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

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

That was probably because he was stupid at the meeting. Did you read what he had to say about the accident?
And gaining an advantage differs a lot from causing an accident.

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

then wait until turns 1 and 2 to give the time back.

I saw Rosberg suggesting he gave the time back then.  I don't recall it that way - I'm pretty sure the gap went from less than 1s to more than that, and stayed that way so that Rosberg was out of DRS the lap after.

Anyone have any better timing details?

For @&€# sake, Nico locked up, flat spotting his tire. He probably could not make the corner so he cut the chicane. Happened hundreds of times in that spot over the years, even with Lewis. There was no overtake attempt at that moment so no real problem. But since Lewis was behind a part of his fan base goes bananas, throws reason out of the window and start crying.

Cutting the track like this at Montreal happens all the time, thankfully the stewards never punish for it if it's not intentional otherwise racing would be ruined

Cutting the chicane isn't the problem. Accelerating & Gaining an advantage is. He posted a fastest lap by a second and broke DRS.

He got a warning though, which means the Stewards thought it wasn't ok but not enough to grant a penalty. As long as they make these kind of decisions consistent, it's fine. Digging up Spa '08 isn't necessary as we all know how Steward decisions were at that time.

For @&€# sake, Nico locked up, flat spotting his tire. He probably could not make the corner so he cut the chicane. Happened hundreds of times in that spot over the years, even with Lewis. There was no overtake attempt at that moment so no real problem. But since Lewis was behind a part of his fan base goes bananas, throws reason out of the window and start crying.

Cutting the track like this at Montreal happens all the time, thankfully the stewards never punish for it if it's not intentional otherwise racing would be ruined

I think this is what a lot of it boils down to.

Edited by Jon83, 09 June 2014 - 12:40.

Cutting the chicane isn't the problem. Accelerating & Gaining an advantage is. He posted a fastest lap by a second and broke DRS.

He got a warning though, which means the Stewards thought it wasn't ok but not enough to grant a penalty. As long as they make these kind of decisions consistent, it's fine. Digging up Spa '08 isn't necessary as we all know how Steward decisions were at that time.

Consistency might be good, but even better is to have a bit of a feeling for the balance of total fairness and entertainment value. As I stated before - Mercedes controlled both drivers and no other team was really affected so if the team was unhappy with the decision, the could always correct it themselves. And, maybe they will.

I saw Rosberg suggesting he gave the time back then.  I don't recall it that way - I'm pretty sure the gap went from less than 1s to more than that, and stayed that way so that Rosberg was out of DRS the lap after.

 

Anyone have any better timing details?

The gap to Hamilton is of no relevance here. What the gap was before or after the chicane is of no relevance at all.

The only thing that counts are Rosbergs own times. If he went slower after the chicane, compared to his last lap time, then he did not gain an advantage.

Hamilton's times have absolutely no effect on this at all.

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.

nico gained a huge advantage by doing what he did.he was under huge pressure,he sounded rattled on the radio.lewis was right with him,nico made a mistake,and chose to floor it to gain an advantage.he didnt have to go across the chicane that swiftly,he chose to, knowing it would get him out of the danger zone.

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!

If you know that thing is there and you know the consequences you might think about it and reduce your speed.
 

If you commit a mistake you are supposed to lose time, not to gain time. 

If you have gravel in there either you lose time or you get stuck.

He did not lose time, he gain time which play into his advantage. That's a FACT.

After he did, he did not lift, instead he keep accelerating and set the fastest lap. Which in my view its a clear evidence that his intention were not to lose give back what he won.
And even in his next lap he kept going. Hamilton had to do it all over again to win back what he lose against Rosberg.

For @&€# sake, Nico locked up, flat spotting his tire. He probably could not make the corner so he cut the chicane. Happened hundreds of times in that spot over the years, even with Lewis. There was no overtake attempt at that moment so no real problem. But since Lewis was behind a part of his fan base goes bananas, throws reason out of the window and start crying.

