Mercedes takes “disciplinary measures” as Rosberg accepts blame

2014 Belgian Grand Prix

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Spa-Francorchamps, 2014Nico Rosberg has apologised for colliding with Lewis Hamilton during Sunday’s Belgian Grand Prix, Mercedes have confirmed.

The team said “suitable disciplinary measures” have been taken, but did not specify what these involved, and said the pair “remain free to race” for the world championship.

A statement released on Friday said: “Toto Wolff, Paddy Lowe, Nico Rosberg and Lewis Hamilton met today in the boardroom of Mercedes AMG Petronas headquarters in Brackley to discuss the events of the Belgian Grand Prix.

“During this meeting, Nico acknowledged his responsibility for the contact that occurred on lap two of the Belgian Grand Prix and apologised for this error of judgement.

“Suitable disciplinary measures have been taken for the incident.

“Mercedes-Benz remains committed to hard, fair racing because this is the right way to win world championships. It is good for the team, for the fans and for Formula One.

“Lewis and Nico understand and accept the team’s number one rule: there must be no contact between the team’s cars on track.

“It has been made clear that another such incident will not be tolerated. But Nico and Lewis are our drivers and we believe in them.

“They remain free to race for the 2014 FIA Formula One world championship.”

Rosberg also issued a statement accepting responsibility for the collision.

“In the days since the Belgian Grand Prix in Spa, I have spent a lot of time thinking about what happened during the race and discussing it with the team,” he said.

“I have already expressed my regret about the incident but, after meeting with Toto, Paddy and Lewis today, I wish to go a step further and describe it as an error of judgement on my part.

“The number one rule for us as team-mates is that we must not collide but that is exactly what happened.
For that error of judgement, I apologise to Lewis and the team. I also want to say sorry to the fans who were deprived of our battle for the lead in Belgium.

“Lewis and I have been given clear instructions about how we race each other. As drivers, we have a clear responsibility to the team, the fans of the sport, our partners and Mercedes-Benz to deliver clean racing. We take that responsibility very seriously.

“I look forward to concluding the season with hard, fair competition on and off track right up to the final lap of the season in Abu Dhabi.”

2014 Belgian Grand Prix

Browse all2014 Belgian Grand Prix articles

Image © Daimler/Hoch Zwei

Advert | Go Ad-free

210 comments on Mercedes takes “disciplinary measures” as Rosberg accepts blame

1 2 3 4
  1. Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource) said on 29th August 2014, 13:22

    I Nico wins the WDC championship by less than 18 points… well I’ll do nothing, but I’ll be upset!

  2. Custard said on 29th August 2014, 13:23

    Well done Mercedes

  3. Bullfrog (@bullfrog) said on 29th August 2014, 13:23

    there must be no contact between the team’s cars on track.

    Beyond the track limits, anything goes.

  4. petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 29th August 2014, 13:25

    I’m amazed that the team are publicly stating that they are punishing Nico because of his driving and yet the FIA feel that he did nothing wrong…. Seems very odd.

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 29th August 2014, 13:34

      The teams are allowed to do what they want to their drivers regarding penalties.

      The FIA/Stewards wouldn’t, for example, act on the Hungary TO situation, but Mercedes were in their rights to sanction their own drivers if they wanted to.

      • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 29th August 2014, 14:15

        @optimaximal – Yeah of course they wouldn’t because not following team orders isn’t against the FIA’s rules.

        Causing an avoidable incident is however and by punishing Nico, Mercedes are saying that they feel it was avoidable.

        It seems odd for the FIA to be saying everything is fine and for Nico’s own team to be saying the oposite. Surely they wouldn’t punish Nico for something they deem a racing incident?

        • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 29th August 2014, 14:31

          @petebaldwin It was, in the end, a racing incident – two cars touched on track with no deliberate intent from either driver. Sloppy on behalf of Rosberg, who should really have pulled out and bailed across the run-off, but the actual contact wasn’t enough for a penalty, even though the circumstances for Lewis and the championship were pretty significant.

          Mercedes, however, have always said that the drivers are free to race providing they don’t hit each other, even if its a minor kiss – thus, the incident, in their eyes, broke the only rule they’ve consistently talked about all year. They also clearly view the situation that Nico was in the wrong given the relative track position.

          • Mark in Florida said on 30th August 2014, 0:09

            Mercedes had to do something to soothe Hamilton’s fragile ego, though the stewards thought otherwise. Where’s a real team principle when you need one to make the boys get along.

