Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2014

Did Rosberg deserve a penalty for chicane cutting?

2014 Canadian Grand Prix

Posted on

| Written by

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2014Nico Rosberg did everything he could to keep his team mate and championship rival behind him during the Canadian Grand Prix. But did he overstep the mark?

Rosberg was feeling the heat from Lewis Hamilton when he locked his front-left wheel at the final chicane on lap 25.

Realising he wouldn’t be able to make the corner, Rosberg drove over the tarmac run-off area and rejoined the track through the gap after the speed bump.

By keeping his foot down Rosberg lost so little time he set the fastest lap of the race when he crossed the finishing line. He also pulled a few tenths of a second clear of Hamilton – a vital advantage as he team mate strived to get within a second of him at the DRS detection point.

The stewards quickly announced Rosberg was under invetigation for failing to observe track limits. But within a few laps Hamilton was notified his team mate had been let off the hook: “No penalty for Nico. He’s on his final warning for cutting the last chicane.”

The incident soon became academic as both Mercedes drivers ran into trouble and Hamilton retired from the race. But it could have decided the outcome of another closely-fought battle between the Mercedes pair.

The rules on leaving the track and gaining an advantage were revised before the start of the season. They now state a driver must not gain any “lasting” advantage by leaving the track.

Is this another case of a run-off area making it too easy for a driver to leave the track and gain a benefit? And if so, should the stewards have taken a firmer line on Rosberg?

Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Should Nico Rosberg have been given a penalty for cutting the chicane?

  • No opinion (1%)
  • Strongly disagree (25%)
  • Slightly disagree (15%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (5%)
  • Slightly agree (23%)
  • Strongly agree (31%)

Total Voters: 616

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed in stead of the voting form.

2014 Canadian Grand Prix

Browse all 2014 Canadian Grand Prix articles

Image © Daimler/Hoch Zwei

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

246 comments on “Did Rosberg deserve a penalty for chicane cutting?”

  1. Nope. Warning was just fine and the same as previous incidents at the same point on that circuit.

    1. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
      8th June 2014, 22:31

      @craig-o Exactly. Consistency from the stewards is what we want and that is what we got.

      Hamilton was not attempting to overtake, so penalising Rosberg or forcing him to yield the position for a one-off incident would have been totally unfair.

      1. Is the fact that Hamilton was not attempting an overtake at that point actually relevant? For me it comes down to whether Rosberg would have lost the position had he not taken to the run-off area and gained the advantage.

        I can’t see how he could have kept the position without doing so, therefore I’d have asked them to swap position (I think a drive-through would have been over the top).

        1. Carl Craven
          9th June 2014, 2:20

          You have a really valid point, but I don’t think it’s possible to make a judgement based on what might have been

        2. Rosberg did gain an advantage, but what kinda penalty would it be? A 5 second stop and go?

          1. Yeah… or a drive through. He broke the rules, as simple as that.

            I don’t see why he should be given a get out of jail free card because he’s leading the championship and batting his rival on track for the win.

            If he negated his advantage by slowing down slightly after missing the chicane, it would be fine. But he got Lewis out of DRS range because of that move and kept the distance to over a second for the next 5 laps. Lewis could have got him in the next DRS zone on the start – finish straight or maybe on the next lap, but Nico just cut a corner and floored it to avoid Lewis closing up on him.

            That’s cheating anyway you look at it

      2. I think the stewards correctly opted to let the race be decided on the track by the drivers. As a fan, that is what I would rather see. A penalty would have surely handed the position to the opposing driver, in this case Hamilton, when the other driver was unable to pass on the track at that point in the race. That is not what I want to see as a fan.

        The main reason it was a close call was that Rosberg appeared to gain around a half second (6/10 maybe) and set the fastest lap of the race (at that point in the race).

        But, Rosberg did not gain a position. If he had and not given it back, the penalty would be mandatory.

        He was given a warning and a penalty would have been required for a second incident.

        In this case I think the stewards exercised proper judgement with a situation and in an area of the rules that is not so clear cut.

        1. Chris Harrison
          8th June 2014, 23:48

          Given the fact they deleted his lap time set on this lap from his ‘fastest lap/current lap’ graphic, I find it strange that they don’t think he gained an advantage from exceeding the track limits.

          It’s one thing to go off track, and maintain a position, having slowed to safely use the run off areas to return to the track, but to realise you can’t make a corner, floor it, and gain 6/10 of a second by exceeding the track limits, is a completely different thing, that I believe should be grounds for a penalty.

