FIA, what's the real definition of gaining and advantage?

Anyone know why the speed bump needed to have a gap at the end? It made having it there pointless as drivers like Nico could just floor it through the gap.

That's a question for Whiting, oh dear...

Well, it would've been enough to have the yellow kerb for the whole length of the tarmac run off.

Anyone know why the speed bump needed to have a gap at the end? It made having it there pointless as drivers like Nico could just floor it through the gap.

I think it's because you risk cars 'launching' in to the air (remember one of the Lotus' doing it on Saturday).  It gives drivers a chance to rejoin safely without damaging their cars.  What there should have been was some more 'speed bumps' in the run off area itself to force cars to slow down/weave round them.

Edited by hdsport82, 09 June 2014 - 08:21.

Rosberg locked up (hardly unusual into the last chicane at Montreal) that's all.

I know some people want to be believe other things but it was a mistake, something we see often at that part of the track and not something which we see penalties applied for.

Schuttelberg - you say it was clear Rosberg was going to be passed. It wasn't. Hamilton wasn't going to make the pass at that moment - he wasn't close enough.

I think it's because you risk cars 'launching' in to the air (remember one of the Lotus' doing it on Saturday).  It gives drivers a chance to rejoin safely without damaging their cars.  What there should have been was some more 'speed bumps' in the run off area itself to force cars to slow down/weave round them.

Agreed.

 

Rosberg locked up (hardly unusual into the last chicane at Montreal) that's all.

 

I know some people want to be believe other things but it was a mistake, something we see often at that part of the track and not something which we see penalties applied for.

 

Schuttelberg - you say it was clear Rosberg was going to be passed. It wasn't. Hamilton wasn't going to make the pass at that moment - he wasn't close enough.

 

 

 

I don't think anyone wants penalties for every mistake but flooring the throttle through the run off wasn't a mistake but a deliberate act that gained him breathing space (out of DRS range).  Like speeding through yellow zones you shouldn't be able to go faster off the track than on it.  However as I said earlier it would have been harsh on Rosberg as the powers that be have been far too lax in this area to suddenly start enforcing track limits.

Edited by hdsport82, 09 June 2014 - 08:37.

The Spa incident was more of FIA trying to spice up the championship, by stripping Hammi of his win. 

However, do take into account it happend in the last 2 laps...hardly got proper timing for a concrete decision. 

IMO the gap in the yellow bump should have been, say, half way down that stretch rather than at the end.  It would prevent drivers from doing a Rosberg, whilst still giving them a chance to rejoin without launching.

As far as the decision, on the current interpretation (introduced thanks to Schumacher on de la Rosa in Hungary all those years ago) I can see why they made the decision they did.

Sure Rosberg locked up. No issue with that. But then he floored it. Perhaps not cheating, but definitely a bit "dirty".

Surprised there isn't a technological answer to gaining an advantage by now though. How about sensors on the cars that detect the track edge and cut power/lightly apply brakes when a car goes off? Would stop advantages being gained by cutting corners, would stop the ridiculous "lets invent a new track" qualifying runs we've seen, and done right it could also serve as a slight safety net for (albeit rare) situations like Hungary '09 where a driver is unconscious. Brings back the effect of grass/gravel/bumps/barriers without the associated dangers.

Or, as the FIA/F1 seem incompetent at using technology, how about appending the time gained (prior lap - cutting lap) to a driver's next pit stop or overall race time? If the cutting lap was slower than presumably no advantage was gained and no time needs to be added.

I don't think anyone wants penalties for every mistake but flooring the throttle through the run off wasn't a mistake but a deliberate act that gained him breathing space (out of DRS range).  Like speeding through yellow zones you shouldn't be able to go faster off the track than on it.  However as I said earlier it would have been harsh on Rosberg as the powers that be have been far too lax in this area to suddenly start enforcing track limits.

I understand your point but I don't think there was much more Rosberg could have done. 

As others have said, getting rid of these run-off areas is one way to solve it.

But Rosberg was guilty of wrongdoing! He missed the the chicane because he was trying to keep a competitor behind him.

'Trying to keep a competitor behind' is sort of the entire reason these guys are trying to go as fast as possible. If you stick to that reasoning, does only the last placed driver get a warning before being penalized when he inadvertently misses a chicane?

