Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Hungaroring, 2016

Rosberg ruling a dangerous precedent – Vettel

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Sebastian Vettel warns F1 is setting a bad example to young drivers by nor forcing drivers to slow down more when yellow flags are displayed.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

How has Raikkonen managed to tally up so many more fastest laps than race victories?

To this day I find Raikkonen’s number of fastest laps in the all time standings remarkable. There are drivers who have won no races, but have a few fastest laps (Perez has three to zero wins) but Raikkonen having 43 fastest laps to 20 victories is odd.

The only driver with multiple wins with such a discrepancy (percentage) is Ayrton Senna with 19 fastest laps to 41 wins. Odd, considering their pole records are also quite the opposite (Raikkonen with 16 pole positions and 20 wins to Senna with 65 poles and 41 wins).
Nick (@Npf1)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Unitedkingdomracing, Oscar Jean Diaz Bustamante and Paolo!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Having announced his forthcoming retirement the day before, Keke Rosberg duly took the fifth and final pole position of his career 30 years ago today at the Hockenheimring. it was also his only pole for McLaren.

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.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 152 comments on “Rosberg ruling a dangerous precedent – Vettel”

    1. the funny part of this whole thing, is that if someone tries this again they will get penalized.

      1. Yup, Rosberg seems to not able to get a penalty. In Monaco 2014, Warwick said, Rosberg wouldn’t do anything like that so they let him off.

        Do the stewards see things that fans don’t?

        1. Yes, I think they apply the Bernie rule : the championship must be undecided until the last race.

        2. “Do the stewards see things that fans don’t?”

          Yes, The stewards have a lot more data available to them. They have full access to every available camera angle (Including CCTV cameras), All timing/GPS data as well as all the telemetry data from the cars from every lap of the weekend as well as other analysis tools to use based off all that data.

          FOM have started to make some of the analysis data available to all broadcasters but only Sky seem to be using it & even they are using it sparingly.

          1. “Yes, The stewards have a lot more data available to them. They have full access to every available camera angle (Including CCTV cameras), All timing/GPS data as well as all the telemetry data from the cars from every lap of the weekend as well as other analysis tools to use based off all that data.”

            People always say these things as if the stewards are infallible. The question is NOT whether they have the data or not, but are they interpreting that data correctly in the context of the rules. Also, are they doing so consistently.

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              26th July 2016, 10:48

              @realstig, actually the question WAS “Do the stewards see things that fans don’t?” and therefore @gt-racer‘s comment was spot on.

              Of course there will always be doubts about correct interpretation and/or consistency; also I don’t always agree. But that is typical for any judgement in any sport or even in everyday life. The sport has chosen to work with the current steward and appeal system. Probably as good/bad as any.

          2. Well, why don’t they show us the data they have? Is it calssified? Because as of now it doesn’t look justified even to other drivers (including World Champions), and could set a very dangerous precedent.

            1. @zimkazimka Getting detailed analysis & explanations from stewards regarding penalties was actually something Max Mosley was planning to do towards the end of his tenure as FIA president, But the various issues that arose during his final year in the role (The Daily Mail story & arguments with FOTA) saw several of his proposals put on the back burner & Jean Todt simply didn’t pick them up.

              It was something he wanted to do after Hamilton’s penalty at Spa in 2008 to hopefully put some faith back in stewards decisions. He managed to get the 1st part through (Ex-driver steward/adviser) but the 2nd part that included detailed written statements with the stewards explaining in detail there reasoning with accompanied video analysis showing the various angles was something he never got round to doing before he left the role.

            2. Well, why don’t they show us the data they have? Is it calssified?

              I believe much of it is “classified”. Much of it will come from the teams’ own data, showing “throttle”, accelerations, and other such information, in this case probably for multiple laps for comparison. If this were to get into the hands of other teams, it could be damaging, so I suspect that the stewards/FIA are contractually obliged to keep it confidential.

            3. ColdFly F1 (@)
              26th July 2016, 17:10

              Here is (some of) the data: (@zimkazimka)

              Rosberg totally lifts even before he enters the DWY zone (too soon one could say)
              He slows down to 150 in turn 8 (normally 170)
              As soon as the lights turn green he accelerates (great reflexes).

              Lucky timing wise, but also a well deserved pole.

        3. Yeah– Keke Rosberg threatening to visit them late at night carrying a cricket bat. ;)

        4. I think now that the stewards have allowed Nico to benefit, they’ll go on and tighten this rule.

      2. Yep, because the rules are applied at random and completely inconsistently. Heads should be rolling over this, and Charlie Whiting should step down permanently, because he has shown himself incapable of ensuring the rules are enforced appropriately. It’s time we had someone with a sense of sporting fairness in his place.

        1. THIS is the problem. It’s not that the rules are complicated– the Yellow flag rules in F1 are like three sentences.

          It’s that the stewards and the FIA are completely and totally inconsistent in applying them– And if the stewards are taking the driver’s character into account each time they consider a penalty, they need to be fired. It’s not whether Nico “intended” to break the rules (he did), it’s whether he *actually* violated the rules (he did).

          And then, because the Stewards can’t consistently apply penalties, the FIA comes out with the most convoluted, bass-ackwards BS rules they can come up with from a committee of (apparent) drunks and schizophrenics.

          1. Thank you. Great post you nailed it.

      3. The even funnier part is that Hulkenberg and Magnussen were let off similarly in Austria quali. No one lost their minds then. I wonder why…

        1. Lie. Both men did not set purple sectors under Double Yellows.

          1. They didn’t set purple sectors (Why would then in the cars there in?) but both set personal best sectors.

            1. But not under Double Yellows. A Single Yellow and a Double Yellow are not the same.

      4. The funny part for me is: drivers have been doing this for years, yet as soon as Rosberg gets pole, everybody is crying about it

        1. Also, literally everybody seems to have forgotten about the changing conditions. The conditions were still changing at this stage, that’s why the final lap was so important, and so much faster. If it was completely dry, I’m almost certain that it wouldn’t have been purple.

          1. ROS said that he slowed 20 kph, Lewis said he had the same speed at the apex, which means he had a faster corner exit than Hamilton probably did, He set a purple middle sector which secured his pole lap.

            He also charged through many slow cars which is in itself some what dangerous.

            Nobody is saying this is something new, but it was pretty blatant, and I am 99% sure if this happened again, it would be punished, nobody with a straight face who drives in F1 would think any differently. ROS gets away with a lot of things, like cutting through chicanes to keep position or running his teammate off track. Karma is coming for #6.

            The irony, the rule makers in F1 would ruin the specatcle by adding those eye sores which really don’t solve anything because they are worried about something happening again like what happened to Bianchi, but they purposely wouldn’t investigate ROS for doing what he did under double yellows.

            HYPOCRISY. It stinks like a dead animal, everyone sees it, nobody is immune, but enough is enough. The FIA needs to clean house, too many old heads, who can’t defend their own positions hoping people will just shut up and drive.

            1. It’s almost too funny to take serious.

            2. define cognitive dissonance.

        2. @strotium that’s true.
          The precedent Vettel is talking about wasn’t set in Hungary but rather in Austria, the only justification for such criteria is that allowing drivers to drive is what racing is all about.

          1. “Allowing drivers to drive is what racing is all about”

            What HORSE CRAP, so now pit lane speed limits are against the nature of racing? Get rid of them.

            Track limits smack limits, let the racers race!

            What a profoundly stupid argument, while your at it, why not criticize the readers racing pedigree? “If you EVER set foot in a race car you would know…”

        3. @strontium “yet as soon as Rosberg gets pole, everybody is crying about it”

          If you think this is about Rosberg you are missing the point. This is a safety issue. It is problematic for those that are in charge to be introducing things like Halo in the name of safety and yet on the other hand not enforce the rules such a the waved double yellow flag. Lest you forget, may I remind you that the FIA blamed Suzuka 2014 on the same rule one being adhered to.

