Silverstone 2016

[Bagwan]

We're into second practice , so I guess I might as well start this thing up .

First one had Hamilton edging Rosberg by a smidge .

Seems to have scared the fluid out of Nico's car , because he's now out of the session , looking sad , as Lewis storms away at the top of the sheet , and now onto the long runs .

[AndyL]

You beat me to creating this thread by 2 minutes Bagwan, here's what I posted on the other one which I have now deleted...

Time to look forwards to the coming weekend instead of back at the last!

Hamilton topped P1 by a narrow margin from Rosberg, but Rosberg has car trouble in P2 and is missing valuable laps.
For McLaren, Alonso has a new upgraded Honda engine and from the times posted so far it looks to be going reasonably well.
Meanwhile naughty Checo Perez has been caught speeding in the pit lane not once but twice, and is €1300 lighter for it. That's going to hurt if Force India are paying him in £ :)

[Bagwan]

2 Seconds is a long time in F1 , Andy , but it's well within the 107% rule as it's a long lap here , so I'm happy to share the front row with you .
Nico actually seems to be reasonably happy , despite the setback , smiley with Wolfe .

[driveace]

Let's just hope that both drivers get fairness from Mercedes this weekend . No slow pit stops ,or inferior tyre choice for Hamilton ,and if they say "It's hammer time " then give him at least 2 or 3 laps to build some time before bringing him in .At least Lewis knows the British crowd won't boo him as the Austrian / German crowd did disgustingly at last weeks race Remember Hamilton "He who laughs last ,laughs longest "May it be good clean racing and I wish Ricciardo the very best in the British race

[Nitrodaze]

I hope they sort out Nico's problems before free practise 3.

[Tazio]

Quali dawgz!

[Tazio]

Dang, Jenson bounced in Q1:(

[Tazio]

Wait, maybe he's not :confused:

[Tazio]

The Mercedes are massively fast here :eek:

[Tazio]

Boss pull it freakin' off :dork:

[Bagwan]

Track limits burned a lot of laps .
I wonder if one of the others in Q3 might protest Lewis's lap , as he was off on that last one .

Hell maybe even Merc , just to keep them separated .

[driveace]

Watching TV in Croatia in German Is Vettel 11th and why ?

[Tazio]

Watching TV in Croatia in German Is Vettel 11th and why ?
Yes, 5 spot grid drop for gearbox change!

[driveace]

Thanks Tazio
Went onto English site to find out why
Ciao
Is Lauda a bit more reserved in his statements on German TV interviews today ?

[AndyL]

Lewis looks unstoppable this weekend.

Good job by Verstappen to outqualify Ricciardo for the first time.

All sorts of troubles for McLaren: Button's rear wing coming loose in Q1 and then Alonso losing his 8th place time due to track limits.

[Tazio]

Thanks Tazio
Went onto English site to find out why
Ciao
Is Lauda a bit more reserved in his statements on German TV interviews today ?
I haven't read about any comments coming out of his pie hole. He sure retracted those last ones thoroughly!

[Stan Reid]

Noah's Ark qualifying:snore:

[Nitrodaze]

My money is on Verstapenn winning this race. This is how it may go; Hamilton and Rosberg have a poor start, Verstapenn have a blinding start and overtakes both Mercs. And defends his way to his second win. [Assuming Redbull do not make a hash of the strategy and pitstops]

[Stan Reid]

This is the British Grand Prix so Merc has the screw backed out on Nico's car;)

[Bagwan]

I haven't read about any comments coming out of his pie hole. He sure retracted those last ones thoroughly!

It's a strudel hole .

[henners88]

Mercedes will want a 1-2 here as its effectively their home race. Should be good with Lewis on pole.

[driveace]

This is the British Grand Prix so Merc has the screw backed out on Nico's car;)

Don't think so Stan ,remember Lewis will have done more laps round here than Rosberg .Though I can remember Filipe Massa competing around Silverstone in lower series cars when his road car was a Opel Omega

[Tazio]

http://e0.365dm.com/16/07/16-9/20/british-gp-silverstone-f1_3740675.jpg?20160709130229

Banner seen at Silverstone :angel:

[henners88]

Nice to see the Silverstone crowd show a bit of humour lol. Hopefully Nico can smile at that.

[Jag_Warrior]

Let's just hope that both drivers get fairness from Mercedes this weekend . No slow pit stops ,or inferior tyre choice for Hamilton ,and if they say "It's hammer time " then give him at least 2 or 3 laps to build some time before bringing him in .At least Lewis knows the British crowd won't boo him as the Austrian / German crowd did disgustingly at last weeks race Remember Hamilton "He who laughs last ,laughs longest "May it be good clean racing and I wish Ricciardo the very best in the British race

On another board, someone asked if the FIA wouldn't begin seeing the "Hammer time!" urging from Lewis' engineer as an illegal pit instruction. That says to me that this nanny foolishnes has gone too far.

Anyway, I'm hoping for a good, tight and safe race. But a little voice in my head is asking, how many places will Lewis lose on the start? :(

[steveaki13]

Only just watched Quali. Wow those Mercs are fast. between 1 & 1.5 seconds clear of the field. Thats some pace.

Hope we dont have any contact and can have a good race.

[Tazio]

:stareup: I hope it gets uncomfortably tight between Nico, and Lewis!:vampire:

[steveaki13]

:stareup: I hope it gets uncomfortably tight between Nico, and Lewis!:vampire:

Who am I kidding.... so do I. ;)

[driveace]

Can they afford to mess up with Vestappen and Ricciardo behind waiting to pounce at the first mistake !
May the best man win !

[Morte66]

Only just watched Quali. Wow those Mercs are fast. between 1 & 1.5 seconds clear of the field. Thats some pace.

Hope we dont have any contact and can have a good race.

I was kind of hoping the mercs would take each other out again, so we can have a good race... ;)

[Tazio]

Morning lads, looks like it is spitting down a little rain!

[Tazio]

Bucketing down now :eek:

[steveaki13]

Oh dear and as soon as it rains and safety car start gets talked about.... lets hope not.

[steveaki13]

by the way....

sup guys

[Tazio]

Steve :wave: I'll be surprised if they start behind the safety car.

[Tazio]

Well wrong again :laugh:

[steveaki13]

pansy pussy safety car start................ whats the point.