          • Nicole admitted he caused the incident to prove a point. He deliberately caused a collision and ruined Lewis’s race, again.

        • Kelsier (@kelsier) said on 29th August 2014, 15:15

          “Avoidable contact” rule is from Indycar, not F1. In F1 “racing incidents” are normally not punished. These are normally avoidable but understandable collisions. (Any contact can ofcause be avoided by not racing at all (Chilton/ my grandfather etc)).

      • ColdFly F1 (@coldfly) said on 29th August 2014, 14:24

        @optimaximal +1
        It seems that many people create rules for the FIA that does not exist.

      • fractal (@fractal) said on 29th August 2014, 14:38

        I personally do see it as a racing incident. However, I believe the outcome of Lewis retiring and the aftermath of team losing potential 1-2 forced someone to take the blame and Nico took it. We may have had a different situation if Nico had crashed with no issue to Lewis whatsoever, by the same kind of contact. No matter what, it is a racing incident. So no point whining about any further intervention of FIA on this already overly spiced up matter. Period.

    • Matt (@mattf1f) said on 29th August 2014, 13:35

      Well someone just told me here yesterday that FIA is now more lenient and not imposing penalties on all racing incidents after the teams and drivers had asked this earlier in the year. So based on that information I do understand that his team will “punish” him because it was his careless driving and it hurt the team. But when it comes to FIA for them it was just another racing incident.

      Will be interesting to see in the future races how close wheel to wheel racing these two will take and what if one of them does another mistake what happens then.

      • petebaldwin (@petebaldwin) said on 29th August 2014, 14:13

        @mattf1f – I get what you mean but surely if it was Nico’s careless driving that cause the incident, he could have been careful and not had an incident.

        On that basis, it was an avoidable incident and as such, the FIA should take action…

        • Matt (@mattf1f) said on 29th August 2014, 14:22

          Going by that logic every collision is avoidable and therefore FIA should award penalties for every collision if there was even the smallest possibility to avoid it.

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 29th August 2014, 14:53

            That would depend on how clear it was that one person was to blame and whether the collision actually did much damage to the innocent party’s race. So not every collision would be penalised using that logic.

        • PeterG said on 29th August 2014, 14:31

          It was a misjudgement but it wasn’t a truly idiotic misjudgement, By which I mean he didn’t brake way too late & throw his car into the side of Lewis’, He just made a very small error by 1-2cm.

          This is the sort of thing the FIA will no longer be looking at as I said yesterday at the request of Teams & drivers who pushed for this due to the negative reaction of fans to penalty’s & stuff such as this handed out over the past few years.

          The FIA want to encourage close racing, They want to encourage drivers to have a go without feeling the need to hold back through fear of the slightest bit of contact resulting in a penalty.
          There were several drivers who felt the regulations as they were up until recently were discouraging racing because drivers were holding back through fear of receiving a penalty.

          The FIA have basically just taken things back to where they used to be 12-13+ years ago, We never used to see penalty’s for racing incidents or small misjudgements & the racing was arguably better for it.
          The penalty’s started coming in from 2002 (The Montoya/Schumacher Malaysia collision was the 1st I remember) & its been getting more & more strict over time, I think its great they have scaled things back to leave the drivers to race.

          • No misjudgement Nico deliberately punctured Lewis tyre with his front wing to prove a point. Nico has taken responsibility for this.
            Lots if Nico deniers about.

    • MarkM said on 29th August 2014, 14:41

      it puzzles me why YOU are amazed,
      The FIA doesn’t pump millions into advertising like Mercedes does for their cars.
      The FIA doesn’t care how Mercedes do,
      The FIA dont care about losing the opportunity to take marketing advantage in Belgium, which Merc cant do now.
      The FIA doesnt care that Merc worked so hard to have a super dominant car (+2 sec per lap) and still didnt win the race.
      Should I keep going?
      are you STILL surprised?

    • Asanator (@asanator) said on 29th August 2014, 16:27

      No-one has said they are punishing Rosberg, Mercedes say he has been disciplined which is different.

