Silverstone 2016

[Bagwan]

Well it was a gearbox issue and I related that to performance because he was told to shift through 7th gear. This would have meant he would lose some time each lap. Serious would be a safety issue and if that was the case he would have been asked to box the car which is allowed under the current radio com rules.

The only thing that annoyed me about the previous lack of rules was when engineers were telling drivers how to drive. For example Rob Smedley told Massa to use 5th gear through a corner at Silverstone a few years ago to improve his race pace. That should be down to the driver IMO. I think the new rule is too extreme, but we'll just have to see if it's changed.

Yeah , I remember that Massa/Smedley coaching , and it looked pretty bad on Felipe .
But , people didn't give him nearly hard enough a time of it .

I think we need to remember , though , that the conversation that Massa had with his engineer would have been acceptable if it was in the pit lane , person to person .
All of these examples of which we've cited are allowed verbally , just not over the radio .


So , I say , ban the ban , and let them talk all they want .
But , also flay them publicly when they ask mommy for too much help .

In the case of either Lewis or Nico not being able to understand his car , somebody give the damn designers a hard time for making something that is a puzzle meant to be solved at 200mph .
And , then , smack the FIA for putting such a high fee on the help desk .

[Duncan]

In the case of either Lewis or Nico not being able to understand his car , somebody give the damn designers a hard time for making something that is a puzzle meant to be solved at 200mph .
And , then , smack the FIA for putting such a high fee on the help desk .

I think it might be significant that the fundamental design was put together with the assumption that there could be unlimited communication over the radio.

I strongly suspect that the UI is designed to close the loop from detailed telemetry going through a team of pit-based engineers and back through the driver to tweak engine/chassis settings. I just don't think any of the controls were ever intended to be used by a driver figuring things out on their own. Bummer. Somebody should definitely look into fixing that.

[AndyL]

That depends on which part you mean, but I think we are in agreement here. To be clear, I don't disagree with the steward's ruling (particularly now that I've seen the list of rules). I think the rules are pretty absurd, but the ruling seems to exactly fit what the rules say. The first part of the radio conversation:



Seems to me to be tailor made to fit within option 4 of the directive.

It only fits option 4 if the problem was "loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller whose degradation or failure was not detected and handled by the on-board software". If the solution is to avoid 7th gear, that sounds more like a mechanical problem with the gearbox rather than failure of the on-board software to handle loss of a sensor, actuator or controller. How the directive is written, they can't issue any instructions on how to work around a mechanical problem, even if it's a race-ending one.

[AndyL]

The only thing that annoyed me about the previous lack of rules was when engineers were telling drivers how to drive. For example Rob Smedley told Massa to use 5th gear through a corner at Silverstone a few years ago to improve his race pace. That should be down to the driver IMO. I think the new rule is too extreme, but we'll just have to see if it's changed.

Yes they've completely over-reacted with these radio rules haven't they. But apparently the plan is for them to get even more restrictive next year, not less.

[Duncan]

It only fits option 4 if the problem was "loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller whose degradation or failure was not detected and handled by the on-board software". If the solution is to avoid 7th gear, that sounds more like a mechanical problem with the gearbox rather than failure of the on-board software to handle loss of a sensor, actuator or controller. How the directive is written, they can't issue any instructions on how to work around a mechanical problem, even if it's a race-ending one.

That depends on which sub-problem they were fixing. The first part was the immediate problem that it was stuck in 7th gear, and the fix was selecting new driver defaults from the steering wheel. The selector mechanism in the gearbox is an "actuator" - since it's an electromechanical component that the selects a gear under electronic control - and that specific fix appears perfectly ok. The very fact that it could be freed by setting new driver defaults provides a pretty strong argument that this is within part 4.

On the other hand, the next part of avoiding the problem occurring again, possibly in a way that can't be fixed next time, by avoiding (mostly) using 7th gear by shifting through it. That part is not covered under part 4.

I think these rules are pretty daft, but that seems to be what they say and how the stewards interpreted them.

[Nitrodaze]

That depends on which sub-problem they were fixing. The first part was the immediate problem that it was stuck in 7th gear, and the fix was selecting new driver defaults from the steering wheel. The selector mechanism in the gearbox is an "actuator" - since it's an electromechanical component that the selects a gear under electronic control - and that specific fix appears perfectly ok. The very fact that it could be freed by setting new driver defaults provides a pretty strong argument that this is within part 4.

On the other hand, the next part of avoiding the problem occurring again, possibly in a way that can't be fixed next time, by avoiding (mostly) using 7th gear by shifting through it. That part is not covered under part 4.

I think these rules are pretty daft, but that seems to be what they say and how the stewards interpreted them.

