Rosberg stewards ‘had all the necessary data’

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Monte-Carlo, 2014In the round-up: Former F1 racer Derek Warwick, who was on the stewards’ panel at the Monaco Grand Prix, said they had all the information they needed to make the right call on Nico Rosberg’s controversial moment at Mirabeau.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Warwick urges Lewis to ‘man up’ as British steward speaks for first time on clearing Rosberg in Monaco (Daily Mail)

“We had all Mercedes’s data, including Lewis [Hamilton’s] data to overlay on Nico’s. We had the FIA data. We had onboard shots, overhead shots, circuit shots. We had throttle traces, braking traces, everything we needed to make, hopefully, the right decision.”

Christian Horner Red Bull raced with Mercedes – Horner (BBC)

“It is the first time we have raced Mercedes this year. Particularly in the last third of the race, Dan was the quickest car on the track so we can take a lot of confidence from that.”

Recent progress genuine – Marussia (Autosport)

“I don’t want to say that we are able to score points every race because it’s not real. I would say that now we are able to fight with Sauber.”

Eric Boullier: “The target is really to be in the top eight all the time…” (Adam Cooper’s F1 Blog)

“It was going to suit us in Monaco and suit us in Montreal, and Austria as well because it’s a medium downforce track.”

Surtees on the Monaco GP (MotorSport)

John Surtees: “I have no doubt about Lewis Hamilton’s driving ability, but I didn’t like what I saw and heard from Monaco. I can understand the frustration that Lewis must have felt in not having that opportunity on the last lap of qualifying to get pole. But I think his reaction to his team-mate and team was wrong.”

German players ‘shocked’ by sponsor car crash – Bierhoff (Reuters)

“Germany international [footballers] Julian Draxler and Benedikt Hoewedes were passengers in the vehicles driven by German Touring Car (DTM) driver Pascal Wehrlein, who hit the two men, and Formula One driver Nico Rosberg.”

Pacing the pack (ESPN)

“For some reason [Hamilton] is very secretive about his hair cut at the moment and always wears a hat, but as a photographer that makes you even keener to get a photo – just like if a team is trying to conceal a part of its car. He’s been growing his hair back for four or five races, and on the grid he seems absolutely obsessed with getting his hat on before anyone can get a picture.”

Caterham Seven Kobayashi edition launched (Evo)

“Kobayashi has worked with the manufacturer to add his own unique styling tweaks to the model.”

The Stage Is Set (Sky)

Martin Brundle: “It’s certainly going to be very difficult for [Toto Wolff and Niki Lauda] both not to get dragged into a very delicate situation and I can easily foresee this becoming a four-way dynamic. Don’t forget it was Niki who was the pivotal force in bringing Lewis to Mercedes in 2012 when he wore him down with hours of persuasion in his hotel room in Singapore. Not that Lewis is complaining about that.”

Hamilton-Rosberg saga like a marriage without love (The Telegraph)

“In one corner there is Hamilton, from the council house in Stevenage, who drives on emotion, who is prepared to take all the risks, who is minded to say what he believes when he believes he has been wronged. And in the other there is Rosberg, who grew up as the son of multi-millionaire world champion in Monaco, who drives on knowledge, who calculates the risks first, who is clever enough to talk his way out of controversy.”


Comment of the day

@GeeMac is conflicted about visiting the Monaco Grand Prix:

Whenever I see fan videos of the Monaco Grand Prix I always get two very strong feelings when I consider attending the race.

The first is that, as a passionate fan of the sport, I would love to go to because nowhere else can you get so close to the cars as they thread their way through the historic streets.

The second is that, should I go, the experience would be ruined by the hoards of posers, hangers on and nouveau riche chavs who seem to be the target market of the race.
Monaco Grand Prix


John Surtees, Ferrari 158, Edenbridge, 2014

John Surtees drove the Ferrari 158 he won the world championship in 50 years ago at a special event in Edenbridge, Kent on Monday.

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris, Hughes, Silverkeg and Danny11!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

A gearbox problem for Michael Schumacher helped Damon Hill give Williams some cheer with their first victory of the 1994 season. A full article on this race will appear here later today.

Images © Daimler/Hoch Zwei, Jonathan Sharpe

Advert | Go Ad-free


148 comments on Rosberg stewards ‘had all the necessary data’

1 2 3
  1. D (@f190) said on 29th May 2014, 0:19

    Im just not sure how I feel about Warwicks comment. He may talk some sense, but I can’t help but feel having a little dig at a driver can’t be right. Ok Hamilton has basically said they we’re wrong, so I have nothing against the data comment. The “man up” however seems like he’s too personally involved/almost taking sides. I don’t know, maybe I’m reading too much into it, but it doesnt strike me as someone whos 100% impartial. Im not saying this had an impact in Monaco, but it wont help in any future cases involving Hamilton.