          1. I can see both sides of this and would not have been surprised to see a 5 second penalty added to Rosberg’s next pitstop. There was enough grey area to give the stewards a mini dilemma and they decided to leave it on the track unless it happened again.

            *If* Rosberg had merely gone off track and come back on without any positions changing it is doubtful that the stewards would have even gotten involved. Instead, after this maneuver and Monaco, F1 fans are left wondering how much more crafty can Rosberg really be? And, how many more times can he push the limits and get away with it?

        2. Corrado (@)
          8th June 2014, 23:51

          Dude, that actually happened: the race was “decided” by the drivers !!!! And ROS decided to cut the chicane ! Go figure, that’s why the stewards were “invented”. ROS braked too late and that would have resulted in a poor corner exit, so HAM had quite big chances to overtake him as he was very close (less than 1s).

          1. @corrado-dub – “Dude,” “!!!!”

            That’s real fresh. Did we just arrive back in the ’80s in a time warp? And the excess exclamation points. Relax. But, I digress.

            Back to the topic, there was enough grey area to give the stewards a choice, agree or disagree. Either way, I can see both sides and would not have been surprised by a 5 second penalty added to his next pitstop. What do you think the penalty should have been?

        3. Corrado (@)
          8th June 2014, 23:54

          Then, the biggest problem is not that he cut the chicane, but that he did it at almost full throttle ! And the result was that the gap (between him and HAM) increased from 0.4s to 1.2s. That’s an undeserved gain, no ?

          1. Precisely. Hard on the brakes to lock up n then floor it while off the track to keep the advantage. Would have been funny if LH followed him through there

          2. Yeah – exactly this. HAM was doing the only thing available to him at that time; he’d closed the gap as was as closest as he had been so far in the race trying to pressurize ROS into a mistake; which is exactly what happened. Had Rosberg have made the corner he was in a great position to use DRS down the next straight too. Who knows what could have happened.

            That all got negated by ROS’ use of the escape road and cutting of the corner.

            I wonder why they didn’t put those small yellow speed bumps there to prevent someone from doing what ROS did and basically flooring the throttle and just cutting the corner without any penalty. If the bumps were at the outer track edge he would have had to have slowed and would have had no problems in doing so.

            This is why I hate that some tracks have so much run-off and no sand traps or anything. He did what he did because he could and knew he could get away with it.

        4. @bullmello it was clear that Nico did gain some breathing air by cutting the chicane but despite being in #TeamLH, I too wanted it to be solved differently. Lewis did it actually, but his brakes gave up.

          But Nico I doubt Nico will go away with any similar move this year.

        5. Corrado (@)
          9th June 2014, 9:11

          LOL, old habbits die hard. I’m an 80s guy.

          Can’t say exactly what penalty should’ve been given to ROS, things are relative indeed, but a 5s penalty seems OK. Anyway, better than letting him go away with it. Never payed much attention to ROS, I’m not a fan, but I’m starting to think the guy is smarter/better than I thought. Looking back, maybe Monaco’s Quali incident wasn’t an… incident. What should we expect from now on from him, to try breaking the rules somehow every race, and gain something, because he knows he’ll get just a warning ?!

          1. you are so–so– right;;;; lets face if lewis makes a wrong move or makes a mistake he gets pulverized, and anyone else walks away scot free, rosberg as we all know is shifty;;; to say the least, its in those sly sideways eyes; and we all know there are plenty more like him in sport;; i am gutted and feel so so so sorry for lewis, its like is he ever going to get a break ????. i know hes got dosh and all that, but so have all sportsman, these days, but he does put it on the line for us brits, and lets be fair we dont,,, get a lot to shout about.. god bless him and keep him safe

      3. I would rather have an inconsistent pair of decisions, one wrong and one right, rather than two consistently wrong decisions that we got today.

      4. Personally I want the stewards to enforce the rules AND do so consistently. Did Rosberg gain an advantage? Yes. Simple he should be penalized. The helicopter camera clearly showed how much track position Rosberg gained by cutting the chicane so there is no question as to whether an advantage was gained. Would people still agree with the decision if Hamilton was struggling to close the gap, cut the corner to get close, then used DRS at the end of the lap to overtake? I doubt it.