I see where you are going with your assertion, but unfortunately, it does not hold up for a number of reasons. The first one is the idea of "selecting new driver defaults". The can be only one default for a start. And the default position for the gearbox is neutral. The other point is the the selector mechanism in the gearbox is not what failed or was about to fail. Hence has no bearing in the scheme of things. The essence of the radio call was that a gear in the gearbox had failed. In this instance, the 7th gear. And the solution was to avoid using that particular gear so as not to propagate the problem to other gears. The method of avoidance was the shifting through to the damaged gear.

if we categorize the scenario, we would have the following:-

1. Identification of failure [Failed 7th gear]
2. Notification of failure [Initial Radio call]
3. Indication of solution to the problem [Warning to avoid 7th gear]
4. instruction of method to rectify or avoid the problem [Answer to question of whether to shift through it]

points 1 & 2 are well within the rules. 3 is pushing it but they could have got away with it. 4 is what gave the stewards reason to take punitive action. Selection mechanism etc were secondary to the issue and were not of consideration. As such the stewards could not approach this issue any other way than as they did.

[Duncan]

I see where you are going with your assertion, but unfortunately, it does not hold up for a number of reasons. The first one is the idea of "selecting new driver defaults". The can be only one default for a start. And the default position for the gearbox is neutral.

I'm not at all convinced that is correct, for a couple of reasons. First, the rule makes specific reference to "Instructions to select driver defaults for the sole purpose of mitigating loss of function of a sensor, actuator or controller" which has to mean something - and my interpretation is that there are multiple meanings of what "defaults" could be here. Secondly, the first radio message itself makes reference to setting driver defaults. Specifically, the message was:

Engineer: “Driver default 1-0-1, chassis default 0-1, chassis default 0-1.”

There's clearly much more going on here than there only being one "default". This message, and only this message, is the part that I'm suggesting was ok. It seems to fit with precisely what the rule says.

The other point is the the selector mechanism in the gearbox is not what failed or was about to fail.

How do we know that? The problem was that the gearbox was stuck in 7th gear, not that 7th gear wasn't working. That sure sounds like a selector problem to me...

... And the solution was to avoid using that particular gear so as not to propagate the problem to other gears. The method of avoidance was the shifting through to the damaged gear.

That was the second part of the message - after the call to select a specific set of defaults - to avoid 7th gear. Which we agree (and I've been saying from the beginning) is outside the scope of the rules, and resulted in the penalty.

if we categorize the scenario, we would have the following:-

1. Identification of failure [Failed 7th gear]
2. Notification of failure [Initial Radio call]
3. Indication of solution to the problem [Warning to avoid 7th gear]
4. instruction of method to rectify or avoid the problem [Answer to question of whether to shift through it]

points 1 & 2 are well within the rules. 3 is pushing it but they could have got away with it. 4 is what gave the stewards reason to take punitive action. Selection mechanism etc were secondary to the issue and were not of consideration. As such the stewards could not approach this issue any other way than as they did.

Completely agreed. But you skipped a step. That would be the initial response to select specific driver defaults to get out of the fact that the gearbox was jammed in 7th gear. If the conversation had stopped there, there wouldn't have been a problem.

[Nitrodaze]

There's clearly much more going on here than there only being one "default". This message, and only this message, is the part that I'm suggesting was ok. It seems to fit with precisely what the rule says.

How do we know that? The problem was that the gearbox was stuck in 7th gear, not that 7th gear wasn't working. That sure sounds like a selector problem to me...

Yes normal gear shift into and out of the 7th gear was clearly the problem and needed some sort of reset to get out of it. I don't know much about F1 gearbox architecture to comment further on whether it was or was not a selector problem. But, once Rosberg had got out of 7th, he was able to select other gears without problem.

The argument that a gear selector mechanism is an actuator of sorts is asking the stewards to get into the details of the design of the gearbox in order to arrive at a conclusion. This is not a fair liability to place on the stewards, as they have to take into consideration the various components in the car to arrive at a decision. The process would be laborious and unworkable. They would not be able to give a decision on the race weekend. Hence, not an ideal approach.

That was the second part of the message - after the call to select a specific set of defaults - to avoid 7th gear. Which we agree (and I've been saying from the beginning) is outside the scope of the rules, and resulted in the penalty.

A combination of settings can be the driver default, e.g 1-0-1 or its alias 0-1. And l take the point that there are many defaults, as there is a default for gearbox, engine mode, energy recovery etc. But my point is that for a specific device such as the gearbox, it is very likely that there is one default for it or the idea of default do not make sense.

Completely agreed. But you skipped a step. That would be the initial response to select specific driver defaults to get out of the fact that the gearbox was jammed in 7th gear. If the conversation had stopped there, there wouldn't have been a problem.

I agree, but l saw this as part of my step 3.