Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2014

Did Rosberg deserve a penalty for chicane cutting?

2014 Canadian Grand PrixPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, 2014Nico Rosberg did everything he could to keep his team mate and championship rival behind him during the Canadian Grand Prix. But did he overstep the mark?

Rosberg was feeling the heat from Lewis Hamilton when he locked his front-left wheel at the final chicane on lap 25.

Realising he wouldn’t be able to make the corner, Rosberg drove over the tarmac run-off area and rejoined the track through the gap after the speed bump.

By keeping his foot down Rosberg lost so little time he set the fastest lap of the race when he crossed the finishing line. He also pulled a few tenths of a second clear of Hamilton – a vital advantage as he team mate strived to get within a second of him at the DRS detection point.

The stewards quickly announced Rosberg was under invetigation for failing to observe track limits. But within a few laps Hamilton was notified his team mate had been let off the hook: “No penalty for Nico. He’s on his final warning for cutting the last chicane.”

The incident soon became academic as both Mercedes drivers ran into trouble and Hamilton retired from the race. But it could have decided the outcome of another closely-fought battle between the Mercedes pair.

The rules on leaving the track and gaining an advantage were revised before the start of the season. They now state a driver must not gain any “lasting” advantage by leaving the track.

Is this another case of a run-off area making it too easy for a driver to leave the track and gain a benefit? And if so, should the stewards have taken a firmer line on Rosberg?

Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

Should Nico Rosberg have been given a penalty for cutting the chicane?

  • Strongly agree (31%)
  • Slightly agree (23%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (5%)
  • Slightly disagree (15%)
  • Strongly disagree (25%)
  • No opinion (1%)

Total Voters: 616

Loading ... Loading ...

An F1 Fanatic account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed in stead of the voting form.

2014 Canadian Grand Prix

Browse all 2014 Canadian Grand Prix articles

Image © Daimler/Hoch Zwei

246 comments on “Did Rosberg deserve a penalty for chicane cutting?”

  1. Nope. Warning was just fine and the same as previous incidents at the same point on that circuit.

    1. Magnificent Geoffrey (@magnificent-geoffrey)
      8th June 2014, 22:31

      @craig-o Exactly. Consistency from the stewards is what we want and that is what we got.

      Hamilton was not attempting to overtake, so penalising Rosberg or forcing him to yield the position for a one-off incident would have been totally unfair.

      1. Is the fact that Hamilton was not attempting an overtake at that point actually relevant? For me it comes down to whether Rosberg would have lost the position had he not taken to the run-off area and gained the advantage.

        I can’t see how he could have kept the position without doing so, therefore I’d have asked them to swap position (I think a drive-through would have been over the top).

        1. Carl Craven
          9th June 2014, 2:20

          You have a really valid point, but I don’t think it’s possible to make a judgement based on what might have been

        2. Rosberg did gain an advantage, but what kinda penalty would it be? A 5 second stop and go?

          1. Yeah… or a drive through. He broke the rules, as simple as that.

            I don’t see why he should be given a get out of jail free card because he’s leading the championship and batting his rival on track for the win.

            If he negated his advantage by slowing down slightly after missing the chicane, it would be fine. But he got Lewis out of DRS range because of that move and kept the distance to over a second for the next 5 laps. Lewis could have got him in the next DRS zone on the start – finish straight or maybe on the next lap, but Nico just cut a corner and floored it to avoid Lewis closing up on him.

            That’s cheating anyway you look at it

      2. I think the stewards correctly opted to let the race be decided on the track by the drivers. As a fan, that is what I would rather see. A penalty would have surely handed the position to the opposing driver, in this case Hamilton, when the other driver was unable to pass on the track at that point in the race. That is not what I want to see as a fan.

        The main reason it was a close call was that Rosberg appeared to gain around a half second (6/10 maybe) and set the fastest lap of the race (at that point in the race).

        But, Rosberg did not gain a position. If he had and not given it back, the penalty would be mandatory.

        He was given a warning and a penalty would have been required for a second incident.

        In this case I think the stewards exercised proper judgement with a situation and in an area of the rules that is not so clear cut.

        1. Chris Harrison
          8th June 2014, 23:48

          Given the fact they deleted his lap time set on this lap from his ‘fastest lap/current lap’ graphic, I find it strange that they don’t think he gained an advantage from exceeding the track limits.

          It’s one thing to go off track, and maintain a position, having slowed to safely use the run off areas to return to the track, but to realise you can’t make a corner, floor it, and gain 6/10 of a second by exceeding the track limits, is a completely different thing, that I believe should be grounds for a penalty.

          1. I can see both sides of this and would not have been surprised to see a 5 second penalty added to Rosberg’s next pitstop. There was enough grey area to give the stewards a mini dilemma and they decided to leave it on the track unless it happened again.

            *If* Rosberg had merely gone off track and come back on without any positions changing it is doubtful that the stewards would have even gotten involved. Instead, after this maneuver and Monaco, F1 fans are left wondering how much more crafty can Rosberg really be? And, how many more times can he push the limits and get away with it?

        2. Dude, that actually happened: the race was “decided” by the drivers !!!! And ROS decided to cut the chicane ! Go figure, that’s why the stewards were “invented”. ROS braked too late and that would have resulted in a poor corner exit, so HAM had quite big chances to overtake him as he was very close (less than 1s).

          1. @corrado-dub – “Dude,” “!!!!”

            That’s real fresh. Did we just arrive back in the ’80s in a time warp? And the excess exclamation points. Relax. But, I digress.

            Back to the topic, there was enough grey area to give the stewards a choice, agree or disagree. Either way, I can see both sides and would not have been surprised by a 5 second penalty added to his next pitstop. What do you think the penalty should have been?

        3. Then, the biggest problem is not that he cut the chicane, but that he did it at almost full throttle ! And the result was that the gap (between him and HAM) increased from 0.4s to 1.2s. That’s an undeserved gain, no ?

          1. Precisely. Hard on the brakes to lock up n then floor it while off the track to keep the advantage. Would have been funny if LH followed him through there

          2. Yeah – exactly this. HAM was doing the only thing available to him at that time; he’d closed the gap as was as closest as he had been so far in the race trying to pressurize ROS into a mistake; which is exactly what happened. Had Rosberg have made the corner he was in a great position to use DRS down the next straight too. Who knows what could have happened.

            That all got negated by ROS’ use of the escape road and cutting of the corner.

            I wonder why they didn’t put those small yellow speed bumps there to prevent someone from doing what ROS did and basically flooring the throttle and just cutting the corner without any penalty. If the bumps were at the outer track edge he would have had to have slowed and would have had no problems in doing so.

            This is why I hate that some tracks have so much run-off and no sand traps or anything. He did what he did because he could and knew he could get away with it.

        4. @bullmello it was clear that Nico did gain some breathing air by cutting the chicane but despite being in #TeamLH, I too wanted it to be solved differently. Lewis did it actually, but his brakes gave up.

          But Nico I doubt Nico will go away with any similar move this year.

        5. MG421982 (@corrado-dub)
          9th June 2014, 9:11

          LOL, old habbits die hard. I’m an 80s guy.

          Can’t say exactly what penalty should’ve been given to ROS, things are relative indeed, but a 5s penalty seems OK. Anyway, better than letting him go away with it. Never payed much attention to ROS, I’m not a fan, but I’m starting to think the guy is smarter/better than I thought. Looking back, maybe Monaco’s Quali incident wasn’t an… incident. What should we expect from now on from him, to try breaking the rules somehow every race, and gain something, because he knows he’ll get just a warning ?!

          1. you are so–so– right;;;; lets face if lewis makes a wrong move or makes a mistake he gets pulverized, and anyone else walks away scot free, rosberg as we all know is shifty;;; to say the least, its in those sly sideways eyes; and we all know there are plenty more like him in sport;; i am gutted and feel so so so sorry for lewis, its like is he ever going to get a break ????. i know hes got dosh and all that, but so have all sportsman, these days, but he does put it on the line for us brits, and lets be fair we dont,,, get a lot to shout about.. god bless him and keep him safe

      3. I would rather have an inconsistent pair of decisions, one wrong and one right, rather than two consistently wrong decisions that we got today.

      4. Personally I want the stewards to enforce the rules AND do so consistently. Did Rosberg gain an advantage? Yes. Simple he should be penalized. The helicopter camera clearly showed how much track position Rosberg gained by cutting the chicane so there is no question as to whether an advantage was gained. Would people still agree with the decision if Hamilton was struggling to close the gap, cut the corner to get close, then used DRS at the end of the lap to overtake? I doubt it.

      5. I don’t have opinion on this one but I’m anoyed by the fact Rosberg broke DRS (had less than 1sec adv and got more than that thanks to cutting). That means Hamilton had to take several laps to get back into DRS zone which is quite a different situation between them.
        If there was a penalty to be given the 5 sec stop would be the one, but I’m not sure it was necessary. Wouldn’t have complained in either case …

      6. Completely agree, and even Rosberg slowed down on purpose to allow Hamilton to get back to the position he had before the chicane cutting.
        “British-pro-British” trying to find a scam where there weren’t any (sorry)
        Even Lewis agreed that in fact, cutting a chicane because of over braking but no gaining position is not a major issue to discuss about…

        1. @nomeg1 I wonder if you always agree with Lewis position, like last time in Monaco…

    2. I’d slightly agree with the penalty – his S3 time was way too good. Penalties are usually not given if the sector times don’t show a big advantage which was clearly the case.

    3. I have to disagree. Firstly, I feel the previous decision was wrong (Kvyat should have had to give the place to Raikkonen). And secondly, setting a fastest lap of the race whilst cutting the chicane should automatically be a penalty, no matter what the position, especially given he didn’t back off at all in the next lap.