It baffles me that certain people who were - mostly for good reason I'd say - unhappy about the shenanigans in Spa-Francorchamps 2008 are now calling for that dubious reasoning to be applied to other drivers. It smells of petty revenge, rather than anything else. Which, six years after the fact, is a bit disconcerting. Is the FIA consistent? Maybe not. But yesterdays decision was a whole lot better than that infamous call in 2008, and in my book that's a good thing.

Whether or not the chicane sufficiently discouraged blasting through it at full throttle is another thing, and here I think there is definitely room for improvement for next year. Missing the chicane shouldn't - at least in my view - be a net positive, but trying to balance that is of course quite difficult.

I understand your point but I don't think there was much more Rosberg could have done. 

He could have not floored it - but then how much should he have lifted off by?

Enough to not set his fastest lap is one potential answer, I guess.

 

Rosberg locked up (hardly unusual into the last chicane at Montreal) that's all.

 

I know some people want to be believe other things but it was a mistake, something we see often at that part of the track and not something which we see penalties applied for.

 

Schuttelberg - you say it was clear Rosberg was going to be passed. It wasn't. Hamilton wasn't going to make the pass at that moment - he wasn't close enough.

 

 

 

I made the same point mate. It's fine that he made a mistake and had to short cut the chicane, but he then floored the throttle and set the fastest lap. Rosberg was desperate going into the chicane and although Hamilton wasn't passing him at the chicane, he would have been all over Rosberg after that with DRS. My point is, that Rosberg avoided all of that risk and deprived Hamilton a chance to pass him by bending the rules.

Sometimes in sport, it all comes down to one particular moment. At the moment, those moments are being deprived to the F1 fans. There is no doubt that Hamilton had something building there, not for one second am I implying that Rosberg cheated. I'm simply implying that his mistake, disadvantaged his direct competition at that moment and I see no reason why Hamilton should have to pay for Rosberg's mistake. 

He could have not floored it - but then how much should he have lifted off by?

 

Enough to not set his fastest lap is one potential answer, I guess.

Perhaps - but having found himself in the run-off, obviously he wants to get back on the track as soon as possible.

At that moment, I doubt he is thinking about his fastest lap.

Perhaps - but having found himself in the run-off, obviously he wants to get back on the track as soon as possible.

 

At that moment, I doubt he is thinking about his fastest lap.

Agree - I don't think there was anything nefarious/dishonest about what Nico did.  I can see an argument for saying it was against the rules and should have been penalised (although I think that's marginal, and on balance I think the decision was reasonable), I can't see one at all for saying he cheated or similar.

Mister Goldylocks escapes yet another penalty. When you gain a second, a 5 second added time would suffice. It costed Hamilton 2 laps to close the gap again. If Rosberg did it twice, he would almost gained more then the penalty.

Bring back the old chicane with gravel et al. This F1 is getting ridiculous. 

Edited by SenorSjon, 09 June 2014 - 11:02.

If you need a defintion, I would like to propose this one:

1. If a driver gains a temporary advantage, he will recieve a warning prior to a penalty.
2. If a driver gains a persistent adavntage, he may give the position back or will recieve a penalty.

What Rosberg did was case no1. His advantage was compromised after a few turns when Hamilton catched up... No big deal.
Hamilton cut the chicane and gained a position, an advantage like case no2. He let Rosberg pass because he knew he was going to be penalized.

What do you think?

What is temporary though?  1 lap? 10 laps? Maybe 65 of 70 laps?

Rosberg not only gained advantage by the mistake but also by the unnecessary investigation. It’s obvious that the driver behind won’t attack the one in front if he is investigated. So the mistake and then the stewards gave him a bunch of comfortable laps in front of Hamilton.

Why for the second time this year the driver who makes the mistake is not penalized but the one who is behind him?

Seems to me the stewards have no clue. 

One question for everyone.

The same incident but with 1 lap to go?  No penalty as well?

So basically in the end of the race you can cut the chicane if you have an opponent on your back and gain a second? 

No?

So where is the margin?    How about 3 laps? Or 5 or 10 ?

They should have it open for practice and qualy but not for the race 

Ehrm ...really?!

The LAST thing you want in an F1 race is a car that goes over a bump and gets flying straight back on the track and t-bone another car.

Ouch!

Every single driver has out-braked themselves countless times into chicanes while being chased, and not one has ever been penalised for doing so once in a race. This absolutely and completely includes Lewis Hamilton. It includes every driver ever to race for a significant period of time in fact.

ONLY Persistently cutting chicanes on purpose or overtaking by doing so have been punished. This is completely consistent in application.

