2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 08-10 July

[Jolle]

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.

I guess they would have looked at the data and came to this conclusion.

[smellybeard]

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.

As far as I can see, Rosberg would not have made it to the flag without the help, so I reckon the punishment should have been complete disqualification from the race and a five place grid penalty (on top of any gearbox penalty he may face) at Hungary.
The kid gloves have to come off. There's too much commercial sensitivity by the stewards to interference in the perceived championship battle.

[Jolle]

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.

As far as I can see, Rosberg would not have made it to the flag without the help, so I reckon the punishment should have been complete disqualification from the race and a five place grid penalty (on top of any gearbox penalty he may face) at Hungary.
The kid gloves have to come off. There's too much commercial sensitivity by the stewards to interference in the perceived championship battle.

You're getting the three messages confused:
- chassis setting 0 was allowed (this made him almost break down)
- don't use seventh gear (because that would make him DNF, allowed)
- yes (on the question, must I shift trough seven) was the bad one. This one didn't make him DNF but faster again.

[stuartpengs]

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.

Again - not the point.

Hypothetical scinario - if Rosberg was found guilty of causing an accident in the first lap of the race which needed (picks driver randomly) Hamilton to stop to change a puncture, and so Rosberg was given a drive through. As a result of Hamiltion having to stop for new tyres he was then later involved in an accident that caused his retirement, yet Rosberg finished 2nd (for example) Had he not been out of position because of the need to change tyres, should Rosberg then be handed a stricter penalty because his actions later resulted in Hamilton not finishing the race? No, of course not - it's ridiculous!

Penalties are apportioned because of the infringement, not the eventual consequences in race order because of that infringement! They don't increase/decrease in severity depending on the eventual outcome x amount of laps later.

[Shooty81]

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.

As far as I can see, Rosberg would not have made it to the flag without the help, so I reckon the punishment should have been complete disqualification from the race and a five place grid penalty (on top of any gearbox penalty he may face) at Hungary.
The kid gloves have to come off. There's too much commercial sensitivity by the stewards to interference in the perceived championship battle.

You understand it completely wrong. They were allowed to instruct him in a way he can make it to the end.

[turbof1]

There is a big misconception that you are not allowed to help the driver out to keep the car from breaking down. You are effectively allowed to do that! That's also what the steward's decision was and what they specifically stated. So the penalty never was going to mirror a DNF as that was prevented legally.

Arguably, the messages after that and crucially the message he had to shift right through it [7th gear], was considered by the stewards to be both illegal and what kept Nico in front of Verstappen. The penalty reflected it fairly what the stewards considered to be the infraction on the rules.

[Jolle]

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.

Again - not the point.

Hypothetical scinario - if Rosberg was found guilty of causing an accident in the first lap of the race which needed (picks driver randomly) Hamilton to stop to change a puncture, and so Rosberg was given a drive through. As a result of Hamiltion having to stop for new tyres he was then later involved in an accident that caused his retirement, yet Rosberg finished 2nd (for example) Had he not been out of position because of the need to change tyres, should Rosberg then be handed a stricter penalty because his actions later resulted in Hamilton not finishing the race? No, of course not - it's ridiculous!

Penalties are apportioned because of the infringement, not the eventual consequences in race order because of that infringement!

It's gaining an advantage, not how good your opponent will do. A penalty isn't the same as payback.

But a measure must be in correlation with the advantaged gained. It must be fair.

[smellybeard]

You're getting the three messages confused:
- chassis setting 0 was allowed (this made him almost break down)
- don't use seventh gear (because that would make him DNF, allowed)
- yes (on the question, must I shift trough seven) was the bad one. This one didn't make him DNF but faster again.

No; I'm not.
I don't think he would have made it home in the points without the "must I shift trough seven" question being answered.

[turbof1]

You're getting the three messages confused:
- chassis setting 0 was allowed (this made him almost break down)
- don't use seventh gear (because that would make him DNF, allowed)
- yes (on the question, must I shift trough seven) was the bad one. This one didn't make him DNF but faster again.

No; I'm not.
I don't think he would have made it home in the points without the "must I shift trough seven" question being answered.