[Koz]

So lame.

[steveaki13]

better do a few laps so they can go straight to inters in the sunshine

[Koz]

Is it me or does the SC look sooooo slow?

[steveaki13]

why can these drivers not do what generations before have done and drive in very wet conditions? Why do we bother with full wets.....................

pansy drivers should be told it is starting get on with it. Go slower.

makes me so angry this s***

[Nitrodaze]

Heeee haaaa! Let the show begin :-)

[Nitrodaze]

The safety car in this lap, it was going round so slow, l think they shall all be struggling with tyre pressures

[gm99]

This is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports? Laughable...

[Koz]

Is there a rule preventing them from pitting under a SC start?

[truefan72]

why can these drivers not do what generations before have done and drive in very wet conditions? Why do we bother with full wets.....................

pansy drivers should be told it is starting get on with it. Go slower.

makes me so angry this s***

it is not the drivers it is Charlie whiting.
all the drivers want to get it on

[gm99]

Wehrlein has not had a great week-end. Out-qualified by his team-mate yesterday, now an early off.

[Stan Reid]

I thought the object was to race in any conditions that you would normally drive in on the road.

[Koz]

I thought the object was to race in any conditions that you would normally drive in on the road.

Shoo! Off to the rally forum with you!

[Nitrodaze]

Talk about car control, Alonso half on the grass and still giving the Williams some bother. Wow

[gm99]

Rosberg has woken up...

[steveaki13]

Turn 1 is having some fun with these guys.

[Tazio]

Man people are going of left, and right!

[gm99]

Rosberg not finding a way past Verstappen.

[veeten]

careful 'round Abbey today, boys. "She's" being a bit of a B!tch... ;)

[veeten]

and there it is... pass by Rosberg.

[Nitrodaze]

That's how to do it Nico. Verstapenn has driven a really great race so far :-)

[gm99]

Gearbox problems for Rosberg. And a potential penalty for violating the radio rules?

[truefan72]

sounds like mercedes is coaching rosberg. i thought that was not allowed?
whatever... i didn;t care for the rule anyway

[steveaki13]

He is under investigation. How stupid is it that? they cannot help the driver when the gear box is about to explode.

[gm99]

Are you allowed to leave parc fermé?

[truefan72]

I will be curious to know what the penalty will be, if mercedes knew it and why they chose to give a tactical and coaching message to nico?

[AndyL]

It'll be interesting to see what the verdict is on Rosberg. Probably Mercedes will be arguing it was to avert an imminent car failure. It's hard for us ordinary folks to know what is or isn't allowed because these radio rules aren't published as regulations. It's all down to the intepretation of that "the driver must drive the car alone and unaided" rule.

[gm99]

Rosberg and Hamilton not really talking to each other...

[gm99]

At least Lewis knows the British crowd won't boo him as the Austrian / German crowd did disgustingly at last weeks race

They are booing Rosberg instead...

[driveace]

After beinG told to avoid 7th gear Rosberg was still using it
Just how lenient will the stewards be with Mercedes and Rosberg Nico go to Chassis control 01 then later ,we know Nico try avoiding using 7th go straight through it !
3 races ago it took Lewis 11 laps to sort out a problem All he got from Mercedes was sorry ,we can't tell you what to do !

[steveaki13]

Relations between the Merc drivers looking so good...........:p

[steveaki13]

Stupid Lewis for leaving parc ferme. Not sure thats allowed. I dare say nothing will happen but silly none the less. Stupid that Rosberg will get a penalty for them helping his gear box issue.

Stupid of the British crowd to boo Rosberg.

[truefan72]

I think verstappen has gotten the measure of ricciardo at RBR. it will be interesting to see how things proceed from there now. Horner was talking smack about how his drivers are a better pairing than the mercedes team. we shall see how these two will race each other .

Kimis has now overtaken vettel in points. interesting situation there.

[steveaki13]

What was Lewis doing about talking the booing on the podium? Was he encouraging the crowd not to boo? Or was he being a bit naughty and ignoring the fact the were booing and stirring things.

Anyway fun scenes afterwards.

[driveace]

So the booing in Austria was acceptable by the Austrian / German spectators last week towards Hamilton ?

[zako85]

What was Lewis doing about talking the booing on the podium?


I think the answer is pretty obvious. Good sportsmanship IMO.

[Bagwan]

It sounds like the only way out of the radio issue for Nico is to call it a safety thing .

I suppose it could be argued that if the box gave up in 7th , it would be a high speed , so , dangerous .
Putting fluid down might be another issue , but , a stretch .

Both ideas are sketchy at best .

It's easily argued that Nico gained a speed advantage , especially if Merc says he wouldn't have finished without the instruction , as parked is definitely slower .

So , maybe Lewis will be leading the championship soon ?
It's not probably the way he would have liked to do it .

[Garry Walker]

Good race.

Hamilton was impressive as always
Max Verstappen keeps impressing me, the boy is very very good. I am beginning to rate him more and more.

bieber - :rotflmao::rotflmao::rotflmao: What a performance

[henners88]

A great race to watch. Verstappen was awesome and drives way beyond his 18 years. Ricciardo has a lot of work to do if he wishes to be the dominant of the two. Hamilton seemed to breeze to victory despite hitting the infamous wet patch at T1 lol.

I thought the penalty on Vettel was harsh as it really did appear to show him trying to take the turn. I don't think he meant to run Massa off the track.

The British crowd never disappoint, what an atmosphere! I didn't like the booing though and I had hoped Lewis would a bigger point of it not being welcome.

[TMorel]

Question for the technically knowledgeable here...

Was Lewis's turbo failure in Baku a direct result of how long it took him to solve his settings issue?

How could Nico still use 7th after twirling the settings? (It certainly looked to me like he was still using 7th and Horner said their data confirmed it)

[Tazio]

Nico gets 10 second penalty, dropping him to 3rd.

[steveaki13]

Very harsh and says why the whole rules regarding communication needs changing. I guess a ban is OK, but when a clear issue is happening and its fix it or potentially retire they need to be able to communicate.

[yodasarmpit]

The penalty for Nico seems a bit harsh.

