Head To Head Nico Rosberg vs Lewis Hamilton

[Hamberg]

Either would work for me.

 

[The Artist.....]

There used to be one there....

 

[Brogan]

Gravel traps, sausages and all other means to penalise drivers who use run offs have gradually been removed over the years due to safety reasons.

Hitting a gravel trap at speed can cause a car to dig in and turn over. Not to mention the debate we had on here about how gravel traps ruin races as it doesn't allow drivers the chance to continue.
Similarly, hitting a sausage at speed can cause it to become airborne.

How about just leave it as tarmac and penalise drivers who put their foot down through it

 

[Chad Stewarthill]

...or a very high friction surface that's fine at low speed but go across it too fast and it shreds your tyres...

or what Brogan said.

 

[Splash]

Wet cement.

 

[Slyboogy]

Maybe there should be some sort of speed bumps in the run off area the driver has to negotiate to get back on to the track in that way the penalty for missing the chicane is immediate and the same for everyone without steward involvement or is that just to sensible for F1?

There is, but there is a little gap where it breaks off, and the drivers use that gap to not damage the car or lose time.

 

[FB]

I think the ones at Monza create some very tight turns through foam barriers. If the driver hits them at speed the foam disintegrates, if they come in too hot they have to weave through the barriers losing time. I suppose the problem in Canada is that the approach speeds for the chicane are quite high, although its probably as long a straight at Monza.

But there's a ready reckoner, you hit the foam you must have not had all four wheels on the track therefore you get a penalty. If you slow down enough to weave through the barriers it's a natural penalty anyway.

I have to admit, and I've sort of kept out of this, but Rosberg was incredibly fortunate not to be given some sort of punishment. He didn't have all four wheels, or even one, on the race track and, given previous history, this should have resulted in a penalty of some kind. I don't suspect he was treated differently because of either who he was or who he was racing against but it is another example of the piss poor and inconsistent stewarding we suffer from in F1 and you would have to be mad not to realise that he gained an advantage from his actions.

Let's see if something similar happens again and then we can all start ruminating on conspiracies and plots in smoke filled rooms to hamper Lewis Hamilton's championship ambitions or the desire for Mercedes first WDC to be a "German" rather than an Englishman. Strange that their last Championship winning driver was Argentinian but there you go.

 

[Wombcat]

given previous history, this should have resulted in a penalty of some kind.

What history? Has there ever been a penalty if the driver in front cut off a chicane and rejoined, still ahead? I don't remember one.
A penalty is given if the driver behind is overtaking another driver and has been off the track, or in qualifying if he set a fastest time. But I don't think there's ever been given one if a driver, due to overbraking himself, had to cut a chicane. Maybe unless someone was overtaking him at that moment, but that was't the case here.
Giving Rosberg a penalty here would set a new precedent.

 

[The Artist.....]

Wombcat
The only example is after a driver has been warned for previous behaviour within the same race.

 

[Wombcat]

The Artist..... When was that?
And I don't think Rosberg was warned previously, and he did get a warning.

 

[KekeTheKing]

By the same token, when was the last time that the leader of a Grand Prix so egregiously blew a chicane and extended his lead when coming under pressure. Yes it may have happened in isolation, but this move in Canada directly hindered another driver by breaking DRS for 3 laps. I'm not sure there is precedence either way.

 

[The Pits]

Ayrton Senna, Japan 1989?

 

[KekeTheKing]

That one went over well

 

[Hamberg]

but this move in Canada directly hindered another driver by breaking DRS for 3 laps. I'm not sure there is precedence either way.

Did it? I asked earlier, I think I remember it being in the wrong place then as the three corners in question as I thought they were the furthest point from the detection or activation zone (immediately after activation zone). I If it was then yes, it would have been 'lasting' which is the key word here.

If I have got the right place then Nico must have slowed enough to cancel out the advantage to satisfy the stewards and the next three laps shouldn't be impacted.

 

[KekeTheKing]

He couldn't use DRS on Rosberg down the pit straight on Lap 25 because he had bolted, and it took until Lap 28 to get back in DRS range. So he lost 5 total opportunities to use DRS on Nico.

 

[Hamberg]

Sorry Keke I edited - he did it on that lap when Nico flew over the chicane but giving back in the next two corners suggests Lewis slowed down?

 

[KekeTheKing]

I think I've posted enough data in this thread to validate the opinion that Rosberg escaped 3 laps of intense DRS pressure by choosing to power off the circuit. I don't think we have to split hairs any further. There's not much more that can be said really.

 

[Mezzer]

Ayrton Senna, Japan 1989?

I was just about to say the same thing.

By the same token, when was the last time that the leader of a Grand Prix so egregiously blew a chicane and extended his lead when coming under pressure.

It's not unique solely to Canada but it is comparatively rare that a driver can blow through the chicane at more or less full throttle. Perhaps if they brought that wall edge further over it would cause a sharper left hand turn so it wouldn't be as simple to keep the boot down. I do think the regs cover this situation, but as always it is precedent that is needed to help make things appear fair. To a certain extent this has highlighted a fuzzy area in the rules and should be fully addressed by the FIA going forward with some more tangible yardsticks for the stewards to follow.

 

[Brogan]

It's already covered in the rules.

It's anyone's guess why the rules aren't enforced in some instances.

 

[Hamberg]

Edd Straw: Why the Rosberg short-cut decision was right

So did he gain an advantage? Hamilton was closing in using the DRS but was not in a position to attack at the chicane, so in that sense Rosberg did not gain an advantage of track position. He was ahead before and he was ahead after. Status quo.

Rosberg did set the fastest third sector time - a 30.810s - of the whole race on that lap. Overall, it was his second fastest lap of the Canadian GP.

That suggests there was a significant time gain, although as the line is so soon after the corner it's reasonable to give the driver longer to cede any advantage.

"It comes from running the brake balance further forward to protect the rear brakes and that just makes it all the more difficult all the time," explained Rosberg after the race.

"I didn't think anything of it. I went straight, didn't get an advantage - well I did initially and slowed down in Turn 1 and 2 as is the norm to do, so as long as I didn't gain an advantage, then it is fine. And thankfully that is how they judged it."

Rosberg did lose a little bit of time in the first sector, although you could certainly argue that as a result of the cut he was a little further up the road. At the start of lap 25, he was 0.564s clear, at the end of the contentious lap, that advantage was 1.184s then, after the next lap, 1.065s.

But Hamilton's 26th lap was also his slowest in that phase of the race, so that also has to be factored in. With such small margins, potentially a gain of a few tenths with factors such as Hamilton's pace also to be considered, it's not a straightforward decision to make.

And given that other drivers had escaped short-cuts in similar circumstances it would have been inconsistent suddenly to penalise Rosberg just because he was leading.

So the stewards' decision to take no action, save for a warning, was the right one. It was in keeping with the wording if the rules, the instructions given to drivers and the established interpretation of the regulation.

"But Hamilton's 26th lap was also his slowest in that phase of the race, so that also has to be factored in. With such small margins, potentially a gain of a few tenths with factors such as Hamilton's pace also to be considered, it's not a straightforward decision to make."

This is my point as to why it's not a lasting advantage and Hamilton slowing (at least) contributed to creating a gap he couldn't make up for three. I'm happy to leave it but only when it's agreed to be an interpretation difference, not because people that disagree are wrong.