They are not going to introduce any 'Lewis Hamilton special assistance rules' just top hobble Nico, and I think as a fan of his one should not wish for it to be so.

Surprised there isn't a technological answer to gaining an advantage by now though. How about sensors on the cars that detect the track edge and cut power/lightly apply brakes when a car goes off? Would stop advantages being gained by cutting corners,[...]

Very dangerous - potentially.

Imagine 2 cars running close to each other. Car in front makes a slight mistake, leaves the track limit with 4 wheels just for few inches. Car behind is close and manages to keep track.

With your "solution" car in front would now suddenly reduce speed - car behind has no chance to react => BAM

Edited by HaPe, 09 June 2014 - 10:14.

Every single driver has out-braked themselves countless times into chicanes while being chased, and not one has ever been penalised for doing so once in a race. This absolutely and completely includes Lewis Hamilton. It includes every driver ever to race for a significant period of time in fact.

 

ONLY Persistently cutting chicanes on purpose or overtaking by doing so have been punished. This is completely consistent in application.

 

They are not going to introduce any 'Lewis Hamilton special assistance rules' just top hobble Nico, and I think as a fan of his one should not wish for it to be so.

So it's complety ok to do it with 1 or 2 laps to go?

Yes Rosberg gained an advantage. He was 5/10ths quicker in that sector than on his previous lap and he also failed to lose time due to making a mistake which is important. I think it was a clear cut penalty and a 5s stop and go would have been fair.

The reason I think that is that if it had been grass or a sand trap then Rosberg would have lost a lot more time because of the mistake he made or he would have been less aggressive with the corner giving Hamilton more of a chance into T1.

The real issue is tarmac run off areas, they are there for safety and will not be going away but a system needs to be brought in that punishes a driver for making a mistake when cutting a corner with tarmac run off while also making it safe for drivers who suffer some sort of car failure. I think a possible solution would be to have coloured path of tarmac that follows a snaking path through the run off that a driver must follow when making a mistake into the corner that does not result in a time loss. Failing to stick to the path will result in a drive through penalty unless the driver does a lap 5s off of their previous lap. Unlike a standard drive through this one would apply immediately, the reason being that making a mistake should have a negative impact as close to the time of the mistake as possible to allow any other drivers who are close when it happens to capitalise.

So what are the scenarios with the above rule:

1) a driver comes in too hot, attempts the corner and has a partial spin and the lap time was 3s slower than their previous lap - no penalty as the mistake resulted in a loss of time.

2) a driver comes in too hot, does not attempt the corner and sets a new PB. - penalty if the drivers next lap is not 5s slower than the PB.

3) a driver comes in too hot, does not attempt the corner but does follow the snaking path. - no penalty as the driver followed the path and their mistake cost them time.

4) a driver comes in side by side with another car and takes to the run off area - this is as it is now, if you gained a place then give it back, if it was a blatant case of forcing another driver off the track it should be looked at by the stewards.

This way you do not have to have speed bump in the tarmac run off areas so it is as safe as possible for drivers with mechanical issues while also making sure that mistakes are punished in a way that is fair for the driver making it as well as for other drivers who may be able to capitalise on the mistake. The way I imagine it following the path results in an approximate 3s time loss, ignoring that results in a 5s slower lap and ignoring that results in a drive through which is considerably more, but that is fair as they had two previous chances to avoid it.

EDIT: I would have made the penalty a 5s stop and go but as the rules sit if it happens when you do not have any pitstops remaining you just get 5s added to your time, problem is if it is a faster driver who makes a mistake which might have allowed a slower driver to get in front by the time the end of the race comes they might be more than 5s ahead and it has not resulted in any sort of penalty which is not the point of the rule.

Edited by Timorous, 09 June 2014 - 10:32.

Every single driver has out-braked themselves countless times into chicanes while being chased, and not one has ever been penalised for doing so once in a race. This absolutely and completely includes Lewis Hamilton. It includes every driver ever to race for a significant period of time in fact.

All true, although I don't recall seeing one where a fastest lap was set and the DRS was broken before.

I don't think those factors distinguish this incident sufficiently to merit a penalty.  I do think they make it one of the more extreme examples of legal chicane cutting that I've seen.

I thought what happened yesterday was quite interesting.  The thread title promises more than the opening post delivers, because I don't think the incident on Sunday really bears any relation to Spa '08 other than the rule which is applied.  The interesting question is what the definition of an 'advantage' is and who might be gaining one has all sorts of parameters if you look hard enough.  If Hamilton had crossed the tarmac instead and ended up much closer to the rear of Rosberg, for example, is that an advantage?  Does it matter if he then passes or not?  If not, how many corners or laps does he wait?  What if he saved himself two laps of hard slog on his way to catch Rosberg?  Isn't that an 'advantage' too?