    • Chuck Lantz said on 31st August 2014, 22:11

      It’s perfectly logical for the FIA to accept small incidents between team cars that the team themselves will not tolerate. For example, one team car very closely following another would be perfectly OK under the rules, but far from OK if the team car doing the following was slowly melting his engine. As we all understand, F1 is a team sport that isn’t a team sport, until those times that it IS a team sport. And vice versa. ;)

  5. ADD (@addimaf1) said on 29th August 2014, 13:26

    Watch Hamilton cause the next crash…..

    • Chris (@cgturbo) said on 29th August 2014, 13:44

      @addimaf1

      I hope not, for two reasons:

      1) It’s childish, if he wants to win the championship with my respect… Win it as legitimately as he can.
      2) So much risk involved… It could easily go balls up where Lewis’ car is damaged, but Nico’s is still drivable.

      • kartik said on 29th August 2014, 14:04

        3. Most important one suppose Both collided again and both got a DNF that would allow DAN to gain more points on both drivers and Lewis will have one race less to gain points.

        • Breno (@austus) said on 30th August 2014, 0:19

          Are you saying if Rosberg and Hamilton collide at Abu Dabhi, Ricciardo could get 50 points?

          • kartik said on 30th August 2014, 9:19

            @austus
            I said that with Generic situation in mind , If that happen in Yas unless the Leader of WDC(Who it can be at that point) was less than 50 points to Ric the Championship will be go to leader

      • ADD (@addimaf1) said on 29th August 2014, 14:05

        Good point, but I meant by mistake, and then while Rosberg gets away with a slap on the wrist for doing it first Hamilton gets kicked out for a race. Its just Hamilton’s luck.

    • Asanator (@asanator) said on 29th August 2014, 16:29

      Well it wouldn’t surprise me, maybe now more drivers will stand up to Chopper Hamilton’s dirty moves

      • Jake (@jleigh) said on 30th August 2014, 6:43

        All of Hamilton’s “chops” are fair racing etiquette. Hard, but 100% fair.

      • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 30th August 2014, 13:52

        Go back to Bahrain 2012 to see why the FIA came down hard on overly harsh defending. Who was the cause of their ire?

        If anything Rosberg is the overly aggressive driver. He even pulls those moves when he really isn’t entitled to them on the basis of “owning the racing line”. in Bahrain 2012 he pushed Hamilton and Alonso off on the straight. In Hungary he pushed Bottas off track while coming from behind.

  6. matt90 (@matt90) said on 29th August 2014, 13:29

    Bit better than the BBC, who reported literally only these words…

    “Mercedes have taken disciplinary action against Nico Rosberg following his collision with team-mate Lewis Hamilton in the Belgian Grand Prix.”

    They may as well have said just said “Thing happens in F1… more to follow.”

    • William Stuart (@williamstuart) said on 29th August 2014, 13:58

      Haha, I just read that

    • MagicSpin said on 29th August 2014, 15:16

      I read ‘naughty German punished for colliding with Lew’

    • WilliamB (@william-brierty) said on 29th August 2014, 17:29

      @matt90 – That’s what happens when you give a press release to BBC’s Andrew “Assertion” Benson…

      Still a shame that it’s taken a week and presumably a lot of video and PR analysis for Nico to accept responsibility for an incident that I would have imagined Hamilton, Button, Vettel and certainly Ricciardo would’ve apologized then and there for. His handling of the entire situation has been profoundly unclassy and the obvious question must be why, when it must have been immediately apparent to Rosberg that he’d just ruined Mercedes’ Belgian Grand Prix, did he so stoically refuse to apologize? Stoic to such an extent that he felt it necessary to insult the intelligence of the booing crowd of European fans (sorry Nico, but the German guy I sat next to was booing too), as mere patriotism on the part of the British; patriotism that is somehow misplaced due to the fact that most fans haven’t read the FIA’s Sporting Regulations cover to cover. There is no more guaranteed method of being greeted on the podium at Monza to sound of a booing Tifosi than to insult that acumen of the sport’s faithful; those on which the sport rely.

      • David BR2 said on 29th August 2014, 21:52

        +1
        Either Rosberg is extremely unselfaware, which may be possible (see under: Maldonado) or he really didn’t want to cede any ground because (1) he thought he was in the right whatever, or (2) he wanted to place further psychological pressure on Hamilton by denying responsibility and threatening more of the same, albeit in coded form. Bit of all three I guess.

