Nico Rosberg has been handed a ten second post race time penalty for his role in the last lap crash with Lewis Hamilton, along with two penalty points on his liscence.
The stewards ruled that “it was apparent that Car 44 (HAM) was in front of Car 6 (ROS) – i.e more than fully alongside – and that the driver of Car 44 could have clearly made the turn (T2) on the track, if not for the resultant collision”
They went further and said that “Car 6 did not allow Car 44 ‘racing room’ and hence the driver of Car 6 was responsible for the collision”
The penalty does not affect the overall classification of the race, as Rosberg finished 14.271 seconds ahead of Daniel Ricciardo in fifth position.
The incident caused extensive damage to Rosberg’s front wing and he limped over the line, having been passed by Max Verstappen and Kimi Raikkonen. Hamilton was able to rejoin the circuit and take the victory.
Toto Wolff has tried to calm the situiation by saying that he was “not going to try and put blame more on one side than the other; it always takes two to tango and, as we have said before, this should not happen between team-mates”
The team will attempt to “let the emotions settle before we sit down and discuss our next steps”, which he had already admitted earlier might involve the imposition of team orders.
Rosberg also received an official reprimand for continuing to drive around the circuit with a damaged car, as this contravenes Article 22.11 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations, which “requires a driver with serious mechanical difficulties to leave the track as soon as it is safe to do so”.
2016 Austrian Grand Prix
all Austrian Grand Prix articles
Bradley Downton (@bradley13)
3rd July 2016, 18:07
So, a deliberate collision results in a completely pointless penalty.
I think we need to bear that in mind for future.
Bradley Downton (@bradley13)
3rd July 2016, 18:13
Maybe I should re-word that: deliberate manoeuvre resulting in a needless collision
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
3rd July 2016, 19:33
@Bradley13
I think the purpose of the collision was to take both of them out which would have left Nico with a 24 point advantage – it could also have given Nico a 49 point advantage.
In that respect a 10 second penalty is pretty much a non-penalty but if anyone expected a real penalty, then you must live in some kind of fantasy where penalties in F1 are applied equitably. F1 penalties are beyond ridiculous and any random algorithm would be more equitable than having the stewards decide.
PorscheF1 (@xtwl)
3rd July 2016, 19:40
@freelittlebirds I think both of you already live in a fantasy world if you think Rosberg would actually take them both out on purpose.
Bradley Downton (@bradley13)
3rd July 2016, 19:48
@xtwl – I actually corrected what I meant before you posted that, so at no point did I say I thought Rosberg deliberately tried to take him out.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
3rd July 2016, 19:55
@xtwl you forgot to stress how fair the stewards are:-) I hope you don’t that that I append the obvious omission.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
3rd July 2016, 20:01
@Bradley13 well a deliberate maneuver that will result in a collision is a race ban in my opinion – I view it as a red card in football/soccer. If you’re not going to red card someone for causing a collision that might cost the other driver a win and endanger the other driver, then what on earth would you give it for?
If it’s a collision that could affect the championship, I would look at multiple race bans because like I said had Rosberg taken out Lewis, he would have been 49 points ahead.
Mark (@marlarkey)
3rd July 2016, 21:26
Been done before…
d nesbitt
7th July 2016, 17:07
Surely a stewards penalty should penalise rosberg for this attempt to take hamleton off the track and should affect his position in the race.The stewards should have given a proper penalty for possibly injuring another driver.If it hasn’t affected his position in the race then how can you call it a penalty.Its a shame that F1 is becoming more and more of a joke owing to this cop out by the stewards.Get some balls and give rosberg a real penalty.
Atticus (@atticus-2)
3rd July 2016, 18:25
@bradley13 I don’t mind, actually.
Hamilton squeezed off Rosberg countless times before – though he did so infinitely more subtly, always caring to put in at least a symbolic amount of steering lock – and he always got away with it. Non-professionals did not even notice his lines were a bit off towards the other car and he could simply claim he understeered. Suzuka and Austin 2015 and Montreal 2016 comes to mind.
Rosberg essentially did the same – being on the inside and seeing Hamilton getting away with a squeeze, it’s understandable even – and I don’t really believe that it was all down to the brake-by-wire issue. He was just more clumsy, he did it in an all too obvious way – at least it looked obvious when in reality Hamilton was not even at the point of running out of room. Rosberg also failed to play with the throttle a bit to ensure the outside car turned into his wheel or sidepod, instead of his front wing. (Hamilton always took care to bang wheels with Rosberg, see Austin and Canada, and not a precious front wing.)
So all in all, I think it was a fair decision. I mean I dislike the squeeze in the first place, I believe in ‘live and let live,’ but at least the stewards are more or less consistent with Rosberg and Hamilton – and that’s no small thing considering how inconsistent they usually are, constantly switching between the two driving standard principles. (I. e. “the car in front has the right to go where it wants and the car behind should act accordingly” and “leave a car’s width of space at all times.”)
Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource)
3rd July 2016, 18:55
I think what you refer to “subtly” is the big difference. In the case of Lewis pushing Nico wide it’s exactly that – a push, with enough time for Nico to react to back off or avoid. Hard, possibly fair (depending on your point of view), but not crash inducing. In his case not only was Lewis ahead, but Nico’s move wasn’t really a squeeze, it was more of an impalement.