    • Paul Sainsbury said on 29th May 2014, 0:25

      Agreed, and since even from within the Mercedes team itself there apparently now is serious doubt, if not outright acceptance of Rosberg’s guilt, this is rather worrying for the credibility of future decisions by the stewards.

      • Kimoni Nakamoto (@) said on 29th May 2014, 1:33

        Citation needed.

        • JackJ said on 29th May 2014, 7:32


          • Paul Sainsbury said on 29th May 2014, 10:10

            Hi everyone. This came from the replies Mark Hughes of ‘Motorsport’ made in response to comments made on his race report:

            The comment I found telling from Hughes was ‘Even inside the team, there are those who will tell you off the record that they suspect that it was indeed deliberate’.

            And then, in response to to a comment quoting various team members who had at first supported Nico:

            ‘As for including Lauda and Wolff as those insisting it wasn’t deliberate. Come on – what else are they going to say publicly? They are Mercedes. And at least one of those admitted off record that he suspected it was deliberate.’

            So, either Toto or Niki has said in private to Mark Hughes of Motorsport/Sky, that he knows believes Rosberg’s actions to have been deliberate.

          • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 29th May 2014, 10:54

            Just because as few people are suspicious, doesn’t mean the team itself is suspicious. As for Lauda/Wolff, they may have had their suspicions at first, but they’re also allowed to change their minds.

          • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 29th May 2014, 11:09

            Is an article with this quote even remotely balanced?

            That incident, which if you believe – as almost every other single driver in the paddock did

            Funny how no-one else is claiming this.

          • I think you’ll find Mark Hughes is claiming this, and he said theres alot of other people in the paddock who’ve also told him the same but dont want to be quoted. He also said Warrick himself said there was somthing not qute right with a part of the data, and that atleast one of the Merc bosses thinks it could have been deliberate, as well as engineers within the Merc team, who are far better placed to judge their driver and car.

            He is a respected F1 journo and part of the Sky team, if you dont trust him to give us the ‘word on the street’, i dont know who you can trust.

          • leotef (@leotef) said on 29th May 2014, 13:30

            @Dave, not nitpicking here, but for the sake of argument in your own terms of balance, the citation doesn’t insist nor imply Merc as a team suspects it as deliberate. And re Niko/Toto, yes you are right they can change their judgement with maybe more data or input, say from guilty to innocent. But vice versa.
            You don’t have to try bring every other saying from the other side of camp. Why questions like this arise is because the case has been ruled as such, and to keep it balanced, counter to the ruling opinions are being brought in and assessed.

        • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 29th May 2014, 9:57

          Indeed. If there is something which has been written by credible journalists with credible sources floating round that says that members of the team themselves have doubts about Nico’s conduct I would like to see it.

      • AU Fan said on 29th May 2014, 8:19

        Source please ‘Paul Sainsbury’? Re: Team beliefs within Merc?

        I completley understand Waricks comments as Hamilton is repeatedly rejecting their findings, and by doing so either calling Warick & the other stewards stupid or a liar. Kudos to Warick for trying to give him a chance to change his attitude & not just calling him a goose..

        I really think Hamiltion needs a sports psychologist, not a bunch of ‘yes men’ marketing clowns surrounding him & riding on his success to get $$$ themselves, or he is going to implode big time sooner rather than later.

        Hopefully he just quits all this drivel & lets his driving do the talking. We know he’s capable of driving as well as anyone, IF he’s not focusing on making excuses or thinking up conspiracies instead. Time will tell whether the cycle repeats or if Monaco 2014 proves to be a stepping stone in Hamilton’s mind (& hopefully actual) management.

        • The Blade Runner (@thebladerunner) said on 29th May 2014, 10:14

          I have sympathy with DW’s comments too. This was a difficult call for the stewards and by continuing with his own comments Lewis is effectively criticising their decision.

          Many of us find ourselves in the midst of a conundrum: Lewis’ current demeanour (surly, grump, petulant – call it what you will) is slowly but surely destroying his relationship with Nico but is making the Championship more exciting. The Prost/Senna comparisons are indeed apt. The negative is that if he does win the WDC, anf I still think he will, his off-track actions will have soured it for many of us.

          • dex said on 29th May 2014, 21:33

            You won’t have to worry. Lewis will win in Canada (he has won 3 times already) and Nico can only win at a circuit that is impossible to overtake on or if Lewis DNF!

        • Paul Sainsbury said on 29th May 2014, 10:45

          Please see my post above.

          • Kimoni Nakamoto (@) said on 29th May 2014, 11:56

            The article you reference contains only unattributed “quotes” and vague claims that everybody thought it was deliberate. Anyone can claim that unnamed figures said anything they want “off the record”. It shows zero evidence to support the notion that there is “serious doubt or outright acceptance of Rosberg’s guilt” within Mercedes and adds nothing of substance to the debate.