      1. Well said

    4. Was it the same as previous incidents? Rosberg set the fastest lap by cutting the chicane (I think it was around a second quicker than his previous lap)! It also meant that Hamilton had to catch up all over again. If he had not gained any time advantage then I would agree that there should be no punishment, however there was a significant time advantage. What should have happened is the Team should have told him to slow a little to allow Hamilton back into the DRS zone but as this did not happen then I think he clearly gained a lasting advantage. It is even possible that Hamilton would not have suffered such a serious Break issue had he not been forced to catch up all over again.

      Remember a few years ago Hamilton was given a 20 second penalty for leaving the track just once at Spa! This even occurred after he handed the position back…..

      1. He got the penalty then because he failed to give the place back properly and since the penalty was issued after the race. I don’t think a post-race penalty should always be 20 seconds either but he broke the rules then.

        1. He didn’t break the rules though, the FIA made that rule (must not re-pass until after the next corner) on the spot after the race. The unwritten rule of the time was ‘give the place back’ which he did. The FIA handed Hamiltons points and indirectly almost handed the 2008 championship to Massa as a result.

          If gaining time off track is punished in qualifying it should be punished in a race. The very fact that they issued a ‘warning’ implies it was advantageous and would be punished if it happened again. The whole thing is a joke.

          The FIA stewards are incompetent and always have been.

        2. No he did not get a penalty for gaining an advantage as there was no rule as to how to give a place back. So he broke no rules with regard to gaining an advantage. He was actually punished for his car simply leaving the track. There was no mention of gaining an advantage in the stewards report.

    5. Paul (@frankjaeger)
      9th June 2014, 1:12

      @magnificent-geoffrey Purely because Hamilton was not yet mounting an overtake should not matter. The time which Rosberg gained is all relative and in turn hemmed Hamilton’s attack.

      @simon999 Indeed, a drive-thru would have been absurd but switching positions would not

      @jleigh Definitely. ‘Consistency’ had nothing to do with justice here

      1. @frankjaeger

        Personally, I did not want Nico to get a penalty because I wanted Lewis to beat him on track. But I see enough material to penalize Nico there. The million dollar question would be:

        Would Nico still be in front if he tried to keep his car on track after that “corner-compromising” lock-up?

        I strongly doubt he would survive being 0.4 ahead of Lewis…

        I would not be shocked with a penalty.

    6. Agreed with @craig-o , one-time warning was fine as Hamilton wasn’t really in a position to overtake, any more would be taking liberties. If Rosberg had been given a penalty it would have ruined the race at that point too.

    7. This @craig-o. If a stewards decision would decide the outcome, I would be as miffed as when Hamilton’s Spa victory was taken from him in 2008 with a new and unexpected penalty for something that hadn’t been penalized before.

      The race should be decided on track, except when there really is reason for the stewards to step in. If anything the team should have told Rosberg to slow a bit and let HAmilton catch back up to keep it fair between the two of them.
      And who knows, maybe this was the first showing of both Mercedes brakes being in not too great a shape anyway.

    8. More than penalty, I think the team should have instructed Rosberg to slow down and close the gap? Isn’t it unfair that he cuts the chicane to a point that he registered the fastest lap and then decided to just maintain that gap? It almost make the chicane useless there. Only other way would be to have speed bumps like in Monza so people are forced to slow down or risk damaging the underside of the car.

    9. YES, but what penalty would be appropriate ? I have been infuriated by drivers using the escape road since Hulkenberg was at Williams and repeatedly prevented Webber from passing (Spa ?) by shortcutting the chicane, not only avoiding being overtaken but breaking the tow and gaining seconds every time, it has to stop, but how to do it without compromising safety.

      1. The escape road should stay for safety reasons. One way to punish drivers is to simply give them a 1-2 seconds penalty every time they shortcut a chicane. This will be added their time after the race.

      2. Monza, i’m still infuriated!

    10. The issue was Rosberg went flat out over the chicane and gained 5 or 6 tenths.
      He went in too deep locked his brakes and had no other option (just like in Monaco – what a shock).
      If he had done the correct thing and slowed right down over chicane or attempted to go the “correct way” around that corner Lewis would have got in front of him.
      Thats the bottom line. In my view a drive through was too much, however I think the judges should have made him give Lewis the lead.

      What that would have done to the overall out come who knows given Mercedes problems but I think it was the right thing to do.

    11. Yep, completely agree. If he did it again then yes, obviously, but it was just one mistake.

    12. Rosberg did a purple sector and didnt slow down in turn 1 & 2. Hamilton was out of the DRS range in the next lap.

  2. At the time I thought the investigation would lead to a small penalty, gifting the win to Hamilton. If it can be shown that Rosberg backed off a few laps later to let Hamilton close up again then I guess that’s why he wasn’t penalised. But I imagine it was just Hamilton reeling him back in again. Before this season, for sure Rosberg would have been penalised for gaining an advantage in that sector from leaving the track.

    1. I said that Rosberg was incapable of doing Alonso’s political swing, I’ll take that back.
      Dammnn..he’s good in little tricks, that might be the benefit of having living WDC father.

  3. Slightly agree, but only very slightly. He gained an advantage by leaving the circuit, that is fact. However, the initial event wasn’t intentional.

    1. Flooring it while leaving the circuit was intentional. So much so he set fastest lap lol. That’s my main gripe with the whole situation.

    2. Can we be certain of that? Rosberg seems to be making a lot of “unintentional”, yet awfully convenient mistakes.

      1. Nico really is getting a not so good reputation…

        1. Tricky Nikky ?

          1. that name deserves a twitter hashtag @hohum. #trickynicky

    3. i agree with this – but the problem could be easily solved by sticking a gravel trap there, or something else that would actually penalise the drivers naturally. adding 5 seconds to his pit stop would have been fair i think.

      1. Thank you @frood19 ! While this seems like an ordinary penalty debate, I think this is so much bigger. It speaks volumes about the state of F1 and the insistence in having stupidly large tarmac run-off at every corner. Throw in something that naturally punishes drivers for making an error. That way Charlie Whiting doesn’t need to employ someone who’s sole job is to watch that corner (seriously, if that isn’t a gross waste of resources, I don’t know what is!). Or why not have 3 or 4 of those large orange strips in that tarmac’d run-off area like at other tracks, so the driver who’s gone off has to slow down immensely or drive around them carefully? That run-off will cause problems everytime we race there if it’s kept the same, simply put because it does nothing to thwart or deter drivers from just continuing straight on.

        1. Agree with you 100%

          He did what he did because the track layout allowed him to without penalty which is why he pushed the limits with his late braking.

        2. So I thought the introduction of tarmac on run offs, was a decision a few years back because it allowed drivers to have better control of their cars, to bake, turn and stop before the crash barrier, where grass, gravel and speed bumps did not and so the car became an uncontrollable projectile.
          So, really what is needed on corners are run offs that diverge away from the track and so making it slower for the offending car to rejoin the main track and therefore therefore nothing can be gained by flooring it.
          Should Rosberg have had a penalty – yes I think so, he was clearly stressed because Hamilton was on a charge. If he had taken the corner then Hamilton was in position to overtake. By cutting it he was able to be clear of Hamilton for a few more laps. The decent thing to do was to let Hamilton pass and then fight for the lead. But as we have seen in two races now, Rosberg is extremely motivated to win a F1 title.

  4. Absolutely derserved a penalty, clearly under pressure from Hamilton, he locked up, missed the corner, and went PURPLE in that sector, afterwards he made no effort whatsoever to back off and lose the time he gained. We’ve seen other drivers punished for less. As Brundle often says, failing to lose a place is the same as gaining a place when it comes to these matters

    1. But he didn’t fail to lose a place.

      1. If he had taken the corner (still a possibility but with a massively slow corner speed and exit), he would 100% have been overtaken by HAM on the next straight, so yes, he did fail to lose a place.

        1. That’s the crunch question. If he’d done everything to stick to the track, which he could have done, he’d have lost so much speed he would have been passed by Hamilton.

          So effectively he avoided losing a position. Yet again Rosberg’s inability to stand the pressure from Hamilton on the track benefits him. Getting decidedly weird this season.

      2. No, he just gained over half a second on the guy chasing him, got out of the DRS zone and set the fastest lap of the race…

      3. No idea where the “he didn’t fail to lose a place” stuff comes in. There’s absolutely no mention of that in the rules, and Keith even mentions the relevant rule in the article – “They now state a driver must not gain any “lasting” advantage by leaving the track.”

        So in my view it was definitely a breach, but a tiny one so maybe Ros deserved one of those new 5sec pitstop penalties. Gaining 0.5s and getting yourself out of DRS for another 3-4 laps is most definitely a “lasting” advantage in my view

    2. Paul (@frankjaeger)
      9th June 2014, 1:15

      Totally agree. Showed no effort to give the gained time back and left that chicane with a clear >0.6s advantage. That should not be tolerated

  5. He had a big lock up and had to take evasive action. A warning was enough. A drive through or 5 second penalty would have been too harsh.

    1. Really? He set the fastest lap by some margin by cutting a chicane. He also broke the DRS of Hamilton. He should have slowed after the event to be fair. However that chicane should have much bigger obstacles to make it impossible to gain a time advantage by cutting it.

  6. Yes and no. Rosberg did not gain a huge advantage by it, and Hamilton was back on his tail rather quickly. Then again, he did set the fastest lap on that lap, and he should have probably slowed a couple of tenths in the first sector of the next lap to get the gap back to where it was previously.