      5. I don’t have opinion on this one but I’m anoyed by the fact Rosberg broke DRS (had less than 1sec adv and got more than that thanks to cutting). That means Hamilton had to take several laps to get back into DRS zone which is quite a different situation between them.
        If there was a penalty to be given the 5 sec stop would be the one, but I’m not sure it was necessary. Wouldn’t have complained in either case …

      6. Completely agree, and even Rosberg slowed down on purpose to allow Hamilton to get back to the position he had before the chicane cutting.
        “British-pro-British” trying to find a scam where there weren’t any (sorry)
        Even Lewis agreed that in fact, cutting a chicane because of over braking but no gaining position is not a major issue to discuss about…

        1. @nomeg1 I wonder if you always agree with Lewis position, like last time in Monaco…

    2. I’d slightly agree with the penalty – his S3 time was way too good. Penalties are usually not given if the sector times don’t show a big advantage which was clearly the case.

    3. I have to disagree. Firstly, I feel the previous decision was wrong (Kvyat should have had to give the place to Raikkonen). And secondly, setting a fastest lap of the race whilst cutting the chicane should automatically be a penalty, no matter what the position, especially given he didn’t back off at all in the next lap.

      1. Well said

    4. Was it the same as previous incidents? Rosberg set the fastest lap by cutting the chicane (I think it was around a second quicker than his previous lap)! It also meant that Hamilton had to catch up all over again. If he had not gained any time advantage then I would agree that there should be no punishment, however there was a significant time advantage. What should have happened is the Team should have told him to slow a little to allow Hamilton back into the DRS zone but as this did not happen then I think he clearly gained a lasting advantage. It is even possible that Hamilton would not have suffered such a serious Break issue had he not been forced to catch up all over again.

      Remember a few years ago Hamilton was given a 20 second penalty for leaving the track just once at Spa! This even occurred after he handed the position back…..

      1. He got the penalty then because he failed to give the place back properly and since the penalty was issued after the race. I don’t think a post-race penalty should always be 20 seconds either but he broke the rules then.

        1. He didn’t break the rules though, the FIA made that rule (must not re-pass until after the next corner) on the spot after the race. The unwritten rule of the time was ‘give the place back’ which he did. The FIA handed Hamiltons points and indirectly almost handed the 2008 championship to Massa as a result.

          If gaining time off track is punished in qualifying it should be punished in a race. The very fact that they issued a ‘warning’ implies it was advantageous and would be punished if it happened again. The whole thing is a joke.

          The FIA stewards are incompetent and always have been.

        2. No he did not get a penalty for gaining an advantage as there was no rule as to how to give a place back. So he broke no rules with regard to gaining an advantage. He was actually punished for his car simply leaving the track. There was no mention of gaining an advantage in the stewards report.

    5. Paul (@frankjaeger)
      9th June 2014, 1:12

      @magnificent-geoffrey Purely because Hamilton was not yet mounting an overtake should not matter. The time which Rosberg gained is all relative and in turn hemmed Hamilton’s attack.

      @simon999 Indeed, a drive-thru would have been absurd but switching positions would not

      @jleigh Definitely. ‘Consistency’ had nothing to do with justice here

      1. @frankjaeger

        Personally, I did not want Nico to get a penalty because I wanted Lewis to beat him on track. But I see enough material to penalize Nico there. The million dollar question would be:

        Would Nico still be in front if he tried to keep his car on track after that “corner-compromising” lock-up?

        I strongly doubt he would survive being 0.4 ahead of Lewis…

        I would not be shocked with a penalty.

    6. Agreed with @craig-o , one-time warning was fine as Hamilton wasn’t really in a position to overtake, any more would be taking liberties. If Rosberg had been given a penalty it would have ruined the race at that point too.

    7. This @craig-o. If a stewards decision would decide the outcome, I would be as miffed as when Hamilton’s Spa victory was taken from him in 2008 with a new and unexpected penalty for something that hadn’t been penalized before.

      The race should be decided on track, except when there really is reason for the stewards to step in. If anything the team should have told Rosberg to slow a bit and let HAmilton catch back up to keep it fair between the two of them.
      And who knows, maybe this was the first showing of both Mercedes brakes being in not too great a shape anyway.

    8. More than penalty, I think the team should have instructed Rosberg to slow down and close the gap? Isn’t it unfair that he cuts the chicane to a point that he registered the fastest lap and then decided to just maintain that gap? It almost make the chicane useless there. Only other way would be to have speed bumps like in Monza so people are forced to slow down or risk damaging the underside of the car.

