2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 08-10 July

[Jolle]

Agree with all of the above, with the exception of the penalty. If he hadn't been told what mode to go to and then how to workaround the issue I'm pretty sure he would have finished much lower down. Rules and rules, he should have been DSQ.

That's not relevant though. The penalties are applied for the infringement, not the thousands of possible permutations that can/might/could have resulted from the infringement

Having considered the matter extensively, the stewards determined the team gave some instructions to the driver that were specifically permitted under technical directive 014-16.

"However, the stewards determined the team then went further and gave instructions to the driver that were not permitted under the technical directive, and were in breach of article 27.1 of the sporting regulations, that the driver must drive the car alone and unaided"

The instruction to change the mode was permitted, the instruction not to use 7th gear wasn't. The fact that he did use 7th gear after that instruction specifically undermines your argument that the instruction directly prevented a failure.

Come on guys, let's try to remain objective here. The main driving force for the baying for blood is because it was Rosberg. It's getting silly in here.

I would go one step further, the message not to use 7th was still good, the instruction, or conformation how he should shift, was the wrong one. "How do I change gear" is not permitted.

[Fulcrum]

It is an interesting situation. I commented in the team thread about the Verstappen promotion being a lose-lose situation for Ricciardo, and it is proving to be the case so far. They're both top quality, it's just the nature of Verstappen's career trajectory is beginning to take the shine off of Ricciardo's.

Seeing the change in Ricciardo's mood is telling though. I think he knows this is a critical situation for his career. He's got nowhere to jump to, unlike Vettel, and no laurels to rest on either. This Red Bull revival was meant to be 'his time', and now his reign is threatened before it began.

It should make for great viewing though. I don't think he's the type to back down from a challenge, so I hope the degree of competition is maintained for their partnership.

Good points raised there.

I also don't see Ricciardo backing down. But he has come out to the press with some negative views about the situation, which automatically backs him into a corner.
There is already precedent within this team of an Aussie ceding ground to a young Germanic prodigy. History seems geared to this lightning striking twice.
And this brings me back to my first point, in Ric not backing down.

2017 offers plenty of opportunity to Red Bull and the chasers to close the gap to Mercedes. If Red Bull do so, and if the championship situation calls for it, will Red Bull allow Ric to race Vers?
It's all very well at present being slower than the Mercs, but when it arises, I see some implications for Ricciardo.
Will they seek their new prodigious poster boy as the De facto unchallenged leader of the team?

True. The young Germanic prodigy was also, generally, quicker than the Aussie (Webber). When the new Aussie arrived, the prodigy wasn't favoured as overtly as before.

If Red Bull see evidence that Verstappen is legitimately quicker, I don't foresee any favours being extended to Ricciardo. Perhaps this is the ulterior motive behind Horner's comments about Verstappen's qualifying performances? In the event of both driver's being equally capable, it wouldn't surprise me if Red Bull sided with the option that generates the most publicity - surely not Ricciardo in that case.

So Ricciardo is fighting the tide at the moment. Behind the scenes, in the garage, on the track, whenever he gets interviewed by Sky hacks who always ask the most clumsily loaded questions. No wonder he's behaving like a cornered animal. He's going to have to correct it soon though, and he'll only feel positive again with some good results.

The slightly jarring thing with Red Bull is the lack of sentiment. They're clearly not nostalgic, highly future focused, which is potentially detrimental in the 'now'. Vettel jumped before he was broomed. Not that I think they would have actually ditched him, but his leaving was probably something they didn't find to be considerably negative. It certainly iterated their development program a few steps fairly painlessly.

Compare that with the approach taken by Ferrari and they clearly sit at opposite ends of the spectrum with respect to the value they ascribe to loyalty and 'goodwill'.

[stuartpengs]

I would go one step further, the message not to use 7th was still good, the instruction, or conformation how he should shift, was the wrong one. "How do I change gear" is not permitted.

Agreed - fair point.

[turbof1]

Interesting that Hamilton got the silent treatment when he had problems with the car in Baku.

This is not the same. Hamilton effectively had a loss of power, but crucially this was not a potentially terminal issue. It just hampered his performance. In that case you are not allowed to help out as a team.

Rosberg had an issue with the gearbox which was potentially terminal. In that case you should be allowed to help the driver to mitigate the issue.

[Jolle]

Interesting that Hamilton got the silent treatment when he had problems with the car in Baku.

To be fair, Hammy is no dope and he doesn't need the hand holding that his team mate seems to need to have a stab at the championship.

I think it was a slipup for his engineer, he should have reacted on the question "do I just shift past it?" With the line "I'm not allowed to say" instead of "yes"

A small penalty, to set the order correct what prob would have been the finishing order if he shifted below 7th gear, with VES catching him, is a good solution.