          • ” Anyone can claim that unnamed figures said anything they want “off the record””

            Mark Hughes isnt ‘anyone’, he has been in F1 for a long time and is well respected. He also has no agenda.

          • Kimoni Nakamoto (@) said on 30th May 2014, 19:16


            Argument by appeal to authority is never going to invalidate a perfectly valid point. Lrn2logic. And you don’t think F1 journalists have a vested interest in creating hyped-up stories out of nothing? Ha.

      • GB (@bgp001ruled) said on 31st May 2014, 1:46

        man, your post should be deleted! younare citing something false! that you believe random answers to random comments, doesnt maje them true!

    • I am not sure actually. I thought it sounded more like he was giving an advice to Hamilton as a more experienced friend and was trying to encourage him.

      • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 30th May 2014, 12:03

        I don’t know about Lewis, but I expect my friends to give me advice privately. I don’t expect them suggesting I should “man up” talking to the press. There’s nothing friendly about it.

    • David BR2 said on 29th May 2014, 1:56

      Agreed too. Warwick’s comments were strange. He said they had all the data imaginable, but what actually formed his decision were Rosberg’s answers to his questions: “Did I have doubts in my mind, of course I did. But he gave me the answers I needed. I know there are conspiracy theories but you will not find a more honest driver in grand prix racing than Nico.” So in the end it seems the decision was down to one man’s assessment of how honest Rosberg was being. When you combine that with his gratuitous remark about Hamilton ‘manning up’ and ‘concentrating’ on Canada, the professionalism seems fairly creaky.

      I think all of this is irrelevant though. FIA should just have a regulation that a driver spinning off, causing an accident etc. that causes yellow flags and stops another driver setting a fast lap gets a grid penalty (sat 3 places for one driver, 5 for multiple drivers). Treat it like obstruction – nobody needs to prove intent in that case.

      • Dizzy said on 29th May 2014, 2:45

        FIA should just have a regulation that a driver spinning off, causing an accident etc. that causes yellow flags and stops another driver setting a fast lap gets a grid penalty

        so you woudl have drivers penalized for pushing hard & making a genuine mistake?

        utterly absurd, drivers should be encouraged to run flat out on the limit in qualifying, not put off by knowing that any mistake will land them a penalty.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 8:13

        Great. Automatic penalties to in effect decide the race and possibly the WDC in favour of Hamilton in this case. That would have all fans and drivers satisfied, right David?

        Sure enough, when there is ANY doubt that is was or wasn’t deliberate the stewards should NOT interfere with the outcome of the race rather than what you propose and interfere anytime you can’t be 100% sure of it being innocent. Already we see almost every move on track bring up investigations (investigate is ok-is, but surely not penalize everything), but it is RACING and that should be done by the drivers in the cars on track, not having everything decided in the office.
        Especially in Monaco, where it would have meant a sure walkaway victory for Hamilton and a race that would have lacked any tension what so ever and would have likely sealed the WDC prematurely as well, because Hamilton would have made an enormous step ahead from the only serious challenge to him this year.

        • David BR2 said on 29th May 2014, 16:08

          Okay, okay! Bad idea, maybe, fair enough. I just thought it might be better to remove having to prove intent, which is near impossible and always acrimonious, and treat the situation in the same way as obstruction, deliberate or not.

          The fact is with so few runs (because of the tire regulations) drivers going to the limit will always risk losing out anyhow. I agree it might seem unfair to penalize the attempt to go quickly, but it just seems less unfair than penalizing other drivers for that driver’s mistake.

          As for Hamilton-Rosberg at Monaco, I’d expected Rosberg to get pole and win anyhow. Maybe Hamilton would have fluffed his fast lap too, who knows? The bit that annoyed me (as a Hamilton supporter) was the strong impression Rosberg went off on purpose and then the celebration, which seemed in bad taste. But the suggestion above was meant generically not in response to that one incident.

          • DaveD (@daved) said on 29th May 2014, 22:46

            I agree with David BR2’s first comment. I think they SHOULD have a penalty for causing a yellow. Not for everyone, but for someone in the position of being in the lead and stopping others from running. It’s not an “automatic penalty” the way @bascb describes it any more than it’s an automatic pole position for a driver to get an good flying lap with say 2 minutes to go, and then causing a yellow to stop everyone else’s flying lap.
            If you look at the current system, it actually ENCOURAGES a driver in Nico’s position to do this. He already has the fastest time, so if he drives over the edge and gets lucky…good for him as he improves his time. If he drives over the edge and can’t control it..then good for him because he gets a yellow and stops everyone else’s flying lap. Why WOULDN’T he drive like an idiot? Even if you’re willing to assume it was an accident and not intentional.

            As for the stewards ruling that it was not intentional: They said the same thing about Nelson Piquet Jr.

