2016 British Grand Prix - Silverstone, 08-10 July

[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.

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.

Doesnt matter if it led to a gearbox failure. Reliability problems shouldn't solved at the track. They can only be mitigated. And by the current regulations, they must be mitigated without the help from the pitwall.
If the help was on safety grounds by all means the pitwall can radio in. But to say you want to prevent your car from failing so you tell your driver how to drive the car then that's still helping his performance.

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!

Then so be it.
By the rules the driver is not supposed to be assisted. if his car fails, it fails.

It's a stretch to say a gear box failure is dangerous. A tyre failure, or riding the kerbs is more dangerous and we don't see the pit wall chiming in when those risks are imminent. to reiterate, reliability issues aren't fixed by the drivers, as those tend to be design or manufacturing issues which should be fixed outside of the race.

[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.

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)

The time when the penalty is given, is not a concern. Only that the incident happens between the start of the race and the chequered flag, as well as the type of penalty. As you can see, penalties a) to d) can be applied as or converted to a time penalty after the race. There is no statement these converted penalties can are excluded from the no-appeal ruling.

Don't forget that McLaren did try to lodge appeal as well back then. I think trying this is more about making public statements then anything else. "Hey look, we fully disagree with the decision, we have several elements in our favour, but we are unfairly prohibited from appealing the decision." A bit of being morally the winner in this mess.

[iotar__]

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.

- Broken car is a crime now? Certainly not driver's. No, crashing is a driving crime (Hamilton Spain no penalty), driving dangerously with a broken is a crime (Raikkonen Monaco no penalty), unsafe release is a crime (Ricciardo no penalty) cutting corner (Hamilton Russia no -penalty), overtaking off track Verstappen Austria no penalty_ is a is a crime. Broken car is not a crime.
- How much is massively? Answered already. You have no clue.
- "Anyway, crime pays - for the second week in a row." your logic is broken, what was the crime that paid in Austria, lost win because of brake problems is a crime that pays? Do you know what pays means? Articulate better next time . Penalty (as opposed to no action, see above) for minor incident (Massa, Vettel - racing incident) is a crime?
- Attacking Rosberg for getting 'light penalty' is the new low for shameless Hamilton fanatics posing as pseudo technical experts. Especially in light of above mentioned examples. It was Rosberg that lost here not gained. Second race in a row
- 50 posts about mostly nothing. Time to close it like Spain's crash perhaps

[PlatinumZealot]

Rosberg got off light. Case closed. Can we talk about other drivers now?

[Jolle]

Rosberg got off light. Case closed. Can we talk about other drivers now?

I really enjoyed Verstappen again, joy to watch staying in front of a faster car for laps on end!

[giantfan10]

Rosberg got off light. Case closed. Can we talk about other drivers now?

I really enjoyed Verstappen again, joy to watch staying in front of a faster car for laps on end!

So Max designed silverstone and made it damp? Because thats the only reason he was holding up nico...damps spots on the race track and moving around in the braking zone to stop nico passing... whats so impressive about that? Wheres the praise for checo who did the exact same thing to kimi in a faster car?

[FoxHound]

It's a stretch to say a gear box failure is dangerous. A tyre failure, or riding the kerbs is more dangerous and we don't see the pit wall chiming in when those risks are imminent. to reiterate, reliability issues aren't fixed by the drivers, as those tend to be design or manufacturing issues which should be fixed outside of the race.

I don't agree at all.

A tyre failing happens near instantaneously. Riding kerbs is a decision a driver makes. Changing gears is a prerequisite for a car to function to levels it was designed to.

If a driver has a reliability issue, and the team have a fix, then let them fix it, or give information to fix it. Denying them the ability to do so is beyond my admittedly small minded comprehension.
Especially when you can pass information on that will stop a driver from racing for position, as Verstappen did by backing off Rosberg.

The message to fans is that information for a driver to continue racing is not allowed, in terms of reliability, but it is allowed if it means the driver behind has info that nullifies racing.
Way to go FIA....

[Jolle]

Rosberg got off light. Case closed. Can we talk about other drivers now?

I really enjoyed Verstappen again, joy to watch staying in front of a faster car for laps on end!

So Max designed silverstone and made it damp? Because thats the only reason he was holding up nico...damps spots on the race track and moving around in the braking zone to stop nico passing... whats so impressive about that? Wheres the praise for checo who did the exact same thing to kimi in a faster car?

Oh yes, sorry, I forgot I'm not allowed to enjoy one of the few drivers who puts up a fight and not, like we hear so many times "drives his own pace" or "must save tires" or "he was faster anyway, so why bother".

[notsofast]

In the heat of the moment Nico's engineer answered a question put to him unexpectedly just as you or I would.

This is precisely why the penalty bothers me. These guys are here to race, and not to earn a degree in communication or to play a game of gotcha. A rule is a rule, and based on the rule, I believe the stewards gave the correct penalty, but it still bothers me. The points loss could prove to be very costly to Rosberg at the end of the season. If Hamilton wins the WDC, I hope he wins it with enough difference to make the whole thing moot.