    Oh, and Kvyat did not get a penalty for similar incident with Kimi, so handing one to Nico would have been a tad unfair.

    1. No and yes:
      What if Hamilton started to overcook his brakes catching up so quickly? Then Rosberg gained 18 points lead from this.

      Kvyat was more forced off the track than Rosberg was, it seemed to me.

      Minor point: Fastest lap was re-set near the end of the race by Massa.

    2. How can you possibly say he didn’t gain an advantage by it? He got about .6 time advantage and set the fastest lap of the race and avoided a situation where he was probably going to be passed by cutting a corner.
      I think that’s pretty much a text book case of “getting a huge advantage”.

  7. Dion (@infinitygc)
    8th June 2014, 22:28

    I agree, the rules state you shouldn’t gain a lasting advantage, which he did, meaning that he should’ve gotten a penalty. Simple as that.

    1. Well said :-)

    2. Mark (@marlarkey)
      8th June 2014, 23:13

      He did gain a lasting advantage because by cutting the chicane he moved HAM out of the DRS window…. he gained several laps advantage as a result. Not insignificant.

      In the end though a moot point.

    3. Exactly. Seems people have problems with understanding what an advantage is.

      1. @velocityboy The thing (as I see it) though is that every time you cut a corner, you get a “lasting advantage” if they didn’t cut it they would crash or something of the sort… I realize this isn’t always the case but often it is, so just by leaving the track you always get a lasting advantage because otherwise you wouldn’t have had to leave the track, you leave it because otherwise something goes terribly wrong.

        I think the “lasting advantage” is more an interpretation about that fight right there, did it affect an overtake position etc.

        Arguably it did, and arguably it didn’t, but I wouldn’t stare myself blind at the expression “lasting advantage”

    4. While DRS is a tool that many fans do not like, the fact is that it does exist, and is therefore a tool a driver will use when attempting to pass the car in front. Any driver that has got within 1 second of the car in front has earned the right to use it. Hamilton had done just that. Yet his right was taken away through no fault of his own, and through no skill of the driver ahead. Rosberg made a mistake and cut the chicane, but he didn’t just cut the chicane, he nailed the throttle and put himself out of DRS range, effectively undoing all of Hamilton’s good work by taking an unfair advantage.

      I don’t pretend to know what a suitable penalty would be in this situation, but something should have been done. The problem now is the stewards have set a precedent for next years race. Every driver now knows they have another tool at their disposal – a single use Mario kart style shortcut. They simply wait until the car behind has DRS, but not yet close enough to pass, and they then shortcut the chicane breaking DRS and giving them some breathing room. This one time may be enough to prevent the car behind getting close enough again.

      The way I see it there are two solutions to this:

      1. Any time a driver cuts the chicane that team must provide to the stewards a telemetry trace showing that he did not use full throttle whilst off the track. This should be provided to the stewards within a few laps of the incident. While still open to interpretation (a driver could lift and still carry speed through there), it would discourage drivers from doing it.

      2. The current gap in that yellow sausage kerb is in the “ideal” place for a driver to carry the optimum speed through that section. This gap should be moved back towards the corner, so that any driver has to anchor up completely to make the gap or risk damaging their car going over the kerb. Either way the driver is forced to slow down, punishing their error.

  8. In the present situation, I would say I disagree: drivers have a get-out-of-jail-free card and Rosberg used it that time. In general, I think the stewards are waaay too trigger happy with penalties.

    However, it’s ridiculous that a chicane like that CAN be cut, gaining 1 or 2 seconds with no damage to the car. With a patch of grass, Rosberg would have gone through the run-off much slower and would have had to clean his tyres for another lap or two. So, the FIA could save itself a lot of effort by removing the ridiculous tarmac run-off areas.

    1. Hear hear!

      1. Or paint the areas green and penalise drivers which enter those zones. This could then be added at the end or during a pit stop. The aread could be calculated and a time assigned to each. This one could be 4/5seconds but a short chicane could be just 1 or 2.

        I did worry this is very artificial, but if a driver goes over grass they lose time. Tarmac is there for safety, but this also removes the initial penalty grass would naturally provide. So is it more artificial to add time back on or to ignore it ?

    2. Mark (@marlarkey)
      8th June 2014, 23:15

      If there had been a barrier there like a Monaco corner then he wouldn’t have done what he did. And HAM would have taken the place.

    3. I agree with that @andea23. Either grass or sleeping policemen there would have meant there was no way he could drive like that.

    4. Totally agree!!! Some grass or some obstacles on the tarmac of the run off area would force any driver exceeding the limits of the circuit to slow down. Ergo no advantage would be gained by something like that. Yet I believe it was DC in Monza ’99 who cut the first chicane at least 4 or 5 times before finally been penalized by the stewards. He also set the highest top speed in that race, around 360 km/h in one of his excursions. I know that rules have changed a little bit but you don’t punish that harsh someone for not making it once into a corner. If there was any action to be taken against Nico the fair thing would be to let Lewis by since a five second penalty even served when he pitted for tires would have cost him way more time than the time he gained by cutting the chicane.

    5. Rosberg should have been penalized on lap one corner one when he ran Hamilton off the track. And before you make excuses for him, look at the video and you’ll see others went through the corner two abreast so he could have done so if he wanted to. So if that was given the benefit of the doubt on that incident, he clearly should have been penalized for cutting the chicane. The Stewards really need to a/ review the rule book and b/ understand that the drivers ARE in control of the cars and can slow down if they choose to.

    6. Agree, if it’s there the drivers use it and shouldn’t have to perform a series of air kisses to settle the grievance. Should be more like Suzuka and force drivers to negotiate an obstacle that will be slower than the corner.

  9. LOL the second Rosberg controversy in two consecutive races.

    If this incident had happened for 12th place it would be a non-story.

    No he didn’t deserve a penalty btw, a reprimandation for the first time would have been enough.

    1. Indeed, and it was on his british championship rival. Good thing Hamilton doesn’t have a lot of support on F1Fanatic /sarcastic

      1. It has nothing to do with Hamilton being British, It has everything to do with Rosberg setting a significantly faster lap (by a second) due to cutting the Chicane. This broke Hamiltons DRS and possibly resulted in Hamiltons serious break failure. Had Hamilton not had to push hard to catch up again and also possibly not having to spend as much time in the hot air of Rosbergs car then perhaps he would have ended up the same a Rosberg (ie with a manageable issue). You simply should not be allowed to set a fastest lap after cutting a corner.

      2. So you wouldn’t complain if it had been the other way around and it was HAM cutting the corner to keep ROS behind him?

        /sarcastic too

    2. beefstewcurtains flap
      8th June 2014, 23:00

      how can u be hounded by ur faster teammate ..lock up ..run off track …speed back on track…set the fastest lap …and be another 1/2second faster than ur teammate after u ran off track ……and not get a penalty ? …..just asking

  10. Lots of lewis fans will of course think he deserves a penalty, but the fact is that lewis wasn’t that close to him unlike kimi was with kvyat who did the same, it would have been completley wrong to penalize nico and not daniil

    1. Close enough to force Rosberg into an error. Close enough that had Rosberg stuck to the track, as per the rules of motor racing, and which he technically could have done, he’d have been passed.

      A stop-go seems over the top, however no penalty effectively allowed him a lasting race advantage on an incident where he should have really lost a place.

      1. Firstly he did not force Rosberg into an error, he simply made one, just like drivers do all the time when by themselves, doesn’t mean Hamilton forced him to. Secondly, people should stop writing that he would have been passed had he made the corner, they may have ended up side by side with the same result as the first lap of the race.

        1. People say he would have passed just like you say he would not. Nothing wrong with that. If people could not make assumptions there would be no f1fanatic.co.uk…

        2. Of course there’s no guarantee Hamilton would have passed, they may have colllided, but Rosberg would have lost more than enough pace had he stayed on track to make being overtaked the most likely outcome. Stewards have to take into account likelihoods all the time when assessing, say, a ‘lasting race advantage.’

          As for Rosberg ‘just making a mistake,’ you can’t be serious. Obviously he outbraked himself under pressure.

        3. If you think that was an unforced error then you need to try some karting and put yourself in the same position… get yourself out of that armchair ;-)

      2. correct. 100%. Lewis forced him into an error. One that he decided to exploit!

    2. Firstly Kvyat gave the place back so clearly did not gain an advantage so it is a completely different situation. Seciond, the rules do not specify the reason behind the car going off track, they simply state that you should not gain a lasting advantage. As Nico set the fastest lap and pulled away from Lewis by 0.6 secs (putting him outside the drs window) I would say that is a lasting advantage. The lasting advantage rule is there to give drivers a chance to rectify the gained advantage within a few corners, Nico clearly did not do this. Kvyat (and Lewis later on) did.

  11. A month a go, no… But this is the second pole we’ve had in 2 races. Normally when a driver cuts a corner the back off, but Rosberg gunned it and gained a whole second. Several drivers missed the Chicane but most of them backed off or were pushed. I believe there was no contact and Hamilton was lining up a pass into turn one. Rosberg better be on his toes next race because otherwise we won’t remember his wins and potential championship this year, just a bunch of lucky trips to the stewards.

    1. beefstewcurtains flap
      8th June 2014, 23:19

      agree Parkinson …. basically he cut the corner of the chicane to gain nearly a second advantage after making a mistake …this surely cant be fair ?

  12. This one is almost the same as Alonso in Abu Dhabi last year. You either take the run off or get a nasty accident. And there’s almost no run off in Canada. If Rosberg doesn’t take the run off and turns fast, he hits the walls for sure.