    9. YES, but what penalty would be appropriate ? I have been infuriated by drivers using the escape road since Hulkenberg was at Williams and repeatedly prevented Webber from passing (Spa ?) by shortcutting the chicane, not only avoiding being overtaken but breaking the tow and gaining seconds every time, it has to stop, but how to do it without compromising safety.

      1. The escape road should stay for safety reasons. One way to punish drivers is to simply give them a 1-2 seconds penalty every time they shortcut a chicane. This will be added their time after the race.

      2. Monza, i’m still infuriated!

    10. The issue was Rosberg went flat out over the chicane and gained 5 or 6 tenths.
      He went in too deep locked his brakes and had no other option (just like in Monaco – what a shock).
      If he had done the correct thing and slowed right down over chicane or attempted to go the “correct way” around that corner Lewis would have got in front of him.
      Thats the bottom line. In my view a drive through was too much, however I think the judges should have made him give Lewis the lead.

      What that would have done to the overall out come who knows given Mercedes problems but I think it was the right thing to do.

    11. Yep, completely agree. If he did it again then yes, obviously, but it was just one mistake.

    12. Rosberg did a purple sector and didnt slow down in turn 1 & 2. Hamilton was out of the DRS range in the next lap.

  2. At the time I thought the investigation would lead to a small penalty, gifting the win to Hamilton. If it can be shown that Rosberg backed off a few laps later to let Hamilton close up again then I guess that’s why he wasn’t penalised. But I imagine it was just Hamilton reeling him back in again. Before this season, for sure Rosberg would have been penalised for gaining an advantage in that sector from leaving the track.

    1. I said that Rosberg was incapable of doing Alonso’s political swing, I’ll take that back.
      Dammnn..he’s good in little tricks, that might be the benefit of having living WDC father.

  3. Slightly agree, but only very slightly. He gained an advantage by leaving the circuit, that is fact. However, the initial event wasn’t intentional.

    1. Flooring it while leaving the circuit was intentional. So much so he set fastest lap lol. That’s my main gripe with the whole situation.

    2. Can we be certain of that? Rosberg seems to be making a lot of “unintentional”, yet awfully convenient mistakes.

      1. Nico really is getting a not so good reputation…

        1. Tricky Nikky ?

          1. that name deserves a twitter hashtag @hohum. #trickynicky

    3. i agree with this – but the problem could be easily solved by sticking a gravel trap there, or something else that would actually penalise the drivers naturally. adding 5 seconds to his pit stop would have been fair i think.

      1. Thank you @frood19 ! While this seems like an ordinary penalty debate, I think this is so much bigger. It speaks volumes about the state of F1 and the insistence in having stupidly large tarmac run-off at every corner. Throw in something that naturally punishes drivers for making an error. That way Charlie Whiting doesn’t need to employ someone who’s sole job is to watch that corner (seriously, if that isn’t a gross waste of resources, I don’t know what is!). Or why not have 3 or 4 of those large orange strips in that tarmac’d run-off area like at other tracks, so the driver who’s gone off has to slow down immensely or drive around them carefully? That run-off will cause problems everytime we race there if it’s kept the same, simply put because it does nothing to thwart or deter drivers from just continuing straight on.

        1. Agree with you 100%

          He did what he did because the track layout allowed him to without penalty which is why he pushed the limits with his late braking.

        2. So I thought the introduction of tarmac on run offs, was a decision a few years back because it allowed drivers to have better control of their cars, to bake, turn and stop before the crash barrier, where grass, gravel and speed bumps did not and so the car became an uncontrollable projectile.
          So, really what is needed on corners are run offs that diverge away from the track and so making it slower for the offending car to rejoin the main track and therefore therefore nothing can be gained by flooring it.
          Should Rosberg have had a penalty – yes I think so, he was clearly stressed because Hamilton was on a charge. If he had taken the corner then Hamilton was in position to overtake. By cutting it he was able to be clear of Hamilton for a few more laps. The decent thing to do was to let Hamilton pass and then fight for the lead. But as we have seen in two races now, Rosberg is extremely motivated to win a F1 title.

  4. Absolutely derserved a penalty, clearly under pressure from Hamilton, he locked up, missed the corner, and went PURPLE in that sector, afterwards he made no effort whatsoever to back off and lose the time he gained. We’ve seen other drivers punished for less. As Brundle often says, failing to lose a place is the same as gaining a place when it comes to these matters

    1. But he didn’t fail to lose a place.

      1. If he had taken the corner (still a possibility but with a massively slow corner speed and exit), he would 100% have been overtaken by HAM on the next straight, so yes, he did fail to lose a place.

