious deterrents in place to ensure teams are absolutely confident in their arguments.

Why did it take five hours to make the result final?

If nothing else, requiring teams to be all the more certain in their arguments before lodging a protest could help spare the FIA stewards having to work well into the night after a race.

Confirmation of Red Bull’s protest arrived at 5:34 p.m. in montreal,around two hours after the race had finished. By this point, the stewards already had a long list of incidents to adjudicate – and, as of the timing of Red Bull’s protest, the one that would decide the race result itself was at the bottom of the pile.

The stewards always review incidents in the order they occur, meaning the list of decisions before them in Canada that night went:

• Ollie Bearman – alleged unsafe rejoin (warning issued)
• Esteban Ocon – alleged erratic driving (no action taken)
• Lando Norris – causing a collision with Oscar Piastri (meaningless five-second penalty added to Canada race classification)
• Kimi Antonelli, Oscar Piastri, Ocon, Lance Stroll, Charles Leclerc, pierre Gasly, Carlos Sainz – alleged safety-car infringements post-checkered flag (warnings issued to all)
• George Russell – alleged erratic driving and unsportsmanlike conduct (protest dismissed)

For all these incidents, the stewards had to go through a hearing with the relevant parties, analyze footage, consult the rulebook and then hand down their rulings – all of which had to be detailed in the FIA’s decision documents system. For a panel of four stewards, all of them volunteers, it’s a lot to get through at the conclusion of a busy weekend.

while FIA protocols made it understandable why the Russell matter was at the bottom of that list, it was clearly the most important item on it, given it concerned the apparent race winner. Common sense would suggest that it be brought forward and a decision made on Red Bull’s protest as quickly as possible. Instead, everybody was left waiting.

It wasn’t a great look for F1. But one issue that has been regularly highlighted with the current stewarding system is the depth of resources and how much a small panel have to get through when there are multiple incidents, a problem laid bare a couple of years ago with the track-limits debacle in Austria.

The FIA’s stewards rotation system, while preventing possible grudges, does also lead to regular questions over consistency. The move to drop Derek Warwick from the Canada roster over unauthorized media comments will have done little to ease these.

The priority always has to be getting decisions right, not necessarily quickly. Yet in all five cases above, the final call was very cut and dry, as reflected in the stewards’ document. Only one incident resulted in a penalty, with five seconds being added to Norris’ race time – which didn’t mean anything, given he retired from the race.

This affair is the latest to highlight just how critically important it is indeed to have a bolstered, capable stewards’ room that can actively make calls that are both accurate and quick.

More nuanced incidents do,of course,need to take time,but there was little good reason for there to be such a delay between a case concerning the race winner being heard and the resulting decision being announced.

Be it a higher bar for making post-race protests or ensuring there is the bandwidth in place to deal with various matters simultaneously, Sunday night’s wait in Canada will only strengthen calls for improvements to be made to F1’s current stewarding system.