Rosberg vs Hamilton

[2GRX7]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Who do guys think would have the advantage if they didn't share any data?
Nico or Lewis?

Originally Posted by Tourer

Thing to remember is that this is a team sport and that each team wants to do as well as possible with both cars so data sharing to maximise the performance of both cars makes complete sense.

The data is the team's data, it is not the driver's data and the team want to use as much information as possible to strengthen the position of both cars.

Again, I understand this, and it would make perfectly good sense if they were a mid-field team, or even a team that is fighting for the constructors', but they're not. Mercedes is a second ahead of the field at the moment. LOL, this team is STRENGTHENED! Barring drive-ability, and normal updates, this is unnecessary.

[2GRX7]

Originally Posted by jedrinck

I thought the rule was that if you gained an advantage i.e. a position by leaving the track you have to give it back. If the driver makes a mistake and avoids an accident by going straight while maintaining his race position that is a slightly different situation because it is impossible to know if he would have lost the position had he gone through the chicane correctly.

Well, N.R. went through the chicane and created a 1.4 sec advantage from that initial .6 of advantage. This would mean L.H. could not use his DRS during the following lap until he'd reduced the gap again, which could have taken another 2-3 laps (as had been the case earlier). Mind you, had L.H. gotten past at that point, he may have reduced the chances of overheating those rear brakes that ultimately caused his retirement. HUM?

In post-race interviews, he (Nico) made mention of slowing down within the first two corners after this occurred, so he knew what he'd done, but the stewards saw N.R. didn't slow enough, hence, the investigation.

[Noodoo]

I thought that it's quite clear; if you gain an advantage by cutting a corner, you get penalized. He clearly gained an advantage, although a time advantage as oppose to a positional advantage.

I was a little surprised he didn't receive a penalty. Just my opinion.

[migliacars]

I think the correct decision was made don't you.

[Bandicoot17]

I think a penalty would have been harsh for Rosberg. Hamilton was a fair distance back.

In a way the people that put those speed bumps down are to blame, as it only really left the point furthest away from the chicane for Rosberg to aim at. If they weren't there then he would probably have gone for a much tighter cut and not gained the 5/ 6 tenths.

[bjohnsonsmith]

This is going to run all season.

[2GRX7]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

I think a penalty would have been harsh for Rosberg. Hamilton was a fair distance back.

In a way the people that put those speed bumps down are to blame, as it only really left the point furthest away from the chicane for Rosberg to aim at. If they weren't there then he would probably have gone for a much tighter cut and not gained the 5/ 6 tenths.

Uh, not quite sure if you're talking about L.H. being too far back before/after N.R. cut chicane, so, not sure how to answer.

But, the speed bumps must have been fine/properly spaced in order for Whiting to sign off on the circuit.

[321Go]

Originally Posted by 2GRX7

In post-race interviews, he (Nico) made mention of slowing down within the first two corners after this occurred, so he knew what he'd done, but the stewards saw N.R. didn't slow enough, hence, the investigation.

Nico didn't slow down. Watching that very incident again, and the next few laps a couple more times, Nico held onto the advantage he gained by cutting the chicane for at least two laps before Lewis caught up and gained back most of the time he lost.

Nico may have slowed down as he so said. But it would've been a very minor % of the gain he received by cutting through. Nico did nothing wrong according to the current regulations. But it is another grey area that he seems to very aware of. Nico did gain an advantage. And never gave it back. No doubt what so ever in my mind.

[mikuni]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Nico didn't slow down. Watching that very incident again, and the next few laps a couple more times, Nico held onto the advantage he gained by cutting the chicane for at least two laps before Lewis caught up and gained back most of the time he lost.

Nico may have slowed down as he so said. But it would've been a very minor % of the gain he received by cutting through. Nico did nothing wrong according to the current regulations. But it is another grey area that he seems to very aware of. Nico did gain an advantage. And never gave it back. No doubt what so ever in my mind.

I agree with you. The BBC commentators specifically stated his lap was the fastest of all for that period of the race (those tyres, that fuel load etc) by around 8/10ths. He may have buttoned off for a second, but I believe the rules could be much clearer and state if you do cut a corner like that and record a faster lap or sector than your previous, you should receive a penalty. People may say that's a bit hard on the drivers, but it's not as hard as the concrete wall that would otherwise be there.