Cutting the track like this at Montreal happens all the time, thankfully the stewards never punish for it if it's not intentional otherwise racing would be ruined

Coming down the first of two DRS zones Lewis was less than 0.5 seconds behind and gaining fast.  There was no overtake attempt because Nico went through the chicane.  Nico went into it too fast, came out of it accelerating and got his fastest lap of the race.  This avoided any possibility of overtaking.  I don't think anything I just wrote can be disputed.

If you know that thing is there and you know the consequences you might think about it and reduce your speed.
 

If you commit a mistake you are supposed to lose time, not to gain time. 

If you have gravel in there either you lose time or you get stuck.

He did not lose time, he gain time which play into his advantage. That's a FACT.

After he did, he did not lift, instead he keep accelerating and set the fastest lap. Which in my view its a clear evidence that his intention were not to lose give back what he won.
And even in his next lap he kept going. Hamilton had to do it all over again to win back what he lose against Rosberg.

I don''t think anyone is denying that he gained an advantage, the question is only if and then how he should be penalized. What do you think should have been a good decision? Don't forget that the fight between Nico and Lewis for the championship is mostly a headache for Mercedes and I am personally very happy if FiA stays out of it.

The gap to Hamilton is of no relevance here. What the gap was before or after the chicane is of no relevance at all.

 

The only thing that counts are Rosbergs own times. If he went slower after the chicane, compared to his last lap time, then he did not gain an advantage.

 

Hamilton's times have absolutely no effect on this at all.

What was Rosberg's s1 time for the lap before, on and after his lock-up?

What was Rosberg's s1 time for the lap before, on and after his lock-up?

Hamilton did exactly what Rosberg did, a couple of laps later. He ended up well ahead of Rosberg so from that you can see pretty good what kind of advantage Rosberg got. Does it matter?

Hamilton did exactly what Rosberg did, a couple of laps later. He ended up well ahead of Rosberg so from that you can see pretty good what kind of advantage Rosberg got. Does it matter?

The question (in the discussion I was having) isn't the advantage (which would be defined by s3 times), it is whether Rosberg gave it back as he claimed in T1/2 (which s1 times should tell us).

Hamilton did exactly what Rosberg did, a couple of laps later. He ended up well ahead of Rosberg so from that you can see pretty good what kind of advantage Rosberg got. Does it matter?

Nonsense. You have no way of knowing the exact speeds while passing through the chicane, nor the exact speeds of the drivers staying on track.

The question (in the discussion I was having) isn't the advantage (which would be defined by s3 times), it is whether Rosberg gave it back as he claimed in T1/2 (which s1 times should tell us).

Well, he obviously did, otherwise he would have been penalised by the stewards, who had access to these times.

nico would have gained in sector 1 a lil bit too.

in nascar they have a rule that if you miss the chicane you come to a complete stop, then you can go again (in the runoff area)

nico got a nice safe margin, and had lewis cruise behind him while under investigation, he was very lucky with alot of things yesterday

oh and in spa 08 kimi forced lewis offtrack (going across those kerbs would have resulted in a crash..), got the place back, got overtaken, then later in the same lap got the place back again (and a big chunk of time), and then he spun, and binned it

Hamilton did exactly what Rosberg did, a couple of laps later. He ended up well ahead of Rosberg so from that you can see pretty good what kind of advantage Rosberg got. Does it matter?

Hate to disappoint you but no such thing happened, HAM outbraked himself at the hairpin and then before the final chicane because his brakes were toast and then he let ROS past, surely as a result of the brakes fading.

Well, he obviously did, otherwise he would have been penalised by the stewards, who had access to these times.

Not sure I agree with that - I think he could have not handed the time back and still not have been pinged.

Does the live timing app provide sector times?  If so, does any kind soul who has it fancy providing?

Not sure I agree with that - I think he could have not handed the time back and still not have been pinged.

So you are saying that the stewards are actively manipulating the championship? And the press are also going along with this, since no serious publication has dwelled on this issue?