[Jolle]

In the heat of the moment Nico's engineer answered a question put to him unexpectedly just as you or I would.

This is precisely why the penalty bothers me. These guys are here to race, and not to earn a degree in communication or to play a game of gotcha. A rule is a rule, and based on the rule, I believe the stewards gave the correct penalty, but it still bothers me. The points loss could prove to be very costly to Rosberg at the end of the season. If Hamilton wins the WDC, I hope he wins it with enough difference to make the whole thing moot.

You and I are not at the pit wall.... Or in the car...

For the offence, that it's a first offence, the impact it had, etc, it's dealt with correctly. They surely will address "rules of engagement" about this, and how to handle penalties before the Hungarian GP

Plus, it was unintentional.

(By the way, I'm far from a Rosberg fan)

[stuartpengs]

You and I are not at the pit wall.... Or in the car...

For the offence, that it's a first offence, the impact it had, etc, it's dealt with correctly. They surely will address "rules of engagement" about this, and how to handle penalties before the Hungarian GP

Plus, it was unintentional.

(By the way, I'm far from a Rosberg fan)

Well said Jolle. Encouraging to see there are still some objective observers in here. I'm also far from a Rosberg fan but in this instance the penalty was suitable for the offence (irrespective of any subjective hypothesis of how the race might have ended, which have didley squat relevance, and never have).

[ringo]

I would not give Max driver of the race. I loved his drive today and it was very ballsy, however i believe he was making too many errors, and it was the grip of the redbull that kept him in 2nd place for so long.
I wanted him to beat Nico by more than 10 seconds and he was on his way to steadily dispatching Nico after giving that feisty overtake on the outside. But he didn't get away as fast as i thought because of those little events where he was tripping all over on the turn exits.
It was those little mistakes that gave Nico the chance to come within drs range. I am not going to be too hard on him because he lacks experience, but you can still see that he has some more polishing to do before he becomes the full article.
Saying that though, after making nico look like a fool in this race and in canada, i think Max is the real deal.
I have even more respect for him now, and i think he is going to smash Ricciardo this season if Daniel doesn't pull up his socks.

Shout outs to Alonso, Hulk, Perez and Kyvat. Alonso was really wringing the neck of the mclaren and the team messed up his race. Perez was a maestro at moving up the order as usual. Hulk was really good in the wet and could have dispatched Bottas had offline been a little bit drier. Kyvat had a good race and secured a point.

Driver of the race would be Hamilton. total domination this weekend. Silverstone is basically his yard now. The reception from the fans, how he interacts with them, how the wrile up, even climbing over the fence and all that good stuff. That has never been seen with any other driver if memory serves. The guy is really a legend.
As for the drive. very controlled, and sure footed. Made Nico look silly in the wet yet again, and he was more sure about doing his one stopper to the end this time, which worked out. Controlling the pace up front was reminiscent of 2015's domination where he seemed peerless.

[Nathanael F1]

Another Hamilton race. Pretty boring IMO other than the spins and other mistakes. I didn't think Max Verstappen driving was that impressive (other than his overtake around the outside of Rosberg). I thought his driving was messy and IIRC he moved around a lot in the braking zones. Perez was impressive, though.

But where was Ferrari??!!

[GPR-A duplicate2]

In the heat of the moment Nico's engineer answered a question put to him unexpectedly just as you or I would.

As the rules stand, there is nothing like "heat of the moment" in this matter, particularly the way the critical radio messages are delivered which are deemed to be "providing driver aid". Like they did in Baku, they have to get permission from FIA to inform the driver, in cases where the team feels the issue is terminal and hence they want to provide the details. Once you get all clear, you then provide the message to the driver.
It is stupid on FIA's part to be going overboard in stopping the driver coaching and complicating these matters as the cars today are overtly complicated systems and require a lot of information to avoid system failures. It is one thing to avoid driver coaching, but it's another to avoid telling the driver of the critical failures of the car that would lead to potential safety issues.

[Vasconia]

Holy s***, how many pages only to speak about the same thing?

Hamilton, perfect race, a mistake with the SC which could have costed him everything.

Rosberg. I guess he wilL pray for sunny races because its his only chance to win this WC. The penalty is clear.

Verstapen, an spectacular overtake, very good pace and once again in front of Ricciardo. Amazing.

Ferrari, what the hell? the involution of the car is hard to understand. Terrible race for Sebastian...

Perez and Sainz did great races but some mistakes are costly.... as well as Alonso, he was doing a great race but...

Winner of the day? the first corner hahaha. When have we seen almost all the best drivers doing mistakes at the same place?? Hamilton, Vettel, Alonso, Verstappen, Sainz... All of them awesome racers in the wet but no one could defeat the mighty(and wet) first corner.