Of course he would have. Ricciardo was 20s down the road. How many seconds are you going to loose by not going higher then 6th gear? That is assuming Rosberg did not fancy his chances on his own and effectively took the decision on his own to quickly go through 7th gear to 8th. Only his 7th gear was broken, all the other gears were still working. It would never have costed him beyond the place to Verstappen.

[Restomaniac]

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.

Again - not the point.

Hypothetical scinario - if Rosberg was found guilty of causing an accident in the first lap of the race which needed (picks driver randomly) Hamilton to stop to change a puncture, and so Rosberg was given a drive through. As a result of Hamiltion having to stop for new tyres he was then later involved in an accident that caused his retirement, yet Rosberg finished 2nd (for example) Had he not been out of position because of the need to change tyres, should Rosberg then be handed a stricter penalty because his actions later resulted in Hamilton not finishing the race? No, of course not - it's ridiculous!

Penalties are apportioned because of the infringement, not the eventual consequences in race order because of that infringement!

Sorry but that is exactly the point. In your argument you are talking about a full race length with numerous cars. This is solely about 1 car with issues and clear usable data on exactly how much an advantage that extra info gained him. Black and white as it can be. Work out how much extra speed Rosberg can carry in 8th gear compared to 6th gear and roll from there.
But now we have a ruling that means that everyone in future now knows that being told in great detail how to fix any problem will get you a maximum of 10 seconds.
This ruling IS going to bite the FIA on the bottom.

[Jolle]

You're getting the three messages confused:
- chassis setting 0 was allowed (this made him almost break down)
- don't use seventh gear (because that would make him DNF, allowed)
- yes (on the question, must I shift trough seven) was the bad one. This one didn't make him DNF but faster again.

No; I'm not.
I don't think he would have made it home in the points without the "must I shift trough seven" question being answered.

Not being able to use 7th and 8th, stuck in 6th, doesn't make you 20 seconds a lap slower. Thats how far 10th place was.

It's a few 100 m you will be driving 280ish instead of 300ish, so it's not too big of a difference. Maybe 2 seconds a lap, maybe 3.

But the FIA have looked at that data for sure.

[i70q7m7ghw]

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

So the infringement was 10 seconds? I'm sorry but where is the consistency? If a car has illegal brake ducts, it's a DSQ, I honestly don't see how this is any different. I don't agree with it by the way, I think the rule needs to be torn up, but rules are rules.

[stuartpengs]

It's gaining an advantage, not how good your opponent will do. A penalty isn't the same as payback.

But a measure must be in correlation with the advantaged gained. It must be fair.

Stewards don't have the authority to unilaterally decide penalties Jolle. They have a selection to choose from and they apportion the appropriate for the violation. There is no 20 second penalty available to them as far as I'm aware. Retrospective penalties are 5, or 10 seconds or disqualification. It would take the most biased of fanboy to suggest disqualification was an appropriate punishment for being told something which he would have had to do anyway. The fact that he still used 7th gear after being instructed to skip it as quickly as possible again shows the dangers of attempting to apply unilateral penalties subjectively. You don't know he wouldn't have finished without that instruction, the evidence suggest he still would have. His retirement-inducing failure was cured under the rules.

[notsofast]

I'm having trouble with the concept that F1 is (a) a driver competition; and (b) a constructor competition; but (c) not a team competition. Team members are not allowed to help each other out. We're far removed from the days when one driver gave up his car to his team member. My opinion: abolish this rule altogether and let the teams say what they want. If teams want to build a car that is too difficult for one person to understand by himself, no problem. If teams want to hire a driver who doesn't know how to drive the car by himself, no problem. In my opinion, it should be a team sport.

The other extreme would be to get rid of the pit wall and disallow all communications to the drivers. The driver decides when to come in, and the driver decides which tires he wants. Although that option might be more fun, I suspect that it would have too many safety implications. And teams would find a way around it anyway.

[smellybeard]

Of course he would have.

What's his top speed in sixth gear on the rev limit? How many seconds a lap would he have been hobbled by that limit? He would have lost out massively.
Anyway, crime pays - for the second week in a row.