    1. For me its how he took the run off. He was back accelerating before the corner even ended. He was flat out through the run of where other drivers have lifted to account for time gained. Setting purple sector after making a mistake is wrong and therefore a penalty was a must.

      1. Agree.

        How people can just side-step the fact that he just floor the throttle and setting the fastest lap is just pure mind boggling.

    2. There is a big difference between using the run off to avoid an accident and accelerating through it to gain time. He clearly made a mistake but then accelerated across the run off and ended up over a second faster than his previous lap.

      1. You fail to realise, that he gained that second by cutting that corner and he could nothing to do about it at that particular moment.

        1. Yes he could.
          All the time you see drivers backing off when they cut corners like that. It’s not giving the position, but making up to the time gained.

          Rosberg simply ignored that, took a shortcut and got out of drs range.
          From his conveniently benefical mistakes, the next one should render him a penalty.

        2. Yes he could 2
          He could have braked correctly for the corner, something he managed to do every lap at the wall of champions.

        3. He did not have to do anything about it at that particular moment (Although he could easily have backed off as he went across the corner rather than using is as an acceleration zone) the rules are specifically written to allow the driver to realise that they have gained an advantage and gives them time to do it. He had a few corners to make an effort to give the gained time back but instead he carried on pushing and did a lap 1 second quicker than his previous effort. That is a lasting advantage in anyones language and I can not understand how the stewards thought otherwise.

  13. It’s nice to see Mercedes keeping the equal treatment for both drivers with both cars having KERS issues at the same time. Kudos Mercedes!

    1. I like your thinking Patrick….

  14. I am one of the strongly DISAGREE as Nico gained no advantage, except for probably really, really making Lewis very make that extremely unhappy. Was very happy to how glad SebV was for his teammate. Good stuff all around as far as I am concerned … I am not a Lewis fan … Feeling sad about Filipie M, hoping that both drivers will be unscathed by the high speed accident. Thanks, RnR

    1. Gaining time is still an advantage. How anyone can deny that baffles me.

      1. OBVIOUSLY HE WAS GOING TO GAIN AN IMMEDIATE ADVANTAGE: HE FREAKING CUT THE CHICANE,….. but you obviously missed the part OF THE RULEBOOK THAT STATES……

        “a LASTING advantage”

        Gosh, HAM fanatics are always the worst… What has been going on on this site the last couple of months is freaking unbearable.

        1. My opinions differs so I must be a nonobjective HAM fanatic? What next? Claim that I’m from across the pond too? Quit being obtuse. If gaining between half a second and a second in time on an evenly match car that was faster is not an advantage to you, then I don’t know what is.

          1. When I am talking about fanaticS it’s obviously not just you, but the majority of the people here who are going nuts over every single incident that IN A WAY includes HAM. I just hate it when fans can’t stay objective(/or see incidents from both sides).
            I feel like many people here are just a fan of certain drivers and not fan of F1 itself…

            Like there are people here who are talking about how ROS should have been “clearly” DQed or received a stop-and-go penenalty. And whining about how lucky ROS is….like did they miss the part where Mercedes effed up his pit-stop, he lost power and had a faulty break for the 2nd half of the race… Yeah, he is sooo lucky.

            and I don’t even like Rosberg all that much…

        2. Lasting how long? it probably gave him an advantage for a number of laps. In fact, it meant he got to the end of the race 1 second faster than he would otherwise, so it lasted the whole race.

          1. No it didn’t. By the end of the lap HAM was inside the 1sec limit again…

          2. Inside the 1 second limit versus having the lead or trying to take it. I wonder which scenario any sane person would take.

          3. @LexBlair. How could he be. Rosberg set the fastest lap of the race up to that point so if Hamilton had caught up he would also have then set the fastest lap, but he did not. He was something like 1.3 seconds down at the end of the lap having been about 0.5 seconds behind before the corner cutting. Rosbergs lap was over a second faster than his previous lap!

          4. Seriously…. HAM was COMPLETELY behind ROS when he’s gone of. It’s not like him going of prevented HAM from overtaking him. When ROS had gone of, HAM was behind by about 6-7 tenth, by the time they crossed that spot in the next lap the difference was about the same. THUS no LASTING advantage OF ANY SORT was gained.

          5. @lee1
            I repeat…… because he cut that chicane. At that specific point, you are faster over the run-off area, than on-track, …. That’s not Rosberg’s fault.(or KVYAT’S for that matter)

          6. @LexBlair, It is only significantly faster if you use it as part of the track (ie by accelerating over it). He was significantly faster down the straight as a result. No it is not his fault for the chicane not being grass, but it it his responsibility to not gain an advantage by doing so. As he gained a very significant advantage (1 second!) then it is entirely Rosbergs fault. He could have lifted off as he went across the chicane or at least lifted a bit in the next corner to show that he has not gained anything. But instead he set the fastest lap by some margin and broke the drs of Hamilton and ultimately led to transforming a 0.5 second gap into a 1.3 second gap. If he had not cut the corner he would have almost certainly been overtaken by hamilton on the next straight so he prevented himself loosing the place.

          7. @LexBlair by your logic, defending drivers can consistently cut corners, as long as the driver behind is the same distance behind the next lap, even if it completely rules out any chance of an overtake.

          8. @LexBlair, After watching the replay I was slightly incorrect. Hamilton did indeed get to 0.5 secs behind Rosberg, however he was 1.1 behind at the end of the next lap not 1.3s. However that still shows that Rosberg gained 0.6 secs while before the incident Hamilton was catching him. So His gain was probably slightly more than the 0.6 overall and probably did prevent hamilton taking the lead on the start straight. As he made no attempt to put right the gained advantage then He should have been punished, it is as simple as that.

      2. Mark (@marlarkey)
        8th June 2014, 23:16

        He gained a LASTING advantage as a result of moving out of the DRS window.

    2. I have no words…

    3. Mark (@marlarkey)
      8th June 2014, 23:18

      By this logic someone could cut the chicane every lap and they would not be classed as ‘gaining an advantage’… clearly that is not right.

      If cutting the chicane several times IS gaining an advantage then so is doing it once but several times is just the accumulation of gaining an advantage EACH time.

      1. If cutting the chicane several times IS gaining an advantage then so is doing it once but several times is just the accumulation of gaining an advantage EACH time.

        Well, believe it or not, there is AN ACTUAL rulebook that states the rules.

        1. If I was Hamilton, i would have just followed Rosberg and cut the corner with him. What do you think Mr LexBlair?

          1. If Hamilton followed Rosberg through the corner and had not gained any advantage ie stayed 0.6secs behind Rosberg, He would have been fine>

          2. He should have exactly the same the next lap, or 2 laps later, where it would have put him in the position to pass into T1. The stewards couldn’t punish that if they didn’t punish Rosberg!

      2. Hamilton was told that Rosberg got a “final warning” @malarkey. The last guy to get a “final warning” and ignored it was Massa going over the pit exit line in Brazil. He got a drive through when he did not heed the warning.
        So anyone doing this repeatedly would surely have gotten the same.

  15. He should have got a 5 sec penalty, that was dangerous driving and what would have happened if he would have taken Hamilton out or for that matter if 3rd or 4th cars were there. This sort of driving is dangerous and it should be penalised appropriately and not one rule for the leaders and top teams and another for the rest. The stewards are there to police dangerous driving and uphold safety. This sort of an incident should be staped out for future GP’s.

    1. He should have been disqualified for the remainder of the season. It was clear he did it on purpose, gained 0.6 of a second with it and in the process damaging Hamiltons MGU-K and rear breaks. I think Rosberg knew very well what he was doing.

      Common, Rosberg got a final warning for it. If you think he did it on purpose then you obviously didn’t see him destroying his tyres while locking up badly.
      So, Hamilton would have caught Rosberg anyway when the tyres would give up.
      Blame Mercedes for not giving them a reliable car so you were robbed that glorious moment.

    2. I think Nico deserved a penalty there, probably 5 sec added to his time during pitstop… he did gain an advantage of about .6 sec by cutting the chicane and more importantly broke the DRS range … He’s made a couple of mistakes which have been beneficial to him… and I hope the next one he makes gets him punished..

  16. If you can cut a chicane and get a time advantage, you should also be able to cut the chicane even if it leads to a position gained. It shouldn’t be allowed in one circumstance but not in another. Wrong is wrong.

    1. Mark (@marlarkey)
      8th June 2014, 23:18

      If you are allowed to cut a corner and get a time advantage (as long as you are not being overtaken) then what is to stop someone doing it every lap ???

      1. The rules prohibit, Einstein….

        1. But they aren’t acted upon….

          1. He received a final warning.

  17. I think a drive through or anything like that would have been too harsh.

    But looking at the situation, I think it’s fair to say Rosberg only kept the lead (and in fact extended it) by choosing to miss the chicane. I’d therefore have ordered him to give up the place. It’s difficult to argue that he did not gain a clear advantage (by not losing the lead), so it seems like the most reasonable resolution.

    If I was Hamilton in that situation, knowing that DRS alone was unlikely to be enough, forcing my rival into a big mistake and seeing him beneft from it must have been slightly galling.

    1. Stewards should have given one sec time penalty at end of race.

      1. Don’t think that would make sense either. The issue is less that he gained 1s in time and more that he kept the lead of the race. We saw that even though Hamilton was able to close up quickly to Rosberg during the race on more than one occasion, even DRS didn’t enable him to overtake an identical car infront.

        Track position was key and if Rosberg maintained his through that incident, then it is worth a lot more than 1s in time.

