2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 08-10 July

[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.

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.

I think DSQ would have been a light (though sensible) penalty - it would have caused Rosberg to get exactly the same result as he would have got without breaking the rules.

Arguably, DSQ *and* a grid drop at the following race (in order to disincentivise breaking the rules) would have been the correct one.

[i70q7m7ghw]

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.

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?

He couldn't figure out not to use 7th gear? Really? REALLY? 5 laps and it would have failed? Really? REALLY?

I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. Scrap the rule, it's unenforceable. Same as the team orders rule.

[i70q7m7ghw]

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.

If that's the case, then surely teams can tell drivers what modes to use directly, as a team order?

"Use SRAT 5". no context, it's just an order, that's legal right?

[FrukostScones]

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.

yeah, correct, and also correct that the penalty is not harsh, but c'mon thats not coaching... (coaching would be shift earlier, later , brake whatever, but not : "yes(it won't break down if you just shift through 7th")

[smellybeard]

There are decent arguments and wild arguments.

…and there are no arguments atall. I'm not arguing (nor am I pretending to); I'm presenting my opinion and my opinion is that the stewards are afraid of adverse reaction to proper penalties to deliberate cheating by championship contenders in an era of perceived one-horse racing.

[Jolle]

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.

If that's the case, then surely teams can tell drivers what modes to use directly, as a team order?

"Use SRAT 5". no context, it's just and order, that's legal right?

The "use chassis mode zero" was cleared by the stewards before instructed to Rosberg, and if you read the FIA statement, its what happend after that. The unfortunate "yes"

[jz11]

This communication ruling is turning into a huge farce, so the problem was that the engineer told to shift through it, so what if, when he explained what was wrong with the car, he would have said - you have only gear 1-6 and 8 left, do not use 7, chassis mode ... etc., this doesn't tell him how to drive, but informs about the status of the gearbox. I mean - will you say that the rule was broken if he would have asked - can I still use 8th? and get a yes answer? Shift through means that you have the 8th available, and that doesn't tell how to drive, it simply informs what still works on the car.

IMHO this totally doesn't go together with how liberal they are towards the cars leaving track with all 4 wheels, how frequently it happens and how unfrequently penalties are given for that, and this - basically - matter of language, gets penalized...

I would understand that the whole message would have been the issue - that I totally understand, being stuck in a gear or having lost a gear is a normal problem to have, the whole message let him finish and gain points, when he easily could have done something to the car that would make him DNF.

[turbof1]

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.

I agree it would have been close between those 2. I think given the penalty the stewards felt he would still have finished in front, or it atleast was neither clear cut for them.

[i70q7m7ghw]

This communication ruling is turning into a huge farce, so the problem was that the engineer told to shift through it, so what if, when he explained what was wrong with the car, he would have said - you have only gear 1-6 and 8 left, do not use 7, chassis mode ... etc., this doesn't tell him how to drive, but informs about the status of the gearbox. I mean - will you say that the rule was broken if he would have asked - can I still use 8th? and get a yes answer? Shift through means that you have the 8th available, and that doesn't tell how to drive, it simply informs what still works on the car.

IMHO this totally doesn't go together with how liberal they are towards the cars leaving track with all 4 wheels, how frequently it happens and how unfrequently penalties are given for that, and this - basically - matter of language, gets penalized...

I would understand that the whole message would have been the issue - that I totally understand, being stuck in a gear or having lost a gear is a normal problem to have, the whole message let him finish and gain points, when he easily could have done something to the car that would make him DNF.

But in Baku they couldn't tell the drivers what modes to select on the wheel, but in Silverstone they can, explain this to me please?

[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.

I think DSQ would have been a light (though sensible) penalty - it would have caused Rosberg to get exactly the same result as he would have got without breaking the rules.

Arguably, DSQ *and* a grid drop at the following race (in order to disincentivise breaking the rules) would have been the correct one.

I think you forgot to add "shot at dawn". Also, it wouldn't have, because the onboard showed him using 7th and 8th after the instruction.

