2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 08-10 July

[Jolle]

You all are falling for Mercedes deception! You got tricked hook line and sinker

There was no gearbox problem or any threat of losing the 7th gear or the entire gearbox for that matter.

Christian Horner noticed in the onboard video that Rosberg continued to use the 7th gear as normal after he did the "reset." He didn't even try to skip 7th or lessen his engine revs... And guess what? He didn't need to! Why? Because he had no gearbox problem but he had the same Engine problem that Hamilton had in Baku! The team only used the gearbox problem as a veil to pass the engine reset codes to Rosberg!

Don't you people see that?!

I saw Rosberg stuck in 7th gear. I don't remember Hamilton suffering a similar fate in Baku.

The tin foil hats are well and truly on. Mercedes CLEARLY instructed drivers who got stuck in a weird engine mode to pretend to be stuck in a specific gear and have a race ending problem so that they could instruct them in how to reset the engine, rather than adding a simple control to the steering wheel to carry out the reset in a more simple way.

This makes no sense at all.
Rosberg was well clear of Verstappen when his car got stuck in 7th. If he had a "Baku setting problem" he would have lost around .6 max, still easily in front of Verstappen.
When stuck in 7th, he lost around 4 seconds while the team was clearing the setting "chassis zero" with race control. If race control would have waited a bit longer, verstappen would have passed him on track. So no, no special instructions to "forget" to change gear or whatever. Too risky and makes no sense.

The "chassis zero" was cleared by the stewards, no penalty there, no problem there. After that, his gearbox/whatever still played up so he had the 7th gear question that was incorrectly answered, with Verstappen on his back.

What advantage would Rosberg have to have his gearbox jammed for half a lap?

[PhillipM]

He was stuck in 7th, you can see it clear as day on the onboard.

[turbof1]

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.

No I don't think that's correct. It's a 5 or 10 second time penalty applied either during a race (when a car has a scheduled pitstop) or after the race if no more pit-stops; a drive-through (during the race) or disqualification. That's it as far as I'm aware for race penalties.

There aren't 'stop-go' penalties anymore.

38.3 The stewards may impose any one of the penalties below on any driver involved in an Incident:
a) A five second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least five seconds and then re-join the race. The relevant driver may however elect not to stop, provided he carries out no further pit stop before the end of the race. In such cases five seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race. The relevant driver may however elect not to stop, provided he carries out no further pit stop before the end of the race. In such cases ten seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.
In both of the above cases the driver concerned must carry out the penalty the next time he enters the pit lane.
c) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.
d) A ten second stop-and-go time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
If either of the four penalties above are imposed during the last three laps, or after the end of a race, Article 38.4(b) below will not apply and five seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned in the case of (a) above, 10 seconds in the case of (b), 20 seconds in the case of (c) and 30 seconds in the case of (d).
e) A time penalty.
f) A reprimand.
If any of the six penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal.
g) A drop of any number of grid positions at the driver’s next Event.
h) Exclusion from the results.
i) Suspension from the driver’s next Event.

38) INCIDENTS DURING THE RACE
38.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and subsequently investigated) which :
a) Necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41.
b) Constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code.
c) Caused a false start by one or more cars.
d) Caused a collision.
e) Forced a driver off the track.
f) Illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver.
g) Illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race.

Basically they can give any sort of time penalty they want as 38.3 e) states.

[Manoah2u]

you can hear it clear as day too. he was going nowhere, where hamilton was going still strong in Baku, despite having obvious performance problems. the difference between baku and silverstone are night and day, and you can hear that even better. tinfoil hats nutter. if the problem was like in baku, they wouldve done nothing, and he would have ended up 2nd with max on his tail but not past, and no penalty. isntead, they c*cked up and got a penalty. the c*cking up happened due to Rosbergs own damn fault. Is he clueless? 'what does that mean'? really? how clear do you want it that you cant use 7? they would have said 'dont shift up past 6'. it was as clear as it was, and the team should have said 'we cant give you that information nico, just manage it'.
nico repeating the question 'what should i do' 'should i skip 7' got him into trouble, especially the answer.
Nico was stupid to ask an obvious answer and risk com penalty, and the team was stupid to actually provide the answer instead of playing it (covertly) safe.

I was actually surprised that he really did get a penalty, so i'm rather 'pleased' with that. Am i a bit biased because that promotes Max to 2nd? sure.
Am i a bit biased because that further shortens the lead from Nico over Lewis? hell yeah. Still, Max and Lewis didnt do nothing wrong, and Lewis could not get
an answer in baku, Rosberg did over here. I'd say there is a bit of justice served today. Obviously, it being the Silverstone British GP with British drivers in the
FIA advisory role does help.....which Mercedes should have realised beforehand. so again, rather stupid.

