234 replies to this topic

[LuisPena]

As Ron Dennis once asked the FIA.

"Where is the consistency?"

Of course Hamilton vs Kimi Spa 2008 was a little bit different from Hamilton vs Nico Montreal incident but they do have something in common.

In both incident he who jumped over the chicane gain and advantage over his rival. In Hamilton vs Kimi incident, Hamilton gave back the time/distance/position that he got from jumping the chicane. What happened after that is another story. 

In Rosberg vs Hamilton case, Rosberg jumped the chicane and gain a big advantage, considering how close they were before the chicane. He even set the fastest lap of the race by doing this. After he did this he built a small advantage over Hamilton again and did not try to slow down in order to give back what he won.

My point is in 2008 Hamilton was punished because he gain an advantage over his opponent by jumping the chicane and got a 25 ( if my memory is correct). Today Rosbeg built an advantage by jumping the chicane and he didn't even got a warning by the FIA.

And for the record, I am not trying to portrait hamilton as a victim but I am using him as an example because obviously he was involved in a similar incident back in 2008.

[OO7]

My point is in 2008 Hamilton was punished because he gain an advantage over his opponent by jumping the chicane and got a 25 ( if my memory is correct). Today Rosbeg built an advantage by jumping the chicane and he didn't even got a warning by the FIA.

Nico did get a warning.  If he had done the same again he would have received a penalty.  But the rule does basically allow a driver one free get out of jail card making it something drivers can use to their advantage.

[Atreiu]

Honestly, after hours of tracktime through the weekend and the driver briefing, who needs a warning to know what kind of off track behaviour is acceptable or not? Gaining an advantage by exploring tarmac run off is at least a decade old.

[f1RacingForever]

Nico's was accidental, Spa 2008 was not. Hamilton used that advantage in spa to overtake another car while lewis lost maybe a second today.

[teejay]

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.

[Atreiu]

Nico's was accidental, Spa 2008 was not. Hamilton used that advantage in spa to overtake another car while lewis lost maybe a second today.

And Rosberg accidently gained enough to avoid DRS proximity for a while. How fortunate.

[LuisPena]

Nico's was accidental, Spa 2008 was not. Hamilton used that advantage in spa to overtake another car while lewis lost maybe a second today.

 

Accidental. But, did he or did he not win an clear advantage over his opponent accidentally or not?   
 

[TomNokoe]

It was accidental in the sense he did not mean to lock up. He gained through accelerating through the chicane. I actually expected to see him flying through the air via the yellow sausage bump/kerb, but they left a gap at the end.

Tarmac runoffs

[f1RacingForever]

Accidental. But, did he or did he not win an clear advantage over his opponent accidentally or not?   
 

ah it might have been accidental and it might not have been, but when you are issuing a penalty you want to be damn sure which is why i think warnings are issued after your first offense. It makes it official so you cannot try to argue you weren't told not to do it later on and what not. It's debatable whether is was intentional or not. Spa was pretty clear cut that it was intentional. The funny thing is that Lewis was by far the faster driver on circuit at that time. He could have given the place back and easily passed again later in the lap. Really idiotic decision by Mclaren that day to risk it.

[f1RacingForever]

It was accidental in the sense he did not mean to lock up. He gained through accelerating through the chicane. I actually expected to see him flying through the air via the yellow sausage bump/kerb, but they left a gap at the end.

Tarmac runoffs

That would have been funny and unfortunate.

[OO7]

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.

2008 was ridiculous!

[OO7]

It was accidental in the sense he did not mean to lock up. He gained through accelerating through the chicane. I actually expected to see him flying through the air via the yellow sausage bump/kerb, but they left a gap at the end.

Tarmac runoffs

At the beginning of the weekend I thought the opening was good idea as it allows a car that has gone off a chance to rejoin without bumping over speed humps, NOW HOWEVER...............!!!

[f1RacingForever]

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.

Mclaren knew full well that they were under investigation and that they may have been told to give the place back. What would a warning have accomplished? The deed was already done. Mclaren took a risk and failed. Would Lewis have given kimi back the position because he got a warning?

If drivers knew they could intentionally cut corners to pass other drivers and their only punishment would be a silly warning, drivers would be cutting corners "accidentally" all the time.

Edited by f1RacingForever, 09 June 2014 - 02:31.

[LuisPena]

At the beginning of the weekend I thought the opening was good idea as it allows a car that has gone off a chance to rejoin without bumping over speed humps, NOW HOWEVER...............!!!

