2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 08-10 July

[LionKing]

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?

Why would they do that?? The team orders are legal, they will just directly tell the driver....

[Restomaniac]

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.

You do know that everything is a 'may' have happened when any choice is made right?
The rule is an ass in that it's stuck with the current rules of 5 seconds, 10 seconds or DQ as its only outcomes. The chance of a DQ over any radio message are slim to none. So everyone now knows (Today clarifies it) that a radio instruction will get you 10 seconds even if it gains you 20/30/40/50 seconds over a race.

Good work FIA.

I'm not picking on Rosberg as you clearly think. Sorry.

[Jolle]

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.

If you want to risk that, yes, but gaining an advantage trough that is quite tough. Just think back to 2005, the one tire rule, which you could change if they were damaged. Nobody as far as I can remember intentionally damaged their tires to be able to make a stop.
Baku was for now the first time in 3 years of these complicated PU's that they loaded the wrong map, not a recurring problem.
Or do you want the "you're not allowed strat 5 now lewis" back again?

[turbof1]

You do know that everything is a 'may' have happened when any choice is made right?
The rule is an ass in that it's stuck with the current rules of 5 seconds, 10 seconds or DQ as its only outcomes. The chance of a DQ over any radio message are slim to none. So everyone now knows (Today clarifies it) that a radio instruction will get you 10 seconds even if it gains you 20/30/40/50 seconds over a race.

Good work FIA.

I'm not picking on Rosberg as you clearly think. Sorry.

I don't think this acts as a precedent. Even if that's the case, the precedent in my eyes is that the punishment has to be relative to the advantage gained, and not a standard 10s penalty. Even a stop and go can be quantified and turned into a time penalty for that matter, so there the range of options to punish is broad enough.

[Restomaniac]

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.

Thats the problem though as another has said 10 secs or DQ is all they had.
As much as it's twisted by gears (pun intended) the FIA's rules have backed the stewards into a corner on this.
No way is a radio message going to get you a DQ so from now on a radio message that gets you an advantage of 20/30 seconds will cost you 10 secs post race.

Good job FIA.

[Jolle]

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.

You do know that everything is a 'may' have happened when any choice is made right?
The rule is an ass in that it's stuck with the current rules of 5 seconds, 10 seconds or DQ as its only outcomes. The chance of a DQ over any radio message are slim to none. So everyone now knows (Today clarifies it) that a radio instruction will get you 10 seconds even if it gains you 20/30/40/50 seconds over a race.

Good work FIA.

I'm not picking on Rosberg as you clearly think. Sorry.

Oh lighten up. It was a first offence, not just for Rosberg/Mercedes but for the whole field and almost a slip of the tongue. It was corrected.

At the beginning or during the race, there a more measurements the stewards can take. So early on in the race, they are less limited.

And this will be talked and reviewed during the drivers and sporting directors meeting in Hungary, what the next step will be after this "warningshot" and when and what kind of penalties will be applied.

[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.

Thats the problem though as another has said 10 secs or DQ is all they had.
As much as it's twisted by gears (pun intended) the FIA's rules have backed the stewards into a corner on this.
No way is a radio message going to get you a DQ so from now on a radio message that gets you an advantage of 20/30 seconds will cost you 10 secs post race.

Good job FIA.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that to be correct. They have 5s, 10s, 20s and can even quantify a drive through or stop 'n go and convert it into a time penalty. Next to the DSQ of course.

[Moose]

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.

Thats the problem though as another has said 10 secs or DQ is all they had.
As much as it's twisted by gears (pun intended) the FIA's rules have backed the stewards into a corner on this.
No way is a radio message going to get you a DQ so from now on a radio message that gets you an advantage of 20/30 seconds will cost you 10 secs post race.

Good job FIA.

Aside - Rosberg finishing has actually caused him some pain. Unless he's at the 5 race limit, he'll eat a gearbox penalty next race that he wouldn't have eaten if he'd DNFed.

[i70q7m7ghw]

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.

Thats the problem though as another has said 10 secs or DQ is all they had.
As much as it's twisted by gears (pun intended) the FIA's rules have backed the stewards into a corner on this.
No way is a radio message going to get you a DQ so from now on a radio message that gets you an advantage of 20/30 seconds will cost you 10 secs post race.

Good job FIA.

How can you quantify the advantage gained though? They are saying that the message prevented Rosberg from retiring, so surely that's a massive advantage? but then it's a 10 second penalty so... he only gained a few seconds per lap?

In summary, the message was to prevent a DNF so it was okay, but the penalty reflects the advantage gained, which was to prevent a DNF, so he get's 10 seconds... REALLY?

[Restomaniac]

You do know that everything is a 'may' have happened when any choice is made right?
The rule is an ass in that it's stuck with the current rules of 5 seconds, 10 seconds or DQ as its only outcomes. The chance of a DQ over any radio message are slim to none. So everyone now knows (Today clarifies it) that a radio instruction will get you 10 seconds even if it gains you 20/30/40/50 seconds over a race.

Good work FIA.