        I think psychologically Rosberg comes out of this on top. He got away with an incident again, like Monaco (personally I think both were deliberate insofar as they were deliberately careless moments of driving at opportune moments: another example of the same Rosberg mindset was cutting the chicane at Canada that allowed him to pull away from Hamilton as he was closing in fast). On the other hand, this is a definite black mark and I don’t think Mercedes will allow him another incident like this without a much more serious repercussion. And that could well count against him over the remaining races.

        • pxcmerc (@pcxmerc) said on 30th August 2014, 5:01

          I think you missed Rosberg’s nervous tick during the interview with Pinkham, the guy was a mess after that race, he couldn’t even pretend to be happy during the podium ceremony.

          Rosberg’s problems are that he knows he can’t beat his teammate under fair circumstances. But he will continue to act like all is good as long as he finishes on top at the end of the season, might makes right. The guys been driving dreadfully this year, I liked him last year, but this year hes been kind of shameful.

          A shame Lewis has had more problems from his own team, than his own teammate, otherwise he would have about 40 points over Rosberg by now.

  7. Ed Marques (@edmarques) said on 29th August 2014, 13:31

    He’ll only have only type of food in Italy, and his hotel room will be smaller than the other driver. But whatever, 29 points…

  8. Little_M_Lo (@pezlo2013) said on 29th August 2014, 13:32

    I’d laugh if Hamilton or Rosberg crash into one another at Rettifilo on Lap 1.

    • Breno (@austus) said on 30th August 2014, 0:22

      Rettifilo is the first chicane on Monza, correct? If both start from the front row, I think thats difficult to happen, they brake to crawling speeds there. Maldonado starting from 20th on the other hand….

  9. KeithR (@lockup) said on 29th August 2014, 13:34

    Bottled it. Now the lesser and less honest driver is odds on for the championship. My road car is staying BMW!

    • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 29th August 2014, 14:42

      How is Nico less honest? He’s apologised for the situation, which is the most that should be reasonably expected of a racing driver.

      There’s an open debate about how poorly he conducted himself post-race, but the racing incident was just that, a racing incident.

      • Yeah, a week and a team-meeting later. It’s clear that he knows it was his fault (otherwise I don’t think he would have appologized at all) but doesn’t really show any remorse, considering the time and the guidance it took for him to do it.

      • tgu (@thegrapeunwashed) said on 30th August 2014, 7:59

        A racing incident normally involves two cars making errors of judgement. Nico is 100% at fault here (as he now acknowledges). It was an act of petulance which netted him 18 points. The FIA should have acted.

  10. ShoponF (@shoponf) said on 29th August 2014, 13:34

    Nico acknowledged his responsibility for the contact that occurred on lap two of the Belgian Grand Prix and apologised for this error of judgement. “Suitable disciplinary measures have been taken for the incident”.

    Fair do’s Mercedes. However, now that Rosberg accepted the responsibility officically, doesn’t that count as ‘New Element’ as far as FIA is concerned. Wait to see what they come up with.

    • KeithR (@lockup) said on 29th August 2014, 13:40

      Derek Warwick is driver steward in Monza, as he was in Monaco. He’s already as good as said there’ll be no further investigation.

      • Derek Warwick does not like British F1 drivers that are better than him. That will be all other British F1 drivers then!

      • ShoponF (@shoponf) said on 29th August 2014, 13:48

        This is FIA said recently

        FIA spokesman Pierre Regent told The Daily Mail: “The FIA will not intervene in this issue. Only a ‘new element’ that would have appeared after the results became final could justify us opening an investigation. A comment alleged to have been made in an internal briefing and later denied by the team itself does not constitute such a ‘new element’.”

        Well, this not an internal briefing, Mercedes has now made a public statement.

        • Matt (@mattf1f) said on 29th August 2014, 14:08

          But FIA to take any further action would only happen if Rosberg had said he did it on purpose. But today he only apologised and admitted it was his fault like most of us already knew. Well we don’t know what was said behind the closed doors but we don’t have any better source than that of Mercedes public statement.

          • ShoponF (@shoponf) said on 29th August 2014, 14:40

            IMO ‘acknowledged his responsibility for the contact’ no longer a ‘racing incident’ and therefore FIA must now decide whether this was deliberate or not.

          • Optimaximal (@optimaximal) said on 29th August 2014, 14:46

            @shoponf What is your definition of a racing incident if it’s not one if ‘someone acknowledges responsibility’?

            Surely in every incident, someone is responsible – two cars don’t just ‘collide’ with no outside influence.