          1. @realstig I understand the main point is about safety, but it seems like people are using Rosberg’s pole lap to make the point which could have been made at any time when similar things have happened, all the while I’ve seen plenty of comments accusing Rosberg of cheating and saying he should have penalised, when really the correct solution to this issue is not to think of it in terms of Rosberg’s lap, but for the FIA to reconsider the rule and re-write / clarify it

            1. Possibly because all the other front-running drivers slowed down while Rosberg didn’t.

              I remember that at Suzuka Hamilton tip-toed through the corner whereas Bianchi hurtled through. It’s about respecting your own safety and that of other people. Double yellows is a serious issue and not a quibble over how many tenths you slowed down. The other drivers are right to protest and Rosberg should have been given a substantial penalty.

            2. And just to put down that ‘it’s because it’s Rosberg accusation,’ I thought his penalty for the radio communication, demoting him to third, was wrong (though his crash with Hamilton in Austria should have received a bigger penalty).

        4. There are two arguments here… first, it’s rarely affected pole position for a track that’s notoriously difficult to win from off pole, AND a championship-altering race.

          Secondly, it can easily be argued that inconsistent and poor enforcement of double-yellow rules was the root cause for Jules Bianchi’s accident in Japan– he didn’t slow sufficiently to “be prepared to stop”, and why should he? No one had ever made a big deal out of it before. Instead, his team was counting on him to finish as high up the grid as possible, because the survival of the team was potentially at stake, so he took a risk.

          So, yeah, it’s a big deal. It needs to be addressed.

          And the stewards need to stop relying on the fact that Keke’s kid is a good kid who would never lie or exploit the rules.

      5. The only reason Merc got away with the yellow flags is because RB got away with the 107%. In the end I would say both decisions were in the interest of racing, that said the fia would have not got lenient had both situations happened to 2 lesser teams.

      6. YEah, sure. Just like the last time it happened, eh. Oh, right, they weren’t either (both Hulkenberg and Magnussen in Austria)!
        Fact is, this is no precedent at all. It is a ruling consistent with previous rulings by the FIA.

        I am all for changing how the FIA polices its rules, but please let us not drag that argument in there, just because it helped Rosberg this time (and over his teammate as well).

      7. If you read the article in Autosport, the reason the stewards didn’t penalize Rosberg is that when he lifted off in the entry to Turn 8, it was double yellow flags, but it changed to single yellows almost instantly while Rosberg was still in Turn 8, so he could increase his speed significantly.

      8. @xsavior Five drivers were investigated for this in Austria. Some got penalties, some didn’t, depending on whether they had slowed down enough. That shows the stewards are using their discretion on this subject and the only reason some people are getting excited about it in this case is because it involved a championship contender in Q3 instead of (mostly) back markers in Q1.

        1. Further, the stewards have an exact number for how much a driver must slow in a subsector in order to be within the rules. One side of it, you’re of no risk of punishment, the other side of it, you’re penalised. Sectors are composed of several subsectors, and that is how it is possible for someone to set a green (or purple) sector and still have slowed down enough in the necessary subsector to escape penalty.

          Whether that exact number is a good guide is another kettle of fish, and one that is likely to prove very important.

          1. William Jones
            26th July 2016, 13:41

            I think this is the genuine problem here – not that the stewards used their discresion, but that they have assumed that Rosberg had knowledge that he could not have had. All Rosberg knew was that there were double waved yellows. He eased off, and when he got round the corner, was able to accelerate as he could see a safe route through the incident. So the stewards did not investigate.

            However, Rosberg could not have known two things:

            1) That there was no oil/fluid/water on the track
            2) That there was not a marshall/driver/stationary vechicle on track.

            So Rosberg was fine because those two things were not true. In the face of the blame being put on Jules, I don’t see how the stewards have a leg to stand on. I would ask them to go stand in a marshall post in drying conditions and run out on track to a car while Rosberg flashes past having lifted only 20kph. I wonder if they will have a very different interpretation of what is and is not dangerous then.

            1. Actually, he could have been aware of the 2 things you are saying he could not.

              They use radio communication with their pits, who see images of what happened. They can tell Rosberg via radio if he needed to abort for oil/fluid/water or marshall/driver/stationary vechicle.

              Also, the FIA would have thrown the Red Flag rather than yellows had the track been blocked.

            2. William Jones
              28th July 2016, 1:43


              Do you reckon in the 12 seconds that passed between the incident and Rosberg getting to the scene, that the marshalls could detected a fluid, while sorting out the car, made a decision on whether it was enough to radio in to CW, run back to the radio – lets be generous and pretend every marshall has a radio to Charlie – they don’t but lets just pretend they do, radio it in to charlie, who messages all the teams, Merc notice Rosberg is heading to that corner, and radio him to inform him of a slippery surface ahead.


              And please notice, I wasn’t talking about the track being completely blocked, I was talking about a stationary car being on track, on the racing line like it was when Hamilton arrived. They didn’t show red flags, did they.

        2. ColdFly F1 (@)
          26th July 2016, 11:05

          @keithcollantine, people are getting ‘uber-excited’.
          It seems we have more and more ‘driverXYZ-fanatics’ rather than ‘F1-fanatics’ on this site. I feel there is nowadays more tinfoil hattery and conspiracy theories, or even plain rude replies to other contributors, than we had before.

          1. @coldfly I second that. Some posters’ remarks make one wonder why they even bother watching, so convinced they seem that the stewards are there exclusively to ensure race fixing.

            1. @xtwl Ok I third that.

          2. @coldfly I agree, my other comment got deleted so it seems.

            1. ColdFly F1 (@)
              26th July 2016, 16:22

              Thanks, @xtwl.
              I saw your previous reply; not sure what could have been wrong with it.
              I’ve got a long list of (disrespectful) comments I would delete before yours!

          3. Just like after “for no apparent reason”-gate, you guys are making too much of the Hamilton fan boy conspiracies.

            One idiot says something, then you think anyone who is a Hamilton fan thinks Mercedes is actually sabotaging Lewis’ car…

            I love #44, I was annoyed by the luck of nico’s timing of the yellow flag, I also think he should be hung out to dry in a post-bianchi formula1, ESPECIALLY by the “f1 can never be too safe” crowd, but it was mostly lucky timing.

            People make comments in the heat of action, let it go.

        3. @keithcollantine Honestly Keith, don’t you think deep down that Rosberg wasn’t “that” lifting ?

        4. I don’t think that’s the only reason, as we usually don’t have other drivers speak out on it which makes it a “bigger” deal.

          The thing I think most people are missing is the double yellow rule states the driver must be prepared to stop, which as usual is ambiguous. To that end, I don’t think lifting and reducing speed by 20/kph is sufficient in most people’s minds. How much of a reduction in speed is required to indicate that someone is prepared or preparing to stop? Personally, when I raced, when I saw double yellow flags my foot would be off the gas and hovering over the brake but there is no requirement for that. In a sport dominated by technology it seems rather silly to allow the drivers to determine how slow is slow enough given that they are always likely to err on the side of speed and the VSC is now proven.

      9. I think what a lot of people seem to be forgetting here or over looking, is that the track was RAPIDLY improving at the time and even a significant lift in the yellow flag zone could still result in a purple sector or best lap. It has nothing to do with the yellow flag zone and everything to do with the improvement of the rest of the track at the time.

        If really don’t see what they can do other than the current regulations of showing that the driver backed off a bit. The only way they could do it would be to put out the VC every time there’s a yellow flag anywhere on the circuit – which would be utterly stupid! I fail to understand the argument about the others aborting their laps and Rosberg didn’t. If the others were right in the zone when it happened, then they had no choice. If they weren’t in the zone and still aborted their laps then they are stupid.

        The simple fact of the matter is this – if the situations were reversed and it was Hamilton who did it and the Rosberg fans complaining, you’d all be telling us that Hamilton always pushes the limit and that’s why he’s a WDC or some other such nonsense.

        Get over it! Rosberg followed the regulations to the letter!

      10. “…Lewis Hamilton still battling back from ‘rock bottom’ (BBC)…”

        Jesus Christ! Give me a bloody break!

