Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Hockenheim, 2012

Rosberg will also have five-place grid penalty

2012 German Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Hockenheim, 2012Nico Rosberg will take a five-place penalty on the grid for the German Grand Prix.

Mercedes found a problem with his race gearbox after the British Grand Prix and it will have to be changed.

“Unfortunately we have to change my race gearbox here as a precaution after discovering an issue after Silverstone,” said Rosberg.

“So I will receive a five-place penalty which is a shame for our home race but I will push hard to gain a good result. As we have seen this season, a lot can happen in the race.”

Romain Grosjean also has a five-place grid penalty after Lotus found a gearbox problem on his car after the previous race.

2012 German Grand Prix

Browse all 2012 German Grand Prix articles

Image ?? Daimler/Hoch Zwei

26 comments on “Rosberg will also have five-place grid penalty”

  1. Wow. another gear box change. Isn’t it time to title contenders will suffer?

    1. Maybe they’re title contenders because they put more emphasis on reliability?

      1. Probably. However they might not much suffer from reliability but once failed, it would be very serious.

  2. OH NOOOOOOOOOO I placed Grosjean and Rosberg on the top 5 for this weekend’s prediction. Damn gearboxes!!! (That also means that Kimi, Vettel and Hamilton, my other top 5 this time, will get bad luck?… let’s see)

    1. You can change it until the qualifying.

  3. isn’t it time to get rid of this gearbox change penalty? surely there are better things to give grid penalty for than gearbox change.

    1. It feels silly, but how else are you going to enforce the gearbox rule? You can’t hand out fines, because the rule is meant as a cost-cutting measure and otherwise the rich teams will just gladly pay up. You could argue that the rule is unnecessary, because a gearbox doesn’t take that big a slice out of a teams budget, but you have to start somewhere.

      1. (@necrodethmortem thanks… fixed (well it’s going to be facepalm if my erased prediction gets better than this new one)

      2. I’m sure there are more important cost centres that can be looked at. I’m guessing its in everyone’s interest (safety et al) that the cars have a good functioning gearbox? The rule just seems silly to me

      3. I believe that the teams spend more money in ensuring the high quality of the gear boxes due to the penalty rule. I guess they will produce about 100 gear boxes (for example) and choose the best 5 out of them. When the margin for failure is very less, you will have to invest in high quality raw material, technicians, quality control procedures, high precision machines, etc. I wonder if cost cutting really happens in this situation.

      4. Drop Valencia!
        21st July 2012, 1:55

        The rule can be erased, it would simply force teams to run their “less than perfect” gearboxes, it would result in more nailbiting and more mechanical DNF’s just like in the old days, i think it would be an improvement.

    2. I wish they could have 1 free change like they had with the engine regulations a few years ago. It’ll help the drivers and won’t affect cost cutting.

    3. @dt it’d be better if it worked like the engines: 8 gearboxes per year and they can use them however they want. If they already used all 8 gearboxes and they need another one, then a grid penalty.

      1. @fer-no65 Fully agreed. Only I think 4 or 5 might be enough.

      2. It seems to me that someone makes that suggestion on this website every time any driver gets a gearbox penalty change. I’ve made it before myself. It makes complete sense, of course, but it’s not going to change until the end of this season at the earliest.

        1. @estesark I remember I said the same last year. So they missed their chance :P!

  4. Can anyone explain to me why gearbox changes, right from 1st race of the season, are assessed with grid penalties? I just don’t get it. To me, it would make FAR more sense to set a limit on the number of new units allowed per season, then begin assessing penalties after that number is exceeded. The same as they do with engines.

    1. That’s exactly how it work, the gearbox has to last 4 or 5 races (can’t remember which) and any extra change gets a grid penalty.

      1. Which is different to how the engine rules work! With engines, you just have eight you can use whenever you want throughout the season. Take a ninth and you have a penalty.

    2. That would pile all the penalties up at the end of the season, which would just distort the results in a different way–it’s probably better to spread the gearbox penalties out, if you have to have them. Would teams swap new and used gearboxes in and out like they do engines if they were allowed to?

      1. That would pile all the penalties up at the end of the season

        @pelican it’s okay with the engines, and it doesn’t happen that much anyway. It’d not happen with gearboxes either.

      2. @pelican, Fair point, I hadn’t thought of it that way, who cares how many penalties they get if they have already locked in the championship ?

  5. Wasn’t the way the gearbox restrictions work (1 box for 5 races) a FOTA proposal rather than an FIA proposal?

    I also recall reading that it was FOTA who voted to remove the joker change (Which allowed your 1st change to go without penalty) which was in place untill this season.

  6. They analise the engine oil, looking for particles that shoundnt be in the mix, if they find them then its time for a new gear box

  7. I hate this rule

  8. A shame but it shouldn’t upset things for him too much.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.