2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 08-10 July

[turbof1]

@Diesel: a car having illegal brake ducts is a violation on the technical rule book, while this event is a violation the sporting rule book. A violation on the technical rule book will always, ALWAYS end with a DSQ. A violation on the sporting rule book depends on the judgement of the stewards. But a violation on technical rule book has always been consistent. The nature of the sporting rules do not allow for one single type of penalty.

[i70q7m7ghw]

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.

"Potentially terminal"... how far does that definition stretch? What if the drivers simply chuck the car in a mode that will cause it to fail every time they need help, then the team MUST help them?

My opinion is there was nothing terminal about Rosberg's issue, it was a performance issue. Ayrton Senna finished the 1991 Brazilian GP in 6th gear and he won, because he found a way as a driver to workaround the issue.

[Restomaniac]

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.

I agree about Rosberg trying his luck but it depends on his mind set.
On the one hard he may try it. However he may think 'I have 1-6' I can creep home from here.
Let us remember that there were 5 laps to go so it would have needed 4 seconds a lap. His brakes and tyres would have stared cooling down quickly when he couldn't use them as much as he normally would.
I would guess it would be tight. As well as his engine wear for bouncing off the rev limiter in 6th for large parts of the lap.

[stuartpengs]

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.

How he was told to cure the gearbox issue wasn't why he was penalised. Do you understand that simple concept?

[turbof1]

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.

That's the beauty of it: these gears are quite off the rev limit. They usually shift around 11-12k rpm, while the rev limit is at 15k rpm. It means your top speed is still relative decent in 6th gear, but probably more fuel consuming. He would probably only have lost out on the straight. So let's blow this out of proportion.

[FoxHound]

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.

"Potentially terminal"... how far does that definition stretch? What if the drivers simply chuck the car in a mode that will cause it to fail every time they need help, then the team MUST help them?

My opinion is there was nothing terminal about Rosberg's issue, it was a performance issue. Ayrton Senna finished the 1991 Brazilian GP in 6th gear and he won, because he found a way as a driver to workaround the issue.

There was clearly an issue with the car, where you could see the problem even without Rosberg's radio comms.

[smellybeard]

That's the beauty of it: these gears are quite off the rev limit. They usually shift around 11-12k rpm, while the rev limit is at 15k rpm. It means your top speed is still relative decent in 6th gear, but probably more fuel consuming. He would probably only have lost out on the straight. So let's blow this out of proportion.

Are they… hmm.
They are at some circuits - it's the nature of the single homologated ratio sets they use these days - but not everywhere. What you don't seem to understand is that your speculation is no more valid than mine, so it's of absolutely no value as an argument.

[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.

"Potentially terminal"... how far does that definition stretch? What if the drivers simply chuck the car in a mode that will cause it to fail every time they need help, then the team MUST help them?

My opinion is there was nothing terminal about Rosberg's issue, it was a performance issue. Ayrton Senna finished the 1991 Brazilian GP in 6th gear and he won, because he found a way as a driver to workaround the issue.

I'm sorry, but Senna's issue was different. He was effectively stuck in 6th gear, meaning he no longer could shift. I think the situation was clear cut as he could not do anything else then continue in 6th gear. Rosberg on the other hand had a gear to avoid.

The stewards btw did decide it was potentially terminal. If not, he would have been punished across the whole line of messages. Now he is only punished for being told that he had to shift through 7th.

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.

I agree about Rosberg trying his luck but it depends on his mind set.
On the one hard he may try it. However he may think 'I have 1-6' I can creep home from here.
Let us remember that there were 5 laps to go so it would have needed 4 seconds a lap. His brakes and tyres would have stared cooling down quickly when he couldn't use them as much as he normally would.
I would guess it would be tight. As well as his engine wear for bouncing off the rev limiter in 6th for large parts of the lap.

That's a fair assessment, but on the other hand: how are you going to materialise hypothetical performance loss and engine wear?

[Restomaniac]

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.

How he was told to cure the gearbox issue wasn't why he was penalised. Do you understand that simple concept?

He needed help to understand he could shift through 7th.
Without that help he has 2 choices.
1 try to shift thought it and hope his box doesn't go bang.
2 use 1-6 and creep home as best he can.