    2. Drivethrough would have been too harsh.

      1. This is the exact situation the new 5 sec penalty is made for ! A 5 second add on at gis next stop would have been the perfect penalty. If he gave yhe the place to lewis or even just made some effort to put things right then id have no problem. He should penalised for goimg flat out through a run off area meant for safety. If that was grass he would have lost a few seconds so I think a 5 second penalty would be right here.

        1. A 5 second penalty would likely have ended his race – Hamiltons brakes cooked during his normal length stop. Still, that kind of effect shouldn’t feature into the stewards decision.

      2. It would if he had made any effort to not gain an advantage. He however accelerated across the run off area and gained over 1 second! This then broke the DRS of Hamilton and also possibly led to Hamiltons break failure.

  18. If Daniil wasn’t penalised then why should Rosberg?

    1. Both should have been

    2. Because Kvyat gave the place back hence did not gain an advantage! Rosberg gained 0.6 secs!

  19. There is a safety dimension here as well. The current arrangement at that corner means any driver who goes straight on has an incentive to take an alternative racing line flat-out through a narrow gap between a speed bump and a wall – as Rosberg did, and another driver (I think it was Kvyat). I think a better solution for the run-off is needed, though as we’ve seen before it’s a controversial subject.

    1. The run-off definitely has to be redesigned to slow down drivers after they make errors there.

    2. Polystyrene bollards?

      They will damage your car if you hit them fast enough.

      1. And scatter debris over the track.

    3. Its perfectly safe Keith, I use it all the time on the f1 2013 game ;)

    4. Damon trolllolololololol
      8th June 2014, 23:22

      Just put a speed bump in running the length of the run off

    5. Well atleast we saw HAM go through the same and gave the position to ROS just before he retired….

    6. I agree, it should not be possible to take the run off at full speed. However surely it should also be up to the driver to ensure that they made an effort to not gain an advantage by cutting a corner even if they do ultimately gain a tiny amount.

    7. Aren’t they rebuilding the pits somewhere else? That would provide an area big enough to design a safe run-off that you can’t use as a short cut, if they replace the pit building with some stands a bit further down the straight.

      No doubt Bernie wants them to pave over the river and build a massive modern concrete tumbleweed paddock.

      1. @bullfrog I can’t imagine where else on the Isle Notre Dame they’re going to find room – they’ve already moved them once (from the other hairpin).

  20. stewards reacted good to this. a warning was spot on.

    1. No, a warning would have been spot on even if he slowed down to rejoin the track in a safe manner. The fact that he floor’d the throttle and set the fastest lap of the race, to me, is an instant penalty.

  21. Slightly disagree. Rosberg was quite bold when he cut the chicane, he went on the throttle really soon. He gained a couple of tenths, sure, but I think that a penalty might have been too harsh. A warning is just fine.

    1. He gained 6 tenths! That is a massive amount considering Hamilton was catching him before that. He also most likely prevented Hamilton taking him on the straight as if he had not taken the chicane he would have put himself in a terrible line through the corner. Also if he had lifted the accelerator through the run off he would also likely have been passed by hamilton. He however used the run off as an acceleration area and gained a lot of speed down the straight. If he has made any effort to negate the advantage then I would agree with no penalty but he actually set the fastest lap!

  22. Rosberg gained an advantage because he broke Hamilton’s DRS. However, it was an honest mistake made under pressure (unlike Monaco…).
    But, looking at similar cases, Hamilton was stripped of a win in 2008 for a lesser offense (he gave the advantage he gained back to Raikkonen). So if the stewards were consistent (big if), it has to be a drive through if he doesn’t yield the advantage. Which he didn’t, so it should have been.

    1. Hamilton was not punished for gaining an advantage in 2008 (as he gave the place back). He was punished for his car leaving the track…. There was no mention of gaining an advantage in the report simply that his car was deemed to have left the track.

    2. Incidentally that is the one and only time I can recall that a driver has been punished for simply leaving the track once.

  23. Slightly agree. It’s a difficult one.

    He did gain an advantage, that’s for sure. And errors should be penalized. But we’ve seen many of these mistakes before, and no one got penalized with a stop and go or whatever. So good call.

  24. Did Kvyat get a penalty when he cut the chicane when Kimi attempted an overtake? No, he didn’t, what makes Rosberg’s situation any different, other than the fact it would make no difference to Mercedes constructors points.

    1. “Did Kvyat get a penalty when he cut the chicane when Kimi attempted an overtake? No”

      Erm, did he floor the throttle and set a purple sector to brake Kimis DRS?

    2. and the thing is that RAI was right alongside KVY when KVY cut the schicane…. HAM was 0.5 sec BEHIND ROS.

    3. Kvyat gave the place back…..

  25. In Spa 2008, after gaining on Raikkonen hand over first, making the pass, being FORCED wide cutting the chicane and subsequently giving the place back immediately Hamilton was still penalised and had his win stolen from him unjustly.

    Fast forward to 2014, whilst Hamilton is gaining again hand over fist, Rosberg locks up under pressure, straight lines the chicane, keeps his foot down, sets the fastest lap and increases his lead by over a second, no penalty.

    The FIA are the laughing stock of international “sport”.

    1. The thing is that Hamilton was not punished for gaining an advantage in 2008 (as he clearly did not gain an advantage, especially under the rules at the time) he was punished just for leaving the track!

  26. I thought there would be a penalty, probably one of those new 5-second-time-penalties.
    However, I´m quite sure Rosberg knew his time was purple, so the only reason I can imagine for him not to lift off was that he knew of some kind of agreement that allowed a warning. We know that especially the track-limit-rule is discussed with Charlie before pretty much every race.

  27. Of course he didn’t deserve a penalty. Wasn’t it Hulkenberg who repeatedly cut the chicane in Monza due to the same thing a few years ago? If I remember correctly, he wasn’t penalised, so that just proves continuity in the steward’s decisions.

    1. “so that just proves continuity in the steward’s decisions.”

      What are you talking about, Grosjean got a penalty of exceeding the track limits last year.

  28. Ben (@scuderia29)
    8th June 2014, 22:51

    Hamilton wasnt even attempting a move, and it wasnt intentional by rosberg either. If that had happened further down the field it wouldnt even being spoke about. He gained maybe half a second, you think a drive through would have been a just penalty for a half second advantage? oh you think he should have gave up the position instead..even though hamilton was yet to even attempt an overtake on rosberg, the stewards dealt with it correctly

  29. By the rules no he didn’t deserve a penalty, but it’s time circuit designers put a severe chicane into the point where cars rejoin the track. This’s what they do that at Monza and nobody gains by going straight on, they lose the place, which is as it should be.

    Did the team sort it out themselves by delaying Rosberg a couple of seconds at his pit-stop such that the order was reversed?

    Were both drivers using higher power settings against the team instructions, seems such a co-incidence that both MGU-Ks failed at the same time?

    1. A few teams were having issues with the breaks (linked directly to the MGU-K), Force India had issues during the race and Williams discovered issues during Practice.

      Plus under the rules he certainly did deserve a penalty. The rule states that he should not gain a lasting advantage, it says nothing about the circumstances under which he went off. As he set the fastest lap my some margin and was 1 second quicker than his previous lap and pulled away from 0.5 secs to 1.1 secs from hamilton, then I would say that constitutes a lasting advantage. If he had made an effort to not gain an advantage then I would think a penalty harsh but this is clearly not what he did.

  30. Of course he should have been penalized. He accelerated! He gained an advantage.
    It’s ludicrous. I will say one more time, I would love to see if was the other way around. And again, Lewis lost a race and almost the championship for a thing like that in 2008.
    5 sec penalty was the way to go.

    1. @edmarques In Spa 2008 (Presumably the event you are referring to) there was a distinct chance of an overtake going into that corner. I don’t agree with the penalty that Hamilton was given after Spa, but the events are different enough to be able to arrive at a different conclusion. This is even without the 20-odd rule changes to the track limits rule we have had since 2008.

      1. And the Fact that Lewis was punished for simply leaving the track, not gaining an advantage.

  31. I don’t think Rosberg deserved a penalty, and I think it was right that he didn’t receive one.
    As the BBC pointed out, Hamilton was not attempting a move at that point. The reason others have been penalised in ‘similar’ circumstances is because a driver was trying to overtake when the mistake was made. Rosberg therefore did not gain any positional advantage. The 6 tenths he ‘won’ by cutting the chicane were then handed back to Hamilton over the next 2 or 3 laps (I think it was 2 laps, but I’m really not sure..) and Hamilton then went to close up even further, getting to within 0.3 of Rosberg before the pitstop phase began and Hamilton took the position, only to lose it through the brake failure a few laps later.

    We’ve also seen drivers, I believe particularly in Melbourne, who have cut the chicane, only to pull into the pits shortly afterwards and concede the position that way without penalty. I would say this incident was similar.

    None of this ‘Hamilton was faster’ explaining. Hamilton wasn’t there on that lap. If he was, then it might have been decided a different way

    1. The argument that Rosberg “lost” the time over next couple of laps is misleading. Without the advantage, Hamilton wouldn’t have have needed to regain that time and instead spent those laps attempting to pass. The advantage was gained and was lasting. Just a pity this is all moot anyway.

    2. The rules do not specify how a driver cuts the corner so the fact that there was no attempted overtake has no bearing on the rules. The point is he gained 0.6 secs over hamilton by cutting the chicane and set the fastest lap. This surely constitutes a lasting advantage? He did not hand Hamilton back the time over the next 2 laps, hamilton was just faster as he had been up until the point nico went off. So there was no handing back the advantage and the fact that Lewis had to push again to get back behind Nico could easily have been the reason his breaks completely failed while Nicos remained manageable. The rules were written purposefully to handle this exact situation but were not put into action for some inexplicable reason. Nico made absolutely no effort to hand back the gained advantage, non at all.