 

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

[teejay]

Mclaren knew full well that they were under investigation and that they may have been told to give the place back. What would a warning have accomplished? The deed was already done. Mclaren took a risk and failed. Would Lewis have given kimi back the position because he got a warning?

If drivers knew they could intentionally cut corners to pass other drivers and their only punishment would be a silly warning, drivers would be cutting corners "accidentally" all the time.

 

What exactly are you trying to argue?

 

Lewis gave back the spot immediately - or are you saying McLaren knew in those 4 seconds the FIA was set to investigate?

 

And Lewis wouldn't have given the spot back had he carried on and just got a warning... just like Nico didn't.

[f1RacingForever]

What exactly are you trying to argue?

 

Lewis gave back the spot immediately - or are you saying McLaren knew in those 4 seconds the FIA was set to investigate?

 

And Lewis wouldn't have given the spot back had he carried on and just got a warning... just like Nico didn't.

Just trying to understand what your getting at with the warning. Lewis cuts the track and passes kimi into the next corner. Giving a warning later on would seem pointless would it not? Are you saying Lewis should have gotten away with it, only given a warning? If so then i must disagree as he used an advantage to pass another driver. Nico's situation is entirely different. We have two drivers almost side by side, nico slightly in front and he outbreaks himself. As he was still ahead i think a warning is the proper decision. Had lewis been ahead and cutting allowed nico to maintain the position then a warning wouldn't be appropriate.

[Atreiu]

2008 aside, they actually had 4 hours of free practice and qualifying and a drivers' debrief before the race. Surely somehow the issue regarding proper conduct regarding the run off at the chincane must have been raised once.

 

Or had they not been warned once at all during the entire weekend?

[teejay]

Just trying to understand what your getting at with the warning. Lewis cuts the track and passes kimi into the next corner. Giving a warning later on would seem pointless would it not? Are you saying Lewis should have gotten away with it, only given a warning? If so then i must disagree as he used an advantage to pass another driver. Nico's situation is entirely different. We have two drivers almost side by side, nico slightly in front and he outbreaks himself. As he was still ahead i think a warning is the proper decision. Had lewis been ahead and cutting allowed nico to maintain the position then a warning wouldn't be appropriate.

 

Yes, exactly, a warning later on is pointless... which is exactly what Nico got.

 

As for your recollection of events - please, Lewis was nowhere near side by side.

[TomNokoe]

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

This is a great idea

[DarthWillie]

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

[Riverside]

  Bahrain 2012 - Lewis left the track and kept his foot in it and actually passed Nico off the track - no penalty.  

 

    Meanwhile if anyone here will say that Nico forced him off -  IT has been stated in an investigation by stewards that 

Hamilton was never alongside Nico at any point of the incident.    

 

  

[Riverside]

Yes, exactly, a warning later on is pointless... which is exactly what Nico got.

 

As for your recollection of events - please, Lewis was nowhere near side by side.

 

 People can't get their head around this fact because they want Nico to been guilty of wrong doing.

[f1RacingForever]

Yes, exactly, a warning later on is pointless... which is exactly what Nico got.

As for your recollection of events - please, Lewis was nowhere near side by side.

It would have been pointless in Lewis's situation. Nico cutting the chicane had no impact on the outcome of this race. It was just an honest mistake. Hardly comparable to spa.

[dbltop]

But Rosberg was guilty of wrongdoing! He missed the the chicane because he was trying to keep a competitor behind him. The tv commentators said it was his fastest lap up until that point. He did gain a clear advantage, accidental or not

[ClubmanGT]

But Rosberg was guilty of wrongdoing! He missed the the chicane because he was trying to keep a competitor behind him. The tv commentators said it was his fastest lap up until that point. He did gain a clear advantage, accidental or not

 

He missed the chicane because he locked a wheel. He made the great sin of being in front of a British driver which of course triggers a mandatory RC thread. 

[P123]

Yeah, that's why the stewards gave him a final warning Clubman!

As for the general topic, when have the stewards ever been consistent? They can't be consistent within a race weekend, so expecting such over a span of several years is asking a lot!

[PayasYouRace]

It would have been pointless in Lewis's situation. Nico cutting the chicane had no impact on the outcome of this race. It was just an honest mistake. Hardly comparable to spa.

 

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.

[bourbon]

The real question is, what type of penalty would you give him?  A time penalty worth a speculated time gained?  What if not cutting he had picked up time?  How do you account for that?   What if he would have lost a place?  How do you account for that?  What if Lewis had tried to pass an out of control Nico and spun out?  How do you account for that?