        Boohoo poor Lewis is at Rock Bottom! It must be tough driving the most dominant car in F1 history for the 3rd year in a row! I honestly don’t know how the poor little bloke get’s up in the morning!

        I mean, we know two of the best drivers on the grid and former world champions are driving around the back of the grid in a car 2-3 seconds off the pace, but honestly, it just pales in comparison to the utter depression Hamilton must be feeling right now!

        What a little trooper!

    2. Waiting a long as possible gives me the fear, as a HAM fan. I just think back to Italy last year when they got greedy with ROS’s engine allocation!

      I’m quite intrigued to see how it plays out, they won’t want to give too much away, especially if that “6th components in quali, 7th on race day & pit lane start” loophole is legit. Seems a no-brainer if they are allowed.

    3. Neil (@neilosjames)
      26th July 2016, 0:19

      Re COTD… I can remember in 2008 when Raikkonen setting the fastest lap became a regular amusing moment during races. He’d spend 40 or 50 laps tootling around, nothing like a reigning world champion (being beaten by Massa), then suddenly wake up, do the fastest lap and – as we put it in my house – fall asleep again.

      1. @neilosjames, I remember having similar thoughts, If I had a talent for drawing I would have drawn a cartoon strip with Kimi going around and around with thought bubbles coming out of his head; “Should I get one of those Sunseekers like Eddy has or would a sailboat be more fun?”……” double pistachio with chestnut or choc-mint with caramel ?”…… ” the blonde with the green eyes or the black hair with violet eyes ?”….. then ” Lap 43 already ! I better get a move on or I’ll never beat the traffic out of here”……” Mum would like the blond better but I think I prefer the black and violet , If I had yacht like Eddy I could ask her onboard for dinner”.

      2. Massa was #1 in line for the championship, and #1 driver then. He had fanboy in Domenicali, who never liked Kimi.

        Kimi was just sending the message every race that Ferrari made a mistake and Stefano eventually go to fire Kimi a year later

        1. @uneedafinn2win, in an interview with a Finnish publication (Turun Sanomat) at the end of the 2008 season, Kimi explicitly blamed himself for his poor form that season.

          He stated that he had persistent set up issues, partly due to Bridgestone changing the front tyre construction and partly due to the front suspension geometry of the F2008, that meant he could never get the front end to respond the way that he liked it to.
          He then admitted that his frustration at those set up issues had a very corrosive effect on his motivation and self confidence – he effectively convinced himself in the latter half of the 2008 season that he wasn’t going to win the title, particularly after a few bad races in the latter half of the season, which had a knock on effect on how hard he pushed in those races. He was very self critical of himself in that interview and put the onus for failing to take the title in 2008 on himself, as he felt it was a personal failing of his, rather than of the team, that meant he missed out.

          I would also dispute the claim that Domenicali was the one who fired Kimi – most insiders at the time said that it was Montezemolo who made the final decision, as he had been the one who had been courting Alonso. It was also pointed out that Montezemolo felt that Kimi’s salary demands were too much even for Ferrari to stomach – his salary in 2008 was reportedly more than the next five highest paid drivers combined.

    4. Too much Hamilton-fanaticism lately. It’s not the 2nd coming of Christ. He’s driving a Merc with an unchallenged advantage against a 2nd rate teammate.

      1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        26th July 2016, 12:40


      2. @sjzelli
        This fanaticism is justified and i will explain why but please don’t tell me it is due to the fact that F1Fanatic is a British website.
        First of all, Lewis is an outstanding F1 racer which i rank (personal opinion) among the very best of his generation with Vettel and Alonso. Despite that he’s sometimes vulnerable and makes mistakes and became a little conservative comparing to the past in terms of overtaking moves , he’s driving ability remains something to watch especially his qualifying laps (Silverstone this year, Spa 2015 …).
        F1 fans nowadays tend to like drivers that have personality who can express their opinions freely regardless of what happens and Hamilton is one of them (no wonder Kimi is among the very popular drivers in the paddock).
        It is true that drivers now are light years away in that aspects from the previous generations (Senna,Villeneuve,Lauda,Hunt…) but at least Lewis isn’t the sort of “polite boy” that the FIA like.
        The main reason (for me) why there is too much Hamilton-fanaticism lately is Mr i’m RichSmartBlondSonOfWDCWhoIsGettingAwayWithItAndEatsPotatoBeforeTheRaces…..
        Apart from being pathetic sometimes (personal opinion), Nico Roseberg is consistently involved in controversies and keeps getting away with it. Every time he was clearly at fault, the stewards come up with a bizarre interpretation of the rules or sometimes even rule change.
        PS : I’m a Ferrari fan and i don’t cheer for any of the Mercedes drivers.

      3. so Hamilton is driving a dominant car, but so what? almost every world champion drove the dominant car and this is the way the sport has worked since it began the majority of the time. Also overturning a 43 point deficit in such a short space of time is no easy feat, against a tough to beat Rosberg. Or are you going to say Rosberg is a “mediocre” driver?

    5. People keep getting carried away with this ridiculous new points system. 43 points is merely some 17 in the old days, and that’s hardly a serious deficit. It’s less than two race wins.

      1. I think it stems from the fact that the mercs are so dominant, that only Hamilton or Rosberg are expected to win. If one of them did not win, then they would come second.

        Based on that, people expected it to take Hamilton a long time to claw back the gap, assuming Rosberg finished second if hamilton went on a winning streak.

        Even then most people thought Rosberg would win more races down the line. So 43 ponts, assuming a variety of 1, 2 finish iterations for Hamilton and Rosberg, could be seen a being a big gap to make up.

        However….as we know, in reality, F1 does not work out like that. A few poor finishes from Rosberg….and here we are.

        Having said all that. I too did not see 43 points as being hard to overcome.

        1. its even more simpler than that, Lewis hasn’t really lost a qualifying session to ROS, legitimately, Baku his car was setup wrong on late Friday, and this round ROS took pole under double yellows, every other pole was due to mechanical failure.

          If HAM and ROS get equal treatment and reliability for the remainder of the season, HAM will win the championship with 2 more rounds to go. ~55+ pts. Estimate he takes 54 wins and Prost’s record. & probably 3 poles short of Senna’s total record.

          The only thing stopping HAM from obliterating ROS are his starts and the reliability of his car, both of which are easily remedied if the team is serious about helping be the best he can be.

        2. The gap between 1st and 2nd is 8 points. If Rosberg had been second to Hamilton winning every race after Spain, the gap would be overhauled in 6 races… …and the season had 16 races to go at that point.

          In the first decade of the 2000s, the gap was 2 points between 1st and 2nd. The Rosberg-Hamilton gap after Spain would have been 17 points, needing 9 races to overhaul… …and some seasons would only have had 11 races remaining at that point. Much more tension involved, as one slip from Lewis would have left him depending on Rosberg not coming 2nd in at least one race to take the title.

          It’s still too early in the season to assume that a 43-point gap as difficult to overcome, whereas it would have been somewhat more so for even a 17-point gap last decade.

          1. @alianora-la-canta, surely you mean a 7 point difference (25 – 18 = 7), not 8, under the current points system?

            Secondly, when you refer to previous points systems, I presume that you are referring to the system that was implemented from 2003 onwards (the 10-8-6-5-4-3-2-1 system)? There were two different points systems in use in “first decade of the 2000s”, as you have missed out the points system (10-6-4-3-2-1) that was in place from 1991-2002.

            Assuming that you mean the 2003-2009 points system, I think you’ve also miscalculated the points difference. If we apply that system, Rosberg would have been on 40 points after the Russian GP: Hamilton, meanwhile, would have had 24 points, giving a points difference of 16 points.

            If both Mercedes drivers finished in a 1-2 formation, it would take 8 races for the drivers to draw level on points – however, as Hamilton would have won more races by that point, Hamilton would technically be ranked ahead of Rosberg in the WDC.