        1. That’s the crunch question. If he’d done everything to stick to the track, which he could have done, he’d have lost so much speed he would have been passed by Hamilton.

          So effectively he avoided losing a position. Yet again Rosberg’s inability to stand the pressure from Hamilton on the track benefits him. Getting decidedly weird this season.

      2. No, he just gained over half a second on the guy chasing him, got out of the DRS zone and set the fastest lap of the race…

      3. No idea where the “he didn’t fail to lose a place” stuff comes in. There’s absolutely no mention of that in the rules, and Keith even mentions the relevant rule in the article – “They now state a driver must not gain any “lasting” advantage by leaving the track.”

        So in my view it was definitely a breach, but a tiny one so maybe Ros deserved one of those new 5sec pitstop penalties. Gaining 0.5s and getting yourself out of DRS for another 3-4 laps is most definitely a “lasting” advantage in my view

    2. Paul (@frankjaeger)
      9th June 2014, 1:15

      Totally agree. Showed no effort to give the gained time back and left that chicane with a clear >0.6s advantage. That should not be tolerated

  5. He had a big lock up and had to take evasive action. A warning was enough. A drive through or 5 second penalty would have been too harsh.

    1. Really? He set the fastest lap by some margin by cutting a chicane. He also broke the DRS of Hamilton. He should have slowed after the event to be fair. However that chicane should have much bigger obstacles to make it impossible to gain a time advantage by cutting it.

  6. Yes and no. Rosberg did not gain a huge advantage by it, and Hamilton was back on his tail rather quickly. Then again, he did set the fastest lap on that lap, and he should have probably slowed a couple of tenths in the first sector of the next lap to get the gap back to where it was previously.

    Oh, and Kvyat did not get a penalty for similar incident with Kimi, so handing one to Nico would have been a tad unfair.

    1. No and yes:
      What if Hamilton started to overcook his brakes catching up so quickly? Then Rosberg gained 18 points lead from this.

      Kvyat was more forced off the track than Rosberg was, it seemed to me.

      Minor point: Fastest lap was re-set near the end of the race by Massa.

    2. How can you possibly say he didn’t gain an advantage by it? He got about .6 time advantage and set the fastest lap of the race and avoided a situation where he was probably going to be passed by cutting a corner.
      I think that’s pretty much a text book case of “getting a huge advantage”.

  7. Dion (@infinitygc)
    8th June 2014, 22:28

    I agree, the rules state you shouldn’t gain a lasting advantage, which he did, meaning that he should’ve gotten a penalty. Simple as that.

    1. Well said :-)

    2. Mark (@marlarkey)
      8th June 2014, 23:13

      He did gain a lasting advantage because by cutting the chicane he moved HAM out of the DRS window…. he gained several laps advantage as a result. Not insignificant.

      In the end though a moot point.

    3. Exactly. Seems people have problems with understanding what an advantage is.

      1. @velocityboy The thing (as I see it) though is that every time you cut a corner, you get a “lasting advantage” if they didn’t cut it they would crash or something of the sort… I realize this isn’t always the case but often it is, so just by leaving the track you always get a lasting advantage because otherwise you wouldn’t have had to leave the track, you leave it because otherwise something goes terribly wrong.

        I think the “lasting advantage” is more an interpretation about that fight right there, did it affect an overtake position etc.

        Arguably it did, and arguably it didn’t, but I wouldn’t stare myself blind at the expression “lasting advantage”

    4. While DRS is a tool that many fans do not like, the fact is that it does exist, and is therefore a tool a driver will use when attempting to pass the car in front. Any driver that has got within 1 second of the car in front has earned the right to use it. Hamilton had done just that. Yet his right was taken away through no fault of his own, and through no skill of the driver ahead. Rosberg made a mistake and cut the chicane, but he didn’t just cut the chicane, he nailed the throttle and put himself out of DRS range, effectively undoing all of Hamilton’s good work by taking an unfair advantage.

      I don’t pretend to know what a suitable penalty would be in this situation, but something should have been done. The problem now is the stewards have set a precedent for next years race. Every driver now knows they have another tool at their disposal – a single use Mario kart style shortcut. They simply wait until the car behind has DRS, but not yet close enough to pass, and they then shortcut the chicane breaking DRS and giving them some breathing room. This one time may be enough to prevent the car behind getting close enough again.