[driveace]

Well Chritian Horner thought that the information they were giving Rosberg was wrong .Toto said without the information Rosberg would not have been able to finish .Question is why is information to Rosberg Go to chassis default 01 ,and try to skip out using 7th gear acceptable ,when Hamilton struggled with his car 3 races ago and was told we cannot/ we are not allowed to tell you what to do ,and it took over 11 laps for him to sort it Where is the fairness there ? Well now it's 1 point difference to all who wrote Hamilton off

[driveace]

AND Rosberg was able to use 7th gear as shown on TV after he was informed which controls to reset !

[airshifter]

Interesting race all around.

Donkey of the race goes to the FIA for the safety car start. If the safety car is too slow for the drivers to keep tire pressures up, they should just start under the virtual safety car and let them run a decent speed. It would keep pressures up, as well as move the water off the track in less time. Better yet, they should remember that F1 drivers aren't scared of the rain and let them race from the start.

Double super donkey to the FIA as well, for the track limits issues during qually. If they have a rule on track limits, it should be enforced every race, at every corner. Apparently they decided that on certain corners there was a no tolerance policy, but on other corners it's ok to exceed track limits. Dumb and dumber.

Lots of good defending and dicing in the race, aided by the changing conditions. Even Massa did some solid defending today, and I was starting to think he just rolled over too easy. Despite all the effort, even the likes of Alonso and Seb couldn't make much ground on the pack, and neither is one to give up easy. I do think Seb took a page out of Nico's book, and decided not to turn at the corner. :laugh: Not his usual way, but I think the frustration of solid defending must have cracked him.


Freaking outstanding outside pass on Nico by young Max, who is proving every race he is the real deal, and has some cajones as well. That kid has one great future in front of him. Great pass by Nico as well, when he overtook Max again later in the race.


As for Lewis, just staying in front and out of trouble, and it almost looked too easy for him. After the track limits issue, that pole wasn't easy, so he deserved it.


As for the radio coaching, well.... stupid rule, stupid result, and the triple donkey dumbass award once again goes to the FIA. I will say that whoever it was that made the call to coach Nico was right for doing so. They avoided a possible DNF, or maybe a worse result, by rolling the dice and seeing how it played out. In the end the penalty was minor all things considered, as I think it's safe to say Max would have got by him again. It's very likely that Ricciardo or maybe even more cars would have passed him if he had to sort things out himself. By rolling the dice there is now a precedent set, though likely the FIA will remain inconsistent in how they enforce the rule.

That being said, another example of a simply stupid rule. If they teams have all that telemetry and data, let them use it to full extent and communicate with the drivers with no restrictions. It saves hardware, makes the racing safer, and brings the team more into the mix.

[Duncan]

Interesting race.

Scratching my head a bit about what radio rules are now. The conversation reported between Toto and the stewards doesn't really clarify matters. Specifically, there's a reference to "technical directive 014-16" under which it is claimed (and agreed by the stewards) that some information can be passed to the driver if it relates to a critical issue. I don't have the actual text of this directive, and wasn't able to find it anywhere. Anybody know where I can find this?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/125242

The stewards findings are that the messages to Rosberg exceeded the acceptable limits, but it isn't clear exactly in what way.

It seems to me that there are two issues here:

1. Whether and when the team can inform the driver of an issue with the car

2. Whether and when the team can inform the driver about what actions to take to deal with the issue.

In Austria, Force India were apparently under the impression that they weren't permitted to tell Checo that his brakes were about to fail. That information alone, without any directions as to what to do about it, might have been sufficient for him to nurse the car home. So is that permitted or not? If the team is permitted to inform the driver about a terminal issue, presumably "your brakes are about to fail" would be ok?

The issue Hamilton had in Baku can probably be considered under the category of "not related to an imminent failure". Still, now we know that the penalty for breaching the rules is 10 seconds, many teams in a similar situation might choose to go ahead and tell the driver what to do.

Several articles on the subject seem to imply that it wasn't the messages telling Rosberg to select a specific set of settings that were the problem, but only the instruction to "shift through" 7th gear. That doesn't really fit with the above, though. The team were not telling him of the existence of a problem (he had already told them he was stuck in 7th) but telling him what to do about it. So is that part also ok if it avoid an "imminent failure", or not?

Some clarification would really help here...

[driveace]

I would say a safety issue ,like your brakes are overheating of about to expire or the message that is repeated to all drives try to coast and save fuel are acceptable.But coaching the driver as happened with Rosberg ,and then when Rosberg saying gearbox problem ,telling him Go to Chassis 01 default ,and skip using 7 th reset the box,so it wasn't a safety issue as he then regained the use of 7th is out of order ,as Red Bull clearly believed too .But now the teams know it's ONLY a 10 second penalty then coaching and reset instructions will come back in and defeat the instructions that can be given .Glad to see Vestappen given 2 nd as he is a star ,and deserved the position

[Morte66]

Driver of the race... Hamilton won and looked pretty untouchable, Max V also impressive.

Donkey... FIA strong contenders (they are the new Maldonado), but I think Renault win for sending a driver out without a wheel. Honorable mention to Ferrari/Vettel for changing to slicks first and spinning off, then conspicuously not carving his way through the field in the supposedly faster car.

[Nitrodaze]

They are booing Rosberg instead...

The booing was not necessary. At least the booing in Austria was because the spectators were incorrectly informed that Hamilton was the cause of the crash that happened on the last lap. At Silverstone, there were no incidents that necessitated that kind of booing reaction. It was just ugly and very unnecessary.

[Nitrodaze]

Interesting race.

Scratching my head a bit about what radio rules are now. The conversation reported between Toto and the stewards doesn't really clarify matters. Specifically, there's a reference to "technical directive 014-16" under which it is claimed (and agreed by the stewards) that some information can be passed to the driver if it relates to a critical issue. I don't have the actual text of this directive, and wasn't able to find it anywhere. Anybody know where I can find this?

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/125242

The stewards findings are that the messages to Rosberg exceeded the acceptable limits, but it isn't clear exactly in what way.

It seems to me that there are two issues here:

1. Whether and when the team can inform the driver of an issue with the car

2. Whether and when the team can inform the driver about what actions to take to deal with the issue.


I think if they had stopped at the point where they informed Rosberg about the 7th gear problem, they would have been alright. What became a problem was when Rosberg asked how to deal with the problem and the engineer responded with specific instructions to change gears through to the next gear and avoid the 7th gear. That came across as aiding which bordered on coaching the driver. That is where they got done for infringement of the rules.