            And Warwick himself admitted that him liking Nico’s answers pushed him towards his decision. He then went on to say what a great guy Nico was and how he would never do something like that. WTH??? So, we decide these things based on a popularity contest now? Are you serious?

            Maybe Lewis should stop criticizing the Stewards and be a “great guy” and buy them all a Rolex for Christmas so he can be “a great guy” too.

      • Bullfrog (@bullfrog) said on 29th May 2014, 8:32

        No, FIA should have fewer regulations and penalties.

        No doubt Hamilton (and Rosberg) will be invited to become a steward in the future. That’s a scary thought at the moment…

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 8:44

          Actually I think its great to have them there @bullfrog. Someone like Schumacher, or Prost, Mansell, Piquet and Lauda who clearly know all the tricks in the book would be perfect in getting behind what a driver is saying and finding what THEY might do on purpose.
          I think if we get Alonso in the future, or Vettel or Webber and possibly Rosberg too, they would really be good it. Just as much as the ideas of having a Brawn or Newey on the FIA side to guard over the rule book, because they know exactly what to look for!

    • Hamilfan (@hamilfan) said on 29th May 2014, 4:18

      @f190 @kimoninakamoto @leblep
      See the thing that irks me is that Warwick said in that article Nico had locked up his rears whereas Nico said earlier in an interview that he had locked up his fronts ( which is what I could see from the TV feed ) . The rear seemed planted to me . Did he lock both up ? I don’t know .

      • Erikhfp said on 29th May 2014, 7:25

        I initially thought he may have locked up the rears as it is a down hill part of the track and as soon as you hit the brakes the weight will shift even further forward and if you missed judged your braking you will lock up the rears. I don’t think there has to be tire smoke from the rears to indicate a lock up as we usually see with the front tires. I don’t know if there might be a video showing Rosberg’s rear tires but that is why I think the mistake is entirely plausible given the information that he tried to brake later and thus harder. My personal opinion if there is no tire smoke from the rears is that because of the downhill and the normal weight shift forward when the car brakes, the rear tires do no generate enough friction heat for the tire smoke to appear

        • BlueChris (@bluechris) said on 29th May 2014, 12:58

          In the video from the camera that saws the car to downhill you can see the back end sit tight and whatever ROS do with the steering wheel that car in front follows that commands perfectly ok with the rear stable…. then comes the front locking..

          I cannot decide what huppened.. in my eyes its obvius its not a mistake but 1st im not the man who is driving the car and 2nd even if i had all the data only ROS knows what really huppened deep inside his mind.

          • McKenzie (@mckenzie) said on 29th May 2014, 22:39

            I’m not sure either. All I have are doubts as do some professionals.

            In Scotland, the courts have a third option to either guilty or not guilty: not proven. In this case, I think the “not proven” verdict is appropriate. There is circumstantial evidence but not enough to convict.

          • DaveD (@daved) said on 29th May 2014, 22:49

            I’m with @mckenzie on this one! That is exactly how this should have been ruled.

      • AU Fan said on 29th May 2014, 8:34

        When he locked the rears is 1st, its when he started sawing at the wheel trying to correct the back before finally a front right locked too & he then realised he wasn’t making the corner & headed for the escape road.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 29th May 2014, 7:07

      Many drivers refused to say Rosberg just missed the braking point… Alonso and Kimi basically said “only Rosberg knows the truth” and it’s far from saying “it’s a genuine mistake”. The doubt bug is still there despite FIA’s decision and Nico just need to find a way to live with it until his autobiography comes out in 20 years time.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 8:21

        The thing is, unless you are completely satisfied that, yes it WAS intentionally, would you want to relegate one of only 2 guys realistically in the running for the race win and WDC battle to the back of the grid, in effect ending any hope of seeing a fight for the win in Monaco @jcost?

        Surely if the stewards could not find any, or couldn’t find enough convincing clues that it was intentional (and it would have had to be really GREAT thinking for the whole of it to be, as Burndle points out in his article), then the answers given by the driver upon close examination as well as previous behavior should play a role.
        Now if Rosberg starts making a habit of dodgy moves, like Schumacher did, the next time something happen, I am sure the Stewards will have a different outlook on things. But until that happens, any justice/ stewarding should rather be based on the principle that if in doubt, hold back.
        The fact he didn’t even receive a reprimand and Whiting stated that in reality there never was a good ground even to investigate, should be a pointer (and the decision being unanimous) to how satisfied the Stewards were that Rosberg had not had intention to disrupt qualifying.