            The key factors are intent and malice – Rosberg clearly didn’t mean to tag Hamilton’s tyre. He did, ruined his team-mates race, massively compromised his own and conducted himself incredibly badly after the fact, but it’s highly doubtful that he went into that corner saying ‘I’m going to have Lewis off here’.

          • ShoponF (@shoponf) said on 29th August 2014, 15:02

            @optimaximal: so you are saying that Kevin Magnussen got penalty because it was proven that ‘Kevin thought to himself I’m going to force Alonso off the track’.
            As far as your interpretation of ‘massively compromised his own’ means that he now has 29 point lead whereas he had only 4 points lead before the race , there is nothing to comment.

          • ShoponF (@shoponf) said on 29th August 2014, 15:27

            @optimaximal: sorry ‘only 4 points’ is an unintentional mistake, it should be ‘only 11 points’.

    • Marco said on 29th August 2014, 13:47

      Its not a new element, he accepted an error of judgement, not that he did it on purpose. Anyway congratulations to Mercedes they are the ones keeping the season interesting.

    • Kelsier (@kelsier) said on 29th August 2014, 15:20

      He took responsibility for crashing, not for doing it intentionally.

      • ShoponF (@shoponf) said on 29th August 2014, 15:49

        I don’t know the exact definition of ‘racing incident’. IMHO racing incident must be an incident when neither party is more responsible for causing a collision. In this case, Rosberg ‘acknowledged his responsibility for the contact’, which makes Lewis as the innocent party. Therefore, it cannot be termed as a racing incident.

        • tgu (@thegrapeunwashed) said on 30th August 2014, 8:04

          Well said. When one driver ruins another’s race and is 100% at fault for doing so, we should expect him to receive a penalty. There’s no need to psychoanalyse him, we have sufficient facts already.

  11. PJA (@pja) said on 29th August 2014, 13:38

    Well Mercedes have only said “Suitable disciplinary measures have been taken” without giving any details of what exactly. Personally I can’t see what measures could be taken, especially in private, which would make any difference.

    They may have given him a strong warning or maybe even fined him, but any fine isn’t going to hurt a multi-millionaire.

    The drivers only really care about the drivers championship and unless a punishment directly impacted on their chances of winning the title they probably won’t be that bothered.

    I would not be surprised if most drivers would happily take a massive fine, being sacked from the team or damage to their reputation if it meant they became world champion.

    The incident in Spa effectively benefitted Rosberg by 25 points. The actual result meant Rosberg increased his championship lead by 18 points but if Hamilton had won and Rosberg came second Hamilton would have narrowed the lead by 7 points.

    It was plain for everyone to see that Rosberg was responsible for the contact so for him to publicly acknowledge this and apologise isn’t much of a trade-off given the advantage he received.

    • The incident in Spa effectively benefitted Rosberg by 25 points. The actual result meant Rosberg increased his championship lead by 18 points but if Hamilton had won and Rosberg came second Hamilton would have narrowed the lead by 7 points.

      That math doesn’t work mate. It’s either;
      case 1: ROS P2, HAM DNF / Rosberg gains 18 points
      case 2: HAM P1, ROS P2 / Rosberg loses 7 points

      Not both at the same time…

      • Simon999 said on 29th August 2014, 14:01

        There was a (potential) 25 point swing in championship points as a result of the incident…

        HAM 1st, ROS 2nd = 4 point lead
        ROS 2nd, HAM dnf = 29 point lead

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 30th August 2014, 0:15

          You could look at it as more. Rosberg caused his own damage, so you could say his wing trouble and later locking up was fully justified, meaning that had Hamilton’s tyre held together it would have been HAM-RIC-ROS, so the puncture meant Hamilton losing 25 points but Rosberg gaining 3 by coming 2nd instead of 3rd. A 28 point swing.

      • ColdFly F1 (@coldfly) said on 29th August 2014, 15:11

        Actually I think it is more like 107pts!
        – LH lost 25pts for not winning in Spa
        – NR gained 18pts by coming second in Spa (normally his wing would get stuck under his car and cause a major accident with engine failure and DNF)
        – NR gains 50pts by winning ABU, but he should have been demoted on the grid because of an extra engine change (due to failure in Spa), and being in the mid-field MAL would have crashed into him.
        – LW loses 14pts by coming second in ABU where he would have won had NR taken an extra engine grid penalty.