I agree that it was a fair decision. Whether he dropped places is irrelevant. If he’d received the penalty near the start of the race, he could very well have ensured that he was 10s clear of whoever was behind him, and had the same effect. The penalties need to be fair and consistent, not punitive.
Drg
3rd July 2016, 19:18
You clearly fail to understand that the chap inside or outside on the racing line ends up in FRONT has the right of doing as they wish. At the start you can squeeze them out. In the race also but give them a cars room.
Rosberg – oh please – it’s now getting silly.
NR was given more than this, screwed it up yet again and paid no penalty..
Go figure
Neil Davies (@neil-davies)
3rd July 2016, 19:52
What is the point of a penalty if not to be punitive?
Aldoid
3rd July 2016, 18:49
If Warwick was the steward, then it wouldn’t be surprising at all. He’s pretty well enamoured with young Rosberg & thinks he can do no wrong. Seems to hate Hamilton too. Always praising the former & criticizing the latter.
Mulsanne (@mulsanne)
3rd July 2016, 19:39
Oh these pointless F1 judgements.. Driver destroys tyres in quali, starts race on an undamaged set…
Let’s accept it and move on..
William Jones
3rd July 2016, 21:11
Well, that wasn’t a steward decision, that’s a rule of the sport, and Hamilton,min case you’ve forgotten, wasn’t the first to use that rule, nor will he be the last
N
3rd July 2016, 22:18
For your information, he didn’t start on an ‘undamaged set’. He only got to replace the damaged tire, as per the regulation, and, it was only replaced with a similarly worn tire from practice.
Let’s learn a few facts, and move on..
Chad (@chaddy)
4th July 2016, 21:40
Rosberg should have been black flagged and banned for the British GP. He’s dangerous and a cheat, and if I were Toto, I’d replace him immediately. There are 10 drivers on the grid alone who are better racers than Nico, and anyone would race for Mercedes.
bezza695 (@bezza695)
3rd July 2016, 18:07
so in reality no penalty at all
Once again a decision that adds weight to my theory of different rules for different drivers, the stewards clearly don’t want to affect the championship fight, if that was a mid field team the book would’ve probably been thrown at them.
David BR
4th July 2016, 1:22
The regulations state a number of penalties. I’d really like to know why Rosberg got the second of these:
“More time consuming is a ten-second penalty, sometimes known as a stop-go – the drivers are required to stop in their pit box for ten seconds, during this time no work can be done on the car. Again, if there are less than three laps of the race remaining then a 30-second penalty will be added to their race time in this case. The third is a time penalty, which can be added to a driver’s race time after the chequered flag, often dropping him down the order.”
My question is: if Rosberg had been found to cause the collision during the race, my guess is that he’d have got a ten second stop-go (since he caused damage to Ham’s car). So why wasn’t this translated into a 3-second penalty to be added to his time? The damage he caused simply does NOT match the penalty. When you add a ‘reprimand’ for driving around with his badly damaged car, the stewards were amazingly lenient with Rosberg.
Again and again.
David BR
4th July 2016, 1:22
*30 second
Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource)
3rd July 2016, 18:07
It feels a bit like an empty gesture to give a penalty that has no effect, but I fully understand that shouldn’t have any bearing on the penalty given. I think the more important sanctions may come from his own team…
William Jones
3rd July 2016, 21:12
Which is exactly why, rightly or wrongly, the stewards give empty penalties to team on team incidents
Stefanauss (@stefanauss)
3rd July 2016, 18:08
It seems to be related only to not stopping the damaged car, but we’ll have to wait for the full ruling.
Stefanauss (@stefanauss)
3rd July 2016, 18:12
No, 10s for causing a collision, reprimand for not stopping.
Patrick (@paeschli)
3rd July 2016, 18:14
There’s a good chance he will only receive penalty points or a reprimand for the crash itself.
We’ve seen in the past that the stewards don’t want to interfere with the championship, so I expect only meaningless penalties for this one.
Sonics (@sonicslv)
4th July 2016, 10:40
@paeschli Which is too bad because they need to draw a line somewhere. IMO what Rosberg done is really bad and unless they have hard proof in telemetry that there a car fault somewhere and Rosberg did reasonably to avoid the crash, it’s justified for the penalty to interfere with the championship.
Uzair Syed (@ultimateuzair)
3rd July 2016, 18:09
Is that it? It should have been at least a five-place grid penalty for that piece of bad driving!
Ruben
3rd July 2016, 18:22
Agreed. What’s the point of a penalty if a driver isn’t affected by it?
That’s like saying to your kid don’t steal from the cookie jar. After he already ate all the cookies and your going to refill it anyway.
The worst thing is Rosberg refuses to accept responsibilty for his poor driving. That should have a few additional points on his license.
Loen (@loen)
3rd July 2016, 19:52
I think the team itself will deal quite harshly with that last point you make. Suspect it
will be along the lines of ….
‘If Lewis is clearly in front you will avoid any collision, no matter what the cost to yourself !
Just as we will expect Lewis to drive by the same rule, though. as yet, in his case, he already
understands what is expected of him.
Furthermore, if your car is damaged in any collision to the extent that it presents a danger
to other drivers you will be expected to stop immediately, as the racing rules demand.
You will now sign this paper to say in writing that you fully agree to abide by this company ruling.’