      The way I see it there are two solutions to this:

      1. Any time a driver cuts the chicane that team must provide to the stewards a telemetry trace showing that he did not use full throttle whilst off the track. This should be provided to the stewards within a few laps of the incident. While still open to interpretation (a driver could lift and still carry speed through there), it would discourage drivers from doing it.

      2. The current gap in that yellow sausage kerb is in the “ideal” place for a driver to carry the optimum speed through that section. This gap should be moved back towards the corner, so that any driver has to anchor up completely to make the gap or risk damaging their car going over the kerb. Either way the driver is forced to slow down, punishing their error.

  8. In the present situation, I would say I disagree: drivers have a get-out-of-jail-free card and Rosberg used it that time. In general, I think the stewards are waaay too trigger happy with penalties.

    However, it’s ridiculous that a chicane like that CAN be cut, gaining 1 or 2 seconds with no damage to the car. With a patch of grass, Rosberg would have gone through the run-off much slower and would have had to clean his tyres for another lap or two. So, the FIA could save itself a lot of effort by removing the ridiculous tarmac run-off areas.

    1. Hear hear!

      1. Or paint the areas green and penalise drivers which enter those zones. This could then be added at the end or during a pit stop. The aread could be calculated and a time assigned to each. This one could be 4/5seconds but a short chicane could be just 1 or 2.

        I did worry this is very artificial, but if a driver goes over grass they lose time. Tarmac is there for safety, but this also removes the initial penalty grass would naturally provide. So is it more artificial to add time back on or to ignore it ?

    2. Mark (@marlarkey)
      8th June 2014, 23:15

      If there had been a barrier there like a Monaco corner then he wouldn’t have done what he did. And HAM would have taken the place.

    3. I agree with that @andea23. Either grass or sleeping policemen there would have meant there was no way he could drive like that.

    4. Totally agree!!! Some grass or some obstacles on the tarmac of the run off area would force any driver exceeding the limits of the circuit to slow down. Ergo no advantage would be gained by something like that. Yet I believe it was DC in Monza ’99 who cut the first chicane at least 4 or 5 times before finally been penalized by the stewards. He also set the highest top speed in that race, around 360 km/h in one of his excursions. I know that rules have changed a little bit but you don’t punish that harsh someone for not making it once into a corner. If there was any action to be taken against Nico the fair thing would be to let Lewis by since a five second penalty even served when he pitted for tires would have cost him way more time than the time he gained by cutting the chicane.

    5. Rosberg should have been penalized on lap one corner one when he ran Hamilton off the track. And before you make excuses for him, look at the video and you’ll see others went through the corner two abreast so he could have done so if he wanted to. So if that was given the benefit of the doubt on that incident, he clearly should have been penalized for cutting the chicane. The Stewards really need to a/ review the rule book and b/ understand that the drivers ARE in control of the cars and can slow down if they choose to.

    6. Agree, if it’s there the drivers use it and shouldn’t have to perform a series of air kisses to settle the grievance. Should be more like Suzuka and force drivers to negotiate an obstacle that will be slower than the corner.

  9. LOL the second Rosberg controversy in two consecutive races.

    If this incident had happened for 12th place it would be a non-story.

    No he didn’t deserve a penalty btw, a reprimandation for the first time would have been enough.

    1. Indeed, and it was on his british championship rival. Good thing Hamilton doesn’t have a lot of support on F1Fanatic /sarcastic

      1. It has nothing to do with Hamilton being British, It has everything to do with Rosberg setting a significantly faster lap (by a second) due to cutting the Chicane. This broke Hamiltons DRS and possibly resulted in Hamiltons serious break failure. Had Hamilton not had to push hard to catch up again and also possibly not having to spend as much time in the hot air of Rosbergs car then perhaps he would have ended up the same a Rosberg (ie with a manageable issue). You simply should not be allowed to set a fastest lap after cutting a corner.

      2. So you wouldn’t complain if it had been the other way around and it was HAM cutting the corner to keep ROS behind him?