        • JCost (@jcost) said on 29th May 2014, 11:02

          Spot on @bascb. I think stewards did want to penalize him because in case of fault it had to be something harsh. is it the right thing to do? Probably not and that’s why Lewis was so upset. He did feel Nico was unfair and walked away with it and some people are even trying to make Lewis the vilain…

          This is what I’ve just read, it’s from Autosport print edition issued today (Jonathan Noble):

          Wandering around the Monaco paddock in th hours after qualifying last weekend it was hard to find many people who were totally convinced that Nico Rosberg had made just a simple mistake. While the majority of drivers and team bosses pleaded the ‘Fifth Amendment’ for public declarations, that they were so cautious in proffering their true opinion said all you really needed to know. Indeed, when the microphones were put away, the notebooks closed up and the pens tucked away, it was clear there were a number of current drivers, former drivers and team bosses who had their suspicions Rosberg had run down the Mirabeau escape road on purpose.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 12:03

            I am not convinced that the stewards in this case actually would have wanted to give Rosberg some kind of penalty @jcost, because in that case they wouldn’t have concluded that there was “no evidence of an offence” as they did in their verdict, and could have given him a reprimand for something like “not paying enough attention when backing OUT of the escape road”

          • JCost (@jcost) said on 29th May 2014, 13:58

            Fair enough, “courts judge evidences after all”. However, lack of evidence alone can’t kill suspicion and it’s enough to taint one’s reputation. Next time Rosberg misses his braking point the whole thing will come out again… as I said, the bug is there, it’s like a virus under control. At some stages it will be dormant but it will eventually come to life again some point down the road.

            Rosberg could make the corner but he decided not to, apparently in order to decrease his chances of crashing the car. IMHO he did it to impede his fellow teammate from completing a potential pole lap. This is my opinion and I’ve chosen not to ignore what journalists who’ve been there last weekend are reporting, basically: “many people think Nico did it on purpose”. I can’t say whether my personal opinion is dragging me into believing any similar position or whether others bias is preventing them to see (what I see as) the obvious.

    • leotef (@leotef) said on 29th May 2014, 7:21

      So conjuring from the snippets of the interview, the critical role in ruling the case was what Nico answered to him and all that was exactly what he expected to hear, so steward’s verdict as innocent and case closed?
      And the data and evidence he is talking about seems have played as side dishes, with his firm belief and trust – which can be read as prejudice or biased perception by common – that Nico is the most honest person on current grid.
      And now considering personal views of top 4 drivers calling it as deliberate, guess its persuasive power is not as robust as it was thought to be.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 8:05

      Warwick having a dig at a driver here @f190? Did you even have a look at what he says in the article?

      Hamilton mentioned the data as if just looking at them, he could easily see that it was deliberate from Rosberg. The stewards had that same data, and more camera views and a Rosberg who was there and obliged to answer questions. And Warwick was the “driver steward”.
      So if anything, Warwick is defending himself for not being blind to what Hamilton could so easily recognize, defending himself from Hamilton accusing them of not seeing the obvious.

      Just look at exactly what he mentions:

      ‘I don’t want to give him advice really — he has won umpteen races and a world championship — but if I were to say anything it would be to man up and concentrate on the next race in Canada.’

      How is that a dig at Hamilton??

      • salcrich said on 29th May 2014, 8:45

        @bascb two reasoned, sensible and logical posts I would have you on my Jury – were I on trial, but some of the other posts on here genuinely scare me with their degree of absolute certainty about giving a guilty verdict. Thank goodness we have a multi person expert panel looking at a wealth of solid evidence in the stewards. We may not always like the steward system but in this case it was the only way to review the incident. For the record I don’t know the right answer but am prepared to abide by, and support, the stewards better informed view – we shall just have to wait for Rosberg’s book!

      • D (@f190) said on 29th May 2014, 11:39


        If I were to say anything to you it would be to man up and concentrate on your next comment.

    • but now why is this steward coming out many to justify his decisions as though he has something suspicious he is telling us. Shut up steward…. Let go on to Canada and talk on the track

    • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 30th May 2014, 12:27

      The “man up” remark is taken out of context. If you read the whole article it’s not as strong as when it’s posted just like that. It’s more like he’s saying: “Hamilton is a great driver and he can win the next races, so just let it go”

  2. Ed Marques (@edmarques) said on 29th May 2014, 0:28

    And even with all those data you don’t know if you made the right decision. That’s the point.
    Felipe Massa said that is very easy to lock up on purpose, the hard part would be prove that someone did that.
    We actually will never know if it was on purpose or not, and for that i can’t blame Hamilton for being mad about it.
    It’s funny how things goes when is about Hamilton…

    • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 29th May 2014, 0:31

      It’s also funny how many people forget the mantra ‘innocent until proven guilty’.

      Not a dig at anyone, just a general observation.

      • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 29th May 2014, 7:44

        We’re not in a court of law, where we use this standard because people’s lives are at stake. When it comes to punishing someone or sending him away to prison, we better be sure beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed the crime. This means that quite often someone who “did it” will walk away free. OJ Simpson and George Zimmerman spring to mind. Still, that’s far better than locking up innocent people. By the way, courts don’t pronounce people “innocent”, but “not guilty”. There is a subtle, but important difference there.