With Verstapenn only 2 secs behind, it made sense to take the gamble. Rosberg was probably going to end up in 3rd place whichever way they went with their actions. It made sense to test the waters of the radio ruling for passing info to the driver in that circumstances. I think the stewards got their decisions right this time. And we get to see what the real price of infringing this ruling is [5 to 10sec penalty].

[henners88]

I thought the penalty was harsh for Rosberg and as I said a few races ago, this rule needs to be looked at. These cars are so advanced these days I think the drivers need input from the team. As long as it is not coaching I think a technical conversation is reasonable.

The stewards got it wrong with Vettel too IMO.

[Bagwan]

The stewards saw the first transmissions from the team as dealing with an impending failure , and allowable .
If that's true , then wasn't the extra instruction to shift quickly through 7th a part of that fix ?
Surely even knowing whether to use the gear or not was critical info at that point .

[driveace]

Rosberg; Gearbox problem
Merc; yes we know Nico .Go to Chassis 01 default
Merc ; Try to skip out 7th
Then after doing to default setting the gearbox issue cleared AND as seen on TV and by Red Bull Rosbergs problems with 7th gear cleared,had no information been given over the radio to Rosberg then at the pace he was initially slowing Vestappen would have taken 2 nd ,and pulled away too

[Bagwan]

Rosberg; Gearbox problem
Merc; yes we know Nico .Go to Chassis 01 default
Merc ; Try to skip out 7th
Then after doing to default setting the gearbox issue cleared AND as seen on TV and by Red Bull Rosbergs problems with 7th gear cleared,had no information been given over the radio to Rosberg then at the pace he was initially slowing Vestappen would have taken 2 nd ,and pulled away too

Does it seem obvious that , since the team told him not to use 7th gear for too long , they had no faith that the situation would clear , even though it did ?

The information regarding that failure was fine .

Since the appeal has been withdrawn , we shall have no more clarity about this issue from this one , even though it seems pretty muddy to me .

[Mintexmemory]

Since the appeal has been withdrawn , we shall have no more clarity about this issue from this one , even though it seems pretty muddy to me .

Since the appeal has been withdrawn we have absolute clarity that Mercedes were 'over the line'. They looked at their possible defence of safety relatedness and clearly decided it wasn't a direct cause and effect issue that could be adequately proposed and argued successfully. Maybe if their action hadn't been so different in the Baku instance then they could have argued 'no prior test' of the interpretation.

On an additional point the 10 seconds penalty on Rosberg isn't a binding precedent - just what the stewards felt was the correct penalty in the circumstances. Had Merc given that coaching 10 laps earlier with a greater benefit accruing then in all likelihood the penalty would have been greater. The stewards clearly took the view that only Max V was disadvantaged on this occasion

[Bagwan]

Since the appeal has been withdrawn we have absolute clarity that Mercedes were 'over the line'. They looked at their possible defence of safety relatedness and clearly decided it wasn't a direct cause and effect issue that could be adequately proposed and argued successfully. Maybe if their action hadn't been so different in the Baku instance then they could have argued 'no prior test' of the interpretation.

On an additional point the 10 seconds penalty on Rosberg isn't a binding precedent - just what the stewards felt was the correct penalty in the circumstances. Had Merc given that coaching 10 laps earlier with a greater benefit accruing then in all likelihood the penalty would have been greater. The stewards clearly took the view that only Max V was disadvantaged on this occasion

They were allowed the first aspect of the message because of imminent failure .
The message to skip through the 7th gear would not have made him faster , certainly , but was rather , another effort to make the box last to the end of the race .
How is that different , or in any way clear ?

In Baku , they did give Lewis advice of the same order , when he said he was going to just start pushing buttons and they told him not to do so .
Telling Lewis to calm down and figure it out was far more coaching than telling Nico to run through 7th quickly , to save it .
And , the message to Lewis there was that it was solvable and not terminal , essentially , but to Nico , it was not quite as rosy , as they had no idea if it would last .


Don't get me wrong .
I have no desire to have Hamilton punished for Baku , but the comparison is interesting for it's inconsistency .

[Duncan]

I think if they had stopped at the point where they informed Rosberg about the 7th gear problem, they would have been alright. What became a problem was when Rosberg asked how to deal with the problem and the engineer responded with specific instructions to change gears through to the next gear and avoid the 7th gear. That came across as aiding which bordered on coaching the driver. That is where they got done for infringement of the rules.

Yes, that does seem to be the interpretation of the stewards. This still seems very different to the apparent prior understanding of the rules in multiple important respects, though.

Firstly, the technical directive referred to has not as far as I know been publicly discussed, and the text of it still doesn't appear generally available. This rule about being able to inform a driver about an imminent terminal problem seems very different to the prior interpretation by Force India in the Perez incident. The wording of the rule (those parts of it that were mentioned by the stewards in their ruling) refer to an "imminent" problem, not one that has already happened. This would surely have put a message to say "your brakes are about to fail" well within bounds. Given the safety implications, you would think that the rules would allow for that pretty explicitly.

Secondly, it's apparently ok to tell a driver to select very specific settings to fix a terminal issue, provided it doesn't result in a performance improvement other than fixing said terminal issue. This seems well beyond the prior widely held understanding of the rules. Notably, the pit wasn't informing Nico of the existence of a potentially terminal problem; he told them of the problem and they replied with specific directions to fix it.

Only direct instruction to the driver related to driving the car (not adjusting settings) is outside the limits, apparently. And Nico was clearly under the distinct impression, before the penalty ruling, that everything that was done was in fact perfectly ok.

You would think that given the sanctions being handed out for transgressions there would be much more clarity about exactly what the rule is.

[Bagwan]

All I can find is this , from Merc :
"We were able to prove to the stewards that a car-stopping gearbox failure was imminent and, as such, were permitted within the rules to advise Nico of the required mode change.
However, the advice to avoid seventh gear was considered to breach the sporting regulations."

It seems you need to breach the rules to get the explanation of what the rules actually are , and when you do , you can't expect to fully understand the explanation .

This is a good demonstration of how to ruin a sport . Make the rules good and fuzzy .

[Duncan]

The rules in question are not the sporting regulations, but technical directives which are associated with them.

At least at one time, those technical directives were only sent to the teams and not made public. I've had no luck tracking down the text. Can it really be the case that the rules are a secret?

