Technical Radio ban- revisited

[Titch]

You mean the driver is thick?

 

[canis]

Actually we need to define what the problem was with the comms with Nico. The first message to fix the issue was allowed, telling him that 7th gear was not available was fine, it was telling him to shift through 7th to avoid the problem rather than him working it out that they picked up on.

So finally we have a bit of clarity on the radio rules :-

• Telling a driver how to fix a potentially fatal issue is fine.
• Telling a driver about an issue with the car is fine.
• Telling a driver how to drive around an issue is not fine.

I currently have no problems with the radio ban as it stands now, wit this clarification it works perfectly well as long as they are consistent in enforcing the rules.

 

[The Artist.....]

canis

Further to this - based on Baku

• Telling a driver how to fix a performance issue (non-fatal) is not fine

There is a difficulty in gauging what is a performance issue, and what is a fatal issue - this will be the grey area that complaints occur!

 

[FB]

I've tried to find the press release of the stewards decision and this is the best I can do.

A statement from the stewards, led by 1992 F1 world champion Nigel Mansell, said: "Having considered the matter extensively, the stewards determined the team gave some instructions to the driver that were specifically permitted under technical directive 014-16.

"However, the stewards determined the team then went further and gave instructions to the driver that were not permitted under the technical directive, and were in breach of article 27.1 of the sporting regulations, that the driver must drive the car alone and unaided.

Nico Rosberg penalised for British Grand Prix F1 radio rules breach

 

[TR]

Does anyone have the actual contents of "technical directive 014-16". I can only find unconfirmed summaries of preliminary versions.

Anyway going by the messages:

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

Depending on exactly what was happening this could have been allowed under:

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

The stewarts' decision certainly implies that they concluded that this message was OK.

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

It is unclear from the stewarts' decision whether this message was deemed in compliance of the directive or not.

I guess it could fall under:

* Information concerning damage to the car

or

* Indication of a critical problem with the car, e.g. a puncture warning or damage

But it is not clear to me whether it would or not.

The engineer's final message:

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

Almost certainly does not fall within any of the allowed categories.

If only the final message was deemed to violate the technical directive, then the 10 second penalty seems inline with the infraction. (If the engineer had not answered, this is probably what Rosberg would have done anyway.)

However, if the second message also was considered to breach the rules, the penalty seems a bit light. It is not at all certain that Rosberg would have figured this one out by himself, and if he did he may have lost quite some time while he was doing so. The benefit of this message therefore seems much larger than the assigned penalty, leading to teams in future situations probably option for taking the penalty instead of risking retiring the car.

 

[Bill Boddy]

Event & Timing Information then go down to the top stewards decisions FB.

Edit to clarify which message was being responded to.

 

[cider_and_toast]

It just further highlights how little drivers have to think outside of the box these days. Going back 30 years (yes, OK, so the cars weren't as complicated back then) but if a driver lost a gear he would have been met with a grinding, crunchy sound when he tried to ram the gear stick home and he'd know something was up. He'd have to a do a mental shift and get on with his race.

On a number of occasions we'd hear from drivers at the end of the race saying "I'd lost 4th gear" or whatever. The finest example of this that I'd ever seen was Michael Schumacher at the 1994 Spanish GP who spent a large portion of the race stuck in 5th gear, managed to do a pit stop like that and finish around 24 seconds behind Damon Hill.

All this re-enforces in my mind why the radio ban needs to remain in place.

 

[gethinceri]

I've never believed the Schumacher 5th gear story.

 

[The Artist.....]

gethinceri

The Schumacher 5th gear story was absolutely true - you could see it on the live pictures at the time!

The problem with the sequential semi-automatic gearboxes was that if one of the gears broke, it means that you can't (easily) shift above it, or below it. (i.e. If 4th gear breaks, then the driver might either be stuck in 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, or alternatively in 1st, 2nd, 3rd.)

 

[TR]

It just further highlights how little drivers have to think outside of the box these days. Going back 30 years (yes, OK, so the cars weren't as complicated back then) but if a driver lost a gear he would have been met with a grinding, crunchy sound when he tried to ram the gear stick home and he'd know something was up. He'd have to a do a mental shift and get on with his race.

On a number of occasions we'd hear from drivers at the end of the race saying "I'd lost 4th gear" or whatever. The finest example of this that I'd ever seen was Michael Schumacher at the 1994 Spanish GP who spent a large portion of the race stuck in 5th gear, managed to do a pit stop like that and finish around 24 seconds behind Damon Hill.