            Incidentally, if the two drivers had been awarded points under the 1991-2002 points system, Rosberg would have had 40 points after the Russian GP and Hamilton would have been on 16 points, 24 points behind Rosberg.

            However, due to the larger points differential between 1st and 2nd place, it would have taken 6 races with 1-2 finishes in Hamilton’s favour for him to draw level on points (and, as that system also ranked the driver with most wins first in the event of a tie, Hamilton would then be ranked ahead of Rosberg in the WDC).

            On a wider discussion about points systems, by historical standards the 2003-2009 points system was a bit of a statistical anomaly for the weight given to 2nd place.
            If you look at the other points systems that have been used over the years, 2nd place was normally given between 60% and 75% of the points value of a victory. The weighting was 75% for the 8-6-4-3-2 system from 1950-1959 and the 8-6-4-3-2-1 system for 1960, 66% for the 9-6-4-3-2-1 system from 1961-1990, 60% for the 10-6-4-3-2-1 system from 1991-2002 and is currently 72% under the 25-18-15-12-10-8-6-4-2-1 that has been used since 2010 – in that sense, the current weighting is close to the historical trend.

            The 2003-2009 system was abnormal as it gave 2nd place 80% of the points total of the winner, the highest proportion that has ever been used in F1. The system was meant to prevent a driver from falling too far behind a rival, but it also made it harder for that rival to then make up a significant points deficit – so it had both positive and negative consequences over the course of a full season.

            1. Jonathan Parkin
              26th July 2016, 13:30

              Speaking of points systems, the points calculator hasn’t been updated for ages since the Canadian GP

            2. I can assure you it has:


              If it’s not displaying correctly for you please submit a technical problem report here so I can look into it:


      2. Very good point, although the relative reliability of these cars mean that large point swings are less likely than in the old days. Plus the % gap between 1st and 2nd (most likely Mercedes outcome) is smaller. I know what you mean though.

        1. Team engineers tell me that the reliability is BECAUSE of the current points system, which penalises failure more than the previous system. Now a failure can cost 25 points and teams do not want to risk that.

          Perhaps that lack of risk-taking is why the races have been criticised for being boring.

          1. @ians From a numerical perspective what you say makes sense but a failure costs 25 and a victory costs 25 in the end it’s the same 100% difference between winning or losing, it’s relatively the same, the only difference is that from 25 to 16 is a wider gap than the 10,8,6 system. Maybe the team engineers meant that or perhaps some other financial reason.

          2. The big jump in reliability came in the early 2000s, when the introduction of parc fermé required teams to become much more reliable to preserve competitive position, and nearly all of them immediately rose to that challenge. (Ferrari already were at the current standard, and Jordan and Minardi couldn’t afford to do so).

      3. +1, left a comment below. It’s nothing! If it can be opened that quickly of course it can be closed that quickly, if they’re in the same car

      4. Hamilton really should have closed up on that gap much sooner. Instead he decided to assist his team mate in taking both out at Spain and he binned it absolutely unnecessarily at Baku.

        1. Hamilton’s race performance was hindered by a mistake his crew made on Friady. Hamilton’s race performance in Spain was hindered by a desperate and extremely aggressive move to the side by a teammate who knew himself to be much. You need to find better examples of Hamilton sabotaging himself, for the most part, his crew or teammate are reponsible for pretty much every loss this season.

          Hamilton has blamed himself at times, but he would be leading by over 50 points right now if he wasn’t so severely handicapped like he was in 2014 in qualifying.

    6. COTD: The answer is Räikkönen pits late for fresh tyres last sprint to finish

      1. @dam00r I don’t think that’s the case. Most of his fastest laps were from 2003-2008 when refuelling was there, so I doubt he pitted late for tyre stops just to get fastest laps especially as he was often fighting for the title. He would usually just turn the wick up and go for it towards the end of the second or third stints just for one lap

      2. He was helped by having the fastest car in 2005, and having to recover from poor grid slots in both that year and in 2008. I believe he set fastest lap in over half of the races in both seasons. He also had a decent car in 2007 of course.

        As for his more recent fastest laps, he seems to find himself having to do a different strategy quite often, which does help.

    7. I’m seriously fed up with all this talk about Hamilton clawing back 43 points. Since the new system in 2010, 43 is nothing when you’re in a winning car at the start of the season. It’s happened many times already. If the gap can be opened in a few races then it can obviously be closed in a few races. All it means is that they have scored the same / similar amount of points, just in a different order.

      1. @strontium Mercedes is so dominant that if both were to finish 1-2 in the remaining races, Hamilton would need to win 6 races in a race to close the points gap right down. And with 17 races to go at that point, Rosberg needed to win only 6 races out the 17 (basically 1 in 3) and come 2nd in 11 of the remaining races and he’d still be world champion.

    8. Regarding @keithcollantine ‘s tweet above, I remember reading that article and wondering what Keith was driving at cos I thought it was nearly impossible for Ham to catch Nico based on Nico’s form then and his run of luck.
      But nothing could have been truer than these few lines from the article.
      BTW I doubted this assertion immediately below cos I sincerely felt Nico was simply on a roll due to his good form then. But what I found remarkable was the last section of these three Paragraphs from the article.

      “Rosberg knows part of his 43-point lead is owed to good fortune.

      And the full impact of Hamilton’s recent setbacks may not have been felt yet. He’s had to use more engines than Rosberg which could come back to haunt him at the end of the season.

      It may take until then for Hamilton to overcome the sizeable early advantage Rosberg has amassed for himself. But few doubt he will be able to and the graph below shows why: over the course of their last two championship contests Hamilton has dependably accumulated points at a quicker rate than his team mate:”

      So true.
      As for the Rosberg/Stewards love affair, I am glad to see Seb speak up. Another reason I support the guy. After Monaco when drivers and pundits chose not to comment, stewards became emboldened and basically gave a Nico carte blanche. Finally, after a weekend where Jenson Button’s race was scuppered by the stewards over a penalty they had previously given Nico a pass, and a weekend where Nico committed an even more dangerous foul and got rewarded, Seb and hopefully more are no longer having any of it, if not for anything, at least for the sake of safety and as an example to kids in the lower series.

      1. Sorry, but wasn’t it Lewis who first came out and criticised what happened and asked for clarification, before Seb did?

        1. Yeah, it was him. Good to see Seb doing so as well.

      2. There is no ‘Rosberg/stewards love affair’ other than to those against Rosberg.

        As to LH criticizing and asking for clarification…of course he did…he’s the main rival and he gets head play against Nico out of it, as well as sympathy from his followers. I wonder if LH has actually gone to the stewards for clarification, or if he is just happy to speak on it while beside Nico on a podium. LH’s issue should be with F1 and then they could give him the whole story as Nico had to do after LH spoke. It was disingenuine of LH to claim all Nico did was cost himself a tenth of a second. The stewards say he lifted to the tune of 20 kph and the double yellows had disappeared, as indicated by the lack of penalty.

        Why had the double yellow disappeared? Because unlike the scare mongering that LH and SV choose to employ, there was never a stalled car, nor marshals, nor extraction equipment out there…FA moved along on his own.

        LH asks ‘what if there was a marshal out there?’ ‘How did Nico know there wasn’t?’ Because a VSC would have been called if that was the case. Or they wouldn’t have called off the double yellows.

        Seb decries this as a bad precedent for young karters to see. Sure if indeed Nico had done something wrong, in which case there would have been a penalty. But there wasn’t. Is it a better precedent to set, to automatically assume the stewards are incompetent? Is it a better precedent to be constantly swearing on the radio and finger wagging? Is that what young karters need to be seeing and hearing? What would be easier to explain to young karters? How yellow flags work when danger has disappeared due to no stalled car, nor marshal, nor tractor out there, FA having moved along, and how an improving track can still see someone put on a fast lap under those circumstances, or why it seems ok to swear and give other drivers a finger, and how to go against the stewards’ decisions.

        Go ahead LH and SV…try lifting for just a tenth the next time you see a double yellow that hasn’t gone away, and there really is a marshall out there, if you think the stewards have gone rogue or something. The reality is the stewards are being consistent.