[Duncan]

Ok, I managed to find the text of the directive. Oddly, though, I can't find an "official" outlet for this. I really expected that there would be an obvious-to-find FIA website with a comprehensive list. What I find instead is many different news outlets reporting it. Anyway, apparently this is the directive:


A. Restrictions on team-to-driver communications

These restrictions will apply :

- To all communications to the driver including, but not limited to, radio and pit boards.

- At all times the car is out of the garage with the engine running and the driver on board (with the exception of any time the car is in the pit lane on the day of the race prior to or between reconnaissance laps).

The following is a list of the permitted messages. Any other message, including any of those below which we suspect has been used as a coded message for a different purpose (including a prompt to a driver), is likely to be considered a breach of Article 27.1 of the Sporting Regulations and will be reported to the stewards accordingly.

1. Acknowledgement that a driver's message has been heard, this may include repeating the message back to the driver for the sole purpose of confirmation.

2. Indication of a critical problem with the car, any message of this sort may only be used if failure of a component or system is imminent and potentially terminal.

3. Information concerning damage to the car.

4. Instructions to select driver defaults for the sole purpose of mitigating loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller whose degradation or failure was not detected and handled by the on-board software. In accordance with Article 8.2.4, any new setting chosen in this way must not enhance the performance of the car beyond that prior to the loss of function.

5. Instruction to enter the pit lane in order to fix or retire the car.

6. Indication of a problem with a competitor's car.

7. Marshalling information (yellow flag, red flag, blue flag, safety car, virtual safety car, race start aborted or other similar instructions or information from race control). This would include a reminder to switch off the SC "delta time" function after crossing the first safety car line twice from the time the SC was deployed.

8. Passing on messages from race control (this would include a countdown to the start of the formation lap and telling a driver that the last car has taken up position on the grid at the end of the formation lap).

9. Wet track, oil or debris in certain corners.

10. Weather information.

11. Information concerning the driver's own lap time or sector times.

12. Lap time of a competitor.

13. Helping with warning of traffic and gaps to other competitors during a practice session or race.

14. Instructions to swap position with other drivers.

15. Number of laps or time remaining during a practice session or race.

16. Position during a practice session or race.

17. "Push hard", "push now", "you will be racing xx", "take it easy" or similar (you are reminded about suspected use of coded messages when giving these messages or any words of encouragement).

18. When to enter the pits (or go to the grid during reconnaissance laps), any message of this sort may only be used if the driver is to enter the pits on that lap. Having been told when to enter the pits drivers may also be told to stay out if there has been a change of circumstances.

During free practice and qualifying sessions drivers may also be told what to do once they have entered the pits, e.g. "drive through", "stop in the box", "practice pit stop", "into the garage" or similar.

19. The driver's own race pit stop strategy as well as those of his competitors, this is limited to the timing of pit stops and which tyres will be (or have been) used. For the avoidance of doubt, no car or power unit set up may be included in any such strategy discussion.

20. Reminders to use the pit speed limiter, change tyre settings to match the tyres fitted to the car or to check for white lines, bollards, weighbridge lights when entering or leaving the pits.

21. Driving breaches by team driver or competitor, e.g. missing chicanes, running off track, time penalty will be applied etc.

22. Notification that DRS is enabled or disabled.

23. Dealing with a DRS system failure.

24. Oil transfer.

25. Test sequence information during practice sessions (P1 and P2 only), e.g. aero-mapping.


It doesn't seem to have been directly discussed, but this seems to be the rule under which it would have been legal for the team to tell Rosberg which settings to use:


4. Instructions to select driver defaults for the sole purpose of mitigating loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller whose degradation or failure was not detected and handled by the on-board software. In accordance with Article 8.2.4, any new setting chosen in this way must not enhance the performance of the car beyond that prior to the loss of function.

[henners88]

They were allowed the first aspect of the message because of imminent failure .
The message to skip through the 7th gear would not have made him faster , certainly , but was rather , another effort to make the box last to the end of the race .
How is that different , or in any way clear ?

In Baku , they did give Lewis advice of the same order , when he said he was going to just start pushing buttons and they told him not to do so .
Telling Lewis to calm down and figure it out was far more coaching than telling Nico to run through 7th quickly , to save it .
And , the message to Lewis there was that it was solvable and not terminal , essentially , but to Nico , it was not quite as rosy , as they had no idea if it would last .


Don't get me wrong .
I have no desire to have Hamilton punished for Baku , but the comparison is interesting for it's inconsistency .
In Baku the team informed Lewis of a problem which they are allowed to do. He asked for advice on a fix and they told he they couldn't offer it, so he fiddled with the settings until it was cleared. No wrong doing.

In Britain Rosberg was alerted to a problem with his car and was giving instructions of a default setting to fix the issue. If this was a critical issue then this didn't breach the rules either. I was annoyed to see him penalised to be honest.

I don't understand how you've reviewed both instances though and drawn the conclusion Hamilton's was more of a breach than Rosberg's because you feel he was coached more?

[Nitrodaze]

4. Instructions to select driver defaults for the sole purpose of mitigating loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller whose degradation or failure was not detected and handled by the on-board software. In accordance with Article 8.2.4, any new setting chosen in this way must not enhance the performance of the car beyond that prior to the loss of function.

Under close analysis, this rule does not apply to the Rosberg situation. "Instruction to select" and "select driver defaults" considerably reduces the scope of application of this rule. The "Instruction to select" aspect kind of alludes to car setting that the driver can operate on the steering wheel of the car. Mercedes tried to extend this aspect to the selection of gears due to failure of the 7th gear. Unfortunately, the "select driver defaults" aspect of the rule puts the mercedes assertion outside what is allowable by this rule. As changing through a gear [by skipping a particular gear] does not fit with selecting a driver default.

There is no provision in the rule that you have found that allows a team to inform their driver on how to tackle a specific problem. The team can only go as far as inform the driver of a problem that is about to happen or has happened and possibly the effect of the problem, maybe a faint hint of where to start solving the problem.

The stewards got their decision right at Silverstone. It was unfortunate for Rosberg, sh*t happens, and he should expect these sorts of problems to occur at some point in this year. This is why it was pointless getting involved in those point losing incidents. He lost 13 points in Spielburg Austria for a pointless crash and now he is one sole point ahead.