Which ultimately brings us to the brightfull point that they're just 1 point apart now.
Lewis 4th WDC this year. 3rd with Mercedes in a row. you bet.

[nevill3]

But Mercedes had already cleared with the stewards/Charlie that they could tell Nico which settings to go to to prevent the gearbox failure, the only error is what I believe to be, by accident , the instructions afterwards to skip through 7th gear. In the heat of the moment Nico's engineer answered a question put to him unexpectedly just as you or I would.

Interestingly it has been reported that Mercedes have notified that they will be appealing against this decision but it clearly states in the earlier post by Turbof1

"If any of the six penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal."

So we will have to wait and see if this decision sticks.

[turbof1]

But Mercedes had already cleared with the stewards/Charlie that they could tell Nico which settings to go to to prevent the gearbox failure, the only error is what I believe to be, by accident , the instructions afterwards to skip through 7th gear. In the heat of the moment Nico's engineer answered a question put to him unexpectedly just as you or I would.

Interestingly it has been reported that Mercedes have notified that they will be appealing against this decision but it clearly states in the earlier post by Turbof1

"If any of the six penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal."

So we will have to wait and see if this decision sticks.

Yes, I'm scratching my head about this too. I don't think it's possible to appeal it

[Jolle]

But Mercedes had already cleared with the stewards/Charlie that they could tell Nico which settings to go to to prevent the gearbox failure, the only error is what I believe to be, by accident , the instructions afterwards to skip through 7th gear. In the heat of the moment Nico's engineer answered a question put to him unexpectedly just as you or I would.

Interestingly it has been reported that Mercedes have notified that they will be appealing against this decision but it clearly states in the earlier post by Turbof1

"If any of the six penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal."

So we will have to wait and see if this decision sticks.

Yes, I'm scratching my head about this too. I don't think it's possible to appeal it

As far as I know, its impossible to appeal decisions made during the race, this one is made after the race, which gives it more freedom to appeal.

The reason you can't appeal a in-race penalty, every stop-and go would be appealed and there would be an unworkable system on track. Now its just a slight annoyance and no influence on the actual racing.

[turbof1]

But Mercedes had already cleared with the stewards/Charlie that they could tell Nico which settings to go to to prevent the gearbox failure, the only error is what I believe to be, by accident , the instructions afterwards to skip through 7th gear. In the heat of the moment Nico's engineer answered a question put to him unexpectedly just as you or I would.

Interestingly it has been reported that Mercedes have notified that they will be appealing against this decision but it clearly states in the earlier post by Turbof1

"If any of the six penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal."

So we will have to wait and see if this decision sticks.

Yes, I'm scratching my head about this too. I don't think it's possible to appeal it

As far as I know, its impossible to appeal decisions made during the race, this one is made after the race, which gives it more freedom to appeal.

The reason you can't appeal a in-race penalty, every stop-and go would be appealed and there would be an unworkable system on track. Now its just a slight annoyance and no influence on the actual racing.

Remember Spa 2008. Hamilton got also penalized after the race. No appeal was possible back then, and the rules seems the same way constructed today (just more penalty options). I could be wrong however.

[Jolle]

Yes, I'm scratching my head about this too. I don't think it's possible to appeal it

As far as I know, its impossible to appeal decisions made during the race, this one is made after the race, which gives it more freedom to appeal.

The reason you can't appeal a in-race penalty, every stop-and go would be appealed and there would be an unworkable system on track. Now its just a slight annoyance and no influence on the actual racing.

Remember Spa 2008. Hamilton got also penalized after the race. No appeal was possible back then, and the rules seems the same way constructed today (just more penalty options). I could be wrong however.

I remember that race... Still can't believe the stupidity. But... Yes, what I also remember that it was before the podium that the penalty was given, and weren't the rules slightly revised since then?

[turbof1]

There's nothing in these rules that I believe tells something else. That line is is very clear: penalties taken under 38.3 a) b) c) d) e) or f) are not appealable, without exception (so no matter when the decision is taken). It's only possible if somehow the penalty is not taken under a) b) c) d) e) or f). But I don't see how: it happened during the race, and "incident" is described as a breach on the sporting regulations/Code.

Your best bet would be some sort of a sporting directive which states otherwise.

[Restomaniac]

I at no point suggested a DQ, however you are coming down on the side of That if Rosberg wasn't given that specific instruction he would have tried it anyway. I'm of the opinion he would have thought 'I'll stick with 1-6 for 5 laps and crawl home'.

Would RIC have caught him? That's the question and working with a Rosberg top speed in 6th would have given that answer.

