FORUMula1.com - F1 Forum

[racechick]

Maybe their thinking went something like this. Rosberg did something wrong, that meant Lewis had to do something wrong to avoid a crash.Lewis gained, but he was only put in that position because of Nico's initial error. So lets leave it.
Im not saying I agree with that line of thinking , because now like Alonso says, how are they going to interpret rules in the future??They have set a precident now. A precident that suited this occassion but might not suit the next(wall there instead of run-off and driver pushed into it like Lewis at Canada)

[spankyham]

You wanted Lewis to gets penalty Spanky? Wow that's new!

Hi Bud. You should know I'm a bit of a Lewis fan - just don't like the car he's in ..... for the time being.

No, my point is just technical. If Rosberg did nothing wrong (I tend to think the stewards got that wrong in both instances) but, if you accept that he didn't do something wrong, then, really, Lewis should have been penalized. I'll be interested to see what Hammer has to say, but I just can't see how Lewis could have made that pass if he didn't go off track.

[spankyham]

Maybe their thinking went something like this. Rosberg did something wrong, that meant Lewis had to do something wrong to avoid a crash.Lewis gained, but he was only put in that position because of Nico's initial error. So lets leave it.
Im not saying I agree with that line of thinking , because now like Alonso says, how are they going to interpret rules in the future??They have set a precident now. A precident that suited this occassion but might not suit the next(wall there instead of run-off and driver pushed into it like Lewis at Canada)

Well, I think the whole "weakness" is in the stewards not saying Rosberg made an error. Reading the report (courtesy of your post - many thanks) they have exonerated Nico IMO that decision was wrong. If I was a steward I would have found him guilty of not leaving the space mandated for both Lewis and Nando.

[racechick]

I agree. And I can see your logic that by following through their initial error with Nicco (saying he did nothing wrong, when in fact he did) you then come to Lewis overtaking off the track. Once again the stewards land themselves in s***.

[bud]

You wanted Lewis to gets penalty Spanky? Wow that's new!

Hi Bud. You should know I'm a bit of a Lewis fan - just don't like the car he's in ..... for the time being.

The car he's in is a hell of a lot prettier and faster than the red brick..... for the time being!

No, my point is just technical. If Rosberg did nothing wrong (I tend to think the stewards got that wrong in both instances) but, if you accept that he didn't do something wrong, then, really, Lewis should have been penalized. I'll be interested to see what Hammer has to say, but I just can't see how Lewis could have made that pass if he didn't go off track.
Trying to avoid a collision is probably Lewis's reasoning

Well having watched the replay again [youtube]_iQurrE15bA[/youtube] stop at 0:05 you can see Lewis is about 3/4 length up Rosbergs car while still mostly on track, I think the stewards gave him the benefit of the doubt in that he had no where else to go but fully off track. It is not Lewis's fault he carried more speed as usually getting 4 wheels on the dirt or in this case sand would slow you down and be no benefit.
It's similar to Vettel and Alonso at Monza last year although from memory Vettel didn't go completely off track.

[What's Burning?]

If I understand you rightly, you're saying, Lewis going off track was as a result of Rosberg's doing something wrong. So because he was forced off track by Rosberg's mistake then Lewis wasn't at fault.

And then, because Rosberg's error was punished by the outcome (Lewis completed an overtake) there was no need to punish Rosberg?

In a word, yes! If contact was made or LH spun out, I'd expect the stewards to take action against Rosberg!

I got to say that doesn't make sense to me at all.

Firstly, the stewards said Rosberg didn't do anything wrong.

Secondly, if we take your view, then stewards will stop punishing people for breaking rules based on the results? Why, say, was Buemi/Malaysia/2011 (I think) given a stop go penalty for pitlane speeding when he didn't gain any place?

In my opinion what Rosberg did, wasn't breaking the rules as outlined by the stewards in their reasoning, but it did do one thing. It forced Lewis to either brake in order to not hit Rosberg. Or run off track and perhaps slow down. Neither of which happened of course, perhaps a testament to the driver's skill. I do believe Rosberg's move was intentional and desperate as the pass was going to happen. Lewis didn't magically pick up speed off track, he was carrying that speed and therefore was going to overtake Rosberg, what he should have been penalized for or at the very least received a reprimand for was reckless endangerment.

[zurich_allan]

Of course if the stewards say Rosberg did nothing wrong then technically Hamilton may have gained an advantage from going off track (although given his closing speed he pretty much HAD to do that or spin as a result of a combination of heavy braking and swerving - which is the least dangerous to everyone on track? Clearly maintaining speed and going off track).

The problem is that there's plenty of precedent for drivers technically gaining an advantage by going (all 4 wheels) off track but not being punished - Vettel at Melbourne (can't remember if it was 2010 or 2011) where that was also indisputable, and Kimi at Spa in pretty much every year he's raced there - notably in 2009 when he potentially gained a race win over Fisichella because of it. If the stewards then decide to punish Hamilton for the same type of circumstance, when there are mitigating circumstances in his case, but not in the ones I've just highlighted, it could open a huge can of worms and rightly so.

They couldn't punish Hamilton without coming under serious and warranted criticism - even if he was technically at fault in their eyes.

[Hammer278]

Of course if the stewards say Rosberg did nothing wrong then technically Hamilton may have gained an advantage from going off track (although given his closing speed he pretty much HAD to do that or spin as a result of a combination of heavy braking and swerving - which is the least dangerous to everyone on track? Clearly maintaining speed and going off track).