Well….that’s what I think ought to happen, but who knows what over-riding concerns the
Mercedes management has as guiding principals, perhaps they have never been in a situation
like this before. But other teams certainly have. Ferrari, McLaren, Williams, Red-Bull,
Renault and so on……
Hey ho….the price of huge success eh ?
JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1)
3rd July 2016, 20:23
@loen I very much doubt that Merc will instruct him to stop immediately if his car is damaged in future, given that the Stewards have ruled that you don’t actually have to… Stopping would give got him exactly zero points, carrying on got him 12 WDC points plus a couple of points on his licence. Points on your licence aren’t going to cost you the championship, WDC points might (even more so with constructors championship points since even in the unlikely event your driver does get a ban you can put another driver in anyway).
Sonics (@sonicslv)
4th July 2016, 10:43
@jerseyf1 The rule is there
But like many F1 rules, it’s not really enforced and seeing it’s final lap situation with points I think it’s reasonable to allow the car to take the flag. Other than final lap, I can see the stewards will ask the team to retire the car.
JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1)
4th July 2016, 15:26
@sonicslv I agree, but it doesn’t need the team to enforce anything. The reality is if the car is so badly damaged it isn’t going to go much further then the driver will retire, in the situation Rosberg was in the norm is that the driver carries on to the pits, sticks a new nose on and continues. It’s not common in such a situation that the stewards even look into it. In that sense I think Rosberg’s penalty points for continuing in an unsafe car were on the one hand harsh but ultimately vindicated his decision to continue anyway since he got to reap the benefit of driving a dangerous vehicle (but in the context of driving into Hamilton in the first place he got away lightly).
My point was that I don’t think what happened will have any bearing on Mercedes instructions or driver actions, if the same situation happens again Rosberg (and any other driver and team) will still do exactly the same thing.
Sonics (@sonicslv)
4th July 2016, 15:58
@jerseyf1 I think Rosberg getting away with it (driving with broken car) lightly. I’m pretty sure if a car has a risk of dislodging a big debris, it required to stop, and Rosberg was dragging his front wing underneath his car. Earlier Martin Brundle also wonders if Mercedes will be asked by the stewards to pit Rosberg and remove his flailing barge board piece or do it the next time Rosberg pits. But since it’s final lap and Rosberg is the man with best chance to dethrone Hamilton from his 3rd consecutive WDC, maybe they just let him go.
regs (@regs)
3rd July 2016, 21:40
What poor driving? He had breaking failure. That’s team’s fault and Wolff’s fault. He has been penalized not for collision, but for not stopping a car after collision. That’s stupid. And shows that stewards were personally involved and should be banned from being stewards lifetime.
Charlie
3rd July 2016, 21:50
Haha love the sarcasm … Oh wait.
If it was a brake problem why did he steer directly into Hamilton and not turn further right like he did after the collision? Lifetime ban from having an opinion anyone?
regs (@regs)
4th July 2016, 7:01
Most drives goes straight when having breaking problems. And he didn’t turn into Hamilton. It was Hamilton who turned into Rosberg.
JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1)
4th July 2016, 15:28
@regs Most drivers also lock their brakes when they have braking problems and turn their steering wheel when there is a corner.
regs (@regs)
4th July 2016, 22:07
@jerseyf1. In case of error. You can’t lock something that doesn’t work. When you feel the speed is too high you going straight into run off area.
pcxmac (@xsavior)
3rd July 2016, 22:17
Wolff said, on another website that the BBW failure occurred going in to the lap(s) before. before the penultimate lap or second to last lap. At any rate, Nico probably knew he had an issue but still put it up the inside, thats called NEGLIGENCE and still makes him responsible. It’s the same as getting drunk and getting in your car, carrying damage and relying on that damage not having any effect is called behaving delusionally. ROS also ran Lewis off the track in Spain because he corked up much like in this race.
The only thing I see is Lewis this year, has an almost improbable amount reliability issues along with a teammate that really doesn’t have to worry about being punished for misbehaving. Saw this in MotoGP in 2012 leading in to 2013, and so on. His number was 93, and it was as much a farce (much more so actually) as what is going on now. At least the commentators are taking to questioning Toto. It’s just ridiculous.
regs (@regs)
4th July 2016, 7:02
And Hamilton was warned his suspension is in critical condition. Still he pushed full way ahead as well.
Xusen (@xusen)
3rd July 2016, 18:10
I don’t like race results to be decided by the stewards but this was a waste of time, more than 3 hours to do nothing?
I hope they release their reasoning, at least it proves that Rosberg was not right with his excuses.
Stefanauss (@stefanauss)
3rd July 2016, 18:13
They always release the full justification for every penalty.
Martin
3rd July 2016, 18:22
Indeed they do
For the reprimand – “The driver continued on the track with a damaged car spreading debris and with the front wing detached” but recognition of extenuating circumstances, that he slowed down and tried to mitigate risk to other drivers and cars.
For the ten-second penalty for causing a collision – “Having taken note of the extensive evidence given by both drivers and the video and telemetry data, it was apparent that Car 44 (HAM) was in front of Car 6 (ROS) – i.e. more than fully alongside – and that the driver of Car 44 could have clearly made the turn (T2) on the track, if not for the resultant collision. Car 6 did not allow Car 44 “racing room” and hence the driver of Car 6 was responsible for the collision.”
