Rosberg Penalty

[keysersoze]

Was really an advantage since the stewards allowed Williams about 10 laps to build a gap. Why did it take so long? It seemed quite obvious that he would be penalized. If he would've served it within three laps of going back to green, Nico would've been stuck in the second 10, unable to make a string of fast laps, and therefore losing a ton of track position.

As it was, the train of cars that stacked up behind Fisichella (in third after the SC period) paid a huge price.

[ShiftingGears]

It was odd.
You'd expect that if the FIA want to enforce their stupid rules they would do so without leaving the drivers out so long as to negate over half of the disadvantage which their penalty would have otherwise resulted in.

Although, given the FIA's recent form, you probably wouldn't.

[wedge]

Stewards first reviewed Massa's incident then Kubica and Rosberg's infractions.

[markabilly]

Stewards first reviewed Massa's incident then Kubica and Rosberg's infractions.
...after calling the lawyers.....

[elinagr]

fisi should have won this race...

[VkmSpouge]

It did take quite a while for the stewards to hand out the penalty to Rosberg and Kubica. That said I do wonder why being forced to pit to avoid running out of fuel is considered a worse offence than the unsafe releasing a car into the pitlane? Rosberg and Kubica received 10 second stop and go, Massa got a drive through. I can't help but feel the penalty handed out to Rosberg and Kubica who had no choice but to pit is disproportionate.

[MrJan]

Apparently they had to "confirm that fuel went in". I don't know why Massa's incident needed reviewing, he blatently left right in front of the Force INdia

[truefan72]

Stewards first reviewed Massa's incident then Kubica and Rosberg's infractions.

what was there to review?

1. as soon as they both came into the pits, they and the stewards knew that they had caused an infraction and will serve a 10 second stop and go.

2. They should have been called back immediately to serve the penalty within laps of the green if not earlier.

Rosberg actually gained an advantage in this situation rather than a disadvantage. It took waaay too long to call him in and in effect menatn nothing to Rosberg. Even his team was confused.

You can't go from 9th to first by breaking the rules upon restart, then finishing 2nd because yo were allowed to drive around for 10 laps in a 61 lap race before serving your penalty.
another shining example of the useless stewards.

What were they reviewing Massa first for. According to plan, it should have been Rosberg, then Kubica then Massa's incident in terms of when the incidents occurred. I suspect they were debating as to how they could get away with only a fine for Massa, but knew that it wouldn't fly this time around. nonsense

[truefan72]

Apparently they had to "confirm that fuel went in". I don't know why Massa's incident needed reviewing, he blatently left right in front of the Force INdia


are they blind, the fuel nozzle went in so even if 1 drop of fuel spilled into the car, it is a violation. I know it is a stupid rule, which needs to be addressed for 2009 but right now, it was obvious to everyone (except the stewards) that those 2 drivers had broken the rules. Din;t take that long to penalize hiedfeld when the same thin happened to him a while back. It had everything to do with them focusing on Masssa who was pretty much out of the race, rather than the guy streaming away at the front and the other in a comfortable position in the points when they needed to come in. poor priorities

[jens]

It's no surprise that the FIA rules are extremely weird. The whole safety car rules are useless, but if by breaking the rules you can gain over those, who follow the rules (Nico finished ahead of everyone, who pitted during the time, when pits were opened), then the whole rule book turns into a joke.

And what puzzles me is that... Kubica was driving clearly ahead of Rosberg. Both made a pistop during the time, when it was forbidden - how on earth did Nico get ahead of Robert? :s

[truefan72]

It's no surprise that the FIA rules are extremely weird. The whole safety car rules are useless, but if by breaking the rules you can gain over those, who follow the rules (Nico finished ahead of everyone, who pitted during the time, when pits were opened), then the whole rule book turns into a joke.

And what puzzles me is that... Kubica was driving clearly ahead of Rosberg. Both made a pistop during the time, when it was forbidden - how on earth did Nico get ahead of Robert? :s

that's a good question I don't know how that happened. I really don't. Or how LH was behind Webber and DC.

These SC periods need a very discerning eye on them for shenanigans.