They could have given Rosberg a penalty in line with those calculations. But they couldn't because they are hamstrung by the rules if Brundle is right. If that's true they need to give themselves a wider range.
My worry is that teams are now thinking 'cool a maximum of 10 seconds it is'.

So you're suggesting they ignore what actually happened (Rosberg continued to use 7th and 8th, despite being instructed to get out of 7th PDQ), then calculate the cumulative time lost for a car stuck in 6th (which at no time was the case), and then apply that as a penalty even though that wasn't available to them....all based on you thinking he would have stayed in 6th gear.

Uh-huh, sounds rational.

Who mentioned ignoring what happened? I certainly haven't.

We know what happened after the team told him what to do (obviously). Its what would have happened if they hadn't told him what to do (hence the penalty).

Your arguement is that because Rosbergs gearbox ended up ok then he didn't gain anything.
When he asked that question if the answer had been that Rosberg himself had to figure it out he may have well played it safe and crawled home because at that point Rosberg didn't know that. However I'm willing to hold my hands up if it means we can move on.

This is the point I'm making. It should be the case that if you gain X amount then you are penalised X amount. Not that you gain X amount but because it's a hard and fast rule you are penalised half of X amount.

If a team calculate that they will gain X amount and then know that the penalty will behalf of that then they are going to take that penalty all day long and that is a slippery slope.

[Restomaniac]

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.

No I don't think that's correct. It's a 5 or 10 second time penalty applied either during a race (when a car has a scheduled pitstop) or after the race if no more pit-stops; a drive-through (during the race) or disqualification. That's it as far as I'm aware for race penalties.

There aren't 'stop-go' penalties anymore.

38.3 The stewards may impose any one of the penalties below on any driver involved in an Incident:
a) A five second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least five seconds and then re-join the race. The relevant driver may however elect not to stop, provided he carries out no further pit stop before the end of the race. In such cases five seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.
b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race. The relevant driver may however elect not to stop, provided he carries out no further pit stop before the end of the race. In such cases ten seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned.
In both of the above cases the driver concerned must carry out the penalty the next time he enters the pit lane.
c) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.
d) A ten second stop-and-go time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race.
If either of the four penalties above are imposed during the last three laps, or after the end of a race, Article 38.4(b) below will not apply and five seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned in the case of (a) above, 10 seconds in the case of (b), 20 seconds in the case of (c) and 30 seconds in the case of (d).
e) A time penalty.
f) A reprimand.
If any of the six penalties above are imposed they shall not be subject to appeal.
g) A drop of any number of grid positions at the driver’s next Event.
h) Exclusion from the results.
i) Suspension from the driver’s next Event.

38) INCIDENTS DURING THE RACE
38.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and subsequently investigated) which :
a) Necessitated the suspension of a race under Article 41.
b) Constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code.
c) Caused a false start by one or more cars.
d) Caused a collision.
e) Forced a driver off the track.
f) Illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver.
g) Illegitimately impeded another driver during overtaking.
Unless it was completely clear that a driver was in breach of any of the above, any incidents involving more than one car will normally be investigated after the race.

Basically they can give any sort of time penalty they want as 38.3 e) states.

Brundle has it wrong then as do I.
Sorry.

[turbof1]

No need for sorry as you were incorrectly informed. Not your fault as Brundle was essentially full of sh*t.

[bill shoe]

I don't like the silly FIA ban on driver-aid radio communication. But if those are the rules then it seems clear Merc/Rosberg violated them.

But then the penalty was very very light. Rosberg's penalty cost him one place, but a lack of radio communication would have probably cost him more. Seems worth it to break the rules if it's likely to change your finish. The worst that happens is the FIA penalizes you back to where you would have been anyway. Not much of a penalty.

[Jolle]

There's nothing in these rules that I believe tells something else. That line is is very clear: penalties taken under 38.3 a) b) c) d) e) or f) are not appealable, without exception (so no matter when the decision is taken). It's only possible if somehow the penalty is not taken under a) b) c) d) e) or f). But I don't see how: it happened during the race, and "incident" is described as a breach on the sporting regulations/Code.

Your best bet would be some sort of a sporting directive which states otherwise.

These are penalties giving during the race (thats why they are mentioned to be taken with a pit stop), after the race the stewards probably have a lot more freedom, therefore some incidents are "investigated after the race" and open for appeal.

Bit like delaying difficult decisions.

I just read that Ham did take the top step in Belgium in 2008, but with all the fuzz around it, they might have changes more then just the ex-drivers stewards (fun thing is, Rosberg thought Ham did get an advantage, niki was furious of the wrongful decision of the stewards and called for the system we have now)

If indeed, Mercedes can't appeal, but they did it anyway, then their rule guy might look for another job.... (Maybe together with the Ferrari boss)