Xusen (@xusen)
3rd July 2016, 18:23
10 second penalty: http://www.fia.com/file/44611/download?token=OaJrQmEy
Having taken note of the extensive evidence given by both drivers and the video and telemetry data, it was apparent that Car 44 (HAM) was in front of Car 6 (ROS) – i.e. more than fully alongside – and that the driver of Car 44 could have clearly made the turn (T2) on the track, if not for the resultant collision. Car 6 did not allow Car 44 “racing room” and hence the driver of Car 6 was responsible for the collision
Reprimand: http://www.fia.com/file/44612/download?token=FmskY3E6
Article 22.11 of the Formula One Sporting Regulations requires a driver with serious mechanical difficulties to leave the track as soon as it is safe to do so. We do note the extenuating circumstances and the fact that the driver of Car 6 (ROS) did slow down significantly and attempted to mitigate the risk to other drivers and cars.
Michael (@freelittlebirds)
3rd July 2016, 19:40
@Xusen Wait, wait, they gave the 10 second penalty for Rosberg causing a collision…. I thought Nico was being investigated for driving the car under dangerous conditions after the collision. This is priceless.
Why do the stewards even bother? No one expects them to punish Rosberg – he knows it, they know it, we ALL know it.
regs (@regs)
4th July 2016, 7:05
So next anyone having mechanical failure causing contact should receive 10 seconds as well. Mechanical failure should no longer be an excuse. Rules should be equal for everyone.
Matthew Coyne
3rd July 2016, 18:13
Be interesting to see how this affects Nico. Last time something like this happened and it was his fault (Spa 2014) the wheels came off his championship fight he lost his rhythm and Lewis won 5 races on the bounce which ultimately set him up to win the title.
It depends on what happens within the team this time.
David BR
4th July 2016, 1:09
Won’t a blind bit of difference. Rosberg is clearly intent on scrapping his way to the title. He basically admitted he was trying to drive Hamilton off the track and was clearly not going to make space for him to return to the track without hitting the grass after the run-off (which cost them both the race last time round). Afterwards he was defiant, claiming he’d been right. I don’t think Lauda or Wolff can contain them this time round either. Team orders? Just try. There was absolutely no way Hamilton wasn’t going to attempt a pass today, and no way Rosberg was going to let him pass under instruction for whatever reason. Are Mercedes as bothered as they make out? Can’t help thinking some of it’s theatre. They don’t look seriously under threat in the constructors’ championship, and one of their drivers is very likely to win the drivers’, particularly with the attrition to Vettel’s points tally. Wolff reckoned the drivers made the team look stupid by colliding. That’s just daft. The drivers just look like scrapping drivers. The team only looks stupid when it issues team orders, messes up in the pits or devises an awful strategy.
lockup (@)
3rd July 2016, 18:15
Where was the grid drop every other driver would have got? Stewards really don’t want to touch Rosberg whatever he does. Old money I suppose, son of Keke. No surprise the most honest driver in grand prix racing just does it again.
bobec
3rd July 2016, 18:22
Does what again?
lockup (@)
4th July 2016, 17:29
Er, cheats again.
SaraJ (@sjzelli)
3rd July 2016, 19:30
What?
Graham (@guitargraham)
3rd July 2016, 18:15
theyve been giving drive throughs for collisions recently. so this is consistent with recent penalties
Martin
3rd July 2016, 18:21
A drive through would have been more in the region of a 20 second penalty though, not 10. Rosberg got odd lightly in that case.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
3rd July 2016, 18:22
A post-race drive-through penalty is 20 seconds, not 10.
Graham (@guitargraham)
3rd July 2016, 18:54
@keithcollantine do you think they took into account the amount of time he’d already cost himself? i think had he not picked up the damage it would have been twenty
Jay
3rd July 2016, 20:01
20s Penalty would have put him in 7th, behind GRO
W-K (@w-k)
3rd July 2016, 19:16
I would have thought, that logically the he should have been put to the back. By that I mean, treated him as though he had stopped because of the damage, loose front wing etc.
Therefore he would have been classified 16th, just in front of Perez.
W-K (@w-k)
3rd July 2016, 20:58
After a bit more thought, as the stewards were happy(ish) with his continued driving, it should have been played out as though it was any other lap in the race. Rosberg should have gone into the pit and had the wing changed and his car assessed to see if it was roadworthy and then driven on to the pit exit. The time taken to do that should have been the time penalty awarded.
Steven Robertson (@emu55)
3rd July 2016, 18:16
I suppose Rosberg already penalised himself finishing fourth, all this does is conclude he was to blame. Not the greatest time for this to happen with his contract still being negotiated.
regs (@regs)
4th July 2016, 7:07
Team and Wolff are to blame, considering it was mechanical failure.
Fudge Ahmed (@)
4th July 2016, 10:40
Yes the same team which has given him a bulletproof dominant car which has suffered no race or qualifying ending failures and with plenty of engine parts to last the rest of the season in stark contrast to the same car on the other side of the garage. Get real, Nico should worship the ground his team and mechanics walk on for giving a mediocre driver the best possible chance to become WDC.
altitude2k
3rd July 2016, 18:18
People here say “what’s the point?” when there’s no impact on results, but I disagree. This firmly clarifies whose fault it was, the impact of which will be more far reaching than an inconsequential time penalty.