I'm not picking on Rosberg as you clearly think. Sorry.

I don't think this acts as a precedent. Even if that's the case, the precedent in my eyes is that the punishment has to be relative to the advantage gained, and not a standard 10s penalty. Even a stop and go can be quantified and turned into a time penalty for that matter, so there the range of options to punish is broad enough.

Im sorry but teams are going to be all over this in the future. It's always been thus unfortunatly.

[turbof1]

You do know that everything is a 'may' have happened when any choice is made right?
The rule is an ass in that it's stuck with the current rules of 5 seconds, 10 seconds or DQ as its only outcomes. The chance of a DQ over any radio message are slim to none. So everyone now knows (Today clarifies it) that a radio instruction will get you 10 seconds even if it gains you 20/30/40/50 seconds over a race.

Good work FIA.

I'm not picking on Rosberg as you clearly think. Sorry.

I don't think this acts as a precedent. Even if that's the case, the precedent in my eyes is that the punishment has to be relative to the advantage gained, and not a standard 10s penalty. Even a stop and go can be quantified and turned into a time penalty for that matter, so there the range of options to punish is broad enough.

Im sorry but teams are going to be all over this in the future. It's always been thus unfortunatly.

Like that has stopped the FIA from dealing penalties inconsistently. Teams don't decide on the penalties they are getting. The FIA does. The teams can only appeal decisions (and have a very low succes rate winning the appeal against the FIA).

[Restomaniac]

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.

Thats the problem though as another has said 10 secs or DQ is all they had.
As much as it's twisted by gears (pun intended) the FIA's rules have backed the stewards into a corner on this.
No way is a radio message going to get you a DQ so from now on a radio message that gets you an advantage of 20/30 seconds will cost you 10 secs post race.

Good job FIA.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't believe that to be correct. They have 5s, 10s, 20s and can even quantify a drive through or stop 'n go and convert it into a time penalty. Next to the DSQ of course.

That wasn't how Brundle understood it.

[stuartpengs]

You do know that everything is a 'may' have happened when any choice is made right?
The rule is an ass in that it's stuck with the current rules of 5 seconds, 10 seconds or DQ as its only outcomes. The chance of a DQ over any radio message are slim to none. So everyone now knows (Today clarifies it) that a radio instruction will get you 10 seconds even if it gains you 20/30/40/50 seconds over a race.

Good work FIA.

I'm not picking on Rosberg as you clearly think. Sorry.

The rules need some work, I don't think there any question there. Though on the other hand I think we all agree the last thing we want to return to is drivers being told to lift-and-coast, or that they should do this, that or the other at a specific part of the track to be quicker, as their teammate is doing. The general direction of the radio restrictions is a positive, and for the most part have worked reasonably well. I personally think the punishment fits the crime today, we have no idea how much time Rosberg would have lost, though given the fact he continued to use 7th and 8th gear after the instruction would suggest none, certainly not enough for Max to pass, or he would have in a heartbeat given half a chance - so looking at it objectively the simple confirmation to push past 7th gear today has cost Rosberg valuable points in the Drivers' Championship. Disqualification would have been grossly unfair (and I'm no Rosberg fan), and would have created more problems than it solved going forward.

[Restomaniac]

I don't think this acts as a precedent. Even if that's the case, the precedent in my eyes is that the punishment has to be relative to the advantage gained, and not a standard 10s penalty. Even a stop and go can be quantified and turned into a time penalty for that matter, so there the range of options to punish is broad enough.

Im sorry but teams are going to be all over this in the future. It's always been thus unfortunatly.

Like that has stopped the FIA from dealing penalties inconsistently. Teams don't decide on the penalties they are getting. The FIA does. The teams can only appeal decisions (and have a very low succes rate winning the appeal against the FIA).

That's true.

[i70q7m7ghw]

You do know that everything is a 'may' have happened when any choice is made right?
The rule is an ass in that it's stuck with the current rules of 5 seconds, 10 seconds or DQ as its only outcomes. The chance of a DQ over any radio message are slim to none. So everyone now knows (Today clarifies it) that a radio instruction will get you 10 seconds even if it gains you 20/30/40/50 seconds over a race.

Good work FIA.

I'm not picking on Rosberg as you clearly think. Sorry.

The rules need some work, I don't think there any question there. Though on the other hand I think we all agree the last thing we want to return to is drivers being told to lift-and-coast, or that they should do this, that or the other at a specific part of the track to be quicker, as their teammate is doing. The general direction of the radio restrictions is a positive, and for the most part have worked reasonably well. I personally think the punishment fits the crime today, we have no idea how much time Rosberg would have lost, though given the fact he continued to use 7th and 8th gear after the instruction would suggest none, certainly not enough for Max to pass, or he would have in a heartbeat given half a chance - so looking at it objectively the simple confirmation to push past 7th gear today has cost Rosberg valuable points in the Drivers' Championship. Disqualification would have been grossly unfair (and I'm no Rosberg fan), and would have created more problems than it solved going forward.

But the instruction prevented a DNF, so how is that not a massive advantage?