So you are saying that the stewards are actively manipulating the championship? And the press are also going along with this, since no serious publication has dwelled on this issue?

No, not at all.

I am asking for the sector 1 times around the fateful lap.

No, not at all.

 

I am asking for the sector 1 times around the fateful lap.

No, you said: " I think he could have not handed the time back and still not have been pinged."

But you also say that you don't think the stewards manipulated the championship.

What does this leave us with then? The stewards are too stupid to compare two times? And nobody notices?

No, you said: " I think he could have not handed the time back and still not have been pinged."

 

But you also say that you don't think the stewards manipulated the championship.

 

What does this leave us with then? The stewards are too stupid to compare two times? And nobody notices?

Sorry to butt in.

If the time Rosberg apparently gained was handed back (i.e. if he gained 0.5 seconds but gave the same time up again in S1 of the next lap) then perhaps that is why the stewards didn't intervene with a penalty.

You've used the phrase 'manipulating the championship' in two posts now. Do you think that is what happened?

No, you said: " I think he could have not handed the time back and still not have been pinged."

 

But you also say that you don't think the stewards manipulated the championship.

 

What does this leave us with then? The stewards are too stupid to compare two times? And nobody notices?

That advantage is usually interpreted as place gained, rather than time gained.  So Rosberg could have gained time, not given it all back, and still not have been pinged without the stewards making a decision that would be manipulating the championship.

Nonsense. You have no way of knowing the exact speeds while passing through the chicane, nor the exact speeds of the drivers staying on track.

So you want irrefutable proof of the time gained here.

Well, he obviously did, otherwise he would have been penalised by the stewards, who had access to these times.

But in your very next post it's "obvious" Rosberg gave back the time. 

Anyway, I think it would've been unfair to have given a time penalty to Rosberg. However, he did give back that time with the extended pit stop (possibly due to his excursion off track?!?).*

Edit: *Just to be clear, I meant this in a "Karma" type way.

Edited by EvilWarMachine, 09 June 2014 - 14:59.

That advantage is usually interpreted as place gained, rather than time gained.

It is usually interpreted that way by people, who don't understand the rules. This is why quite a lot of posters look at the gap to Hamilton.

But, like I said before, that is of no relevance at all. Even if Rosberg had been leading by a minute, he would still not have been allowed to gain an advantage by cutting a chicane. And he would have been penalised, if he had not given back the time. An advantage is an advantage, regardless of the position of any other drivers on the track. And if you look at the end results of the race, a second gained by Rosberg cutting the chicane would have been enough to keep him in front of Vettel at the finish. So the stewards have to punish these things, because nobody knows how the race will pan out.

The advantage is purely in time, if you gain a position or not has no effect on the rule or it's interpretation.

If your interpretation were true, then why did the stewards even start an investigation? What was there to investigate, when Rosberg clearly did not gain a position by cutting the chicane?

Of course the stewards needed to start an investigation, because they had to compare Rosberg's times.

Havent read the thread, but one of the big differences between Spa 2008 and now are the stewards themselves. That incident and the others that year helped prompt the impartial stewards we have now.

As for the incident in Montreal, ideally there would be something like the tyre wall chicane you have at Monza to make it slower to run through the chicane but that is not possible at that corner. Although I am a Hamilton fan I dont think a penalty was deserved (though i would have wanted one), but if he did it again then one would have been correct. Its the problem with the tarmac runoff that I hate.  

They key to the FIA is apparently it being a 'lasting advantage', as apparently is also the way it is worded in the regulations. Gaining one second to the FIA seemingly does not constitute a lasting advantage. Overtaking and getting a place obviously would, which is why drivers give those back in these cases now.

People are saying the FIA set a precedent like this, but they would've set one if they did punish Rosberg as well. The 'one warning' for cutting a chicane and not gaining too huge an advantage (which a second isn't, especially in the first half of a race) is pretty customary. But if they'd punish Rosberg, they'd have to punish every driver cutting a chicane from now on, as each team would complain about it when pursuing another (and probably even when really not being too close).