 

It is really hard to penalize an error.  If done purposely that is easier.  It was an unfair advantage of some seconds, but because he either allowed Lewis to catch back up or Lewis caught up, the point became moot. 

[Zava]

what bugs me is that Kvyat (I think) did the same when Raikkonen wanted to overtake him, but that was during an actual overtaking move (as in arriving side-by-side at the turn in) and not just following close. now, the camera didn't show them until arriving at T1, but from their initial speed it seemed like Kvyat can stay ahead. not a single mention of stewards looking at it.

 

(of course if Raikkonen got through, then it doesn't need investigation)

[RedBaron]

Nico gained a big advantage. 6 tenths + Out of double DRS + 1 lap of being attacked by Lewis while his tyres were fresh. 

 

I am glad no penalty was give though, would have wrecked the lead battle. The crime wasn't serve enough for that.

[TomNokoe]

The real question is, what type of penalty would you give him? A time penalty worth a speculated time gained? What if not cutting he had picked up time? How do you account for that? What if he would have lost a place? How do you account for that? What if Lewis had tried to pass an out of control Nico and spun out? How do you account for that?

It is really hard to penalize an error. If done purposely that is easier. It was an unfair advantage of some seconds, but because he either allowed Lewis to catch back up or Lewis caught up, the point became moot.

Well Nico purposely chose to floor the throttle and not give the time back, so...

A 5 second add on at his second stop would have sufficed.

[Seanspeed]

There's no argument whether he gained an advantage or not. Of course he did.

These incidents are mainly given stricter attention when they occur doing an overtaking situation.

That's not necessarily very fair, but its really hard to find an appropriate penalty for this sort of thing. It'd be nice if they had some way to enforce a 'cut cylinder' mode for 5 seconds or something along those lines.

Edited by Seanspeed, 09 June 2014 - 07:09.

[TomNokoe]

I am glad no penalty was give though, would have wrecked the lead battle. The crime wasn't serve enough for that.

Just as in Monaco...

Show > rules

Ridiculous

[PayasYouRace]

Well Nico purposely chose to floor the throttle and not give the time back, so...

A 5 second add on at his second stop would have sufficed.

 

I agree, but I also think that in the event that the driver you're racing goes out of the race, your penalty should be rescinded. The advantage gained is only meaningfully against the guy you were racing at the time.

[Seanspeed]

Just as in Monaco...

Show > rules

Ridiculous

I'd say its *ridiculous* to compare this with Monaco in the least.

I agree, but I also think that in the event that the driver you're racing goes out of the race, your penalty should be rescinded. The advantage gained is only meaningfully against the guy you were racing at the time.

Well he's technically still racing the entire field.

5-second add-on to pit time of course is a flawed rule though as there's no guarantee there will be another pitstop.

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

[Kristian]

Rosberg made a mistake, flat spotted his tyre, ran off, rejoined. No penalty needed. People wanting drivers to be punished for simple mistakes are probably the same ones decrying why drivers don't push anymore..... 

 

What it does highlight is the fallacy of asphalt run offs. This never happened in the old days; a big strip of grass or gravel at least would stop this kind of thing. 

[Jackmancer]

FiA just sees 'gaining' an advantage as 'gaining a place'. 

[kraduk]

It would have been pointless in Lewis's situation. Nico cutting the chicane had no impact on the outcome of this race. It was just an honest mistake. Hardly comparable to spa.

 

 

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

[hdsport82]

Rosberg made a mistake, flat spotted his tyre, ran off, rejoined. No penalty needed. People wanting drivers to be punished for simple mistakes are probably the same ones decrying why drivers don't push anymore..... 

 

What it does highlight is the fallacy of asphalt run offs. This never happened in the old days; a big strip of grass or gravel at least would stop this kind of thing. 

Whilst I agree that we don't want lots of penalties I do think there was a case here especially with the option of a 5 second penalty.  Yes the lock up was a mistake but flooring the throttle across the run off and setting a purple lap time can hardly be called 'acccidental'.  However even it was a complete accident that shouldn't excuse drivers if it gives them an significant advantage. 

 

I would say in Rosberg's defence respecting of track limits is so rarely enforced it would have been harsh on him (especially as Kvyat wasn't penalised). This is a wider issue we have white lines that define the race track and they need to be respected/enforced.  They had sensors at Paddock Hill Bend for the BTCC at Brands Hatch didnt they?  It doesn't stop drivers pushing it just means they drive the racetrack as it was designed.