        I am not sure how much this is in apples or dog-years.

        *IF

      • D (@f190) said on 29th August 2014, 14:06

        No,

        If Hamilton won he would close the 11 point gap by 7 points making the difference just 4 points.

        The gap now is 29 points. 29-4 = 25 meaning the result cost Hamilton 25 points…

      • PJA (@pja) said on 29th August 2014, 14:06

        @xtwl

        Okay some may not agree with me but my reasoning was this

        Before the Belgium GP Rosberg had a lead of 11 points.

        Case 1 – the actual result – his lead increases to 29 points.

        Case 2 – Hamilton wins with Rosberg second – his lead is reduced to 4 points.

        So 29 minus 4 = 25 points, the benefit Rosberg gained from causing an avoidable collision which ultimately lead to his championship rival retiring.

        • Case 1 – the actual result – his lead increases to 29 points.

          Case 2 – Hamilton wins with Rosberg second – his lead is reduced to 4 points.

          Correct. But then you take the points ROS gains from case 1, and you add to that the possible points he would’ve lost to HAM from case 2 which is you 25. It is either case 1 OR case 2, not a mix of both. So either ROS gained 18 points on HAM, or ROS lost 7 points to HAM.

          Let me try it this way: I eat one apple, so you can’t eat that apple.
          Case 1: I eat the apple, no apple for you.
          Case 2: I eat half the apple, you get half the apple.
          Result: I had an entire apple more than you although you had 0,5 apple. Meanwhile there was only 1 apple to begin with… That just doesn’t add up. It’s either A or B, not a mix of both.

          @pja

          • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 29th August 2014, 14:43

            Are we seriously debating that the incident did not cost Lewis 25 points? It’s 25 points and it could have been 32 if it weren’t for Daniel…

          • PJA (@pja) said on 29th August 2014, 15:03

            @xtwl

            I am not mixing both scenarios, I agree it is either case 1 or case 2

            In case 1 Rosberg’s championship lead increased to 29 points.

            In case 2 Rosberg’s championship lead decreased to 4 points.

            We are working on the assumption that only one of these two scenarios could happen and not any number of possible alternate outcomes such as both drivers retiring or the finishing order being different.

            The difference in the two proposed cases is 25 points which is the amount I am saying Rosberg benefitted by.

            I do not believe that the example you used is suited to this situation as there is only one apple in total in your example.

            However to relate this back to the championship points on offer in a race, firstly there are more than 18 points on offer, there are 25 points for the win and secondly but more importantly if a driver wins and scores 25 points it does not stop other drivers scoring any points in the race, the driver in second place still scores 18 points and so on down to tenth place and one point.

          • @pja I typed this really long comment but I decided to just give up.

          • PJA (@pja) said on 29th August 2014, 15:20

            @xtwl

            Sometimes I am not very good at explaining things, even when they seem perfectly clear to me.

            To try to put it another way, in each of the two cases Rosberg finishes second so he has 18 points in either scenario and that does not change.

            However what does change in the two situations is Hamilton’s result, in case 1 Hamilton retires and scores 0 points but in case 2 he wins and score 25 points, and so the difference between the two outcomes is 25 points.

          • Sometimes I am not very good at explaining things, even when they seem perfectly clear to me.

            @pja, me too.

            However what does change in the two situations is Hamilton’s result, in case 1 Hamilton retires and scores 0 points but in case 2 he wins and score 25 points, and so the difference between the two outcomes is 25 points.

            Ah, but this is something different. Now you say Hamilton lost 25 points. That is something else than saying Nico gained 25 points on Lewis. The difference is 25 points for Lewis his points tally. But by finishing P2, scoring 18 points, Rosberg can never gain more than 18 points on another driver.

          • PJA (@pja) said on 29th August 2014, 16:02

            @xtwl

            Yeah the point I was trying to make was that the gain (or benefit, the term I used earlier, I am not sure how best to phrase it) for Rosberg’s championship challenge was not just the 18 points he scored but also the points that the collision stopped Hamilton from scoring.

            The difference may only be 7 points but we have seen titles decided by less than that, and Hamilton has been involved in two of them winning and losing a championship by small margins.