        However, the court of public opinion is a different matter. We know that it’s awfully easy to fake an incident and many drivers will attest to that. We know that convenient coincidences don’t happen too often and we’re allowed to make our own judgement.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 8:26

          True enough @maroonjack. Although in this case the Stewards clearly where satisfied of not only “not guilty” but of “innocent” and that is why the verdict mentions that there really was no infraction that took place and even less a penalty being on the cards.

          Off course the penalty for this move would have meant starting from the back in Monaco. Something that in racing terms would be a heavy punishment for Rosberg, for Mercedes and also meant more or less deciding the race (or even the season) in the stewards office. And all of that when the evidence according to the stewards did not point to any intention (see the stewards stated that they had “examined video and telemetry data from the team and [the] FIA and could find no evidence of any offence related to the Turn 5 incident”.)

          • MaroonJack (@maroonjack) said on 29th May 2014, 9:01

            No evidence of any offence means “not guilty”. It means that what happened was indistinguishable from a genuine error. I agree that Rosberg should not be punished. I certainly would not punish him, even if I think he did it on purpose.

            However I also agree with Massa, that it would be easy to lock up on purpose, especially for a good driver… and I think that Rosberg is a good driver.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 12:21

            @maroonjack, I must say that while I doubt he really did the whole thing on purpose, I wouldn’t be surprised if he did in fact managed to go into the escape road and back out timing it so as to be sure that yellow was there when Hamilton gets to Mireabeau (after finding how it went pear shaped at the run-up to that piece of track).

            And in line with your comment about Rosberg being a good driver, we could read Brundle’s mentioning of how hard staging the whole sequence would be to do as a huge endorsement of Nico’s skill. Indeed, I can imagine some of the drivers who privately were not too sure it was all just a mistake ranked him up a bit for skill and prowess as a guy who has what it takes to win!

    • Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 29th May 2014, 0:53

      Charlie Whiting proposed a solution that guarantee a non repeat of the situation seen in Monaco, if the yellow flags were showed in the last 3 minutes of the qualy session, the session then will be extended by one minutes, in the same article Whting reported based on the telemetry data that Roseberg braked 10 meter later than he did in his previous lap. The thing is that a mid season change in the regulations tells something…. it also requires the agreement of all the other teams, i’m imagining that no team would like to help Mercedes in this matter

  3. Honestly I am starting to believe the Nico and Lewis feud is going to far.
    I think it’s ludicrous to say Lewis is in the wrong in airing his emotions, racing drivers have emotions, they aren’t all PR robots and if he genuinely believed Nico did wrong, then surely he has every right to express his emotions, I have an awful lot more respect for drivers when they actually show a bit of emotion or even tell it how it is, I’m sure Lewis would have conceded defeat if Nico was outright faster and beat him fair and square to pole position, he has conceded Nico has been quicker in the past after all.
    Lewis is clearly the one who is quicker of the two and has outperformed Nico in my eyes pretty much all season so far, there are four points between them and lewis has won twice as many races, yet Nico still leads the standings by four points, I’m sure he can’t help but think a loss of seven points in Monaco through no fault of his own could possibly be a massive blow in the championship, after all, these types of things wreck championship bids. He recognizes it as his best shot and so far he has done nothing but prove he is worthy of it, he feels he wasn’t given an opportunity to win the race, let the guy blow off steam without making him out to be the bad guy in all of this.

    • Lee Monahan said on 29th May 2014, 4:21

      I think Lewis has outperformed Nico in almost every aspect for years, not just this season. Nico has talent, no doubt, but sometimes he comes across as a little brat pouting that he can’t win because (insert excuse) and that he’s entitled to something. He’s like Pastor but actually has talent.

    • shoes said on 29th May 2014, 8:18

      + a million
      I jus dont get how all these people forget the instances when hamilton jus manned up & conceded nico was actually faster than him …. its jus strange how people react when it comes to hamilton …. i thought nico was supposed to be the villain of the weekend but when it comes to anything related to hamilton … he is d default villain .but when but

    • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 29th May 2014, 10:04

      I think it’s ludicrous to say Lewis is in the wrong in airing his emotions, racing drivers have emotions, they aren’t all PR robots and if he genuinely believed Nico did wrong, then surely he has every right to express his emotions

      This is the tightrope that modern F1 drivers have to walk. Say too little and get branded a characterless, PR robot. Say too much and get branded as petulant and childish. We F1 fans are a tough lot to please.