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.

The incidents are not similar. Like it or not, the punishments for leaving the track to GAIN a position are pretty consistent. Leaving the track to DEFEND not so much. There have been many examples of this sort of thing in the past, and warnings are not unusual.

For cutting chicanes, the standard has always been to first give a warning. We have seen cars missing the chicane after the tunnel in Monaco countless times. If the cutting results in a change of position, the position has to be given back. If the cutting prevents a change of position, then it is harder to judge and an example of that is Alonso in Monaco many years ago when his tires was so bad that he was many seconds off pace and repeatedly cut the chicane when they tried to overtake him.

Had Rosberg done it again, without attempting to give back the time gained, I am quite sure he would have got a penalty but as it was, for the sake of the fans and the excitement, they probably did not even consider any penalty there. Had the other car belonged to another team it would have been different. Good decision because a penalty would have robbed us of a good race.

Just for the reference, here is how far Lewis was from Nico when he started to lock up. This is already in the breaking zone so the distance did shrink a bit.

I genuinely don't think Lewis was within a shot in the second DRS zone. The time Nico gained made sure of that but even if he wouldn't gain anything, he was safe on this lap.

This picture is from few laps later. Different camera, different lens (these lenses make close things appear further away), Lewis was much closer at the chicane but still too far away to catch Nico in the next zone.

Just my opinion, a driver that doesn't keep it between the white lines should be punished, one way or the other , unless they are being unfairly pushed off .

I understand why gravel or grass has been replaced by tarmac in many run off areas, but I think this is where the stewards need to take over .

Nico left the track after making a mistake, and had no way of maintaining his position without cutting through the chicane .

If the stewards don't consider this a breach of the rules, I'd like to see a comeback of the gravel traps, maybe with an escape route along the barriers .

He had no choice, any driver would have done the same.

Spa 08' isn't really comparable, Hamilton didn't even give Kimi a fair chance that day 

Edited by MikeV1987, 09 June 2014 - 16:00.

first of all nico says he did give the time back in T1 and T2...so no real "gain"

secondly...the flatspot are a pretty bad thing so he did pay a penalty for it.

if you don't want this to happen - remove the tarmac runoff. More penalties is just stupid, discourage drivers from taking too many chances there.Otherwise they are all deemed to push it to be competitive and at some point some will get it wrong.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Kobayashi also given a final warning after cutting a corner or chicane early in the race? I think stewards are pretty consistent when it comes to these kind of situations.

It is once again, a huge overreaction from some posters. Just like after Monaco, the calls for a new penalty that in the past 10 years would be used only once (Schumacher) and makes no sense whatsoever on any other track than Monaco.

This week we have the outcry aimed towards something that nobody has ever complained before, you cut the chicane (without gaining on track position) , you get the warning, you cut it again and you will be penalised to bigger extent than just giving the time back. (can't come up with the example of it but I thought the penalty is a drive through if you cut again).

Guys please calm down a bit

Edited by stillOrange, 09 June 2014 - 16:18.

I am not advocating a penalty for Rosberg, but for future, something should be done. Massa in Brazil 2013 was cutting pit entry line lap after lap, gaining marginal amount of time, but still going against the rulebook. So he got a warning. Same here and I am ok with no penalty.
 

But what bugs me is the nature of advantage he got. The drivers were closely racing and one made a mistake. If it happened at any other heavy braking zone (Bahrain T1, Monza T1, China back straight etc), he would have gone wide and lost a place. This time he ran away with it.

Formula One is a game of errors after all. If you make a massive error to leads you to missing a corner... you should lose. Just from racing perspective.

So, I am not bitter the penalty wasn't applied. But it left a bad taste in my mouth.

No, not at all.

 

I am asking for the sector 1 times around the fateful lap.

And one more thing - people saying a flat spot on tyres played as a punishment for his error? That's nonsense. If you take someone out, but damage your own front wing, you are already accordingly punished? What happened to his tyre is irrevelant.