[markabilly]

what was there to review?

1. as soon as they both came into the pits, they and the stewards knew that they had caused an infraction and will serve a 10 second stop and go.

2. They should have been called back immediately to serve the penalty within laps of the green if not earlier.

Rosberg actually gained an advantage in this situation rather than a disadvantage. It took waaay too long to call him in and in effect menatn nothing to Rosberg. Even his team was confused.

You can't go from 9th to first by breaking the rules upon restart, then finishing 2nd because yo were allowed to drive around for 10 laps in a 61 lap race before serving your penalty.
another shining example of the useless stewards.

What were they reviewing Massa first for. According to plan, it should have been Rosberg, then Kubica then Massa's incident in terms of when the incidents occurred. I suspect they were debating as to how they could get away with only a fine for Massa, but knew that it wouldn't fly this time around. nonsense


What were they reveiwing? I already told you, it was the rule book and with their lawyers. Seriously, what a joke. As a result of this rule violation by nico, he ends up in frist is then able to build a massive lead (while the Kube is stuck behind who?????), so then the pitstop don't hurt that much at all.

What was the rule to be enforced at Spa? Must give up the advantage gained thorugh a rule violation......did that happen at Singaport? Obviously NOT

[Robinho]

agreed that it should have been given straight away, as it was Nico was able to get the clear air to turn the situation into an advantage even after the stop-go, fair play to Williams and Nico for making it work for them and highlighting another big f**king hole in the FIA's procedures and rules

[jso1985]

And what puzzles me is that... Kubica was driving clearly ahead of Rosberg. Both made a pistop during the time, when it was forbidden - how on earth did Nico get ahead of Robert? :s

Rosberg pitted one lap earlier

[Somebody]

To be fair, had the slowest car in the field not ended up third in the whole mess and backed everyone up (Fisichella's Force India, not Trulli :p ), Rosberg wouldn't have gained any sort of advantage.

[aryan]

You can't go from 9th to first by breaking the rules upon restart, then finishing 2nd because yo were allowed to drive around for 10 laps in a 61 lap race before serving your penalty.
:up: :up:

[gravity]

Of course, there's the obvious reason:
The stewards saw that Massa wasn't going to get ahead of Lewis, so they wanted as many cars in front of Lewis as possible to keep the ch'ship points as close as possible. Bringing Nico in early would have meant that Lewis would get ahead of him, and get more points.

The 'penalty' issue does raise another question tho;
Why doesn't a "top" driver who has qualified 10th or lower (cause of probs in quali) banzaai the start (Jump start as soon as the first red light comes on), then drive off in the distance.

He will inevitably serve a stop/go penalty, but having run a few laps in front of the field, and the field spreading out, he should be able to rejoin in a better position than if he had just started legally?
Also, jump starting the grid would distract a lot of the other drivers around, so the chances are that it won't just be him jumping the start.
The start sequence lasts from 5s up, which means that part of that 10s "standing" penalty served later would be neutralised by the time that the start sequence lasts.

[ioan]

Of course, there's the obvious reason:
The stewards saw that Massa wasn't going to get ahead of Lewis, so they wanted as many cars in front of Lewis as possible to keep the ch'ship points as close as possible. Bringing Nico in early would have meant that Lewis would get ahead of him, and get more points.

:rolleyes:

[jens]

Of course, there's the obvious reason:
The stewards saw that Massa wasn't going to get ahead of Lewis, so they wanted as many cars in front of Lewis as possible to keep the ch'ship points as close as possible. Bringing Nico in early would have meant that Lewis would get ahead of him, and get more points.


:laugh:

Generally, there is too much bureaucracy in F1 racing these days and the actions of stewards' have too much role in the outcome of races. Whether a driver finishes 2nd or 10th, is dependant on the quickness of stewards. Hm... And there is a big different between P2 and P10. It doesn't sound right, the outcome of a result should be in the hands of the drivers/teams.

If Rosberg and Williams had achieved that brilliant result in another way, I would be more happy about them, but I must admit I'm a bit annoyed at the moment. This P2 doesn't sound right no matter how flawed those SC rules are as it was a gift from incompetent stewards.