Only Rosberg knows which he would pick, the stewards need to question if that extra info helped Rosberg make that decision.

Nobody is questioning the team correctly telling Rosberg how to reset.

[FrukostScones]

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.

just reading this makes me think the regs and reg makers are nuts.

"you can shift through seventh (without braking the car)"..
gets him the penalty...
pathetic rules on technical problems (and dangerous too)

[turbof1]

That's the beauty of it: these gears are quite off the rev limit. They usually shift around 11-12k rpm, while the rev limit is at 15k rpm. It means your top speed is still relative decent in 6th gear, but probably more fuel consuming. He would probably only have lost out on the straight. So let's blow this out of proportion.

Are they… hmm.
They are at some circuits - it's the nature of the single homologated ratio sets they use these days - but not everywhere. What you don't seem to understand is that your speculation is no more valid than mine, so it's of absolutely no value as an argument.

It's about being reasonable: he would certainly have lost the place to Verstappen, it would have been tight whether he lost the place to Ricciardo, but it is downright unlikely he would have lost more place then that, let alone drop out of the points. So what you on yourself do not understand is how rediculous it is to claim Rosberg would loose out any points, when number 10 was I believe over 100s down the road. There are decent arguments and wild arguments.

Also mind that fuel rate is only allowed to reach the max of 100kg/h at 12,500 rpm, which makes going far beyond 12,500 rpm a waste in normal circumstances. I have never ever seen these cars reach 15,000 rpm. Not even 14,000 rpm.

[stuartpengs]

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.

How he was told to cure the gearbox issue wasn't why he was penalised. Do you understand that simple concept?

He needed help to understand he could shift through 7th.
Without that help he has 2 choices.
1 try to shift thought it and hope his box doesn't go bang.
2 use 1-6 and creep home as best he can.

Only Rosberg knows which he would pick, the stewards need to question if that extra info helped Rosberg make that decision.

Nobody is questioning the team correctly telling Rosberg how to reset.

Right, so you can't apply an additional penalty on the premise that the gearbox might have failed had he not been told to shift through 7th. I'm not arguing with the penalty of 10 seconds, it's perfectly reasonable for the violation of driver coaching which was a slam-dunk. What I despair at is the notion he should be given an additional penalty (which isn't even available to the stewards), based on what 'may' have happened without the driver coaching violation. It's nothing more than speculative conjecture, doubly irksome as we wouldn't be having this conversation if it was Hamilton (or many other drivers) in this situation.

[Shooty81]

But let's have a look at next race: Rosberg will probably need a new gearbox, right?

[Jolle]

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.

just reading this makes me think the regs and reg makers are nuts.

"you can shift through seventh (without braking the car)"..
gets him the penalty...
pathetic rules on technical problems (and dangerous too)

If that would of been the message, there prob wouldn't be a penalty. But it wasn't.
TEAM: avoid using seventh gear (permitted)
ROS: can I shift trough 7? (Question, also permitted)
TEAM: yes (and thats where they go wrong, thats coaching)

But it's a first offence, in the end of a race with a small advantage which is corrected by the penalty. Good job by the stewards.

[Restomaniac]

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.

I agree about Rosberg trying his luck but it depends on his mind set.
On the one hard he may try it. However he may think 'I have 1-6' I can creep home from here.
Let us remember that there were 5 laps to go so it would have needed 4 seconds a lap. His brakes and tyres would have stared cooling down quickly when he couldn't use them as much as he normally would.
I would guess it would be tight. As well as his engine wear for bouncing off the rev limiter in 6th for large parts of the lap.

That's a fair assessment, but on the other hand: how are you going to materialise hypothetical performance loss and engine wear?

I mentioned engine wear because it would have been a question Rosberg would have needed to think about.

As for the timing, I'm pretty certain a quick look at Rosberg telem would have told the stewards when it first appeared. It would have told them his top speed in 6th. It would have told them when on the lap he actually entered 7th and 8th with the extra speed and time it gained him.
You then roll that forward until the chequered flag. I'm not say RIC would have caught him but I bet it would be close.