        1. An interesting point of view but I would like to first say you and I support the two Mercedes drivers albeit polarised and so our opinions concerning this issue will always have a tinge of bias. Fact.

          Your points are acceptable to a certain level and I will just pick one or two. Yes LH is reported to have spoken with Charlie Whitting immediately after after the incident and it was afterwards that Nico was even called in for investigation. Not yet sure what LH said to Charlie and the stewards but it is assumed that having spoken clearly afterwards on the issue, during the PC, it is only right to assume that he might have mentioned it to them. What I find even more worrying in the entire stewarding thing especially as it relates to Nico hence my use of the term “Nico/steward love affair” is that Nico was not even called in for questioning until after Hamilton had gone to see them. In other words they did not even bother looking at the data and telemetry to know if the guy had fallen foul of the rules yet again. They decided on their guts, instincts, personal bias and what have you right there and then after seeing the guy fly past slower cars on the track. Monaco, anyone?

          Your mention of Vettel’s, Kimi’s and other driver’s foul language and Ham’s finger is not important. I don’t mind what drivers say or gesticulate while driving their cars since such discussions are between them and guys they work with. If we don’t like hearing Vettel swear or flipping his finger or Alonso and Ham giving someone the finger, it is the choice of the FOM not to re-play those videos. Because most of the time, those videos are on-board while the radio is selected and broadcast.

          Your last comment: The reality is the stewards are being consistent, brought on a chuckle. Consistent on letting Nico off, maybe. That’s where I would like to leave it.

          1. @Tata I think you are taking some license here by putting together for yourself that it was LH that caused the stewards to investigate. And if the one driver that is the most affected by this is able to go to the stewards to try to affect the Championship this way, then that indeed is worrying. At a minimum, if I’m one of the stewards and indeed the only one that comes to me is the very driver that could most benefit from a decision, I’m telling him sorry we need to hear a complaint from someone on another team.

            As to the language or the hand gestures, I really have no issue whatsoever, until a driver throws out the ‘young go-karters’ card, the ‘bad precedent’ card, and that’s when I have to just call that driver on his own behaviour before he points the finger at another driver or F1 itself. Yeah F1 itself picks and chooses what we and the young karters get to hear, which is why I am a big believer in educating the youth so they are equipped to take his stuff in and deal with it.

            1. As we do not know (yet) what Ham discussed with the stewards, one can only speculate. Sadly that is the major part of fan discussions concerning the goings-on in F1. We just give our opinions and interpretations from a very long distance.
              The gravity of the Double Yellow Flag situation is much higher and so it is not right to equate it to driver morals as it relates to kids.
              But you are right in having young people educated to deal with some of the things society says they cannot deal with while in actual fact, they are already dealing with it but without much needed guidance.

    9. Once again it’s interesting to see how we as commentators end up dividing ourselves along lines based on individual incidents rather than overall pictures, and this is where perhaps the internet and social media are a bad thing.

      On Saturday everyone was up in arms over the FIA immediately exonerating Rosberg, then 3 hours later announcing an investigation which led to another immediate exoneration, with derision over slow moving incompetence. But the facts of the case hadn’t actually changed at all and the demand for a further investigation didn’t prove any different. It’s very clear that the FIA weren’t being schizophrenic, they were simply reacting to a demand for an investigation from a competitor hoping to leverage the rules to gain an advantage… In this case from the other side of the same garage, in the 107℅ case from a rival team. It’s called the pirhana club for a reason, just because the driver, team principal, or other person on the screen is putting on their super sincere butter wouldn’t melt face and telling you how sincerely they believe that rival team/driver/engineer/rule ”needs to be examined” for totally sincere reasons, doesn’t mean you shouldn’t look at their motives. If you believe Lewis is totally sincere about his concern for the yellow flag rules, then you’ve evidently forgotten about the times he was (like just about every other driver) investigated and exonerated for exactly the same thing, and if you believe his totally sincere concern about safety then you’ve also forgotten his comments about nannying safely regulations after the halo tests.

      Everyone in the sport is like that; they will *all* say whatever suits their position at the time, unless they’re having a total brain fade and saying something transparently stupid (which, for clarity, they all do sometimes, it’s inevitable when you spend so much time talking to the media about the same things).

      And, for all the hand wringing over double yellow rules, Maldonado almost killed a marshal in Monaco ignoring yellow flags, and was rightly given a lifetime ban over it. However money bought his way out of that one and the FIA and the other drivers allowed him to race in f1 for years. So what happened this Saturday isn’t even close to the worst thing which failing to enforce yellow flag rules has done, despite what a driver who rolled the dice on using the rules to get pole back might tell you.

      1. @Hairs So well said.

      2. @Hairs Except Hamilton did NOT ask for Nico to be investigated, but instead ask for clarification regarding what constitutes adhering to the rules. What triggered the investigation what the FIA discovering an extra camera angle that had been overlooked.

    10. To have two quotes from two world champion drivers in just two days saying Rosberg should have received a penalty for not obeying yellow flags suggests there is a problem with the Stewards ruling. Sadly, this will mean someone now has to define exactly the meaning of “Reduce your speed” and “Reduce your speed significantly” mean. I haven’t found the video of this incident so it is hard for me to judge, but saying he “lifted off [the accelerator]” sounds barely adequate for “reduce your speed”, and simply not good enough for “reduce your speed significantly”. The driver should have slowed down using the brakes.

      1. ‘Sadly, this will mean someone now has to define exactly the meaning of “Reduce your speed” and “Reduce your speed significantly” mean.’

        You make it sound like that is a bad thing.

        1. @realstig Yes, you are right, defining exactly what those terms mean is a good thing. It seemed to me the writer of the rule book intentionally left those terms vague for a reason, so maybe they thought the range of circumstances in which those flags were used made it difficult to exactly define those terms without lots of complexity.
          I’m sure the Track Marshalls know exactly when to use single yellow and double yellow flags, so the meaning should have been clear to the drivers. When those flags are being waved they should be driving in that part of the track under the direction of the Marshalls. As far as I can tell this does happen most of the time, but maybe that wasn’t obvious this time because Rosberg was asked to see the stewards.
          There isn’t any ambiguity about driving down the pitlane, so one would expect the same clarity when the yellow flags are being waved.

      2. “Reduce your speed to that of a VSC”, should suffice.

        1. Nico reduced his speed 20kph and that satisfied the stewards.

    11. I don’t get why there is the uproar of the lack of Penalty for Rosberg in qualifying given that he is by no means the 1st driver to go unpunished having only done a small lift through a yellow/double yellow zone.
      People have been going on about it setting a precedent but the precedent was set years ago when drivers got away penalty free having ‘lifted’ through the yellow zone.

      Just 2 races ago in Austria Nico Hulkenberg barely lifted for a yellow flag in qualifying & hardly anything was said & there have been plenty of other examples the past 5-6 years where a driver set personnel or overall best sector times despite yellow flags been out somewhere in said sector & it’s been discussed a dozen times that as long as you are able to show that you ‘lifted off’ through the timing loop/s where yellows are displayed then its considered acceptable.

      For instance Kamui Kobayashi qualified 4th at at Suzuka in 2012 despite going through double waved yellows on his fastest lap in Q3 due to Kimi spinning off & sitting in the runoff at spoon. Kamui was investigated but like Nico this past weekend was able to show via the telemetry data that he lifted off through the double yellow zone (Again like Nico despite setting a personnel best sector) & therefore no penalty was given.

      1. Just some additional notes about the Q3 yellow in Hungary.

        Regarding Vettel, He made a comment after qualifying that he had done the same as Rosberg through the yellow zone & continued pushing through the lap to try & improve his time but had actually lost time trying to pass the cars that had aborted the lap.