  32. I think the fact he floored it and rocketed across the runoff with the clear AIM of gaining an advantage through going off track means a penalty was appropriate. He gained an unfair 5-6 10ths, deliberately.

    A 5-second stop-go was the one IMO. It has to be a deterrent after all.

  33. Penalty for sure, based on the fact that he set a purple sector/fastest lap of the race by nailing the throttle.

    No regard for safety when rejoining the circuit and knowing he would break out of Hamiltons DRS.

    1. How many others set their on personal best times in sector 3 doing the same thing? You don’t hear about it because their car isn’t fast enough to set a purple time.

      1. We dont hear about it because it didn’t happen, you can’t just make stuff up and believe it to be true.

        Kvyat went off while battling raikkonen, but he [b]slowed down[/b] and [b]gave the place back[/b], just like Lewis did later on vs Rosberg.

        Some people are just born cheats. Some people are forced into cheating because they can’t win on pace. And some people will refuse to cheat even if they can get away with it.

  34. Rosberg gained a massive advantage there, don’t forget there is the second DRS zone there, as Hamilton was so close, it is quite probable he would have overtaken Rosberg in the 2nd zone. As it was he was nearlt 2 seconds behind at the start/finish line. A penalty should have been given, or the place given up.

    Maybe they should put sleeping policemen there, like Les Combes at Spa.

  35. Damon trolllolololololol
    8th June 2014, 23:21

    Lewis cut the chicane and slowed down and gave the place back . Nico cut the chicane planted his right foot and gained seven tenths of second.

  36. There was an article a long time ago (2011 Italian GP i believe) that discussed unwritten rules, one of those concerning when a driver cuts a chicane. The stewards have a history of not punishing drivers who do this if it’s an accident which doesn’t give a big advantage.

    I agree that a warning was sufficient for this.

    1. But he did gain a big advantage. He gained 0.6 secs over Lewis and put lewis out of the drs range. That is a big advantage giving the fact that Nico made no effort to give the advantage back. If he had lifted when going across the run off or slowed at the next corner to make some effort to put the situation right then I would absolutely agree that a no penalty should be given, but he did non of this and in fact used the run off as an acceleration area…

  37. Jake Moon (@andwhatisdeletrazdoing)
    8th June 2014, 23:21

    Disagree, a warning was enough. Had he done it again and gained time like he did previously, a penalty would’ve been appropriate. One of the Toro Rossos (I think KVY) did the same thing with Alonso just a few laps before and not even an investigation.

    1. Kvyats incident was with Kimi not alonso and he was not investigated as he gave the place straight back to Kimi so did not gain an advantage.

  38. I think that it merited a penalty: I would have recommended the minor stop-go one where you re still allowed to pit for tyres would have been sufficient.

  39. Isn’t “Neither agree nor disagree” the same as having no opinion? lol

  40. I think it is worth comparing it to a slightly different situation. Let’s say that in the same place HAM locked up trying to overtake ROS and cut the chicane, got his gap reduced to 2 tenths and overtook in the DRS zone after the second corner, then should he have given the place back? He did not gain a position directly from cutting the chicane, but he go the advantage.

    Why isn’t that advantage apply to the driver in the front?

  41. How it isn’t clear Rosberg didn’t gain a lasting advantage is beyond me. Rosberg should have at least be made to slow down, but it definitely gave him a lasting advantage. As people have stated, it cleared him of DRS and it also made Ham have to use up his tires regaining lost ground in which those laps could have been used to attempt a passing manoeuvre. Rosberg should have been penalized. If you make a mistake and gain like Rosberg did, that sucks but he’s at fault. Steve Machette was terrible on NBC sports, imo. He wanted no penalty for the sake of the racing.

    1. But it gave Hamilton clear air to cool his brakes down! Otherwise he clearly would have broken down earlier :)

  42. Based on precedence then he doesn’t.
    But the rules are inconsistent and the logic behind the rules are stupid.
    Had Rosberg overaken Hamilton by cutting the chicane, the stewards will place an imaginary barrier at the track limits and said the driver would never have made that move with a barrier there.
    So I ask, would Rosberg have powered through if there was a barrier at that point?
    Stewarding is rubbish lets forget about childish penalties and concentrate on the serious incidents.

  43. My 2p, Rosberg made a mistake under pressure. The track limits are there to be limits. Hamilton may not have been making a move but he was right on Rosberg’s tail. On almost any other corner he would have taken the place due to the off that Rosberg was about to have. If a wall was there, Rosberg would have been out.

    He went hugely faster than he should have gone because of the cut, he broke drs which wasted overtaking opportunities for Hamilton. He gained a massive lasting advantage of not losing a place. Cutting corners because it’s a mistake isn’t OK, the track limits are effectively a wall.

    As I say, any other corner that place would have been lost.

    However, I voted slightly agree as a penalty was tricky to define and I preferred the race to be played out on track.

  44. There should be no way for a run-off area to allow a gain in any form. As others said, fill it with grass.

  45. I don’t think he should have been penalised. This happens quite often and no one has gotten penalised for it before(unless they gained a position), so why do it now? Also, just because it concerns the lead of the race it doesn’t make it any more relevant. It would have meant setting a very dangerous and unfair precedent all of a sudden. That would have been a lot worse than any advantage that Rosberg gained today.

    However, I think the FIA need to have a more detailed look into this. If anything, it did give Rosberg a bit of breathing space right when Hamilton was at his quickest so that’s not 100% correct either.

    A lot of people have also been pointing out that gravel traps would solve this. I honestly wouldn’t have wanted for Perez or Massa to have gone sideways towards a gravel trap instead of a run-off today. They tend to work at places like Suzuka but you don’t want to have those things around hard braking zones followed by walls of champions.

  46. “They now state a driver must not gain any “lasting” advantage by leaving the track”
    Depends on how you translate what may have happened. I felt, that HAM would have potentially got past, however, it was not certain that would have happened, it may have come to pass that they would have crashed into each other and that ROS felt in that moment that he was ensuring both cars escaped safely. In any case, no one can say for sure if ROS gained a lasting advantage, hence why I cannot abide by the thought of giving ROS a penalty on such a margin call.

  47. Rosberg’s off was an accident until he floored it through the run-off area. Then it became cheating. Leaving the track to gain an advantage is against the rules. Rosberg should have taken a penalty, as should anyone else who set a personal best S3 after cutting the turn and blasting through it. It’s that simple.

    I like Rosberg well enough, but I’m glad that he didn’t win. It would have been a soiled victory.

  48. Neil (@neilosjames)
    9th June 2014, 2:17

    If the Stewards/Charlie had just got on the phone to Merc straight away and told him to drop the six tenths or however much he gained at a place of his choosing on the next lap… problem solved.

    In the absence of that, I’d say penalty. Gained an advantage, broke the DRS, took the pressure off himself and – most importantly, to me – made no effort to rectify the situation.

  49. Does this mean that each car can now flatline a chicane once per race? Best to save it for when you are under attack.

  50. In these events, we need to consider prior instances as well. Two incidents come to mind…Kobayashi v Webber at Monaco 2011 (also to some extent Kobayashi v Raikkonen at Monaco this year) and Hulkenberg v Webber at Monza 2010.
    In the first instance, Kobayashi and Webber were alongside when the Sauber driver went across the chicane and stayed ahead. In the second event, Hulkenberg cut chicanes multiple times, all the time while he was ahead of Webber, but no penalty was issued.
    I guess you need to be fully alongside for there to be a substantial advantage being gained. Rosberg didn’t gain much of an advantage, because Hamilton wasn’t looking at a move, he was still a few car-lengths behind Rosberg.
    Where it gets tricky is that Rosberg, with that move, went green in the final sector and gained track time. Speculatively, we can say he gained some time, and also prevented any chance Lewis had for DRS-ing him into turn one.
    In that event, we’ve seen very harsh stewarding in junior formulae (apart from GP2) with regards to track limits. Since Rosberg clearly locked up and because of the nature of the chicane (with the huge kerb ending just a car-length before the pit lane barrier), I think I can say that a warning was enough. I expect there to be a clarification of the ‘advantage’ rule later.

    1. ROS set the fastest lap by cutting that chicane. That fastest lap was nullified by the officials. So, the officials implicitly admitted that he gained advantage by cutting the chicane, isn’t it?

      1. Possibly, all the more reason for the ‘advntage’ rule to be clarified.

  51. If I was Lewis i would have just followed rosberg through the chicane

  52. Too many ‘ifs’ and ‘buts’ of what might have been, the way I see it, he did gain an advantage unintentionally under pressure but how do you enforce it? You cannot simply let Lewis through as he was not in front. It was the not like he was short cutting the track on consecutive laps under pressure. How do you measure how fast he should retake the circuit? This isn’t practice, it’s for the race lead so of course ANY driver is going to rejoin the track in the fastest manner!

    Only way drivers can be penalised is to have a clear limits then and there, by ensuring that the only short cut is on the circuit. This includes gravel traps, obstacles, barriers or probably the best solution in this case is to insert another speed hump for drivers to slow down and negotiate.

  53. They should just add gravel there for the next race.

  54. You’re a fool for asking so. It only shows you don’t know how those penalties work or track limits work.

  55. I am astonished by this poll and reactions by people. I

  56. So we are talking about Rosberg gaining a time advantage that basically meant nothing in the entire race but not about Kvyat who did it aswell and thereby managed to stay ahead of Kimi. Or Magnussen, or Ericcsson who did it aswell.