[garcon]

I don't have the figures to hand but I do trust the stewards enough to know whether Rosberg slowed down or not on the following lap. It's not the most difficult bit of telemetry to interpret.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Nico didn't slow down. Watching that very incident again, and the next few laps a couple more times, Nico held onto the advantage he gained by cutting the chicane for at least two laps before Lewis caught up and gained back most of the time he lost.

Nico may have slowed down as he so said. But it would've been a very minor % of the gain he received by cutting through. Nico did nothing wrong according to the current regulations. But it is another grey area that he seems to very aware of. Nico did gain an advantage. And never gave it back. No doubt what so ever in my mind.

Advantages are gained and lost by all drivers throughout the race... otherwise we'd be watching a procession where the cars remained equidistant from one another. All that matters is whether Nico contravened the rules in force at the time or not. The stewards deemed that he didn't... so we need to move on...

[wnut]

Originally Posted by 2GRX7

That's just it-we don't know, but one thing's for sure, they wouldn't be as close to each other in a race as they are now. I'd be ****ed if I had to share my data with a slower driver, or one not as savvy as me. He gets to say, 'OH-THAT'S how he does it.', and I'm like, 'What the hell am I getting out of this "two-way" relationship?'

And how!

[Bandicoot17]

Originally Posted by 2GRX7

Uh, not quite sure if you're talking about L.H. being too far back before/after N.R. cut chicane, so, not sure how to answer.

But, the speed bumps must have been fine/properly spaced in order for Whiting to sign off on the circuit.

I'm talking about before the chicane, Hamilton wasn't in a position to overtake at that point, that's why I feel a penalty would have been harsh.

In regards to the speed bumps, they were obviously happy with where they put them, but by only leaving a small section at the end open to rejoin they were a contributory factor in why Rosberg floored it.

[2GRX7]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Advantages are gained and lost by all drivers throughout the race... otherwise we'd be watching a procession where the cars remained equidistant from one another. All that matters is whether Nico contravened the rules in force at the time or not. The stewards deemed that he didn't... so we need to move on...

LOL, WELL, they did feel he contravened the rule-and only got a warning. He got two during the race. Third one would have been a stop n' go. N.R. is looking for 'clarification' (which he has not gotten yet), so that's why I'm still on this topic-curious to see the outcome!

[2GRX7]

Originally Posted by 321Go

Nico didn't slow down. Watching that very incident again, and the next few laps a couple more times, Nico held onto the advantage he gained by cutting the chicane for at least two laps before Lewis caught up and gained back most of the time he lost.

Nico may have slowed down as he so said. But it would've been a very minor % of the gain he received by cutting through. Nico did nothing wrong according to the current regulations. But it is another grey area that he seems to very aware of. Nico did gain an advantage. And never gave it back. No doubt what so ever in my mind.

I agree completely-just didn't want to hog this thread with my over-righteousness ;-)

I don't know. It always feels like N.R. is always in the background, jumping up and down, saying, 'HEY, look at me, I'm a really good racer too', 'Hey watch me go fast too!' N.R. is a highly-intelligent guy and is a real student of F1, However, I feel his perceived tricks will only go to taint his championship if he, in fact, wins it all.

He'll win it all only to be questioned for his tactics throughout the season and not necessarily be seen as the better racer, just more resourceful. It's a shame because I really like him and appreciated him kicking Michael's butt.

[nobster]

This battle will last all season, Lewis might be a bit quicker but reliability is with Nico and that can make a huge difference.

[garcon]

Nico's "perceived tricks" are precisely that. Perceived only the imaginations of Lewis fans.

[2GRX7]

Originally Posted by garcon

Nico's "perceived tricks" are precisely that. Perceived only the imaginations of Lewis fans.

LOL....AND the lack of, at least, acknowledging there are inconsistencies in Nico's driving could indicate the immersion in mental rigidity (friendly ribbing)!

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by davyboy

Advantages are gained and lost by all drivers throughout the race... otherwise we'd be watching a procession where the cars remained equidistant from one another. All that matters is whether Nico contravened the rules in force at the time or not. The stewards deemed that he didn't... so we need to move on...

This whole debate though is interesting in the light of Spa 2008 when Hamilton used the run off area to recover, dropped back then took Kimi back on the next corner....

He did more than Nico did in Canada but still got a penalty....