I think this season would make it into the training manuals on how to lose a championship with 43 point advantage. That said, all in not lost. Rosberg still have the advantage, as Hamilton is likely to serve at most 2 engine change penalty, which may be good for 20 to 50 points advantage. That is assuming that Hamilton has not accumulated the requisite number of points to allow him to change his engine with minimum impact relative to Rosberg. It is safe to say that it would be a crushing blow to Rosberg if he loses the 2016 title.

[AndyL]

Good find Duncan. It's good to see those rules in full.

The waters are still pretty murky though. As Nitrodaze said, it doesn't seem like an impending gearbox failure would be "a loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller whose ... failure was not detected...". This reads like it is to deal with a failure that has already happened.

"Indication of a critical problem with the car" seems more likely to be applicable, but that rule seems to allow giving information only, and no instructions.

However the stewards' decision says that:
"...the team gave some instructions to the driver that were specifically permitted under Technical Directive 014-16. However, the Stewards determined that the team then went further and gave instructions to the driver that were not permitted under the Technical Directive..."

It still seems pretty unclear what rules they did or didn't break. The FIA really need to bring some clarity to this.

[jens]

It is a bit funny to get a penalty for such a thing. These kind of things show that F1 is overregulated and overly bureaucratic. The last thing we missed from F1 is people getting penalties for what they say. Sorry, but in my book the radio ban is an overreaction. :)

[Bagwan]

In Baku the team informed Lewis of a problem which they are allowed to do. He asked for advice on a fix and they told he they couldn't offer it, so he fiddled with the settings until it was cleared. No wrong doing.

In Britain Rosberg was alerted to a problem with his car and was giving instructions of a default setting to fix the issue. If this was a critical issue then this didn't breach the rules either. I was annoyed to see him penalised to be honest.

I don't understand how you've reviewed both instances though and drawn the conclusion Hamilton's was more of a breach than Rosberg's because you feel he was coached more?

I'm not sure how I could explain it better for you , having read my post again .

Neither deserves a penalty .

[henners88]

I'm not sure how I could explain it better for you , having read my post again .

Neither deserves a penalty .
I agree neither deserved a penalty but I was more confused by your statement that suggested Lewis was coached more during the conversation in Baku because he was told to 'calm down' by his engineer.

I know you say neither deserve a penalty but your insinuation that Lewis benefited more in Baku despite receiving less input was bizarre.

[Bagwan]

I agree neither deserved a penalty but I was more confused by your statement that suggested Lewis was coached more during the conversation in Baku because he was told to 'calm down' by his engineer.

I know you say neither deserve a penalty but your insinuation that Lewis benefited more in Baku despite receiving less input was bizarre.

Ok , I'll try to explain .

Lewis was told to calm down , and not just hit all the buttons , which would have told him a number of things .

It was not terminal , and there was a fix , if he just thought about it clearly , instead of being frustrated .
No , they didn't tell him what settings to go with , but they did imply that there was some logic to it that he could figure out by himself .

Which he did , instead of stabbing all the buttons in a more terminal way .

That seems more like coaching than telling a driver to skip through a gear .

It's just my opinion .
No biggie , and not worth a penalty .

[Jag_Warrior]

I'm sorry, but if I have a problem and someone just tells me to think about it and I'll figure it out, that is hardly coaching. That's more like life advice that you'd get from Oprah. Doing what they did with Rosberg (telling him in great detail exactly what to do, and then reiterating what he needed to do and NOT DO after that explanation) is the very definition of coaching.

What was going on before (telling drivers where to brake, where to accelerate, how to accelerate to lessen wheel spin, how to set the clutch, lift & coast, save brakes, save tires, etc.), that's what the rules should have focused on... and no more. As complicated as these cars are now, I don't care for rules that prevent the teams from telling the drivers how to fix problems. But that's what we have. And everyone knows it. It's the same for all. So Mercedes did indeed break the rules, with respect to the instructions given to Rosberg. The penalty was light, and so the calculated gamble worked out for them anyway. Had he been disqualified, then the gamble would not have worked out. I think they would have swallowed even a 20-30 second time penalty. Where would that have put him, 5th or 6th? Still better than a DQ or a DNF.

[Duncan]

Under close analysis, this rule does not apply to the Rosberg situation. "Instruction to select" and "select driver defaults" considerably reduces the scope of application of this rule. The "Instruction to select" aspect kind of alludes to car setting that the driver can operate on the steering wheel of the car. Mercedes tried to extend this aspect to the selection of gears due to failure of the 7th gear. Unfortunately, the "select driver defaults" aspect of the rule puts the mercedes assertion outside what is allowable by this rule. As changing through a gear [by skipping a particular gear] does not fit with selecting a driver default.

That depends on which part you mean, but I think we are in agreement here. To be clear, I don't disagree with the steward's ruling (particularly now that I've seen the list of rules). I think the rules are pretty absurd, but the ruling seems to exactly fit what the rules say. The first part of the radio conversation:


Rosberg: “Gearbox problem.”

Engineer: “Driver default 1-0-1, chassis default 0-1, chassis default 0-1.”

Seems to me to be tailor made to fit within option 4 of the directive. The second part:


Engineer: “Avoid seventh gear, Nico, avoid seventh gear.”

Rosberg: “What does that mean, I have to shift through it?”

Engineer: “Affirm Nico, you need to shift through it. Affirm, you need to shift through it.”

Seems to be outside the spirit and letter of the rule.



I think this season would make it into the training manuals on how to lose a championship with 43 point advantage. That said, all in not lost. Rosberg still have the advantage, as Hamilton is likely to serve at most 2 engine change penalty, which may be good for 20 to 50 points advantage. That is assuming that Hamilton has not accumulated the requisite number of points to allow him to change his engine with minimum impact relative to Rosberg. It is safe to say that it would be a crushing blow to Rosberg if he loses the 2016 title.

Agreed. My strong suspicion, though, is that Lewis' engine deficit will end up being decisive, unless Rosberg suffers similar mishaps later in the season.

[henners88]

Ok , I'll try to explain .

Lewis was told to calm down , and not just hit all the buttons , which would have told him a number of things .

It was not terminal , and there was a fix , if he just thought about it clearly , instead of being frustrated .
No , they didn't tell him what settings to go with , but they did imply that there was some logic to it that he could figure out by himself .