I am not advocating a penalty for Rosberg, but for future, something should be done. Massa in Brazil 2013 was cutting pit entry line lap after lap, gaining marginal amount of time, but still going against the rulebook. So he got a warning. Same here and I am ok with no penalty.
 

Didn't Massa get a drive through? That was not for gaining advantage but for crossing the white line at Pit Entry.

Didn't Massa get a drive through? That was not for gaining advantage but for crossing the white line at Pit Entry.

Right, but he only got that penalty because he kept doing it, even after being warned.

And one more thing - people saying a flat spot on tyres played as a punishment for his error? That's nonsense. If you take someone out, but damage your own front wing, you are already accordingly punished? What happened to his tyre is irrevelant.

I don't see it that way, particularly as the debate hinges partially on the definition of a "lasting advantage." I would argue that in fact, the whole discussion is irrelevant given there is not and will hopefully never be powers handed to the stewards such that they can regulate gaps, distances or times between racing cars. The only minimum powers the stewards currently have include either reprimand or actively swapping the positions in effect for the drivers. The basis of the discussion, based on some of the name-calling within this thread, is really that Rosberg and his relation to the law is "flavour of the month." The event was wholly unremarkable.

Edited by Disgrace, 09 June 2014 - 16:35.

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.

Sure there was, he could have not pushed the accelerator to the floor.    Kvyat was another one.  He could have hit the brakes, ceded the position, and stayed on the racing surface. But why bother to stay on the track when it is advantageous to skip a section of the track when you won't be punished?  Why should Ricciardo have to stay on the track when passing Rosberg?  The FIA has shown time and time again that they really don't care about track limits.  Until they decide that track limits are important, we'll continue to have these types of incidents. 

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?

I think it is a big deal for a few reasons.

1.  He got a gap, which allowed him to take a mental brake from defensive driving for a couple laps.  Advantage Nico.

2.  Hamilton had to push harder to re-close the gap, using more gas/tyre/brakes.  Advantage Nico.

3.  Without the runoff, had Nico locked his brakes there, Hamilton would have easily made it past because Nico would have had to slowed significantly to stay on the track. 

Edited by Frank Tuesday, 09 June 2014 - 17:04.

 

I genuinely don't think Lewis was within a shot in the second DRS zone. The time Nico gained made sure of that but even if he wouldn't gain anything, he was safe on this lap.

 

The problem with this is that in order to stay on the track, Nico's corner speed would have been down dramatically over Hamilton's corner speed.  The time lost through lower corner speed and acceleration would have been more than enough for Hamilton to get by.  If it had been a right hand turn instead of a chicane, Nico would have gone off track and Hamilton would have gone by on the inside.

Nico really is starting to feel the pressure a bit now isn't he, Monaco incident, even in the race he had a big lock up, Canada bad start and another lockup, lockup went straight on when Lewis was in DRS and nearly crashed into the wall making sure Lewis didn't get him in the first pitstops

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.

Doesnt work - you have to stay close to your frontman if you want to attack.

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.

Well that's in danger of taking us away from the topic, but I strongly disagree. Prior to the introduction of that small car park on the site of the former gravel trap at the last chicane, Rosberg couldn't have made that error and kept his position. That, in actual fact, is why the previosuly infamous "wall of champions" now claims so few victims, because it used to be that if you outbraked yourself on the way in you would miss the first apex, take too much kerb on the second apex, and that would throw you into the wall. Now if you outbrake yourself you go straight on. You can't criticise Rosberg for it, but when the layout was more challenging, he couldn't have made that error and gained from it. If he aborted the corner early enough he'd have had to go over the gravel and given himself front wing damage and/or two airboxes full of shingle at the very least. And if he tried to make it and hit the kerb, he'd have been in the wall.

But we have what we have and it would help if people were clearer about what the rules are. There are two possible views on what a driver has to do in those circumstances to ensure he gains no lasting advantage. If you only look at it with respect to the car immediately behind, since the following car had more pace, it was sort of inevitable that Rosberg would gain no lasting advantage in that, by cutting the chicane and pulling away slightly, it was only a matter of a very short period of time before Hamilton caught him again. Is the mere fact that Hamilton quickly caught Rosberg enough to make the stewards conclude there was no lasting advantage?