        Also I just watched the in-car camera channel from the end of Q3 & it was showing Daniel Ricciardo at the time & he initially like Rosberg just did a small lift through the start of the yellow zone at turn 8 & didn’t actually properly back off & abort the lap until he got to the apex on turn 9 & could actually see Alonso’s car that was at this point still on the track facing the wrong way. Had he like Rosberg got there after Alonso had got going again I think its pretty certain given how he drove through the initial part of the yellow zone until he actually came across Alonso’s car that he’d have stayed on it & like Rosberg argued that he had lifted off enough & I suspect the others would have done the same.

        1. If that’s the case, Rosberg got hang out to dry by both Ham and Ric in the presser, and Vettel in his post-qualifying comments.

          He took it like a man I thought, but I’d say:

          1) this shows how little Ros is liked (both in the driver comments and fan comments here on F1 fanatic)
          2) how determined drivers are to further their own interests.

          Of course, its the interpretation of the rule that allows this behaviour.

        2. What Vettel said after qualifying was that he continued to push on his lap after the yellow flag zone, he did not say he did the same as Rosberg in the yellow zone. A driver does not have to abandon their lap because of yellow flags, they are free to slow done for the incident zone and then to resume pushing once they have passed a green flag.

      2. No driver has previously ever gotten pole on a lap that included double yellow flags.

        What you’re forgetting, that in the official document released by the FIA post Bianchi’s accident, sited that him failing to obey the direct wording on DWY, was partially to blame for his accident. One of the recommendations was to strongly police this rule.

        Jolyon Palmer was given a grid penalty and points on his licences in Austria for breaching this rule. Stop looking back beyond 2014 as that’s no longer relevant.

      3. @gt-racer, on the other hand, the Japanese GP also gave us a precedent for drivers being penalised for speeding through a yellow flag zone, even when the drivers in question did technically obey the rules by slightly lifting off the throttle.

        Back in 2009, Buemi crashed during Q2 and damaged his car, then decided to try and limp back to the pits to have his car repaired. The marshals started waiving single yellow flags, but six drivers – Button, Barrichello, Alonso, Sutil, Heidfeld and Kubica – were trying to complete a qualifying lap, with several drivers continuing at speed through the yellow flag zone.

        After qualifying, all six of those drivers were investigated – Heidfeld and Kubica were cleared after they were shown to have slowed significantly, but Button, Barrichello, Alonso and Sutil were all given grid penalties for “failing to slow down sufficiently under yellow flags”. Even though those drivers did lift off the throttle in that instance, the FIA stated that they felt that those four drivers should have slowed down more than they did when going through the crash zone given the poor visibility caused by Buemi kicking up a lot of dust and debris.

      4. Well @gt-racer, some commenters are calling for a more strict application of the rules, using Rosberg as just an example. It doesn’t matter that he kept pole, but not slowing down enough under yellow/double yellow coule prove dramatic. I don’t have to remind you that the FIA blamed Bianchi for his crash in Japan for the same offence as Rosberg.

    12. Anyone debating whether Rosberg should have got a penalty or not is sadly missing the point. And Vettle and Hamilton have demonstrated their understanding of the big picture by speaking up. Whatever the telemetry says, the simple fact of the matter is, in all racing categories, double waved yellows means slow down and prepare to stop. Rosberg was not entitled to be going flat out until AFTER the green light, but even that is not the point. The point is that public failure of the FIA to put safety ahead of ‘racing’ sends the wrong message to every racing driver – from Cadets Karters though to F1.

      Charlie Whitting and his cronies need to move aside and let younger dynamic profession people who can demonstrate a clear understanding of the modern F1 arena take over. We have already had one death as a direct consequence of his in ability to make the right decision! The most unfortunate irony of that is the ‘FIA’ came out and said that Bianci did not slow down enough for the double yellow flags !! And yet less than two years later, the very same FIA decide that it is ok to do a ‘purple’ sector under a double waved yellow flag…unbelievable!!

      Charlie – it is not ok to have a truck on any track, let alone a track where Aquaplaning is evitiable – without a safety car,

      Charlie – it is not ok to ban radio messages and by doing so cause cars to crash from brake failure, like Perez in Austria

      Charlie – we the fans don’t want to hear drivers coached on how to drive or on race craft, but we do want the drivers to be able to race, and have help from the team to deal with technical issues. The modern F1 car is complicated because of decisions made by the FIA, so apply common sense ( do you have any ) and let the teams and drivers race and stop being so anal.

      Charlie – I am bored of your inexplicable random inconsistent pathetic attempts to manage the drivers and track limits. Make it simple – either let them do what they want – as long as they can all use the same track then it’s fair – or sort out the technology to enforce it properly for every corner.

      FIA – stop this nonsense with the halo. It would not have saved Biancis life, and probably would not have helped Massa in his accident.

      Bernie – I do get that perhaps you are throwing the randomness of track limits in to spice things up and give us something to debate…I.e add interest to the sport, and if that’s the case then fair enough. BUT in matters of safety, there should be NO debate. SAFETY MUST BE THE FIRST CONSIDERATION IN ANY DECISION MADE IN MOTORSPORT and F1 has the responsibility to be seen doing this AT ALL TIMES.

      1. Very well said

      2. Hmmm…so Nico only saw disappearing double yellows once he got there, and did lift appropriately to the single yellow according to those who have all the data. Why would the stewards penalize Nico for something he didn’t do wrong? Was there ever a stalled car or a marshal or a tractor on track, or in fact had FA moved along? Had FA been stalled I’m sure there would have been a VSC or given the closeness to the end of the session, likely a red flag.

        What I think is really rich though about your commentary @CV is that you can in the same post capitalize SAFETY AT ALL TIMES and yet slough off the halo, which the FIA has started to win over drivers like LH, because you claim like some clairvoyant it wouldn’t have saved two people in past incidents, without any consideration for what it can do in the future.

    13. IMO drivers should have to use the pit lane speed limiter through the double yellow section – easy fix, same rule for everyone. Under single yellow no acceleration, if the speed increases between the 1st yellow and the green flag, if they slow for a corner then that the fastest they can go – they already have cruise control on the cars for the constant speed aero testing. But then this is all way to simple for F1

      1. I was thinking that they should slow down to VSC speeds (i.e. treat yellows as a pseudo VSC). Actually, maybe race control could just do that, when an incident requires a yellow flag, that a VSC is automatically issued. No “interpretation” required.

    14. Anyone want’s to give their guesses what concocted rules the strategy group comes up with in their meeting to “simplify the rules”? While I do think streamlining the rules and having a look at what works and what is overly complicated would be great, the strategy group certainly is not the body to do it. Remember them “fixing” regular helmet changes?

    15. woa, a bit of a shocker somewhat tied to F1 – somebody kidnapped Bernie’s mother in law (in Brazil) and is demanding some 50 million ransom!

      1. Don’t worry…Bernie will negotiate a deal :)

      2. Appalling. Apparently no good news can came out of Brazil nowadays.

      3. Since I hate Bernie Ecclestone, I will not comment any further on this matter. ;)

        1. ColdFly F1 (@)
          26th July 2016, 11:19

          I feel sorry for this woman though; who could be his daughter.

      4. They must have confused her with some other billionairre’s mother-in-law.

        I’m not doubting Bernie’s affection for his (18 year junior) mother-in-law but I think they may not have realised that Bernie has a diode attached to his wallet – cash only flows one way…

    16. I’m amazed people try to equate this with the 107% rule.

      One actually has a provision for discretion due to special circumstances – couldn’t get much more special that being unable to complete laps because of red flags.

      The other is a hard and fast rule BUT the definition of “slow and be prepared to stop” is the issue as it is so open to “interpretation” by stewards. Given the stopping power of these cars, washing off 20kmh probably gets into the realm of being able to stop in a very short distance. Whether or not Nico was in breach of the rules depended entirely on that and nothing else – the stewards decided that he had sufficiently obeyed the definition of the rules – nobody was getting favouritism, there was no conspiracy – they concluded he obeyed the rules.