I think the problem is that if you look hard enough you can see reason to penalise a whole lot of off-track excursions and although I would agree with the view that where it is done consistently it should be punished, I can't at all see that a one-off like this should be, unless drivers are side-by-side or otherwise having to react to another drivers presence.

 

As far as the decision, on the current interpretation (introduced thanks to Schumacher on de la Rosa in Hungary all those years ago) I can see why they made the decision they did.

This was the incident which came immediately to mind when watching.  That was a couple of different corners around the circuit too, and Schumacher was able to stay ahead for far longer than he might have expected.  I bet that they both enjoyed the battle, if you could ask them today.

de la Rosa commentates for Spanish TV doesn't he?  Does anyone know if he commented on this at all?

Sure Rosberg locked up. No issue with that. But then he floored it. Perhaps not cheating, but definitely a bit "dirty".

 

No, not dirty even a little bit.

Mister Goldylocks escapes yet another penalty. When you gain a second, a 5 second added time would suffice. It costed Hamilton 2 laps to close the gap again. If Rosberg did it twice, he would almost gained more then the penalty.

 

Bring back the old chicane with gravel et al. This F1 is getting ridiculous. 

You might have a point, but I couldn't read past the silly name calling.

As others have pointed out, most off track excursions inherently make you lose time and that is why need not be penalized as the driver did not gain an advantage.

Yesterday, not only did Nico improve his time by 0.6 seconds but was battling for position and lost no time either by going off track. Add these circumstances all up, and it was a fit case for a 5 second penalty.

I will go back and check later tonight on the KVY-RAI incident but I think I remember KVY lost enough time and RAI was right on his tail straightaway. So KVY may not have gained an advantage by going off track and that could be a likely reason.

Mister Goldylocks escapes yet another penalty. When you gain a second, a 5 second added time would suffice. It costed Hamilton 2 laps to close the gap again. If Rosberg did it twice, he would almost gained more then the penalty.

 

Bring back the old chicane with gravel et al. This F1 is getting ridiculous. 

Tiresome.

Your last point, I agree with.

Every single driver has out-braked themselves countless times into chicanes while being chased, and not one has ever been penalised for doing so once in a race. This absolutely and completely includes Lewis Hamilton. It includes every driver ever to race for a significant period of time in fact.

 

ONLY Persistently cutting chicanes on purpose or overtaking by doing so have been punished. This is completely consistent in application.

 

They are not going to introduce any 'Lewis Hamilton special assistance rules' just top hobble Nico, and I think as a fan of his one should not wish for it to be so.

There are chicanes where you can gain a lot by skipping them. Why do you think the Monza chicanes are real boobytraps? Otherwise you would gain to much. The last chicane at Montreal lost much of its charm now. I checked YT for the old solutions at Canada and they seemed fine. Artificial gras and gravel. You would always try to make the corner.

When Kimi gave the place back, that wasn't necessary either if you follow the same ruling.

@buttoneer. Call it however you like, but Rosberg usually escapes penalties where others would surely have gotten them. I'm by no means a Hamilton fan (far from it actually).

 

 

No, not dirty even a little bit.

How is intentionally turning a mistake into an advantage not dirty? It's as if the dealer dealt himself an extra card in a round of poker, then put one of his choice back after looking at what he got.

The fact he made a honest mistake has nothing to do with exploiting it afterwards to gain an advantage.

doc83 brings up a valid point, the move would have been judged entirely different on lap 68. It appears we don't have rules in F1, only guidelines.

Edited by SHODAN, 09 June 2014 - 12:30.

How is intentionally turning a mistake into an advantage not dirty? It's as if the dealer dealt himself an extra card in a round of poker, the put one of his choice back after looking at what he got.

 

The fact he made a honest mistake has nothing to do with exploiting it afterwards to gain an advantage.

 

doc83 brings up a valid point, the move would have been judged entirely different on lap 68. It appears we don't have rules in F1, only guidelines.

We have the rules which clearly state that no advantage must be gained by going off track. The application of the rules however is inconsistent when this should have been quite straightforward to deal with.