          • The Abbinator (@abbinator) said on 29th August 2014, 22:21

            Obviously 25 points, as that’s the prize for coming 1st… This debate is not really being thought about insimple terms. Also it’s purely hypothetical, who is to sat HAM was guaranteed of 1st, ROS of 2nd anyway? You’re forgetting chaos theory. ;)

          • @pja I’m going to try one last time. Not even going to respond to @freelittlebirds as he is completely wrong. To begin with, the thing I want to explain is that what you did in your first post mathematically is wrong. To explain that I’ve tried several things but only now found perhaps the most clear way of explaining it. We’ll go back to those two cases:

            Case 1 – the actual result – ROS lead increased by 18 points
            Case 2 – Hamilton wins with Rosberg second – ROS lead decreased by 7 points

            Now, let us imagin the crash happend and HAM somehow finished 10th, scoring 1 points. So that would be case 3.

            Case 3 – ROS P2, HAM P10 – ROS lead is increased by 17 points

            We can make up several other possibilities;

            Case 4 – ROS P2, HAM P9 – ROS lead is increased by 16 points

            Case 4 – ROS P2, HAM P8 – ROS lead is increased by 14 points

            By the math some here use it would not matter whether Hamilton was on the losing side both times. So in fact using your math on case 3 and 4 and 5, Hamilton lost 37 points. And we can add to that the possibility he would’ve won, so he lost 30 points, but then add the case where HAM retires, so he lost 48 points.

            See how you can’t calculate with the two situations together.

            It is always;
            A: HAM ret, ROS P2 – ROS increases his lead by 18 points
            B: HAM 1st, ROS P2 – ROS his lead is being decreased by 7 points.

            So the following statements are true:

            HAM lost a possible 25 points in the race for the victory.
            ROS increased his lead by 18 points.
            Because of the crash HAM lost a possible points finish.

            So the following statement are false:

            HAM lost 25 points in the championship to ROS.
            ROS gained 25 points in Spa towards HAM.
            ROS finished P2 and gained 25 points on HAM.

          • Jimbo (@jimbo) said on 30th August 2014, 13:30

            @xtwl

            The gain is calculated as the difference between the possible finishes. So given the different cases you proposed:

            Case 1 & Case 2: 18 – (-7) = 25 (Difference to ROS points lead between HAM DNF and HAM winning)
            Case 1 & Case 3: 18 – 17 = 1 (Difference to ROS points lead between HAM DNF and HAM 10th)
            Case 1 & Case 4: 18 – 16 = 2 (Difference to ROS points lead between HAM DNF and HAM 9th)
            Case 1 & Case 5: 18 – 14 = 4 (Difference to ROS points lead between HAM DNF and HAM 8th)

            So these statements are in fact true:

            HAM lost 25 points in the championship to ROS.
            ROS gained 25 points in Spa towards HAM.
            ROS finished P2 and gained 25 points on HAM.

            When considered against a HAM ROS 1 2 finish.

            This is known as Economic Profit in finance where your profit is calculated between your actual outcome and a potential one:

            http://www.investopedia.com/terms/e/economicprofit.asp

            So yes this is mathematically correct and a sound way of calculating Rosberg’s benefit.

          • @jimbo From a my point of view the calculation has no point whatsoever as there is always only one scenario happening. For me it has no use taking the possible gains from case 1 and add to that the loss of case 2 as they would never both happen at the same time. I agree that if we compare the two cases HAM would be up by 25 points. But for me (maybe it’s a language issue) that doesn’t make the sentence ‘HAM lost 25 points on ROS’ correct. The only way that sentence would be used is when ROS won and HAM did not finish.

          • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 30th August 2014, 15:46

            @xtwl What about Nico retiring for the mistake he made? How do you know that the collision would not have taken Nico out? You have to take that scenario into account since obviously that happened to Lewis. In any race, there are 50 points max differential for 2 drivers who are capable of fighting for P1.

            1. Lewis P1 Nico 0 points (25 point gain for Lewis)
            2. Nico P1 and Lewis 0 points (25 point gain for Nico)

            25+25 = 50

            Nico deserved to DNF in this case, not Lewis. In that case Lewis would have gained 25 points from the race. Instead Nico gained 18 points. Your analysis is assuming that Nico’s car would have survived a collision for which there’s no guarantee.

          • @freelittlebirds This whole comment has nothing to do with the accident, the riders, the cars or F1. Just math. So although I don’t agree with your last sentence that Nico deserved to DNF is is indeed a case.