JerseyF1 (@jerseyf1)
3rd July 2016, 20:33
I agree, what if he had been 25 seconds ahead of the next person behind? The penalty should be applied without reference to the impact of the penalty – just as it would during a race. I also think the fact that he was the one who came off worst and the other driver was unaffected that the magnitude of the penalty is less important than the fact that the stewards at least took a clear view on who was at fault, which will hopefully stop bickering over it.
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
3rd July 2016, 18:19
I expect the choice of a time penalty is to be consistent with other penalties – will have a look through the Penalties Index later and see. But think the stewards need to appreciate it reflects poorly on them when when the penalty they give has no meaningful effect. Perhaps a grid drop would have been the right way to go.
That said, Grosjean also had an inconsequential time penalty, only his was issued during the race, so you have to balance that out too.
DaveW (@dmw)
3rd July 2016, 19:06
But the stewards are always different, so do they care about consistency and creating clear expectations or their own reputations? This is a big problem with f1. This goes back to your post about the rule books getting thicker. Now we clearly see we need a new rule about “racing room” because who knows what the next slate of stewards will do in this situation.
Sonics (@sonicslv)
4th July 2016, 10:51
@dmw This doesn’t have anything to do with the rulebook getting thicker. The problem is the rules only stated the rules and a list of possible penalty to choose by the stewards, at their discretion without any guidelines.
Very seldom a rule also states the penalty to be given to the offender. One such case, the weighing car procedure which Magnussen fell into earlier this year has a clear penalty for violation in the rule and everyone complained too.
PorscheF1 (@xtwl)
3rd July 2016, 19:46
@keithcollantine A penalty should be decided by what fits the crime, never should the penalty be increased because it does not change the result. A fine for example should not increase because you’re richer than someone else who got it before you.
DaveW (@dmw)
3rd July 2016, 20:31
In some sports the penalty is on the basis of “advantage” and it makes sense. But In f1 that could get a bit complicated. It’s better to have consistency. But we don’t even have that.
x303 (@x303)
6th July 2016, 10:23
I agree with your point: the penalty should be issued regardless of their consequences but based on the offence.
Years ago Hamilton overtook the safety car at Valencia and got a drive throuh. It didn’t change his result and people were mad in the comments. Typical anti-Hamilton hate I think…
John H (@john-h)
3rd July 2016, 18:20
Points in licence?
BasCB (@bascb)
3rd July 2016, 18:27
he got 2 of those
Ceebee
3rd July 2016, 18:21
Keep in mind – its not the penalty. They are placing blame. Rosberg lost enough in the wierd move he did.
JayR (@deidunxf1)
3rd July 2016, 18:25
In Hungary last year, Lewis got a drive through for understeering into RIC despite trying to turn into the corner.
Today despite trying to squeeze Lewis out and not try to steer until it was too late, ROS gets a 10s penalty that does nothing to affect the race result. What an absolute farce of a decision!!!
Fudge Ahmed (@)
4th July 2016, 10:42
I thought this but I think stewards are harsher on incidents between rival teams. The fact that this incident only affected the 2 Mercedes might account for some of the leniency, dunno.
bull mello (@bullmello)
3rd July 2016, 18:28
Rosberg made a similar move (to Hamilton’s) to pass Hulkenberg on the outside through turn 2 on lap 6 and made the pass without incident because Hulk took the normal inside racing line into the apex and gave Rosberg plenty of room to race. The stewards reasoning seems clear cut and fair. The penalty itself however has not much teeth other than to assign blame for the incident.
Prab
3rd July 2016, 18:36
“If Rosberg hangs on to win this, this is the drive of a champion”, said the commentator as they took to the ultimate lap of the race. And then he tries to be too clever for himself.
This penalty is okay with me since you could argue that 4th place is punishment enough.
The penalty points make no sense for me in a sport which does not have Maldonado anymore.
Neel Jani (@neelv27)
3rd July 2016, 18:38
Why waste time and energy to hand over a penalty which in reality is not even a penalty! Where did the driver got penalised in all this…no where!
PorscheF1 (@xtwl)
3rd July 2016, 19:48
@neelv27 He went from P2 to P4, a valuable 6 points.
Neel Jani (@neelv27)
3rd July 2016, 20:08
@xtwl That’s called a self imposed penalty, not the penalty from the headmaster!
PorscheF1 (@xtwl)
4th July 2016, 5:17
@neelv27 But a penalty indeed…
trublu (@trublu)
3rd July 2016, 20:29
@xtwl, Rosberg brought that on himself. A punishment should also serve as deterrent.
The limit
3rd July 2016, 18:39
I wonder what the decision would have been had the roles been reversed? I am sure Lewis would have been hung, drawn, and quartered. Quite simply, the sport doesn’t like him. He does everything his way and never tows the line, never backs down.
This sport did the same with Aryton Senna when he was alive, every mistake taken apart and every chance to penalise him taken. Until he was killed of course, and all the people who criticized him pulled out the Kleenex and had a good toot. Said what a lovely, kind guy he was and what a tonic he was to F1 racing, the best ever.
Naturally, the guy who when he was living you screwed every chance you got. Calling him dangerous, reckless, and a dirty driver. What good is the opinions of such people?
You want to know why people don’t watch this charade like they used to? Because it’s a fix, that’s why!