Every single driver has out-braked themselves countless times into chicanes while being chased, and not one has ever been penalised for doing so once in a race. This absolutely and completely includes Lewis Hamilton. It includes every driver ever to race for a significant period of time in fact.

 

ONLY Persistently cutting chicanes on purpose or overtaking by doing so have been punished. This is completely consistent in application.

Quoted for emphasis. Thank you!

Very dangerous - potentially.

Imagine 2 cars running close to each other. Car in front makes a slight mistake, leaves the track limit with 4 wheels just for few inches. Car behind is close and manages to keep track.

With your "solution" car in front would now suddenly reduce speed - car behind has no chance to react => BAM

But the driver behind would know that the car infront could suddenly slow if it went off track and wouldn't leave himself open to that happening.

How is intentionally turning a mistake into an advantage not dirty? It's as if the dealer dealt himself an extra card in a round of poker, the put one of his choice back after looking at what he got.

 

The fact he made a honest mistake has nothing to do with exploiting it afterwards to gain an advantage.

 

doc83 brings up a valid point, the move would have been judged entirely different on lap 68. It appears we don't have rules in F1, only guidelines.

What would you rather he had done?

Under the circumstances, I'm unsure what else Rosberg could have done. 

Since Nico kept the advantage the chicane cut gave him, he  broke a rule. Since the person hurt was a team mate FiA passed the responsibility of making the judgement to the team. Good call. Had Hamilton been in another team they might ruled differently.

That should not make a difference. Why did Chilton receive a grid drop while he only hit his teammate then?

What's frustrating to me isn't that he locked up and missed the chicane, I appreciate that that can happen to anyone, especially under that much pressure. It was that he completely floored it afterward, you shouldn't be able to gain from making a mistake.

Edited by Brandz07, 09 June 2014 - 12:06.

What would you rather he had done?

 

Under the circumstances, I'm unsure what else Rosberg could have done. 

Not sure what the question has to do with the bold part, but the obvious answer is lift.

Why should he do what no other driver has ever felt the need or been compelled to do?

Obi - if you want to compare - Lewis got no warning in 08 despite making an effort to address the issue.

 

Nico made a chunk of time and got told "don't do it again"

 

Not picking sides, but the consistency is no existent.

Is that so? I was under the impression that in the drivers briefing the day before the race, or just before the race, the drivers were told not to use the move that Hamilton made in the race itself.

By the way: I still find that Ham should not have had that penalty in 2008, though the reasoning behind was sound.

Not sure what the question has to do with the bold part, but the obvious answer is lift.

No, that isn't the obvious answer.

He didn't do anything wrong by not lifting. He made a mistake and carried on.That's all.

Edited by Jon83, 09 June 2014 - 12:07.

Why should he do what no other driver has ever felt the need or been compelled to do?

To follow the idea of fair competition?

Nah, what a preposterous idea.

No, that isn't the obvious answer.

 

He didn't do anything wrong by not lifting. He made a mistake and carried on.That's all.

He broke the rules by gaining an advantage by going off track. He even got warned for it, so not sure where you get this idea that he did not do anything wrong!

No, that isn't the obvious answer.

 

He didn't do anything wrong by not lifting. He made a mistake and carried on.That's all.

And that's precisely why he got a "final warning", right?

I do agree that this particular chicane should have had speed bumps installed in the run-off area

Yeah, wouldn't that be cool. Any car going off at that chicane with a brake or other failure would be launched into the air and fly into the pit area. I am sure "fans" like you would really appreciate that.

He broke the rules by gaining an advantage by going off track. He even got warned for it, so not sure where you get this idea that he did not do anything wrong!

He made a mistake. It happens.

When you gain a second, a 5 second added time would suffice. It costed Hamilton 2 laps to close the gap again. If Rosberg did it twice, he would almost gained more then the penalty.

Do you seriously want the stewards micro-managing on-track battles? A five second penalty would have swapped the positions, even though Hamilton had not yet been able to make an on-track attempt leading up to the incident. Hamilton may have lost DRS range, but that is not the same as actually being ahead or winning a corner.

This is crazy.

Yeah, wouldn't that be cool. Any car going off at that chicane with a brake or other failure would be launched into the air and fly into the pit area. I am sure "fans" like you would really appreciate that.

A wide strip of gravel on the left side of the track after the second turn in the chicane would be enough to prevent drivers from rejoining at full speed.

I don't think the whole run off area should be gravel if only to give drivers some space for a non-fatal mistake when trying to overtake in that spot.

Edited by SHODAN, 09 June 2014 - 12:25.