Which he did , instead of stabbing all the buttons in a more terminal way .

That seems more like coaching than telling a driver to skip through a gear .

It's just my opinion .
No biggie , and not worth a penalty .
Fair enough, I don't agree though.

I don't think telling a driver to calm down and figure it out for themselves is more beneficial to them than giving them instructions on a setting to cure a performance issue. If we really do have to be critical here under the silly rule, Nico did indeed benefit more initially before his time penalty.

I just hope this rule is looked at before 2017 and drivers can go back to having technical discussions with their engineers. Fans like to hear radio transmissions. I can understand a ban on engineers coaching the driver on how to drive. The rule needs to be amended and agreed by the teams IMO.

[Bagwan]

Fair enough, I don't agree though.

I don't think telling a driver to calm down and figure it out for themselves is more beneficial to them than giving them instructions on a setting to cure a performance issue. If we really do have to be critical here under the silly rule, Nico did indeed benefit more initially before his time penalty.

I just hope this rule is looked at before 2017 and drivers can go back to having technical discussions with their engineers. Fans like to hear radio transmissions. I can understand a ban on engineers coaching the driver on how to drive. The rule needs to be amended and agreed by the teams IMO.

To be fair , I think we have to say it wasn't a "performance issue" , but rather more serious , or so they thought at the time .
And , you're not wrong that they left Lewis hanging , which sucked . A 10 second time penalty might have been preferable .


As it was before , with no radio ban in place , it was , in a way , self-policing , because the driver got a hard time from the public about it .
They changed the rules in reaction to people moaning about drivers not driving , but this might have been the moment to have passed the buck on to the drivers themselves , saying that if they were coached , they would hear about it from the fans .

[henners88]

To be fair , I think we have to say it wasn't a "performance issue" , but rather more serious , or so they thought at the time .
And , you're not wrong that they left Lewis hanging , which sucked . A 10 second time penalty might have been preferable .


As it was before , with no radio ban in place , it was , in a way , self-policing , because the driver got a hard time from the public about it .
They changed the rules in reaction to people moaning about drivers not driving , but this might have been the moment to have passed the buck on to the drivers themselves , saying that if they were coached , they would hear about it from the fans .

Well it was a gearbox issue and I related that to performance because he was told to shift through 7th gear. This would have meant he would lose some time each lap. Serious would be a safety issue and if that was the case he would have been asked to box the car which is allowed under the current radio com rules.

The only thing that annoyed me about the previous lack of rules was when engineers were telling drivers how to drive. For example Rob Smedley told Massa to use 5th gear through a corner at Silverstone a few years ago to improve his race pace. That should be down to the driver IMO. I think the new rule is too extreme, but we'll just have to see if it's changed.

[zako85]

It is a bit funny to get a penalty for such a thing. These kind of things show that F1 is overregulated and overly bureaucratic. The last thing we missed from F1 is people getting penalties for what they say. Sorry, but in my book the radio ban is an overreaction. :)


Well, what else are they supposed to regulate? The parties did not agree on the regulations that were really necessary, such as helping engine manufacturers to catch up with Mercedes or the cost reduction. Instead we see many superfluous regulations that don't really fix anything. At least, they got rid of the new qualifying format.

[Bagwan]

Well it was a gearbox issue and I related that to performance because he was told to shift through 7th gear. This would have meant he would lose some time each lap. Serious would be a safety issue and if that was the case he would have been asked to box the car which is allowed under the current radio com rules.

The only thing that annoyed me about the previous lack of rules was when engineers were telling drivers how to drive. For example Rob Smedley told Massa to use 5th gear through a corner at Silverstone a few years ago to improve his race pace. That should be down to the driver IMO. I think the new rule is too extreme, but we'll just have to see if it's changed.

Yeah , I remember that Massa/Smedley coaching , and it looked pretty bad on Felipe .
But , people didn't give him nearly hard enough a time of it .

I think we need to remember , though , that the conversation that Massa had with his engineer would have been acceptable if it was in the pit lane , person to person .
All of these examples of which we've cited are allowed verbally , just not over the radio .


So , I say , ban the ban , and let them talk all they want .
But , also flay them publicly when they ask mommy for too much help .

In the case of either Lewis or Nico not being able to understand his car , somebody give the damn designers a hard time for making something that is a puzzle meant to be solved at 200mph .
And , then , smack the FIA for putting such a high fee on the help desk .

[Duncan]

In the case of either Lewis or Nico not being able to understand his car , somebody give the damn designers a hard time for making something that is a puzzle meant to be solved at 200mph .
And , then , smack the FIA for putting such a high fee on the help desk .

I think it might be significant that the fundamental design was put together with the assumption that there could be unlimited communication over the radio.

I strongly suspect that the UI is designed to close the loop from detailed telemetry going through a team of pit-based engineers and back through the driver to tweak engine/chassis settings. I just don't think any of the controls were ever intended to be used by a driver figuring things out on their own. Bummer. Somebody should definitely look into fixing that.

[AndyL]

That depends on which part you mean, but I think we are in agreement here. To be clear, I don't disagree with the steward's ruling (particularly now that I've seen the list of rules). I think the rules are pretty absurd, but the ruling seems to exactly fit what the rules say. The first part of the radio conversation:



Seems to me to be tailor made to fit within option 4 of the directive.

It only fits option 4 if the problem was "loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller whose degradation or failure was not detected and handled by the on-board software". If the solution is to avoid 7th gear, that sounds more like a mechanical problem with the gearbox rather than failure of the on-board software to handle loss of a sensor, actuator or controller. How the directive is written, they can't issue any instructions on how to work around a mechanical problem, even if it's a race-ending one.

[AndyL]

The only thing that annoyed me about the previous lack of rules was when engineers were telling drivers how to drive. For example Rob Smedley told Massa to use 5th gear through a corner at Silverstone a few years ago to improve his race pace. That should be down to the driver IMO. I think the new rule is too extreme, but we'll just have to see if it's changed.

Yes they've completely over-reacted with these radio rules haven't they. But apparently the plan is for them to get even more restrictive next year, not less.