[Dave B]

The 'penalty' issue does raise another question tho;
Why doesn't a "top" driver who has qualified 10th or lower (cause of probs in quali) banzaai the start (Jump start as soon as the first red light comes on), then drive off in the distance.

He will inevitably serve a stop/go penalty, but having run a few laps in front of the field, and the field spreading out, he should be able to rejoin in a better position than if he had just started legally?
Also, jump starting the grid would distract a lot of the other drivers around, so the chances are that it won't just be him jumping the start.
The start sequence lasts from 5s up, which means that part of that 10s "standing" penalty served later would be neutralised by the time that the start sequence lasts.


Interesting scenario! However I suspect that such a blatant abuse of procedure, rather than a simple mistake, would result in the driver being black-flagged or disqualified from the results.

[MAX_THRUST]

As please as I am he got second, the penalty rules need to be changed, so the penalty is issued within the first lap of the restart. WAy to slow, to make the penalty a reaL PENALTY.

[MAX_THRUST]

Gravity just got him self a job with Ferrari.........Watch the next race and see who does it? Scary point that needs to be rectified soon.

[SGWilko]

Rosberg actually gained an advantage in this situation rather than a disadvantage. It took waaay too long to call him in and in effect menatn nothing to Rosberg. Even his team was confused.



The fact that he HAD to pit, or run out of juice is not his fault. The system is as flawed as the ruling body. I guess his ability to pull out a gap negated the disadvantage of knowing he would have a drive through/Stop & Go.

[SGWilko]

Of course, there's the obvious reason:
The stewards saw that Massa wasn't going to get ahead of Lewis, so they wanted as many cars in front of Lewis as possible to keep the ch'ship points as close as possible. Bringing Nico in early would have meant that Lewis would get ahead of him, and get more points.

The 'penalty' issue does raise another question tho;
Why doesn't a "top" driver who has qualified 10th or lower (cause of probs in quali) banzaai the start (Jump start as soon as the first red light comes on), then drive off in the distance.

He will inevitably serve a stop/go penalty, but having run a few laps in front of the field, and the field spreading out, he should be able to rejoin in a better position than if he had just started legally?
Also, jump starting the grid would distract a lot of the other drivers around, so the chances are that it won't just be him jumping the start.
The start sequence lasts from 5s up, which means that part of that 10s "standing" penalty served later would be neutralised by the time that the start sequence lasts.

In this scenario I think the start would be aborted, and the t**t who thought that was acceptable would be made to start from.....

...Outer Mongolia! ;)

[PolePosition_1]

that's a good question I don't know how that happened. I really don't. Or how LH was behind Webber and DC.

These SC periods need a very discerning eye on them for shenanigans.

Well, Webber and DC pitted before the safety car, while Hamilton pitted whilst safety car was out, so obviously DC and Webber gained track position.

Regarding the penalty, I agree it was suprising how long it took to give it out. But I'm glad they let it drag out, its a stupid penalty, and at least this way it minimized the impact on Rosbergs race too much.

[Knock-on]

Interesting scenario! However I suspect that such a blatant abuse of procedure, rather than a simple mistake, would result in the driver being black-flagged or disqualified from the results.

You would hope so but I know a driver that has won championships by exploiting these sorts of loop holes ;)

[truefan72]

Well, Webber and DC pitted before the safety car, while Hamilton pitted whilst safety car was out, so obviously DC and Webber gained track position.

Regarding the penalty, I agree it was suprising how long it took to give it out. But I'm glad they let it drag out, its a stupid penalty, and at least this way it minimized the impact on Rosbergs race too much.

it didn't minimize the the impact of rosberg's race, it maximized it. Where exactly was he on the grid before the SC I think 9th right? at the restart he was 1st, ran 10 laps and came in, finished the race 2nd. I'd say the penalty impacted rosberg's race mighty and he ended up with a result that under normal SC circumstances he was nowhere remotely close to achieving.

From Rosberg/Williams perspective, there was much to be gained and little to be lost by employing that strategy.