Formula 1 teams have the right to appeal steward decisions, but doing so requires presenting new evidence that has not previously been considered by officials.
The rule has pushed teams to explore every possible avenue in their search for creative, clever, and sometimes surprising material to support their cases.
With McLaren and Red Bull preparing to take their challenge against the 2026 Monaco Grand Prix result to the court of appeal, the history of unusual evidence submissions makes for fascinating reading.
Ferrari was one of the first teams to test the creative boundaries of acceptable evidence, submitting TV punditry analysis during a 2019 Canadian Grand Prix appeal for Sebastian Vettel.
The German driver had received a five-second penalty for re-entering the track in an unsafe manner and forcing Lewis Hamilton wide during that race in Montreal.
Ferrari submitted “video analysis performed by Karun Chandhok for Sky Sports after the race” alongside telemetry, GPS data, and other supporting material to bolster Vettel’s case.
Stewards dismissed the Sky Sports footage, ruling it was “new but not significant and relevant as this is a personal opinion by a third party”, and Vettel remained classified second behind Hamilton.
The 2020 Austrian Grand Prix provided another landmark moment, when 360-degree camera footage initially shared on the official F1 Twitter account became the basis for a Red Bull appeal against Hamilton.
The footage clearly showed a flashing yellow light panel that had not been visible in the single live feed broadcast during qualifying, leading stewards to issue Hamilton a three-place grid penalty less than an hour before the race start.
That penalty promoted Max Verstappen and Alex Albon to second and fourth respectively, with Hamilton classified fifth after the grid drop was applied.
Red Bull pushed further in 2021, commissioning simulator driver Alex Albon to recreate the Copse corner lines from the British Grand Prix using a two-year-old car during a filming day to challenge Hamilton’s penalty.
The team attempted to prove that Hamilton’s speed and trajectory through the corner made a collision with Verstappen inevitable, hoping to secure a harsher punishment after the 10-second race penalty had still allowed the Briton to win at Silverstone.
Stewards rejected the submission, ruling the Albon footage was “not ‘discovered’ but created for the purposes of submissions to support the petition for review”, and the original penalty stood.
Alpine took a far simpler approach in 2022, overturning a post-race 30-second penalty for Fernando Alonso at the United States Grand Prix by pointing to the FIA’s own admission that Haas had filed its initial challenge 24 minutes past the 30-minute deadline.
The French team’s straightforward submission proved decisive, as stewards ultimately agreed that the Haas appeal should never have been permitted, restoring Alonso’s result and dropping Kevin Magnussen back down the order.
McLaren attempted perhaps the most unconventional submission of all in 2023, presenting minutes from an FIA team managers’ meeting to challenge a five-second penalty issued to Lando Norris in the Canadian Grand Prix.
Norris had been penalised for driving unnecessarily slowly behind the safety car in Montreal, with stewards labelling the behaviour “unsportsmanlike driving” and costing him a points finish.
McLaren argued the meeting notes demonstrated an “understanding of the teams that the alleged infringement should not be penalised”, but Williams pushed back, stating there was “no general consensus” among those present.
Stewards ultimately ruled that “discussions, informal ‘gentlemen’s agreements’ etc” did not constitute the kind of significant new evidence required to overturn a ruling, and Norris kept his 13th-place finish.
The history of these submissions shows that teams will leave no stone unturned when fighting for championship points, with the 2026 Monaco appeal set to add another chapter to this fascinating legal saga.