[Duncan]

It only fits option 4 if the problem was "loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller whose degradation or failure was not detected and handled by the on-board software". If the solution is to avoid 7th gear, that sounds more like a mechanical problem with the gearbox rather than failure of the on-board software to handle loss of a sensor, actuator or controller. How the directive is written, they can't issue any instructions on how to work around a mechanical problem, even if it's a race-ending one.

That depends on which sub-problem they were fixing. The first part was the immediate problem that it was stuck in 7th gear, and the fix was selecting new driver defaults from the steering wheel. The selector mechanism in the gearbox is an "actuator" - since it's an electromechanical component that the selects a gear under electronic control - and that specific fix appears perfectly ok. The very fact that it could be freed by setting new driver defaults provides a pretty strong argument that this is within part 4.

On the other hand, the next part of avoiding the problem occurring again, possibly in a way that can't be fixed next time, by avoiding (mostly) using 7th gear by shifting through it. That part is not covered under part 4.

I think these rules are pretty daft, but that seems to be what they say and how the stewards interpreted them.

[Nitrodaze]

That depends on which sub-problem they were fixing. The first part was the immediate problem that it was stuck in 7th gear, and the fix was selecting new driver defaults from the steering wheel. The selector mechanism in the gearbox is an "actuator" - since it's an electromechanical component that the selects a gear under electronic control - and that specific fix appears perfectly ok. The very fact that it could be freed by setting new driver defaults provides a pretty strong argument that this is within part 4.

On the other hand, the next part of avoiding the problem occurring again, possibly in a way that can't be fixed next time, by avoiding (mostly) using 7th gear by shifting through it. That part is not covered under part 4.

I think these rules are pretty daft, but that seems to be what they say and how the stewards interpreted them.

I see where you are going with your assertion, but unfortunately, it does not hold up for a number of reasons. The first one is the idea of "selecting new driver defaults". The can be only one default for a start. And the default position for the gearbox is neutral. The other point is the the selector mechanism in the gearbox is not what failed or was about to fail. Hence has no bearing in the scheme of things. The essence of the radio call was that a gear in the gearbox had failed. In this instance, the 7th gear. And the solution was to avoid using that particular gear so as not to propagate the problem to other gears. The method of avoidance was the shifting through to the damaged gear.

if we categorize the scenario, we would have the following:-

1. Identification of failure [Failed 7th gear]
2. Notification of failure [Initial Radio call]
3. Indication of solution to the problem [Warning to avoid 7th gear]
4. instruction of method to rectify or avoid the problem [Answer to question of whether to shift through it]

points 1 & 2 are well within the rules. 3 is pushing it but they could have got away with it. 4 is what gave the stewards reason to take punitive action. Selection mechanism etc were secondary to the issue and were not of consideration. As such the stewards could not approach this issue any other way than as they did.

[Duncan]

I see where you are going with your assertion, but unfortunately, it does not hold up for a number of reasons. The first one is the idea of "selecting new driver defaults". The can be only one default for a start. And the default position for the gearbox is neutral.

I'm not at all convinced that is correct, for a couple of reasons. First, the rule makes specific reference to "Instructions to select driver defaults for the sole purpose of mitigating loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller" which has to mean something - and my interpretation is that there are multiple meanings of what "defaults" could be here. Secondly, the first radio message itself makes reference to setting driver defaults. Specifically, the message was:


Engineer: “Driver default 1-0-1, chassis default 0-1, chassis default 0-1.”

There's clearly much more going on here than there only being one "default". This message, and only this message, is the part that I'm suggesting was ok. It seems to fit with precisely what the rule says.



The other point is the the selector mechanism in the gearbox is not what failed or was about to fail.

How do we know that? The problem was that the gearbox was stuck in 7th gear, not that 7th gear wasn't working. That sure sounds like a selector problem to me...


... And the solution was to avoid using that particular gear so as not to propagate the problem to other gears. The method of avoidance was the shifting through to the damaged gear.

That was the second part of the message - after the call to select a specific set of defaults - to avoid 7th gear. Which we agree (and I've been saying from the beginning) is outside the scope of the rules, and resulted in the penalty.



if we categorize the scenario, we would have the following:-

1. Identification of failure [Failed 7th gear]
2. Notification of failure [Initial Radio call]
3. Indication of solution to the problem [Warning to avoid 7th gear]
4. instruction of method to rectify or avoid the problem [Answer to question of whether to shift through it]

points 1 & 2 are well within the rules. 3 is pushing it but they could have got away with it. 4 is what gave the stewards reason to take punitive action. Selection mechanism etc were secondary to the issue and were not of consideration. As such the stewards could not approach this issue any other way than as they did.

Completely agreed. But you skipped a step. That would be the initial response to select specific driver defaults to get out of the fact that the gearbox was jammed in 7th gear. If the conversation had stopped there, there wouldn't have been a problem.

[Nitrodaze]

There's clearly much more going on here than there only being one "default". This message, and only this message, is the part that I'm suggesting was ok. It seems to fit with precisely what the rule says.





How do we know that? The problem was that the gearbox was stuck in 7th gear, not that 7th gear wasn't working. That sure sounds like a selector problem to me...
Yes normal gear shift into and out of the 7th gear was clearly the problem and needed some sort of reset to get out of it. I don't know much about F1 gearbox architecture to comment further on whether it was or was not a selector problem. But, once Rosberg had got out of 7th, he was able to select other gears without problem.

The argument that a gear selector mechanism is an actuator of sorts is asking the stewards to get into the details of the design of the gearbox in order to arrive at a conclusion. This is not a fair liability to place on the stewards, as they have to take into consideration the various components in the car to arrive at a decision. The process would be laborious and unworkable. They would not be able to give a decision on the race weekend. Hence, not an ideal approach.



That was the second part of the message - after the call to select a specific set of defaults - to avoid 7th gear. Which we agree (and I've been saying from the beginning) is outside the scope of the rules, and resulted in the penalty.
A combination of settings can be the driver default, e.g 1-0-1 or its alias 0-1. And l take the point that there are many defaults, as there is a default for gearbox, engine mode, energy recovery etc. But my point is that for a specific device such as the gearbox, it is very likely that there is one default for it or the idea of default do not make sense.




Completely agreed. But you skipped a step. That would be the initial response to select specific driver defaults to get out of the fact that the gearbox was jammed in 7th gear. If the conversation had stopped there, there wouldn't have been a problem.
I agree, but l saw this as part of my step 3.