[Jolle]

This communication ruling is turning into a huge farce, so the problem was that the engineer told to shift through it, so what if, when he explained what was wrong with the car, he would have said - you have only gear 1-6 and 8 left, do not use 7, chassis mode ... etc., this doesn't tell him how to drive, but informs about the status of the gearbox. I mean - will you say that the rule was broken if he would have asked - can I still use 8th? and get a yes answer? Shift through means that you have the 8th available, and that doesn't tell how to drive, it simply informs what still works on the car.

IMHO this totally doesn't go together with how liberal they are towards the cars leaving track with all 4 wheels, how frequently it happens and how unfrequently penalties are given for that, and this - basically - matter of language, gets penalized...

I would understand that the whole message would have been the issue - that I totally understand, being stuck in a gear or having lost a gear is a normal problem to have, the whole message let him finish and gain points, when he easily could have done something to the car that would make him DNF.

But in Baku they couldn't tell the drivers what modes to select on the wheel, but in Silverstone they can, explain this to me please?

Because the Baku f-up by mercedes wouldn't resulted in a DNF, just in a slightly slower car. The message to Nico (chassis mode zero) was to prevent a DNF. Plus it was cleared by the stewards.

It might be silly rules, but they are implemented the right way.

[Moose]

I think you forgot to add "shot at dawn". Also, it wouldn't have, because the onboard showed him using 7th and 8th after the instruction.

Pffft, give him a fighting chance - sniper in the grandstands at Hungary with instructions to target him.

[i70q7m7ghw]

Because the Baku f-up by mercedes wouldn't resulted in a DNF, just in a slightly slower car. The message to Nico (chassis mode zero) was to prevent a DNF. Plus it was cleared by the stewards.

It might be silly rules, but they are implemented the right way.

So just add something in to the software going forwards that means being in the wrong mode causes the car to DNF, problem solved. The team can then tell the driver what mode to select during the race. Or as I said before, have DNF mode, the drivers changes to this when they aren't sure, then the team can tell them to change to another mode, the correct mode.

In all seriousness, how do we know Rosberg would have retired today?

[jz11]

But in Baku they couldn't tell the drivers what modes to select on the wheel, but in Silverstone they can, explain this to me please?

I understand that gearbox setting might have been interpreted as a safety issue - gearbox brakes down completely in some fast corner - car goes flying into barriers

while the Baku thing was 100% performance issue - driver didn't know what setting to use to get the most out of the car

IMHO there was no coaching here - they simply informed the driver what still worked on the car, and with sequential gearbox there is no real way of getting to 8th unless you shift through 7th

Issue of semantics... English GP - English ruling, and I'm 10000000% sure, that if someone in 12th or 19th position would get this message and as a consequence - be able to hold it against some other driver, no one would pay any attention to it at all.

[turbof1]

There are decent arguments and wild arguments.

…and there are no arguments atall. I'm not arguing (nor am I pretending to); I'm presenting my opinion and my opinion is that the stewards are afraid of adverse reaction to proper penalties to deliberate cheating by championship contenders in an era of perceived one-horse racing.

I don't think it is a question of being afraid. The issue presented to them was very, very ambigious without any past issues which were similar to base whether this was legal or illegal. On the hand you have a rule which does not allow driver aid, but on the other hand you have an exception on said rule that allows communication if the issue is "potentially terminal". Where were they going to draw the line in the sand, again given this situation never has come up before? They took unusually long to make a decision, further indication they examinated very carefully all the elements on the table.

In my eyes: the decision is very well balanced. It neither seems to act as a precedent as they judged a very, very specific case where part of the communication was legal and the other part was not. Neither do I personally believe there is an intent of cheating, as telling Nico avoiding 7th gear was legal, but telling him he had to shift through it was illegal. I think that's way too vague a line to say it's cheating.

The real problem here are unclear rules: what are you exactly allowed to say and do when a car has an issue that can result in a DNF if not taken care of? Poorly described.