This is where clarification and consistency are needed because we have stewards making decisions that appear to be completely inconsistent. A gain is a gain, regardless of how and where it occurs, and if people are going to be penalised the rationale needs to be consistent across the board, for everyone.

Another example: In the GP2 race at Monaco a wheel after a tyre change went askew on the pit road and bounced across the path of vehicles exiting the pit lane.
A casual fan I was with asked why there was no penalty applied when at Sepang, Ricciardo had a penalty for unsafe release when all he did was go a few metres down the pit lane and realise the wheel was not properly secured. the team pulled him back and then fixed and sent him on his way.

He got a drive through AND a ten place penalty for the next race but this GP2 driver got nothing....
If casual fans see this and see the inconsistency and reflect that the sport is badly managed and governed and that the stewards are capricious and selective in their deliberations and actions then the whole judiciary is a joke.to them and all they are doing is manipulating the outcome and being selective in the application of the rules.

That brings the whole sport into disrepute. So the issue with Nico does need to clarified so everyone knows what is clearly expected and it has to be applied across all aspects of corner cutting in a consistent manner.

[davyboy]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

That brings the whole sport into disrepute. So the issue with Nico does need to clarified so everyone knows what is clearly expected and it has to be applied across all aspects of corner cutting in a consistent manner.

I completely agree with you. If it's possible to bring greater transparency to a rule and greater clarity to it's application, it should be done. It's not always possible however. For example, supposing somebody is forced off by another car or has to leave the track to avoid an accident. If they gain a place, then it's straightforward. If they gain a time advantage, it's very difficult to objectively say precisely what it was, or how/when it should be given back. It's a real difficult one that may need to be left to the opinions of the stewards on the day. On this occasion, the stewards chose to do nothing more than issue a warning. If the circumstances were different, they may have decided to do more.

[garcon]

Originally Posted by 2GRX7

LOL....AND the lack of, at least, acknowledging there are inconsistencies in Nico's driving could indicate the immersion in mental rigidity (friendly ribbing)!

Yep, fair comment!

[bella]

Originally Posted by Teretonga

Another example: In the GP2 race at Monaco a wheel after a tyre change went askew on the pit road and bounced across the path of vehicles exiting the pit lane.
A casual fan I was with asked why there was no penalty applied when at Sepang, Ricciardo had a penalty for unsafe release when all he did was go a few metres down the pit lane and realise the wheel was not properly secured. the team pulled him back and then fixed and sent him on his way.

He got a drive through AND a ten place penalty for the next race but this GP2 driver got nothing....

yeah, i was expecting a penalty for palmer for that, and all that happened was the team ended up with a financial penalty. but i'm sure the face fit the race win too well, if you know what i mean.

i agree that consistency between those two formulae is really important. as is consistency *within* them as well. for yes/no issues it's very simple, though admittedly it's far far more difficult with things such as racing incidents and non-quantifyable stuff.

/slightly off-topic

[csirl]

Originally Posted by Bandicoot17

I think a penalty would have been harsh for Rosberg. Hamilton was a fair distance back.

I disagree. In the old days with grass, gravel traps and barriers in situ, Rosbergs mistake would have cost a lot of time and possibly caused retirement. The reason these run off areas are tarmaced is for H&S reasons. While a safety hazard has been rightfully removed, nobody has come up with a mechanism to address the lose of sporting challenge that has resulted. If you put all 4 wheels well of the track, you should pay a very heavy price.

[Cookie85]

This is definitely going to be an ongoing battle and I'm sure it will be Lewis doing something that Nico fans will then question next

[Teretonga]

Originally Posted by davyboy

I completely agree with you. If it's possible to bring greater transparency to a rule and greater clarity to it's application, it should be done. It's not always possible however. For example, supposing somebody is forced off by another car or has to leave the track to avoid an accident. If they gain a place, then it's straightforward. If they gain a time advantage, it's very difficult to objectively say precisely what it was, or how/when it should be given back. It's a real difficult one that may need to be left to the opinions of the stewards on the day. On this occasion, the stewards chose to do nothing more than issue a warning. If the circumstances were different, they may have decided to do more.

I'm not saying fixed or obligatory penalties, but a clear, transparent philosophy / principle under which each situation is to be judged so everyone knows what is up and what to expect when the stewards make their decision.

We do this at other levels of motorsport so their is no reason why it cannot be done at this level too.