        • Michael (@freelittlebirds) said on 29th August 2014, 20:26

          @xtwl As @pja has explained the net benefit to Nico at the time of the incident was 25 points. However since Nico was at fault he deserved to lose his points while Lewis remained at P1.

          Nico ended up 29 points ahead of Lewis when he should have been 14 points behind if Lewis had won and Nico retired. The net differential of Nico’s mistake was a whopping 43 points in this case!

          The pendulum swung the wrong way and effectively cost Lewis a 2 race advantage over Nico (29 pts behind versus 14 pts ahead).

          Sorry you’ve beating this to death so I thought I would chime in to explain to you the net loss to Lewis…

    • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 29th August 2014, 15:10

      I don’t think you can realistically say that if they hadn’t collided, the result would definitely be a 1-2 for Mercedes headed by Hamilton. The race was only 2 laps old, anything could have happened. Hamilton’s car may have had trouble, retired, had a problematic pit stop, collided with a different car, or hell, maybe even Rosberg would have just recovered and beaten him. To say that there are two potential outcomes, one with him winning, the other with him not finishing, is a pretty narrow interpretation of events. We have no way of knowing how that race might have panned out.

      • PJA (@pja) said on 29th August 2014, 15:50

        @mazdachris

        I agree if the collision on lap 2 had not happened there are any number of possible scenarios and a Mercedes 1-2 with Hamilton winning was by no means guaranteed.

        But even though it was very early in the race Hamilton was leading a Mercedes 1-2 at the time of the incident so that was what I was basing the alternate result on.

        My main point was that although Rosberg’s championship lead increased by 18 points after the race, the actual impact on the title race was not the same.

        If he wins the title by say 20 points people will say that this collision had no bearing on the final standings as Rosberg only scored 18 points at Spa, however I do not believe this to be case. (This is ignoring all the other ways the collision can affect the final outcome of the championship such as the psychological battle between the two drivers).

        If someone wanted to debate it further in favour of that final result they could say that with the performance advantage Mercedes had at the weekend, with a dry race, given that Hamilton has come out on top overall in on-track battles between the two teammates and that Hamilton eventually only retired due to problems arising from the puncture. I think a finishing order of Hamilton first and Rosberg second was probably the most likely given the order at the start of lap 2 and assuming there would be no contact between the two.

        • The Abbinator (@abbinator) said on 29th August 2014, 22:30

          HAM did not come out on top in Canada. ROS managed the problem and finished 2nd but HAM did not and retired. It is debatable if there was no braking issue that Lewis would have been able to make the overtake stick (despite ROS cutting the chicane).

          • matt90 (@matt90) said on 30th August 2014, 0:21

            If there was no braking issue but still an MGU issue, then Hamilton had almost certainly made the move stick after emerging from the pits ahead.

  12. 29 ahead, so cost him nothing to apologise and would still have been worth it for Rosberg unfortunately

  13. I was getting excited when I read the BBC headline, but it has turned out as Lewis said “A slap on the wrist”. Lewis can fight close without touching cars in such a fight for the WDC. His little altercation with Button was a misunderstanding between the 2 Brits. Lewis will know not to touch Nico, but can Nico race at that level and pressure without losing it? Or does Nico suffer from the ‘red mist’ when under pressure. I still have some doubts for Monaco qualifying he knew he was on a slower lap and Lewis could yet get pole, so ‘red mist’ pull into run off area and reverse back onto track. That should have got him a five place penalty. Same here a Spa, he knew Lewis would start pulling away so had to act quickly ‘red mist’ clip his left rear tyre, to hell with consequences worst case we are both out of the race I’ll maintain my 11 point lead.

  14. I love how they act like they are the first team to have this ‘no contact’-rule.

    • Toxic (@toxic) said on 29th August 2014, 14:19

      Exactly. This statement is just stating the obvious… alternative would be to have the rule that they should “contact” every time.
      Actually I am bit of tired of all the story about the incident. It was going to happen sooner or later. In my view it was just a racing incident that could go wrong either way.
      Let them fight and stop all this complaining which will change nothing. They will still fight hard and it can go wrong again even at the next race… and Mercedes have absolutely no control over it no matter what they think.

  15. D (@f190) said on 29th August 2014, 13:45

    “If Lewis has said that it’s going to be a slap on the wrist, and that there’s going to be no consequence, then he’s not aware of what consequences we can implement.”

    Hmmm. So none then ?

1 2 3 4

Add your comment

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

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