I think the above is a valid interpretation, but Rosberg seems to think not because he says he realised he had to give back the time he'd gained, which he says he did almost immediately, in turns 1&2. But his laptime on the lap where he cut the chicane was much quicker than his previous laps and that was quite clearly as a result of the shortcut. And his laptime on the lap after was not sufficiently slower to suggest that he gave back all of the time he had gained. Maybe he did and was then able to pick up his pace in the remainder of that lap. If so, he slowed down again a lap later.

In my view the sector times need to be looked at, and rather like under a yellow flag, you should have to promptly offset any apparent time gain by posting slow sectors relative to the sector times you've been setting. And drivers should be expected to lose enough time to ensure that there can be no room for reasonable doubt that they gave back the time they gained through leaving the track. I've no problem with drivers waiting until they have an opportunity to lose that time without exposing themselves to the car behind and losing position, but any time gained relative to absolutely any other driver anywhere on the circuit, ought to be given back and be seen to have been given back, promptly. Because, as happened yesterday and can happen in any race, the time gap between cars that don't appear to be in the same race, can become crucial. If Rosberg gained time against Hamilton it was of little consequence because Hamilton was able to just catch him up. But he will have also gained time against Perez, Ricciardo, Vettel, Massa etc. You wouldn't have thought at the time of the incident that Rosberg's gap to those cars was of any relevance, but as it turned out he spent most of the remainder of the race trying to defend and manage that gap and to stay ahead of those cars. That's my interpretation, but it should be noted that my interpretation is consistently harsher than the stewards'. So I don't think the decision in this case should surprise anybody, even if they are still upset about an incident that happened six seasons ago which isn't even comparable and which occurred when the phrase "lasting advantage" wasn't even in the regulations.

The stewards obviously don't agree with that and judged that no advantage was gained, but still warned Rosberg about track limits. Personally I'm in favour of that if it's done consistently, which it isn't (I don't think Kvyat was warned, was he?). It suggests that the stewards take seriously the rule that says you can't leave the track on purpose, and it gives you the impression that they're saying "Okay, you can do that once if it's by mistake and there's no advantage, but you can't keep doing it. You're supposed to be one of the world's top racing drivers and we, the stewards, aren't going to buy it if you make the same "mistake" again and again and again". Warnings before penalties for accidental off-track excursions without lasting advantage are a good idea in my opinion.

As it turned out, in Spa it hardly had an impact on the outcome of the race, after Kimi put it in the wall, but they penalised Lewis anyway.

 

But it isn't comparable because the rules have been clarified a lot since then.

Well i agree it had no real impact on at spa either but with kimi crashing out, lewis couldn't give the place back hence the time penalty. Standard procedure.

there is no way you can say that with any kind of credibility at all. Nico gained well over a second of Hamilton, without question as all the timings prove that. That took a lot of pressure off him and stopped Hamilton attempting a pass, which almost certainly was would have happened in a next lap or so. Who knows what would have happened then? Its more than plausible that either Hamilton would have got through, or crashed into him or something else. To say it had no effect is ludicrous

He may have and he may not have, who knows, but with lewis retiring it becomes a pretty moot point. It wasn't really a genuine overtaking opportunity from lewis so a warning is pretty fair.

Can you link to some supporting evidence, please?

 

My recollection is that Hamilton did give the place back, and Mclaren sought, and were given, reassurance from Charlie Whiting (the Race Director) that this was sufficient remedy.  

 

Spa 2008 was the landmark case where the FIA redefined the offence, seemingly ex post facto, as gaining an advantage rather than gaining a place.

Charlie whiting doesn't have the final word. The stewards do. If they wanted to be sure all they had to do is let him re pass again rather than take a risk and yeah, they made a new rule to clarify the situation to make sure it doesn't happen again.