Friederike (@rike)
3rd July 2016, 18:45
I think Lewis generally drives at the limit a Lot, especially in his f1 beginnings i really disliked him for that, but He matured a lot and i think it makes him a lot more likeable ,no stuff like 2011 anymore. …but i guess the reputation from These days sticks terribly
Mulsanne (@mulsanne)
3rd July 2016, 19:44
Lets see, reversing in the pit lane, destroying tyres in quali, but getting a better set in race, eding out his team mate on multiple occasions… I’m sure they mistook Lewis for somebody else
Lee1
3rd July 2016, 21:08
He reversed in the pit lane after the race and with no other cars anywhere to be seen and he reversed about 2ft.
William Jones
3rd July 2016, 21:18
After being asked to by a marshall
drmouse (@drmouse)
3rd July 2016, 21:12
The thing is, there is a difference between the standard “push/edge your opponent out” and “don’t even bother turning and force the other driver to either go straight on our crash into you”.
The former gives options, the latter almost ensures an accident.
Nico completely squared the corner. It was a completely unpredictable move. I think that this, along with several other moves he has made, show how bad Nico is at “hard but fair” racing. He always seems to bodge it up, where most of the hard, wheel to wheel drivers use a little more finesse in their moves.
Only my opinion, mind.
anon
3rd July 2016, 22:09
@mulsanne, as others have noted, Hamilton was not the first driver to change his tyres in parc ferme for a different set after locking his brakes. I believe that Vettel made a similar request during the 2013 Chinese GP when he damaged his tyres after locking up in qualifying, and he was also allowed to change his tyres for a similarly worn set.
Drg
5th July 2016, 15:32
Mulsane.
It is a perfectly standard part of every control tyre racing all the way down to cadet karts that you have the right to ask to replace a damaged tyre with a simarly worn scrutineered one. And note it was one worn tyre. NOT a set.
He was ASKED to reverse by a marshal. The penalty for not doing so is amazingly even higher.
You are perfectly entitled to edge out your competitors on corner exit. You are also allowed a degree of latitude at the START of a race when you are completely alongside or ahead. If you are ahead you are in control and while generously offering racing room you can squeeze as much as you like. That’s the rules. That’s also how racing is always except in the world of xenophobic types.
This year NR has driven his team mate off the circuit knowing he would be overtaken due to fluffing the modes. Frankly dangerous but then he has been doing it for years. Name one single time you have ever seen LH pull that type of stunt. I can name three from NR.
This race he simply torpedoed the side his team mate in an attempt to destroy his race and his car. Having been gifted the race by a ridiculous set of strategic screw ups by his team. It backfired. He was found at fault. That’s just this year!
How you can possibly suggest LH (who statistically is the least likely champion on the current grid to have a crash by the way) has ever pulled these type of stunts suggests you have a slight hinge problem.
It is frankly crazy that you know so little about a sport.
Drg
5th July 2016, 15:34
Note you can squeeze but you give racing room on a straight.
Tiomkin
3rd July 2016, 19:00
WWE strikes again. All is fair in the WWE, sorry I mean F1.
MikeeCZ
3rd July 2016, 19:01
What a joke, “penalty”…
KevinY
3rd July 2016, 19:06
Jerez 97: Villeneuve is penalised because Schumacher would have clearly made the corner if not for the crash :D
N
3rd July 2016, 22:33
The difference being that JV’s car was both in front (albeit because of a lunge) and as far right to the track as was possible, he was right up on the curb, MS knew he was there and tried to take the ‘normal’ apex (maybe not realizing JV was carrying too much entry speed to make the normal apex). Hamilton was as far _left_ as possible and giving Rosberg all the room he could possibly need, giving the corner a much wider birth than normal, Rosberg then also tried a very high risk and dangerous block to stop Hamilton re-entering the circuit. Hence why there’s almost nobody blaming Hamilton on this occasion. Except the usual ones, of course.
These 2 incidents are really nothing alike.
EzzIn (@ezzin)
3rd July 2016, 19:19
Completely agree with people saying Rosberg was favoured compaired to other drivers. “All are equals, but some are more equal than others”!!!…
BTW
Sporting regulations states: 38.3 The stewards may impose any one of the penalties below on any driver involved in an Incident: a) A five second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least five seconds and then re-join the race. The relevant driver may however elect not to stop, provided he carries out no further pit stop before the end of the race. In such cases five seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned. b) A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race. The relevant driver may however elect not to stop, provided he carries out no further pit stop before the end of the race. In such cases ten seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned. In both of the above cases the driver concerned must carry out the penalty the next time he enters the pit lane. c) A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping. d) A ten second stop-and-go time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop in his pit stop position for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race. If either of the four penalties above are imposed during the last three laps, or after the end of a race, Article 38.4(b) below will not apply and five seconds will be added to the elapsed race time of the driver concerned in the case of (a) above, 10 seconds in the case of (b), 20 seconds in the case of (c) and 30 seconds in the case of (d).
So does this not mean that Rosberg is to be given 30 sec penalty according to FIA own rules?
Srini
3rd July 2016, 19:41
“10 seconds in the case of (b)” clearly states that they are adding only 10 seconds to his finish time as the penalty is due to an incident in the last three laps.
Sonics (@sonicslv)
4th July 2016, 10:56
@ezzin He only got 10 second penalty, not the 10 second stop-go penalty, which is a different kind of penalty.