[ChrisM40]

This whole situation is hateful, and its entirely the FIAs fault.

Agreed. How many DNFs could have been avoided this year if the other teams had just broken the rules to tell their drivers how to fix terminal mechanical problems. For some teams (FI and Sauber come to mind) that could be the difference between being on the grid next year or not.

If it really is a 10-second penalty only then it's...well, I don't think it reflects well on the FIA.

By that i mean the whole f1 rule book is crappy, and this rule is one of the worse.

[turbof1]

For the record: am I right to state the message of avoiding the 7th gear was legal, while the message of telling Nico to shift quickly through it was not?

[Moose]

Once again, Rosberg gets an incredibly light penalty. If he and the team had not broken the rules, he would not have finished the race. The FIA once again show that it's better to break the rules and ask forgiveness later than to follow the rules.

[Restomaniac]

Interesting that Hamilton got the silent treatment when he had problems with the car in Baku.

To be fair, Hammy is no dope and he doesn't need the hand holding that his team mate seems to need to have a stab at the championship.

I think it was a slipup for his engineer, he should have reacted on the question "do I just shift past it?" With the line "I'm not allowed to say" instead of "yes"

A small penalty, to set the order correct what prob would have been the finishing order if he shifted below 7th gear, with VES catching him, is a good solution.

I'm not so sure.
How much time would Rosberg have lost if he had just avoided his top 2 gears over those last 6 laps?

[stuartpengs]

Once again, Rosberg gets an incredibly light penalty. If he and the team had not broken the rules, he would not have finished the race. The FIA once again show that it's better to break the rules and ask forgiveness later than to follow the rules.

That's not correct. At the risk of sounding like a broken record that wasn't why he was penalised. The only other penalty available would have been disqualification, which would be incredibly harsh and set and dangerous precedent for the diver coaching violation. Stewards can't invent penalties.

Jeezo, it's hard work in here.

[langwadt]

Interesting that Hamilton got the silent treatment when he had problems with the car in Baku.

To be fair, Hammy is no dope and he doesn't need the hand holding that his team mate seems to need to have a stab at the championship.

I think it was a slipup for his engineer, he should have reacted on the question "do I just shift past it?" With the line "I'm not allowed to say" instead of "yes"

A small penalty, to set the order correct what prob would have been the finishing order if he shifted below 7th gear, with VES catching him, is a good solution.

but it sets the precedent that ignoring the radio rules only cost 10 seconds

[Jolle]

To be fair, Hammy is no dope and he doesn't need the hand holding that his team mate seems to need to have a stab at the championship.

I think it was a slipup for his engineer, he should have reacted on the question "do I just shift past it?" With the line "I'm not allowed to say" instead of "yes"

A small penalty, to set the order correct what prob would have been the finishing order if he shifted below 7th gear, with VES catching him, is a good solution.

but it sets the precedent that ignoring the radio rules only cost 10 seconds

No it doesn't. Forcing someone off track isn't a standerd penalty. It's in balance with the advantage gained. If they would have been very fair, they would have given him a 20 second penalty. So the gamble to say "yes" would be between a certain 3rth to a second or fourth.

[Jolle]

To be fair, Hammy is no dope and he doesn't need the hand holding that his team mate seems to need to have a stab at the championship.

I think it was a slipup for his engineer, he should have reacted on the question "do I just shift past it?" With the line "I'm not allowed to say" instead of "yes"

A small penalty, to set the order correct what prob would have been the finishing order if he shifted below 7th gear, with VES catching him, is a good solution.

I'm not so sure.
How much time would Rosberg have lost if he had just avoided his top 2 gears over those laps?

Not having the data that the FIA and the teams have, I still guess more then the 1.5 seconds VES was behind him, plus no chance of defending at the back straight.

[turbof1]

I neither believe this is a precedent as we are talking about a very specific case with a very vague line between what is allowed and what's not. There is a difference between "you have to take the apex later to get x tenths out of it" and "avoid 7th gear [to avoid the car breaking down], shift right through it".

[Restomaniac]

I think it was a slipup for his engineer, he should have reacted on the question "do I just shift past it?" With the line "I'm not allowed to say" instead of "yes"

A small penalty, to set the order correct what prob would have been the finishing order if he shifted below 7th gear, with VES catching him, is a good solution.

I'm not so sure.
How much time would Rosberg have lost if he had just avoided his top 2 gears over those laps?

Not having the data that the FIA and the teams have, I still guess more then the 1.5 seconds VES was behind him, plus no chance of defending at the back straight.

Exactly it was 5 laps to go and RIC was 20 secs behind. It may have been tight.