All this re-enforces in my mind why the radio ban needs to remain in place.

I fail to see how this is an argument for or against the radio ban. Yes in the past it was clear how to deal with a broken gear. (and it would be fairly clear that that was the issue).

From what we can gather from Rosberg's incident this weekend he was dealing with a broken sensor issue (it is not clear whether or not the gearbox itself broke). It is not clear, whether or not Rosberg could have figured out what was causing him be stuck in 7th. (It could very well be that the only way to determine what was going on was to look at the sensor logs prior to breakdown.) It is also unclear if it was deemed allowed for the team to tell Rosberg that this was the issue and that he should avoid 7th.

Rosberg then rightly wondered whether it would be safe for him to shift his sequential gear box through the broken gear or that he should avoid going through it altogether. (Both could have been the case depending on exactly what the issue was, which Rosberg probably did not have the info to determine.) If he did not get this info from the engineer, he would have to experiment himself. (with the risk of retiring the car).

TL;DR. It is unclear how driver's being able to trouble shoot gearbox problems in the past relates to whether it is a good idea to tell/not tell drivers how to troubleshoot problems with their car now.

 

[Wombcat]

I still think the whole radioban is boillocks. I don't care at all what they tell the driver to do or not to do.

I understand that drivers are getting beeps when to shift, to avoid to high revs. Now that is much more a driver aid than anything they tell on the radio!

 

[Bill Boddy]

Unless all radio messaging is forbidden except for genuine emergencies the teams will find coded ways of getting round the regulations..

 

[TR]

I understand that drivers are getting beeps when to shift, to avoid to high revs. Now that is much more a driver aid than anything they tell on the radio!

I also understand they have indicators telling them how fast they are going. How are that not driver aids?!

 

[cider_and_toast]

Hungarian GP: Drivers face return-to-pit instruction under new radio rules

The FIA have issued an update of the radio ban rule and stated that if the cars have a problem they must be told to come in to have it fixed. This fix must not improve the performance of the car beyond that which existed prior to the problem being identified. That way teams can't gamble on issuing a radio instruction against any potential loss of time.

I have a bit of a problem with this new instruction. Firstly, how hard is it going to be to prove that any increasing in performance was coincidental? What happens if the driver takes a new set of tyres and laps significantly quicker on his return to the track? How much of that would be down to the problem rectification and how much to the new rubber?

Why not let the car come in and the team do what ever they like to it while it is stationary in the pits. If a team is willing to risk the loss of 30 or more seconds to gain a 10th or so then let them do it.

 

[FB]

Seems okay to me, if there's a problem which driver doesn't know how to solve either drive round it or come in to the pits to fix it. If Hamilton had done this in Baku he wouldn't have put himself, other drivers, marshals and the crowd at risk fannying about with the knobs on the steering at 190mph.

 

[cider_and_toast]

Absolutely. I'm happy with the rule as well. It's just the vague bit about it not improving car performance.

 

[Road of Bones]

It seems to me that they're trying to legislate a bit of good old-fashioned unreliability into proceedings - by basically telling teams to fix a problem in the pits, instead of trying to instruct the driver around it, then I expect teams will cross their fingers and hope to make the finish instead (like they used to, in fact). I think it's a good call.

 

[Titch]

Absolutely. I'm happy with the rule as well. It's just the vague bit about it not improving car performance.

Well once a problem is fixed then surely the car's performance will improve. It seems like a bit of a nonsense to me.

 

[TR]

Hungarian GP: Drivers face return-to-pit instruction under new radio rules

The FIA have issued an update of the radio ban rule and stated that if the cars have a problem they must be told to come in to have it fixed. This fix must not improve the performance of the car beyond that which existed prior to the problem being identified. That way teams can't gamble on issuing a radio instruction against any potential loss of time.

You (and much of the media) are confusing two different rule "clarifications" here.

The first concerns warnings to the driver about imminent failures on the car. These can now only be given if they are followed by an instruction to pit.

The second is for the much more cryptic allowance for messages for:

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

I am still not sure what this entails exactly. This rule however, has been clarified by placing the burden of proof with the team that this setting does not enhance performance. This is completely unrelated to the other clarification concerning boxing cars after a warning of a failure.

 

[Kewee]

Well once a problem is fixed then surely the car's performance will improve. It seems like a bit of a nonsense to me.

I thought the same Titch but if you read the ruling carefully it states, the cars performance can't be enhanced beyond the level prior to the development of the problem. In other words, yes it will perform better once the problem has been fixed but not improved to a level that would make it better than before the problem developed.