    1. @xtwl The Kvyat incident was different because Kimi was attempting an overtake. But in my opinion Kimi was too far back and forced Kvyat off so i don’t agree that Daniil was at fault. Actually i think it was good awareness of him to go straight on and avoid an incident. If he had tried to make the corner they would have crashed, so if anything Kimi would have deserved a penalty but since the incident was avoided it was correct for the stewards to take no action.

      But don’t stress, it was an incident packed race so i’m sure there will be time to discuss all these other events ;)

      1. @keithedin I agree it was very clever from Kvyat to do so. But Kimi WAS alongside him going into the chicane. He wasn’t, as you say, coming from a long back. When they arrived at the point where you turn in Kimi had just enough of his car next to Kvyat to have the advantage into the chicane.

  57. Rosberg gained an advantage that lasted a couple of laps. Surely that’s lasting?

    If Kyvat had taken the racing line he would have had an accident and it surely would have been Kimi’s fault as he was so far back.

    Rosberg chose to use the run off, chose to floor it and chose not to back off to allow Hamilton to close. That was all deliberate which makes it worthy of a penalty for me.

  58. These are the rules, you judge for yourselves, in my opinion Nico got an unfair advantage with the runoff area and if that area wasn’t there he would have been out of the race. But the rules are as follows; Article 16.1 f) of the Sporting Regulations states that a driver may be penalised if he ‘illegitimately prevented a legitimate overtaking manoeuvre by a driver’, while the all-encompassing clause 20.2 declares: ‘Drivers must use the track at all times. For the avoidance of doubt the white lines defining the track edges are considered to be part of the track but the kerbs are not. Should a car leave the track the driver may rejoin, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any advantage.’

  59. KnottyBwoy
    9th June 2014, 7:16

    I think everything happening to Hamilton now if quite unfair.that’s all i can say.

  60. Rosberg did not intentionally lock up his tyres and run straight on, it is just by chance that it happened to gain him an advantage…. Hmm, deja vu….

    At the time i thought a warning with no penalty was reasonable, but now that i think about it a 5 second stop and go penalty might have been fairer. It was borderline though. He did gain at least 6 tenths on Hamilton and broke out of DRS for a couple of laps but on the other hand Hamilton wasn’t attempting a pass at that point and usually drivers just get a warning the first time they cut track limits (Massa at Brazil 2013 was penalised for cutting 3 times i think).

  61. Under current rules I don’t think that was a penalty. Although Finnish commentator was mentioning how 5-second penalty is actually best suitable for these kind of things..

    However, to avoid chicane cutting I have sometimes thought about rule: there is a time measurement point just before the braking area and if car cutting a chicane is less than one second ahead, he shall let the car behind through (unless it was really the fault behind the driver behind)

  62. It was the fact he didn’t even lift or attempt to steer right, just flat out! It overstepped the mark definitely. Rosberg has a knack of mucking up under pressure and benefitting from it.

  63. In short yes he should have received a penalty, perhaps a 5 second time addition or something similar.
    I do think it is strange that to stop cars cutting the chicane there was the speed hump added and then they have left enough room for a car to not have to go over the speed bump, which in my view negates the whole point of having the hump added. Surely if you want to discourage / penalise a driver just extend the hump right the way along. Glad to see Canada will be on the calendar for another good while yet, after yesterday’s race I would struggle to imagine the sport without the venue!

  64. I am not going to comment if Rosberg should have gotten a penalty because it has been very inconsistent with the steward decisions in similar situations. Grosjean overtaking Massa last year, or those chicane cuttings every year in Monaco etc, it makes me wonder if there should be a standard penalty for leaving the track no matter what the situation is. I mean if you speed in the pit lane you always get a penalty. If your gearbox needs changing you get a penalty. So why leaving the track should be any different. However 5 secs during pit stop is too much, maybe 2 secs would be better for these incidents. Just a thought

  65. Marvin (@carbonentity)
    9th June 2014, 10:38

    Typical! The words fail me. Hamilton was clearly in the DRS window and wanted to overtake. Rosberg took the shortcut and kept the advantage of over one second. He didn’t even stepped off the gas once. You don’t need to be an expert to see that this incident clearly changed the outcome of the race. Everybody knows that Hamilton is the better and faster race driver, period. You could even see from how he got closer and closer every lap from his position in this incident. I am myself mixed race and I can see clearly what is happening here. It is called “discrimination”. I know from my own experience at work that dark skinned people always have got to be three times better then white people and even then it is not good enough. Of course the white guy got cleared of any wrong doing. We all know if it was Hamilton who would have done this, he no doubt would have got the penalty and would have been taken aside by the stewards afterwards and would have been remprimanded like a little child. Black people live here in germany and europe since the 1930´s and before. Do you see any of them in a top position? Hell naw, blacks cannot manage a firm, lead a country, let alone drive a race car. Look even in Monaco Rosberg has not been penalised, Hamilton has already been penalised for lesser things. Yesterday in canada, when Hamilton got close again in the last laps he tried to attack at the same corner and had to cut the same chicane, but he stepped off the gas and let Rosberg in front again, because he is a real pure blood and fair racer.

  66. The big difference from many of these chicane cuts, is that Rosberg actually gained half a second.
    And a very very important half second. After you cut a chicane you should let yourself drop back to where you were. And you can do this max. 1time in my opinion. Or maybe they should make a rule, don’t make the corner, you lose the place by default. This way they’ll make the corner, believe me.

    1. So…how would NR have dropped back to where he was without killing his momentum and handing the spot to LH? How would NR have been able to determine and enact the perfect penalty for himself without costing himself more than he deserved?

      As to ‘don’t make the corner, you lose the place by default’…there would then have to be a whole new book of rules and all kinds of controversy as to how close one would have to be behind the guy making the mistake, to have earned the defaulted spot. Should there be ‘default zones’ at every corner at every track? I think you might as well just ask for walls on the outsides of every corner of every track and forget any runoff areas whatsoever, if your goal is to hold drivers to mistake free races…and the racing will be much slower and more processional to boot.

      1. “So…how would NR have dropped back to where he was without killing his momentum and handing the spot to LH?”

        That’s for NR to work out, not the stewards to agonise over.

        I appreciate that it’s a difficult to balance the severity of a infringement with the implications of a punishment, but I think the wrong call was made in this situation.

        The reason is think so is this: how can it be fair to have a situation where a driver makes a significant mistake, and yet ends up gaining time because of it. A mistake should always be “punished” somehow. Not always loss of a place, but loss of time or track position. You could argue that his punishment was a flat spot on his tyre, but I’m not sure that’s sufficient, especially considering the gain in time.

        Ultimately the battle between Rosberg and Hamilton was decided by Hamilton’s brakes, I feel the poor design of the run off area (where is was possible to go quicker than the track) means that a penalty should have been given.

        On another note, Nico might need to start being careful with his reputation – two questionable incidents in two races starts hinting at a pattern. Whether or not he actually did anything wrong doesn’t matter to many, just the appearance of wrongdoing can be enough to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

        1. @fluxsource I think that most of the time at most tracks a driver is in fact punished for a significant mistake. I’m not sure this mistake was as significant as many think…he didn’t spin, didn’t hit anyone or anything etc etc. and due to the track design there was a runoff that allowed him and any driver to get back going or keep going unscathed. I think the warning was penalty enough in this case, and would have had him being more cautious at that spot for the rest of the race. It’s not that I entirely disagree with you, but I also think that drivers should not always be punished, and certainly not severely, for full-out racing. They got rid of kitty litter in a lot of places because people complained of their favourite driver’s day being ended for one mistake.

          I reject the notion that NR needs to be careful about his reputation. I think it matters a great deal to the ones who count, that he was found not guilty in Monaco. Those who still don’t accept that and have a bad taste are not going to affect NR going forward. In Montreal he was guilty of racing and trying to keep LH at bay. Nothing to feel guilty about there, and if the stewards had wanted to give him more than just a warning then he would have complied to whatever they wanted. NR is an angel compared to those involved in Spygate, Liegate, Crashgate etc gate, and whatever bad taste those things left has not seemed to affect anything. NR nor anyone is ever going to please everyone.

          1. @robbie

            First off, thanks for the mature and reasoned reply. There is hope for the human race.

            As for the mistake not being severe, I disagree. If there was anything other than tarmac on that run off, and a wide enough gap between the wall and the sausage to fit through, Nico would absolutely have lost that place. His mistake was sufficient to severely lock brakes for a long time, and wasn’t able to make the corner. I’m not advocating a one mistake and you’re out situation by any means, but he got that corner massively wrong. Not losing any time because of it was lucky. Actually benefiting from it is down right wrong (although I’m not suggesting it was on purpose).

            As for the reputation thing, I’m not for a moment saying he’s done anything wrong. But just because he’s been cleared by the stewards doesn’t mean that everyone believes he didn’t do it on purpose. And again here, the results of this poll suggest there are many people who think he “got away with it”.

            His reputation is fine. But both the media and fans can be fickle at times, and the PR battle is one that needs fighting too. While he’s achieved victories on track (well, relatively in the case of Canada), these two incidents have to be seen as small defeats. All I’m saying is that Nico needs to keep an eye on these small things – they have a habit of building up levels of resentment.

          2. @fluxsource I think that is fair comment. And back at you with the mature and reasoned reply. NR’s lockup was severe but there are bigger mistakes to make. The worst case for him would have been that LH got ahead of him which would have happened at many other places on many other tracks where the one in front has such a lockup. Lucky for sure, but I’m still not convinced he gained enough to be punished more than with a warning, as confirmed by the stewards.