  4. Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989) said on 29th May 2014, 0:39

    It seems that the story released by the Guardian last week about Adrian Newey refusing Ferrari’s offer is pure speculation. Adrian Newey himself confirmed to Autosprint that he didn’t spoke to anyone from the Guardian, in the Monaco GP weekend Adiran answered a question about his future by only saying “I have a commitment with Red Bull for this year”. The thing is Adrian has a contract with RBR that extends until 2015, but just like Vettel contract and maybe Prodromo it contains clauses that can release him from his Job.
    Apart from the stratospheric salary(20 million euro), the last word on every technical decision, a modern infrastructure similar to the one RBR have,and a huge economical resources, Ferrari offered Newey the possibility of designing their next super car the replacement of LaFerrari which BTW was designed by Byrne.
    BTW Sebastian Vettel was driving a 1988 Ferrari F1 Turbo Tuesday 27th on the RBR ring alongside Gerhard Berger who drove the RB8, at the end of the session Vettel was very impressed with the manual gear change and the sound .

    • Arki (@arki19) said on 29th May 2014, 1:26

      @Tifoso1989 Thanks for the link to the AutoSprint article. Alas I am uni-lingual so cannot read it but the pictures are epic!

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 29th May 2014, 22:02

      For a driver who benefitted so much from the artificial downforce of the championship Red Bull’s, Vettel really does seem to appreciate the cars of the years of old. Copious amounts of power, lack of downforce, rigid tyres and manual shifts – all of which do not comply with the style of driving he so well honed.

      Not that I disagree with him (I am not a fan of manual gearboxes as I feel it would be a backwards step technologically but nor does he specifically advocate that), but I’m surprised in a way.

    • phildick (@phildick) said on 30th May 2014, 10:45

      Thanks for the Vettel’s link @tifoso1989, great to watch and fun to read. “Alonso may sleep peacefully: it was Ferrari F1 turbo, but not the F14 T…” ;)

  5. trotter said on 29th May 2014, 1:50

    Germany international [footballers] Julian Draxler and Benedikt Hoewedes were passengers in the vehicles driven by German Touring Car (DTM) driver Pascal Wehrlein, who hit the two men, and Formula One driver Nico Rosberg.

    Whoever composed this monstrosity of a sentence, needs to be fired on the spot.

    At first I thought this DTM driver hit the two footballers and Nico Rosberg, but I couldn’t figure out how, when the said footballers were in the car with him.

  6. Khaiwong said on 29th May 2014, 2:49

    just use a lie detector device to question nico and we will know the truth

    • karter22 (@karter22) said on 29th May 2014, 3:30

      I think he would never accept it and instead he would react indignated by the mere insinuation he should take one (he would be found out and it would hurt his image).

      The comments made by Warwick definitely gives food for thought. They are trying to hard to convince people it was not deliberate and in the end he stated something that bothered me a lot: “It is a big decision to make when you are deciding to move a driver to the back of the grid. It was doubly important to get it right because

      it could affect many things — probably the outcome of the race and possibly of the world championship.

      This just fuels my theory of championships being scripted and people knowing who the champion will be. It shouldn`t of have been that important to the whole deal… If he commited a fault then he should take proper punishment even if it affects him in the long run. THAT would have been impartial but, as I said before…. the need to stick to the script… Rosberg will win this championship and you can quote me on it! The whole : “he´s the most honest driver” bit just shows they are going for image whereas Lewis is just a “badboy”. Makes erfect sense and besides… he´s another German.

      • Daniel (@collettdumbletonhall) said on 29th May 2014, 14:27

        If it was scripted then why have the same guy win 4 years in a row and win 10 races in a row which leads to a drop in viewing figures.
        I think what Warwick means is that these decisions carry a lot of weight.

    • Sleepy WIll said on 29th May 2014, 12:21

      Also, the only people who claim that lie detector tests work are people who earn money from lie detector tests. There is no evidence that hasn’t been debunked that they do work which is why they are not used by the police, customs or courts.

  7. The limit said on 29th May 2014, 4:01

    I found Derek Warwick’s comment about Hamilton ‘manning up’ to be demeaning. Would any driver react differently to Hamilton on Saturday afternoon? Knowing that they could have claimed pole but were denied in such a way. What if Kimi had done that to Fernando, or Riccardo had done that to Vettel? The furore would have been just as great, and just as profound.
    We said the same last year in Sepang when Vettel defied team orders and overtook Webber to win the grands prix. It sets a precedent, the other drivers will think, if it’s alright for one to do it then we all can. At the end of the day, a few points maybe all it takes for the championship to be won or lost.
    Warwick comes across as if he is enjoying Hamilton’s suffering, as if he is almost gleefully stoking the fire. Maybe there is some sympathy for Rosberg in some quarters being the underdog in all of this. To be honest, when all is said and done, Warwick would have been better off saying nothing at all.

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 29th May 2014, 13:15

      Well I am curious as to what LH claims on Sunday night he saw in the data that put a smile on his face, and so I think that is where DW’s remark stems from. They poured over the data for 3 hours including grilling NR and found his remarks and all the visual and telemetric data lined up. The last thing LH would be interested in is hearing/believing NR’s side of the story, not being impartial. So I think DW was just saying LH was spewing nonsense and needs to let it go…NR did not do anything intentional as they have proved.