        /sarcastic too

    2. beefstewcurtains flap
      8th June 2014, 23:00

      how can u be hounded by ur faster teammate ..lock up off track …speed back on track…set the fastest lap …and be another 1/2second faster than ur teammate after u ran off track ……and not get a penalty ? …..just asking

  10. Lots of lewis fans will of course think he deserves a penalty, but the fact is that lewis wasn’t that close to him unlike kimi was with kvyat who did the same, it would have been completley wrong to penalize nico and not daniil

    1. Close enough to force Rosberg into an error. Close enough that had Rosberg stuck to the track, as per the rules of motor racing, and which he technically could have done, he’d have been passed.

      A stop-go seems over the top, however no penalty effectively allowed him a lasting race advantage on an incident where he should have really lost a place.

      1. Firstly he did not force Rosberg into an error, he simply made one, just like drivers do all the time when by themselves, doesn’t mean Hamilton forced him to. Secondly, people should stop writing that he would have been passed had he made the corner, they may have ended up side by side with the same result as the first lap of the race.

        1. People say he would have passed just like you say he would not. Nothing wrong with that. If people could not make assumptions there would be no…

        2. Of course there’s no guarantee Hamilton would have passed, they may have colllided, but Rosberg would have lost more than enough pace had he stayed on track to make being overtaked the most likely outcome. Stewards have to take into account likelihoods all the time when assessing, say, a ‘lasting race advantage.’

          As for Rosberg ‘just making a mistake,’ you can’t be serious. Obviously he outbraked himself under pressure.

        3. If you think that was an unforced error then you need to try some karting and put yourself in the same position… get yourself out of that armchair ;-)

      2. correct. 100%. Lewis forced him into an error. One that he decided to exploit!

    2. Firstly Kvyat gave the place back so clearly did not gain an advantage so it is a completely different situation. Seciond, the rules do not specify the reason behind the car going off track, they simply state that you should not gain a lasting advantage. As Nico set the fastest lap and pulled away from Lewis by 0.6 secs (putting him outside the drs window) I would say that is a lasting advantage. The lasting advantage rule is there to give drivers a chance to rectify the gained advantage within a few corners, Nico clearly did not do this. Kvyat (and Lewis later on) did.

  11. A month a go, no… But this is the second pole we’ve had in 2 races. Normally when a driver cuts a corner the back off, but Rosberg gunned it and gained a whole second. Several drivers missed the Chicane but most of them backed off or were pushed. I believe there was no contact and Hamilton was lining up a pass into turn one. Rosberg better be on his toes next race because otherwise we won’t remember his wins and potential championship this year, just a bunch of lucky trips to the stewards.

    1. beefstewcurtains flap
      8th June 2014, 23:19

      agree Parkinson …. basically he cut the corner of the chicane to gain nearly a second advantage after making a mistake …this surely cant be fair ?

  12. OmarR-Pepper (@)
    8th June 2014, 22:30

    This one is almost the same as Alonso in Abu Dhabi last year. You either take the run off or get a nasty accident. And there’s almost no run off in Canada. If Rosberg doesn’t take the run off and turns fast, he hits the walls for sure.

    1. For me its how he took the run off. He was back accelerating before the corner even ended. He was flat out through the run of where other drivers have lifted to account for time gained. Setting purple sector after making a mistake is wrong and therefore a penalty was a must.

      1. Agree.

        How people can just side-step the fact that he just floor the throttle and setting the fastest lap is just pure mind boggling.

    2. There is a big difference between using the run off to avoid an accident and accelerating through it to gain time. He clearly made a mistake but then accelerated across the run off and ended up over a second faster than his previous lap.

      1. You fail to realise, that he gained that second by cutting that corner and he could nothing to do about it at that particular moment.

        1. Yes he could.
          All the time you see drivers backing off when they cut corners like that. It’s not giving the position, but making up to the time gained.

          Rosberg simply ignored that, took a shortcut and got out of drs range.
          From his conveniently benefical mistakes, the next one should render him a penalty.

        2. Yes he could 2
          He could have braked correctly for the corner, something he managed to do every lap at the wall of champions.

        3. He did not have to do anything about it at that particular moment (Although he could easily have backed off as he went across the corner rather than using is as an acceleration zone) the rules are specifically written to allow the driver to realise that they have gained an advantage and gives them time to do it. He had a few corners to make an effort to give the gained time back but instead he carried on pushing and did a lap 1 second quicker than his previous effort. That is a lasting advantage in anyones language and I can not understand how the stewards thought otherwise.

  13. It’s nice to see Mercedes keeping the equal treatment for both drivers with both cars having KERS issues at the same time. Kudos Mercedes!

    1. I like your thinking Patrick….