            I take your point about resentment, and in a way perhaps I was already agreeing somewhat with your stance when I was actually a bit glad that NR didn’t win the race as that would have been looked on as REALLY getting away with something with his lockup, and REALLY only leading LH due to LH’s bad luck. The fact that NR also had some bad luck, albeit not as bad as LH, takes a little bit off of the NR just leading because…notion. I take your point about small defeats and I think NR is aware of them. He knows he lockup up in Monaco too, so has work to do. He can lead LH, but it’s not always pretty, and I do cut NR some slack for never having had this equipment nor this much chance for the WDC whereas LH has been there, not necessarily with such strong equipment vs the competition, but top 3 cars always nonetheless. I look for NR to take and learn from all that is happening, especially in these last 2 races.

  67. I voted “Slightly agree”. Based on current application of the rules, it was a close call whether he would get a penalty. People tend to judge an advantage to mean gain of a position or immediately holding a position, and this seems to be what the stewards judged it on: HAM would not have immediately overtaken had ROS not locked up.

    Personally, however, I think that such actions should be punished. I believe that any time a driver leaves the track, if they do not suffer a visible disadvantage in doing so they should be penalised. I have argued this in the past. The rules say you must drive within the track limits. Unfortunately this is not how the rules are currently applied, so I am not too disgruntled by the decision.

    1. I do hear you however if there was a no tolerance, black and white rule that one must stay within the track limits then the racing will suffer, drivers will not feel as free to go for it, and there might as well be walls around every corner of every track. I don’t think F1 could handle homologated racing of this type. Much of the excitement would disappear and the processions would kill F1. This is racing and the drivers have to be able to go for it, and there has to be some shades of grey and some questionable controversial stuff or the headlines just won’t be there. One of the reasons they moved away from so much kitty litter was so your favourite driver wouldn’t have his day ended for one little mistake in the name of racing and going for it, which is what we expect in the pinnacle of racing.

  68. If there was no run-off or at least a punishing one, Hamilton would have had a big chance of overtaking him on the next straight. Or, you know, not floor it and pretend like it’s a lucky mistake.

    As it stands, that lucky mistake meant that Rosberg went 6 tenths faster and got out of Hamilton’s DRS range. Hamilton had to catch up again, using his tires, overheating his engine etc.

    Rosberg’s “Oh, I did not know” mistakes are getting a bit annoying (reversing on Monaco and flooring it now).

  69. Changing the subject… why f1 official webpage never offers speed traps speed in race session, they show in free practices and qualifying but why never in race? Dont understand as would be interesting to know it.

  70. “a driver must not gain any “lasting” advantage by leaving the track.”

    The most important word here is lasting. I would interpret it as meaning “gaining a position”, because Rosberg cut the chicane, but his advantage didn’t last, he just got a little bit of breathing space. Of course, if it have been repeated, then a penalty would have been logical outcome.

  71. Personally I think F1 got it exactly right. First of all, and once again, NR did nothing intentional. He locked up his brakes in a heated battle to keep LH behind him. But LH was not attempting a pass right there.

    I don’t blame NR for then doing what he did, even if he set fastest time, which was also no doubt not his aim. I don’t know what else he should have done. Many say he should have given LH the spot…no way…LH hadn’t earned that. Many say NR gained a lasting advantage…no he did not obviously, as in no time LH was on him again. Many say NR took LH out of the DRS zone when he cut the chicane…yes he did, but again not intentionally, and LH had already proved many times in the race that being in the DRS zone behind NR was no guarantee of an overtake.

    I think NR did the only thing he could do, as I don’t know how else he himself would have been able to judge fair compensation for LH. I think NR had to just go for it and see what the stewards had to say about it, because if he had backed off at all he would have just been handing the spot to LH which might have been penalizing himself too much for all he knew at the time. And he was right. What kind of prescident would have been set if you could no longer make a mistake ahead of a driver not passing you without having to give up a spot or be even more severely punished because of what maybe mighta woulda coulda happened.

    NR’s penalty was flat-spotted tires, dirt on his tires from cutting the chicane, and a warning from the stewards, which would have made him a titch more cautious at that spot on the track. To do anything more to NR would have been penalizing him too much for simply all-out racing.

    1. Nick (@grosjean0817)
      9th June 2014, 13:34

      Nico accelerated through the run off area! This is the epitome of gaining an advantage. You are extremely wrong!

      1. Of course I disagree as stated above. He accelerated, yes. What else was he to do? Not accelerate then? Assume he should just lay down and let LH go without knowing if that was necessary? LH wasn’t passing NR so NR needn’t have had his first reaction to be that he owed LH the spot. He was smart to let the stewards figure that out rather than give up something LH had not earned.

  72. Nick (@grosjean0817)
    9th June 2014, 13:33

    Rosberg did the same thing last year to Romain Grosjean in Abu Dhabi. Nico was running third with Romain closing and Nico cut the middle chicane while gaining a couple of seconds due to the lengthy straightaway. Everyone knows if you make a mistake through that chicane, you will lose a lot of top speed down that straight. Rosberg did not give the time back until a few laps later when he let off at the start line. He did not give back the amount of time he gained. He set the fastest sector time by close to two seconds when he did this and it was not even mentioned. This dude is a cheater…

    1. I guess if it was not even mentioned, then he did the right thing and no penalty was warranted. Perhaps he was waiting for word from the stewards as to how he should compensate,mwhich happened as you say a few laps later,mtherefore he did the right thing and the last thing he is is a cheater. So…no penalty then…no penalty in Monaco…a warning in Canada…an otherwise squeaky clean reputation…you need to drop the ‘cheater’ rhetoric…dude!

      1. He may have been cleared, but that only affects his record not his reputation. Judging by the comments, that has clearly been damaged.

  73. Why can’t they just use some tire barriers to make an extra small chicane up where the shortcut rejoins the track, so that it is impossible to shortcut the chicane and gain time. That way a driver would actually be punished for making the mistake but can get on with his racing. If drivers are left to punish themselves they are always going to toe the line and its left up to the stewards to decide in a no-win situation (Grosjean in hungary) . This whole argument would be moot if they could properly design tracks so that it is impossible to exceed track limits and gain time, while still keeping drivers safe.

  74. Definately should have been penalised he made an error which would have cost him time but by missing the track he made his mistake an advantage, people have been comparing that lap with an average lap which is wrong because with a huge lockup and unable to take the corner it should have been a slow lap for him instead it was his fastest, Hamilton would have taken the lead.

  75. Spa 2010 – LH cuts the chicane, gives back the place to Kimi, then immediately overtakes Kimi to win. Stewards handed him a 25-second penalty.
    Rosberg should have been made to give the place back at the very least. Easy to see why the LH fanboys are angry. Lewis must feel terrible.

  76. As a newcomer to F1 (2 years) I don’t have any strong ties to a racing driver. I enjoy this inter-team battle, its really exciting along with all the amazing technology that has been added. Anyone arguing that wasn’t a lasting advantage is obviously in Nico’s pocket. Watch it again as he stays in the throttle off track. If theres any question here, those people have never been in a racing environment. He obviously didn’t want to lose any more time than locking up his tires caused so he stayed in it 100%. The correct course of action here wasn’t a penalty as that would damage the racing. What SHOULD of happened was the Stewards record the time he was off track and when he rejoined safely, they could of contacted the team and advised Nico drop that time exactly, no more and no less. Regardless of who is around or how it would affect his position. He gained a time advantage, be it .1 or 10 second. Its not for us to speculate how it would change the running order, thats for the drivers to figure out on track.

  77. In a sport where an advantage is measured in tenths, hundredths and thousandths of a second the 0.6s that Rosberg gained was a big deal.

    Going purple immediately after such an error AND breaking DRS contact with Hamilton IS a lasting advantage.

    The main issue I have here is Rosberg flooring the throttle while traveling through the chicane escape route and gaining the time.

    The punishment is difficult though. I don’t see how the stewards could have punished this error without being too harsh. The issue is its not entirely clear that Hamilton would have passed at that point thus gaining the place. And if the run off area wasn’t there it’s highly likely that Rosberg would have had Hamilton at least side by side.

    For me the solution isn’t to put gravel there. Or grass. The speed bumps are the solution. Penalize the mistake. Make it a get out of jail free card in terms of escaping damage. But don’t make it conducive to cheat.

    And considering Rosbergs Monaco incident and now this? I’m inclined to think he is starting to play dirty.

    Then again he is a racer. With a winning mentality.

    That doesn’t excuse a lack of sportsmanship.

  78. A bit late but I thought I would add my comment anyway.

    I thought that Rosberg did deserve a penalty for cutting the chicane and was very surprised when he wasn’t ordered to let Hamilton through and didn’t even receive any penalty at all.

    I thought with the variety of penalties on other to the stewards he might just get something like 5 seconds added to his next pit stop, so he would have the chance to try and increase the gap before the stops and so retain the lead.

    When Rosberg locked up not only did he decide to cut the chicane he also floored it across the run off setting his fastest lap and crucially increasing the gap to Hamilton to over 1 second and so out of DRS range, Hamilton then had to use up more tyres to close the gap again.

    If Rosberg had tried to make the chicane would he have been able to also maintain the lead, I do not believe he would have, which is why I thought the stewards would have told him to let Hamilton through.

    One of the main problems I have with incidents such as this is that it should never be quicker to make a mistake and to go off track than it is making a mistake free lap.

    Ideally there should be some sleeping policemen type obstructions on the chicane short cut like they have at Monza which forces the driver to slow down if they have to cut the chicane, although they probably do not have them at the final chicane in Canada for safety reasons.

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.