      However – now that we’ve seen just how little is required (twice in a few races) in terms of speed reduction – I think I agree with the Drivers who have raised this – maybe the rule definition needs to be clarified (and be more specific) to ensure safety is maximised more because at the moment, the rules really don’t seem to require a big enough reduction in speed to be absolutely certain of protecting marshals or drivers in situations like these.

    17. “Esteban got penalised by five seconds and we still need to check the data and the timing but I think the five seconds were given because the gesture (by Hamilton) was done, not because he was holding him up.”

      Haas and Gutierrez need to let this drop now. The fact is Hamilton was about 1.8s ahead of Rosberg when Gutierrez got the first blue flag, at the end of the lap the gap was 0.7s. He held him up, plain and simple. Hamilton made a gesture which many many there drivers have made in the past (most famously David Coulthard). It’s not right, but these things happen in the heat of the moment.

      1. I also think they need to have a good look at their data before making too much noise @geemac.

        The comment does explain why Guttierez feels so baldy done by with Lewis flipping a bird at him, but really, Hamilton lost a good second, and clarly not all of that was because Esteban did not have anywhere to go.

    18. Going back to Nico’s pole lap … I am a bit mystified how anyone can go PURPLE under double waved yellows and get away with it.

      I really am beginning to think that the FIA is a farce, they seem incapable of policing their own rules with any consistency or fairness.

      1. It’s literally just written above,…

      2. it’s all about where on track and for how long you actually have the flags active grumpy.

      3. ColdFly F1 (@)
        26th July 2016, 12:58

        read the article; it’s explained there.

    19. I really like that quote from Arrivabene. I was thinking about the incident a fair bit and that was not championship winning defending from Verstappen. Sure it worked, this time, but it was risky, and could have cost him a lot. Admittedly he’s not defending the championship so he can be given some slack there.

      While it’s been a popular opinion lately to criticise Raikkonen’s lack of aggression I was certainly impressed by his ability to bring the car home in a situation where he would have been absolutely fuming. If anything the incident showed how great he can be with a compromised car, still looking for opportunities for an overtake.

      A lesser driver I think certainly would have just dive-bombed Verstappen out of spite at that point and thrown away those points.

    20. I support complicated rules. If they help reduce costs, improve safety and make races more interesting, then they are good for F1. Also, detailed rules leave less room for various interpretations, which ensures that the stewards have less power and all drivers and teams are treated equally.

      Lack of rules has been the cause of countless controversies and scandals in F1. Some rules are still incomplete or missing. Rosberg’s pole lap is a good example of that as the stewards, not the rulebook, decided how fast a driver was allowed to go in a yellow flag zone. And the last qualifying showed that additions to the 107 per cent rule are necessary, too.

      On the other hand, some rules, such as the one that forbids the drivers to change their helmet liveries during a season, should be dropped because they add nothing to the sport. Simplification is not the answer, revision is.

      1. Exactly that @girts

        Simplification is not the answer, revision is.

        Also, making a clean slate and decide on rules that can either be enforced without upsetting everyone and making things ridiculous or dropping such rules if they cannot or the FIA doesn’t want to do so.

    21. I think that Rosberg’s time should have been deleted, as with everyone else in the past who has managed to improve their time while driving through a double waved yellow sector of the track. I’m not accusing Rosberg of anything. He managed to exploit a loophole in the rules. That’s not cheating. That just shows how bad the rule is. The rules for this need to be made clearer for the future.

      1. @ultimateuzair So you think his laptime should have been deleted even though he did nothing wrong. A loophole is as said a hole in the regulations and by definition not illegal. Too many people are shoving the unclear rules on Rosberg whereas he is not the first and won’t be the last to find or use a loophole. The only reason Rosberg is being treated as the villain is because it took pole from Hamilton. If thise were to happen during 2013 and Alonso took pole from Vettel everybody would be cheering how clever he was…

      2. Sigh @ultimateuzair. You show that you are misguided there. The ruling was nicely in line with previous cases we have had in the last decade, where the FIA also accepted that lifting from the gas significantly is in line with following the rules and these times have been let standing.

        Being a Hamilton fan does not mean you have to keep repeating how Rosberg is a bad driver, and then when he is not so bad, claim it is all unfair etc. Hamilton certainly doesn’t need it.

    22. Regarding the yellow flags infringement and lack of penalty……

      I really hope Phillipe Bianchi and his attorneys are watching this farce and taking notes.

      1. Yeah they’ll note that the track was drying by the lap and was almost completely dry, that there was no stalled car off the track, no marshals, no tractor, therefore when FA moved along they stopped the flags. So how does this relate to Bianchi? Since Bianchi’s accident they’ve only bolstered the rules for safety with the VSC under the same circumstances as he experienced. The incidents are night and day different.

        1. @robbie Spoken like a true armchair analyst!

          1. Of course. And commenting on the actual analysis results in the realization that there was no yellow flag infringement therefore no penalty required.

            1. At least with you @robbie, one is able to ‘agree to disagree’ without it deteriorating into a slug fest!

              Ok…… back to my own armchair analyzing!

            2. @stubbornswiss Lol oh I thought you were armchair analyzing ME, hence nothing to get back to as you were still there, at least, according to my analysis. 🙂

    23. I’m inclined to defend Rosberg to be honest. I don’t think it was entirely safe, but he did do what was expected. The flags were waving in a braking zone, so he effectively lifted and coasted to the corner, when he arrived at the apex and could see no more flags down the road he was straight back on his pace so only lost a small amount of time owing to the flags waving in a braking zone.

      It may have been a cheeky move to arrive at the corner with a high apex speed, but he only got back on the power again because the flags weren’t waving after the corner, had they been he could have continued to slow but he didn’t need to.

      1. William Jones
        28th July 2016, 1:51

        Forget Rosberg, forget this incident. Ask yourself, if Maldonado is heading into a corner at 20kph lower than full racing speed on a drying track and you or your son is a marshall out of the safety zone, hence the double waved yellows are you still happy he lifted enough?

        1. Forget Maldonado heading into a corner at 20kph slower on a drying track with our sons laying in danger, what if I gave you an ice cream cone? Are you happy then?

          Just because I can agree with A doesn’t mean it equals B.

    24. Formula 1: Lewis Hamilton still battling back from ‘rock bottom’

      By Andrew Benson
      Chief F1 writer

      The article starts with a picture that says:
      “Lewis Hamilton has won five races this season, Nico Rosberg has won four”

      Stopped reading….

      1. Yeah I couldn’t get past the ‘rock bottom’ bit.

    25. I don’t think anybody should be blaming Rosberg for being able to exploit such a rule. If anybody is to blame, it is those who come up with the rules in the first place. These teams and drivers are amongst the best in the world purely because they are able to find these loopholes, and use it to their advantage, regardless of whether you believe it is ‘sporting’ or not.

      That’s not to say that I feel that Rosberg should not have been penalised though. I just want this loophole shut because it could be quite dangerous otherwise. But like several other cases over the Hungarian Grand Prix weekend, I was scratching my head over the decisions made.

      1. These are the reasons I don’t believe Rosberg as the driver did anything wrong. Dancing to the limit of the rules is what brings results. In Monaco when Hamilton cut the chicane and then closed the door on Ricciardo, it didn’t look especially sporting, but under the rules it was fine and his execution of that manoeuvre won him the race.

        When looking at what Hamilton and Vettel say they aren’t really having a go at Rosberg, they are saying it sets a bad precedent. Rosberg gave as little a lift as he could and was ready to rescue his lap if the flags were clear after the corner. That’s not really as cautious as you should be in most situations, but in this scenario he lifted and coasted in the braking zone, so wasn’t losing a great deal of time compared to normal braking, and then upon arriving towards the apex could see the rest of the track wasn’t flagged and was clear to carry on with his lap. If there had still been flags beyond the corner the lap would have been ruined or he would have been penalised accelerating as he actually did if there had been flags waving, but there weren’t.

        The problem will be if drivers take the wrong lesson from this case and push hard still in other, less safe scenarios.