DaveW (@dmw)
3rd July 2016, 19:20
Now I think Hamilton rightfully should be a bit cross with the team for saying “it takes two to tango” and threatening team orders. Especially in this case—the team put him behind with bad strategy and two bad stops and they are saying maybe he should have just stayed behind…for the team? What it may really say is that they need a #1 driver and that the #2 should be told in these cases, #1 is much quicker, so don’t make a scene when he catches you. i don’t want to see that as an f1 fan, but that makes more sense than “hold station after last stops” because it’s usually one guy who is the hunter in these situations.
Jason (@saint-jay)
3rd July 2016, 19:30
All I’m glad for is that people on this site don’t make the rules otherwise the championship would be rewarded to Hamilton right now.
Amazing how Hamilton can crash into Rosberg in Canada with a fresh car but Rosberg does it once with handicapped brakes and he doesn’t belong in F1. Funny.
Martin
3rd July 2016, 19:39
“Amazing how Hamilton can crash into Rosberg in Canada”
Well for starters there is the fact that he didn’t crash into him in Canada. No idea what you are on about there.
“Well time for me to leave this website again.”
And yet you are still here?
Blazz
3rd July 2016, 20:01
two words- grow up.
Charlie
3rd July 2016, 21:59
Except it wasn’t Rosberg’s brakes that caused him to crash, it was deliberately steering into the side of Hamilton. Your criticism of bias ignores your own blinkered view.
Blazz
3rd July 2016, 19:30
In my opinion, this was a racing incident. I am all for team Lewis, but I remember many times Lewis running Nico off track- classic example being the the US GP last year. Anyway I have to say though that Rosberg should pick his battles carefully- it is blatantly obvious he does not want to give any psychological advantage to Lewis but instead of finishing 2nd he finished fourth with penalty points.
Final point- while the Rosberg Hamilton rivalry is enticing and dramatic- I do think it’s past its sell by date. For fans having no number one driver is great- for teams it’s a headache. If Merc want to continue with these two they have to accept this new reality- they are bitter enemies who will rather crash and take each other out than give an inch or they will have to employ a subservient number two for whichever one they hedge their bets on.
Steve (@blackout19)
3rd July 2016, 19:38
At least Qualcomm got some good airtime for their money…
Understeer (@abdelilah)
3rd July 2016, 19:46
FIA? What a joke, could the stewards have done the same with Pastor Maldonado or Grosjean? I don’t think so.
It’s like saying to Rosberg not to worry that much about his dirty driving style, after Spa 2014 I think the FIA can’t correct him anyway, Mercedes power indeed.
Milansson (@milansson)
3rd July 2016, 21:14
Guys,
first of all.. After 24 years of following F1, I can today finally say, I WAS THERE! :)
The Red Bull Ring is awesome, the race was cool. Did not really know who is where, very confusing, but I loved it.
To the collision: I am not a Lewis fan, rather Nico if I had to choose. But here, if you ask me, fully Nico’s fault. I was standing close the fence underneath the Bull in the middle of the track, saw turn one and I knew this would end in a tricky situation. Then, looking at the TV footage, very poor driving from Nico. Deliberately wanting to push Lewis off the track (although, who would not be frustrated, if you lead 30+ laps and then in the last one, you will loose it). OK, karma did it’s job. Nico paid the price, lost P2. I think it’s always tough in such a situation when the emotions are there and you have to decide in that particular moment. But poor. He could have swallowed the bitter pill and taken 2nd, 6 points more or how much is for P4.
And btw.. 10 place grid penalty would have been sufficient in my opinion.
Sonics (@sonicslv)
4th July 2016, 11:00
@milansson Since you’re there, could you give more information why the crowd booing Hamilton in podium? I think it’s weird since the camera on the incident and replays clearly shows Hamilton is leaving more space than needed, and many people initial reaction also put the blame on Rosberg. Unless most of the crowd is Rosberg’s fanatics but I doubt that the case.
Milansson (@milansson)
4th July 2016, 13:34
@sonicslv – not really sure, why the crowd booed to be honest. It’s possible they did not see the replay before the ceremony, but hard to guess from my point. But I can say, that in the area where I was, a couple of drunk dutchmen were booing when Lewis was presented as the winner – so probably just the alcohol :)
Sonics (@sonicslv)
4th July 2016, 15:22
@milansson Drunk dutch-men…., maybe they boo because he not retired and give Verstappen the win ;p
Supremacy (@supremacy)
3rd July 2016, 21:38
Not suprised by this penalty by the stewards.
Paul A (@paul-a)
3rd July 2016, 22:16
F1 is competitive. Let’s look: two “more or less equal” drivers in “more or less equal” cars, last lap, guaranteed 1st and 2nd for their team that supplies their cars and pays them mega-bucks. Both drivers going hell-for-leather for the top step on the podium. Both very experienced professionals go into a turn side by side … outside driver takes the escape off-track when inside driver hasn’t slowed enough to make the apex. Team principals state there was a problem with the brakes on inside car — Wolff goes a step further and complains that because of “radio restrictions” the team couldn’t give advice. So they “bumped” and drove on to the finish line…
Now we get the rules and regulations, the “right to room” and the “racing line”, the TV replays, the stewards and the FIA, the pundits and the bloggers, the penalties and the reprimands, the telemetry and the radio, and all the back-seat drivers and lawyers whose biggest excitement is anal-analytics of two young men racing for the WDC. Let’s say that again: racing for the WDC. That’s what F1 is all about: racing for the WDC. That’s what these two were doing: racing for the WDC.