 

I absolutely agree with these huge run offs surely a few strategically placed 'sleeping policemen' can be installed to force drivers to slow down/weave through them before rejoining without creating danger from cars being launched into the air and potentially into the path of other cars.

Edited by hdsport82, 09 June 2014 - 07:40.

[TomNokoe]

I'd say its *ridiculous* to compare this with Monaco in the least.

Not in terms of intent/guilt, but because people want to see a good show, and a Rosberg penalty ruins that. Many in Monaco were relieved he was let off for the sake of a good race.

[ZZei]

There was a  quite similar situation with Kimi and Kvyat too. Kimi was alongside Kvyat trying to overtake and had the corner when Kvyat decided to go straight. I guess he didnt get any penalty as he still was in front of him few laps later. Wonder if it was even investigated as it wasnt a battle for top spots. FIA really needs to do something. It really cant be a surprise drivers are having troubles in the hardest part of the track. These warnings are a joke. Plus the decisions take far too much time. Back in the days there would be an order to give the place back in one or two laps but now it takes fifteen minutes just to get an investigation going.

[P123]

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

 

The stewards gave him a final warning, which is fair enough.  If he had done so again he was heading for a penalty, intentional error or otherwise.  I think you, and those who comment similarly (and those who liked your post) with the "no real problem" attitude are missing the point, which is that an advantage was gained.  It matters sod all as to whether a passing move was taking place or not.  He gained time plus the additional advantage of breaking the DRS.  A final warning was a just decision, anything more would have been harsh at that point.

[Slartibartfast]

Mclaren knew full well that they were under investigation and that they may have been told to give the place back. What would a warning have accomplished? The deed was already done. Mclaren took a risk and failed. Would Lewis have given kimi back the position because he got a warning?

If drivers knew they could intentionally cut corners to pass other drivers and their only punishment would be a silly warning, drivers would be cutting corners "accidentally" all the time.

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.

[Seanspeed]

Not in terms of intent/guilt, but because people want to see a good show, and a Rosberg penalty ruins that. Many in Monaco were relieved he was let off for the sake of a good race.

Ah ok, I see what you're saying. But guilt does play a factor because its easier to want Rosberg let off if its not even clear he was guilty.

Anyways, people talking about 'consistency' - it would have been both inconsistent to penalize him for it and inconsistent not to penalize him for it, depending on how you look at it.

[jestaudio]

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.

Your recollection is bang on, the rules were clarified in order to justify the stewards decision despite Whitings advice that it was ok, 

[ensign14]

My point is in 2008 Hamilton was punished because he gain an advantage over his opponent by jumping the chicane and got a 25 ( if my memory is correct). Today Rosbeg built an advantage by jumping the chicane and he didn't even got a warning by the FIA.

 

 

Hang on a sec, you don't even need to look outside Spa 2008 for consistency.  Kimi went off track and used that to pass Hamilton - and didn't get any warning/penalty whatsoever.

 

The easy explanation is the decision at Spa in 2008 was bent.  Plain and simple.

 

But remember the whole "miss the chicane out to keep your place" tactic was invented by Schumacher, so Mosley basically re-wrote the rules to make it OK.

[Jolkins]

And this is the reason why they need to bring back all-gravel runoff areas. It's just getting ridicilous...

[Schuttelberg]

First of all, this board is well aware of my utter dislike for Hamilton, however, Rosberg deserved a penalty yesterday and Hamilton has every right to feel miffed. 

 

I was supportive of Rosberg in Monaco and still feel that Hamilton was throwing his usual tantrum of the year performance, but yesterday was a bit different.

 

It was clear Rosberg was going to be passed and it's ok that he loses control and cuts the chicane, but then he floors it and does the fastest lap of the race at that point? I'm sorry but that's just ridiculous. It's what Hamilton also did at Spa. He gained an advantage that helped him overhaul his rival on track at that moment.

 

Mercedes debrief says that following Rosberg led to overheated brakes for Hamilton which in turn led to his retirement. Rosberg unquestionably got an advantage there and who knows if he was given a 5 second penalty, Lewis could have paced himself and not destroyed his car. 

 

In layman's words Rosberg gained a mere 0.6 seconds, but if you see the incidents that transpired thereafter, you could be talking of a 32 point championship swing. What's happened is that the guy who broke the rule has leapt 18 points ahead. 

 

Plain dumb! 

Edited by Schuttelberg, 09 June 2014 - 08:29.

[peroa]

And this is the reason why they need to bring back all-gravel runoff areas. It's just getting ridicilous...

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

[PayasYouRace]

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.