  8. icemangrins (@icemangrins) said on 29th May 2014, 4:25

    Ferrari 158 – My dad got me the scale model of this car when I was five. Awesome car

  9. “I don’t want to say that we are able to score points every race because it’s not real. I would say that now we are able to fight with Sauber.” – Marussia

    So long as both the Saubers crash out, sure you can beat them. For that matter, why not go ahead and brag that you beat the defending 4-time world champ Red Bull in Monaco, too.

    • Daniel (@collettdumbletonhall) said on 29th May 2014, 14:29

      Cut them some slack. They are within half a second of the Saubers now. They may not out qualify them but if a Sauber got a bad start they’d find it difficult to re-pass them.

  10. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 29th May 2014, 6:28

    Thanks for the COTD @keithcollantine, always a nice surprise to see that.

    • JCost (@jcost) said on 29th May 2014, 7:20

      I’d rather go to Indy 500 or wait a few months and go to Spa, Monza or Silverstone. That Monaco vibe is not for me, at all.

      • Neil (@neilosjames) said on 29th May 2014, 7:34

        Spa is one I’d like to try, and Silverstone was great on both occasions (even in the awful weather of 2000, there was a great buzz).

        Monaco… only if I win the lottery and can afford a hairpin view suite at the Fairmont.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 8:40

      I still think that I would just go for it. Book a camping site somewhere close (on purpose to show you are not one of the Chavs!) and just go for it to be close to the cars @geemac. So what if they are here, at least someone is paying for having the fun!

      Wasn’t there a nice article from someone who had visited Monaco that was on here a couple of years back, describing it as an unforgettable experience?

  11. Jason (@jason12) said on 29th May 2014, 6:46

    Go Rosberg!

  12. Darren Danga said on 29th May 2014, 7:32

    On the next Q3 imagine LH setting the best lap first time and causing yellow glags to come out without anyone setting a timed lap? Then what would be the solution to that?

  13. leotef (@leotef) said on 29th May 2014, 7:46

    I think Warwick should have remained silent on this occasion. By saying what he just said he confirmed that
    (a) steward’s decision was not necessarily based on the data proof itself, because it was not conclusive
    (b) decision was more based on Q and A with the driver and his belief on that driver. which comes strong support to point (a).

    This can cast serious doubt on their ability and fairness of whatever call they make – sure in fact it has been criticized or questioned a lot though – opening to a far extreme reading of ‘We had no idea with ALL the data on whether guilty or not, but he’s not that kinda of man and I like him so concluded innocent’

    Well, still though case closed and people who had to know why this has already got the message, making the stories to unfold more interesting.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 29th May 2014, 8:36

      ‘We had no idea with ALL the data on whether guilty or not, but he’s not that kinda of man and I like him so concluded innocent’

      Well, just try and read your own sentence carefully and think about it @leotef.

      What it really means is, that there is no evidence (in the data nor in what is seen on the video images from all angles of it), not when looking at it individually, nor compared to earlier laps or even compared to his teammate, nor did the Stewards find anything in Rosbergs and his engineers explanation of what happened pointing towards an intention to disrupt the session.

      So exactly on what do you want to base a decision that it was in fact worthy of punishment? Maybe Hamilton’s wish or maybe fan vote, unanimous drivers who mention that they would be capable of doing it intentionally making the “feeling in the paddock”? What base is that to hand out a punishment?

      • leotef (@leotef) said on 29th May 2014, 9:39

        That’s why I put a string of ‘extreme reading’ on that specific quote. Agree that he has done what could of done in all fairness maybe, maybe not. Point is that, previous perception on steward’s call was the verdict was well based on ALL the technical data so regarded as invincible, though some speculation of perfect crime was not out of hand.
        But by this interview with more personal comments cast on this and that, and saying the data itself was not black and white, he just opened up a room where the decision becomes prone to further suspicion.

        Yes, innocent until proven otherwise, and here no proof found so innocence followed. But that does not mean he WAS innocent, no? Just saying keeping fair amount of doubts rather than giving its benefit.

  14. John H (@john-h) said on 29th May 2014, 8:04

    “Hopefully” the right decision? Shouldn’t it have been “definitely” the right decision?

    • Dennis said on 29th May 2014, 9:03

      Of course. If it is possible. You can’t blame them when there is not enough data to make a 100% conclusion.

      Unfortunately (fortunately!), there is no intention sensor embedded in the drivers’ brains.

  15. Patrick (@paeschli) said on 29th May 2014, 8:41

    I hope Pascal Wehrlein isn’t too affected by his crash, he’s still very young so I hope it doesn’t destabilise him.

    And no comments on Lewis’ new haircut? Come on!

1 2 3

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.