If rules and regulations are more important than gutsy, brave, adrenalin-inspired, on-the-limit, max-competitive racing than lets make sure that future “super licenses” get endorsed with a law school diploma rather than motor racing experience. The team will tell the drivers what they did wrong, the “spectacle” — for whatever it might be to Bernie and the money-makers — has not suffered, the WDC is still wide open, and the only thing that slightly saddens me is the booing on the podium…
Amp33
4th July 2016, 0:27
A five or ten place grid penalty at Silverstone for Rosberg should of been the stewards punishment. Rosberg caused a crash, dangerously blocked Hamilton’s return to the track and drove along the track with a wing stuck under his car.
Didn’t the Ferrari team get in trouble from the stewards for exactly the same car driven with wing stuck underneath issue recently?
Ed Marques (@edmarques)
4th July 2016, 3:19
Again no real punishment for Rosberg.
ChuckL8
4th July 2016, 11:06
Until the stewards begin treating Rosberg like an adult, he’ll continue driving like a child. This isn’t a game, and what happened at the Austrian GP wasn’t just a “racing incident.” Unless the stewards or the team do more than give him a slap on the hand when he pulls stunts like that, things will probably get worse. Waiting until someone gets hurt before reacting appropriately is not the way to go.
Leo B
4th July 2016, 11:18
Regardless if Rosbergs penalty was appropriate all 4 times penalties awarded in this race didn’t have an effect on the results:
Rosberg, 10s added after the race, didn’t affect his position;
Grosjean, 5s added after the race, didn’t affect his position;
Hulkenberg, 5s added at a pit stop, but he didn’t finish;
Magnussen, 5s added at a pit stop. He did finish 2s behind Nasr and 4.9s behind Palmer, but at the time of his stop, he was so far behind that the penalty didn’t affect his track position. It’s unlikely that without the penalty he would have passed Nasr or Palmer.
PJD23
4th July 2016, 15:31
how come Hamilton didnt receive a penalty for causing the crash in the spanish gp he also
took both cars out , this race both cars finished ,also note Hamilton did pass Rosberg
under a yellow flag/light , and didnt receive a penalty ?
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
4th July 2016, 20:14
Because the stewards ruled he was not wholly responsible:
https://www.racefans.net/2016/05/15/hamilton-rosberg-stewards/
drmouse (@drmouse)
5th July 2016, 13:39
Keith covered the rest, but for this one: Yes, he did, but you are allowed to if the other car is visibly slow or in trouble. HAM could see that ROS was going slow and had damage, and under the rules he had every right to pass in those circumstances
Drg
5th July 2016, 16:00
I was impressed how fast NR slowed with those broken brakes of his and remain fully of the opinion that he did so to try to get that exact reprimand for LH given his antics just before. He had accelerated to clear the wing all along the white line like a nut case and hit the brakes just begging LH to go past.
At least that little childish act backfired.
Anthony Bell
4th July 2016, 19:28
What people forget with f1 penaltys….
If a driver hits its own team mate then penaltys are less then if he hits another driver other than his team mate cus the stewords are exspecting the teams to punish there own drivers and we will for sure find this out after the next race ends
Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine)
4th July 2016, 20:16
Not sure I agree with that: do you have any examples in mind that show this is the case?
PJA (@pja)
5th July 2016, 19:28
So the stewards found Rosberg guilty but gave him a penalty that in the end was meaningless, I seem to recall that after Monaco Ericsson and Kvyat received grid penalties for causing collisions.
Unless it was another case of the stewards being inconsistent I can only assume that they thought as Hamilton went on to win race and Rosberg was the one who dropped down the order then further punishment wasn’t really warranted.
I have seen some people state that this was no different to when Hamilton has run Rosberg wide in the past but it was completely different.
The move people refer to has not just been done by Hamilton but by Rosberg and many other drivers, but it seems that some think only Hamilton does this to Rosberg. Rosberg keeps attempting this move thinking it will work and when it doesn’t he makes a big fuss about it and draws everyone’s attention to it.
The lead car takes the racing line going in to the corner and stays on the racing line which means that if the car wanting to get past tries to go side by side with the lead car he will go off the track on the exit of the corner.
If Rosberg had tried doing this and stayed on the racing line and eased Hamilton wide on the exit he may have kept the lead and won the race.
But it appears that Rosberg thought Hamilton would try the cut back on the corner and so get a better exit and so Hamilton would have out dragged him down the straight, this is actually what Hamilton said was his intention in a post race interview.
Rosberg’s solution to this was just to drive straight on and not even attempt to take the corner until Hamilton had turned in and hit him.
At best you have to question Rosberg’s race craft, but if you were being really cynical you would say it was a case of Rosberg saying you shall not pass as he knows that while he has the championship lead Hamilton would have more to lose if they both crashed out.
Peter
10th July 2016, 18:51
Rosberg is going to cheat his way to winning the championship as he can’t race wheel to wheel with Lewis EVER!FACT.
Now radio calls lol just can’t do it on his own.
Monaco last year before Lewis could stamp down a time.
The FIA should give him a race suspension