The problem is that there's plenty of precedent for drivers technically gaining an advantage by going (all 4 wheels) off track but not being punished - Vettel at Melbourne (can't remember if it was 2010 or 2011) where that was also indisputable, and Kimi at Spa in pretty much every year he's raced there - notably in 2009 when he potentially gained a race win over Fisichella because of it. If the stewards then decide to punish Hamilton for the same type of circumstance, when there are mitigating circumstances in his case, but not in the ones I've just highlighted, it could open a huge can of worms and rightly so.

They couldn't punish Hamilton without coming under serious and warranted criticism - even if he was technically at fault in their eyes.

Probably the best answer IMO.

My reasoning is simple, just replace that colored tarmac with grass. If Hamilton went offtrack on the grass and still made the move stick, are we going to blame him or call him a hero? I remember Montoya did it more than once before, not just in F1 but in lower formulas.

Added to that, its a grey area which Lewis exploited. It's very difficult to see where he was when he officially 'passed' Rosberg, from what I saw on TV he was back on track before he had 'completed the pass'. Lewis did gain an advantage going offtrack, but he did not get the speed by cutting corners or gaining an advantage previous to that section of the track.

If there was a wall there, the only option would be to brake and stick behind Rosberg, but its about driving to the tracks limitation and Lewis exploited what the track allowed there. Why is it punishable, I don't see any reason.

[myownalias]

I say bring back (real) grass and gravel traps; that'll stop all this nonsense. Give a driver a big tarmac run off area and he will exploit it. What's the point in having a rule that states that gaining an advantage by leaving the confines of the track is illegal and not enforce it, hence why I think that neither NR or LH received any punishment as they both broke the rules, stalemate!!!

JB was penalised in Australia 2011 for something very similar; yes, he took the the inside of the track instead of the outside but he was effectively squeezed, Massa left him no room on the inside of the corner, which indicates to me that if you go the long way around and carry more speed (gaining an advantage), then it's absolutely fine, there is no consistently in stewardship!

[spankyham]

Maybe what really peeves me is that there is just no consistency. And it all stems from the fact that they just keep adding more and more rules to try and define and lock drivers into more and more constraints.

I won't post it again, but I'm sure most of you will remember one of my fave clips - Gilles V Arnoux 79' France (from memory). We didn't have anywhere near the rules and regs then, but the drives gave no quarter, yet maintained respect for each other and raced the way we would really like to see drivers set free to race. Now we have this x number of moves and trying to define racing lines (what a joke that is). I'm sure half these regulators can't know as much as most of the experienced posters here and certainly can't have done even one angry lap on a track anywhere.

F1 development over the past couple of decades = create a load more stupid rules to prevent drivers racing each other ...... then because drivers are now so constrained and cars are so homogenized lets create more and more rules for artificially induced passes.... DRS, @#$% rubber, blah blah

[What's Burning?]

I find ALMS and Grand AM racing enjoyable because it relatively free of the constraints you stated.

[racechick]

Maybe what really peeves me is that there is just no consistency. And it all stems from the fact that they just keep adding more and more rules to try and define and lock drivers into more and more constraints.

I won't post it again, but I'm sure most of you will remember one of my fave clips - Gilles V Arnoux 79' France (from memory). We didn't have anywhere near the rules and regs then, but the drives gave no quarter, yet maintained respect for each other and raced the way we would really like to see drivers set free to race. Now we have this x number of moves and trying to define racing lines (what a joke that is). I'm sure half these regulators can't know as much as most of the experienced posters here and certainly can't have done even one angry lap on a track anywhere.

F1 development over the past couple of decades = create a load more stupid rules to prevent drivers racing each other ...... then because drivers are now so constrained and cars are so homogenized lets create more and more rules for artificially induced passes.... DRS, @#$% rubber, blah blah

[Hammer278]

I say bring back (real) grass and gravel traps; that'll stop all this nonsense. Give a driver a big tarmac run off area and he will exploit it. What's the point in having a rule that states that gaining an advantage by leaving the confines of the track is illegal and not enforce it, hence why I think that neither NR or LH received any punishment as they both broke the rules, stalemate!!!

JB was penalised in Australia 2011 for something very similar; yes, he took the the inside of the track instead of the outside but he was effectively squeezed, Massa left him no room on the inside of the corner, which indicates to me that if you go the long way around and carry more speed (gaining an advantage), then it's absolutely fine, there is no consistently in stewardship!

Lol JB took a shortcut and held position, if there was no action there it would be a complete joke.

Hamilton went off track...no shortcuts, no advantage gained and completed the pass on track. But I agree, its a grey area and the problem is all this kiddy run off areas these days. Those real tracks like Imola/Monza/Spa/old Hockenheim which had a narrow pathway for cars with sand/grass all around are becoming scarce these days.

[myownalias]

How can you say that Hamilton didn't gain an advantage? he carried more speed because he went wide, lessening the turn in angle means more speed can be retained! I see no difference between inside and outside or the track, and advantage has been gained... If Hamilton stayed within the confines of the track, he would have remained behind Rosberg, simple as that!

[McLaren]

It's a tough one to call,Even Rosberg had two wheels off the track,I have to agree with MOA that we should see grass and gravel traps back.Still have run off areas,I don't want to see walls on corners but gravel traps etc ,encourage you to stay on the track.At the moment it doesn't matter if you go 30 yds off the circuit.