        1. What loophole? What exploitation? Nico followed the rules. The end. Drivers will not take ‘the wrong lesson’ from this, as they would have done the same thing Nico did, and they will all continue to obey the warnings on the steering wheel, the flags on the track, and take info from the radio too. Nothing will change from this as Nico did nothing wrong nor is the system broken. They saw FA go off, assumed he had stalled, brought out flags, then quickly saw he was still mobile and then lifted the flags, no people or equipment ever on the track. LH and SV saying Nico couldn’t have known if a marshal was on track is ridiculous. Of course he would have all all the indications in the world from his steering wheel, the actual flags, not to mention there would have been a VSC or red flags and the session simply ended, let alone the team would have told him to abort.

          1. @robbie

            “What loophole? What exploitation?”

            I have no idea because I didn’t say either of those things.

            1. Sorry should have said @craig-o You can’t always reply directly below the one you are replying to.

    26. I don’t want to comment on the ruling by the stewards. It’s all done and dusted, they applied the rules as they are currently interpreted, lets move on. But I do think it’s an opportunity to have a look at whether that interpretation of the rules is acceptable.

      From my understanding the double yellow flags are to indicate a significant hazard on the track, that requires a significant reduction of speed. Sometimes – like on Saturday, that hazard is a spun car. In that case it’s perfectly safe to roll into the corner a bit, then accelerate out one you can see the spun car. But my point is this – HOW DID NICO KNOW?

      For all he knows, Alonso spinning was due to trying to avoid someone on the track, or a significant piece of debris. As a driver you’ve seen a car by the side of the track, but two yellow flags tell you nothing about what you may not have seen. To mind mine the only reasonable way to ensure that what they’re doing is safe is to follow the rules to the letter – and be prepared to stop. As other have mentioned VSC speeds, or the pit lane limiter seem to be reasonable to consider in this case.

      As a motorcyclist I’m more aware than most of how easy it is to make assumptions on the roads. While doing a road safety course the instructor asked me why I was slowing for a corner. There are two main reasons: 1) to make the corner, and 2) to be able to avoid and hazard that I may not be able to see yet. His next question changed the way I looked at what a safe speed was: are you going slow enough to avoid the cyclist that’s fallen over? All to frequently it’s not what we can see that causes the problem, but what we’ve missed. Nico – and any other driver – doesn’t know what the hazard ahead is, only that there is one, and in my view should therefore slow to a speed suitable for the worst case scenario.

      However, with these short qualifying sessions, and the scope for a competitors qualifying to be ruined by factors outside of both theirs and their teams control, maybe the whole format needs to be able to take this into account.

      1. Best post on this topic. Last Saturday was the perfect time to set the records straight on what should be acceptable when double yellows are out. Your post should be COTD so more people see what common sense looks like.

        PS. It’s no coincidence that i also ride a motorbike.

    27. I would glad to chance for Vandoorne in Manor Team.

    28. Robbie in response to your first comment below – the whole incident was under double waved yellows – are you already making up another flag I.e disappearing double yellows – there is no such thing!! – and that is why Rosberg should have been penalised! He had no idea what was around turn nine as he kept his foot in – and had there of been a marshal running across the road we would have been having a very different conversation. Furthermore the precedent (for all categories of racing) that has now been set by the hapless FIA, says it’s now ok for the driver to risk other people’s safety under a double yellow flag!! The rule “slow down and be prepared to stop” was made for a reason ! SAFETY !! and quite frankly taking three hours to even admit that the issue was under investigation and then rendering that BS verdict is tantamount to professional misconduct by the FIA.

      To your second point about the halo – look at the facts. Why did the FIA come. Up with the halo? – because of what happened to Bianci.

      Would the halo have saved his life ? – clearly not hitting that truck in those conditions was only going to have one outcome!

      Why are the FIA working so hard to get driver support for the halo ? – so they can demonstrate that they take safety in the sport seriously.

      Well in my opinion, if the FIA did put SAFETY FIRST AT ALL TIMES then they would not have allowed a truck on track, in the direct line of a corner known for aquaplaning in those conditions ‘without a safety car’ and they would not have allowed a purple sector under double wave yellow flags, and they would not have allowed marshals to run across a track to move a car in the middle of the road without a safety car – Germany 2014.

      Robbie (@robbie)
      26th July 2016, 13:39

      Hmmm…so Nico only saw disappearing double yellows once he got there, and did lift appropriately to the single yellow according to those who have all the data. Why would the stewards penalize Nico for something he didn’t do wrong? Was there ever a stalled car or a marshal or a tractor on track, or in fact had FA moved along? Had FA been stalled I’m sure there would have been a VSC or given the closeness to the end of the session, likely a red flag.

      What I think is really rich though about your commentary @CV is that you can in the same post capitalize SAFETY AT ALL TIMES and yet slough off the halo, which the FIA has started to win over drivers like LH, because you claim like some clairvoyant it wouldn’t have saved two people in past incidents, without any consideration for what it can do in the future.

      1. @CV You are simply factually wrong. There were no constant double yellows or he simply would have been told his lap was done by his team and he would have remained off throttle. FA spun, flags came out, they quickly saw FA move along under his own steam, Nico obeyed what he had to, the danger quickly gone, and away he went.

        As to Bianchi and halos…we can’t reverse time, but going forward F1 now employs VSC’s, and a halo can only help in the future in certain circumstances.

        1. Robbie the fact that we are even debating whether Rosberg should have been penalised is the fundamental problem here. The right decision for a purple sector under a double waved yellow flag is a penalty – End Of. That would have sent the right message out to the rest of the racing world and would have reinforced the importance of the double yellow flag. Now we have yet another mess created by our very own ‘Farcical Inept Association’. The fact that it took them three hours to even start investigating the issue is an equally bigger Farce!! Clearly the drivers agree with me which is why they are demanding clarification this weekend !!

          WRT to The VSC and Bianci and the Halo – well once again clearly the drivers agree with me – they voted it out. I do agree that when used appropriately the VSC is a good way to stop people benefiting from a safety car, however it should not have taken a death to innovate the VSC and more importantly, under the conditions of the Bianci accident, a VSC would have NOT have been appropriate – especially if you only have to lift by a tenth of a second under a double waved yellow flag !!!

    29. I don’t understand why they are not able to come up with something concrete here that will provide a driver absolutely no incentive to drive fast in a double yellow sector. Here are couple of options that they could consider:

      1. Treat it as virtual safety car in that sector. You are given a set delta to drive to.

      2. For anyone passing through the double yellow, their lap time cannot be better than a previously set lap time. Make the ruling for the entire lap. Treat it as if the driver went all fours outside the track.

      1. They have something concrete and they used it. They flew double yellows very briefly while they thought FA was stalled and then they quickly saw he moved along on his own steam and so lifted the flags. The system worked perfectly as was Nico’s reaction to the flags.

        1. Sorry Robbie but clearly not. Having blundered on the original decision the FIA had no choice but to reinforce SAFETY by changing the rule to double yellow means Red in qualifying. A rule change would not have been necessary if they had applied the original long standing proven rule correctly in the first place!!

    30. Those who suggest Hamilton and Vettel had something to gain to making mischief out of nothing are missing the point. They only spoke up after the event was finished and there was no capital to be made by getting Rosberg penalised. Like most sane people they want to have as safe a sport as is possible, given the high speeds involved, particularly for the unpaid marshals who are most at risk in a situation such as this. As the champions of the past 6 years they are the sport’s figureheads and have a responsibility to set the tone and question the governing bodies if they are inconsistent in defining or interpreting the rule book. Jackie Stewart was the historical equivalent.

      There will always be drivers who stretch credibility to the absolute limit and Rosberg has been shown to be one of these, we don’t want to be discussing an injury that happens because of his actions or that of others who are forced to copy him in order to compete. Why he does it is fairly obvious, he’s in the fastest car, has been for the past two and a half seasons, and so far he’s been beaten by his team-mate to the championship. I imagine that isn’t easy to take, especially coming off the back of giving Michael Schumacher driving lessons for three seasons.

    Comments are closed.