2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 08-10 July

[simieski]

Should have risked it in Baku and told Ham what setting to go to, cost him a lot more then 10 seconds.

[i70q7m7ghw]

The rule might be terrible, but rules are rules and we saw in Baku the drivers weren't allowed to be told to do anything. Now in Silvestone it's the exact opposite, Rosberg gets told what mode to put the car in and how to workaround a performance issue. This for me should have been a DSQ. As others have said, teams will simply ignore this rule now because +10 seconds is always going to trump a DNF.

[NL_Fer]

Mercedes is strategicly pusshing the limits. They didn't help Lewis in Baku, which started doubt and discussion about this rule. Now they did help the driver, hoping with all the discussion about not helping in the past, this is going to be allowed. So soon the rule is gone.

[ringo]

Foxhound,

He didn't have a reliability problem. Engineer's are the only ones that can solve those problems.

I see what you are getting at, but he did not have a reliability problem in the true sense. There was some kind of glitch.
And it should have been left up to him to decide how to manage the gearbox.

Reliability problems are solved at the factory, not on the race track.

The most that could have been argued is safety, and in no was was Nico's safety at risk.

Nico gets all the info on his steering wheel to know what his problem is. Similar to how all the drivers can see brake temps. Mercedes knew they were going to lose the 1-2, it wasn't about reliability at that stage. His penalty was rightly judged and deserved.

[smellybeard]

That's going to guarantee all the teams will do it in the future!

Exactly.
Merc have gained a third place from breaking the rules.
Who says crime doesn't pay.

In the interview Lauda said there is an exception to avoid "terminal failure".

Using an exception is not breaking the rules.

There is no exception. If there was there would be no penalty at all.
Usual team BS.

[Shooty81]

Exactly.
Merc have gained a third place from breaking the rules.
Who says crime doesn't pay.

In the interview Lauda said there is an exception to avoid "terminal failure".

Using an exception is not breaking the rules.

There is no exception. If there was there would be no penalty at all.
Usual team BS.

As far as I know there is no penalty yet. I think there is this exception. The open point is just if this exception was applicable in that case and that takes so long. How do they judge if there would have been a terminal failure...

[i70q7m7ghw]

Foxhound,

He didn't have a reliability problem. Engineer's are the only ones that can solve those problems.

I see what you are getting at, but he did not have a reliability problem in the true sense. There was some kind of glitch.
And it should have been left up to him to decide how to manage the gearbox.

Reliability problems are solved at the factory, not on the race track.

The most that could have been argued is safety, and in no was was Nico's safety at risk.

Nico gets all the info on his steering wheel to know what his problem is. Similar to how all the drivers can see brake temps. Mercedes knew they were going to lose the 1-2, it wasn't about reliability at that stage. His penalty was rightly judged and deserved.

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.

[dans79]

In the interview Lauda said there is an exception to avoid "terminal failure".

Using an exception is not breaking the rules.

There is no exception. If there was there would be no penalty at all.
Usual team BS.

As far as I know there is no penalty yet. I think there is this exception. The open point is just if this exception was applicable in that case and that takes so long. How do they judge if there would have been a terminal failure...

he was given a 10 second penalty and thus dropped to 3rd.

[FoxHound]

Foxhound,

He didn't have a reliability problem. Engineer's are the only ones that can solve those problems.

I see what you are getting at, but he did not have a reliability problem in the true sense. There was some kind of glitch.
And it should have been left up to him to decide how to manage the gearbox.

Reliability problems are solved at the factory, not on the race track.

The most that could have been argued is safety, and in no was was Nico's safety at risk.

Nico gets all the info on his steering wheel to know what his problem is. Similar to how all the drivers can see brake temps. Mercedes knew they were going to lose the 1-2, it wasn't about reliability at that stage. His penalty was rightly judged and deserved.

A glitch which would have led to a gearbox failure. It's still a reliability issue, which could and was overcome using radio message instruction. It was not a racing instruction.

If we use this as a a template for punishment, we are on dangerous ground.

Potential issues like engine overheating, brake failure, gearbox failure or ANY possible failure within the car, that can be fixed otherwise, would result in the driver retiring. Worse than that, if the problem could be fixed, but isn't, it could result in dangerous failure resulting in injurious accidents.
Is this really what we all want?

Properly brainless this rule, properly!

[Wynters]

Yet Red Bull's message informing Vers of investigation, and thereby stopping any actual racing, was ok?
It appears you value the current radio messaging ban, and not actual racing.

One is against the rules, the other isn't.

A backmarker ramming the leader off the road whilst 2nd and 3rd are squabbling so we get a more exciting end to the race is also going to amp up the excitment but it's also against the rules.

If it's all right to tell Rosberg how to get around a problem with his gearbox, then it's all right to tell someone how to get around an engine mode problem, a brake problem, a tyre problem. In this case, it seems highly likely that the gearbox was damaged by use...like tyres and brakes are. So we're right back to telling drivers how to drive, lines to take (to manage probelms with their tyres), brake points (so they can manage their brake wear problems), engine modes (to manage problems with their engine wear), etc, etc.

If you're ok with this and just want to focus on racing, fine. But you need to tell the rest of the field that too. At the moment, they've specifically forbidden what Merc appear to have done and, if they don't penalise Rosberg appropriately, then they'll have essentially penalised the entire rest of the field instead.

His mechanic knew it. Rosberg knew it. They both decided to breach it anyway.

[Jolle]

Foxhound,

He didn't have a reliability problem. Engineer's are the only ones that can solve those problems.

I see what you are getting at, but he did not have a reliability problem in the true sense. There was some kind of glitch.
And it should have been left up to him to decide how to manage the gearbox.

Reliability problems are solved at the factory, not on the race track.

The most that could have been argued is safety, and in no was was Nico's safety at risk.

Nico gets all the info on his steering wheel to know what his problem is. Similar to how all the drivers can see brake temps. Mercedes knew they were going to lose the 1-2, it wasn't about reliability at that stage. His penalty was rightly judged and deserved.

A glitch which would have led to a gearbox failure. It's still a reliability issue, which could and was overcome using radio message instruction. It was not a racing instruction.

If we use this as a a template for punishment, we are on dangerous ground.

Potential issues like engine overheating, brake failure, gearbox failure or possible failure within the car, that can be fixed otherwise, would result in the driver retiring. Worse than that, if the problem could be fixed, but isn't, it could result in dangerous failure resulting in injurious accidents.
Is this really what we all want?

Properly brainless this rule, properly!

He got instructions how to shift from 6 to 8th. That the problem. He would have been third with 1-6. Now he was second.

[ChrisM40]

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

[dans79]

Is this really what we all want?
!

Again, he was penalized, because he asked a question of how to work around a future issue, that the team told him.

[FoxHound]

[Wynters]

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.