should the radio ban stay?
Poll: should the radio ban stay?
Total Members Polled: 251
Discussion
I don't think I've ever been in favour of the radio ban. I don't want to see drivers being coached but at the same time modern cars are so complex it seems unfair that a team can't tell a driver vital technical info that would get the car to the end of the race.
I also miss hearing the radio communications between driver and pit wall as they really added to the show and gave the viewer a lot of information about what was going on inside the car and behind the scenes.
So year, scrap the radio ban as I think the racing was fairer without it and the show was better overall. Ridiculous to see situations like with Lewis in Baku and now probably with Nico getting a penalty.
I also miss hearing the radio communications between driver and pit wall as they really added to the show and gave the viewer a lot of information about what was going on inside the car and behind the scenes.
So year, scrap the radio ban as I think the racing was fairer without it and the show was better overall. Ridiculous to see situations like with Lewis in Baku and now probably with Nico getting a penalty.
Well I didn't expect this to come up again quite so soon! Now I stand by my original comments in this thread that troubleshooting messages should be allowed (so in "my" version of the rules Rosberg would have been completely fine yesterday).
That said it's now going to be interesting to see if/how the teams factor in Rosberg's 10sec penalty in the future - I wonder how many situations we'll see where a team takes a hit of a penalty in order to give information/instructions and still come out ahead. My crystal ball is a little hazy but from my armchair it looks to me like Rosberg would have lost more than the 10 seconds he was penalised, maybe not quite enough to have put him behind Ricciardo though as that would have required a full 20sec of loss which I think would have been doubtful in such a short span of laps.
The 64-million-dollar question is whether the 10 seconds was chosen for this particular set of circumstances to cancel out the benefit from the rule breach or whether it's going to be 10 seconds for such a breach regardless. Because if it's the latter it really isn't that big of a deterrent and where a call comes down to either a >10sec loss/DNF or taking the penalty it'll be a no-brainer for teams to flout the rule, and regardless of whether I think the rule as it stands is a good idea or not it is still a rule and the FIA were very firm post-Baku that it wouldn't be changing anytime soon.
That said it's now going to be interesting to see if/how the teams factor in Rosberg's 10sec penalty in the future - I wonder how many situations we'll see where a team takes a hit of a penalty in order to give information/instructions and still come out ahead. My crystal ball is a little hazy but from my armchair it looks to me like Rosberg would have lost more than the 10 seconds he was penalised, maybe not quite enough to have put him behind Ricciardo though as that would have required a full 20sec of loss which I think would have been doubtful in such a short span of laps.
The 64-million-dollar question is whether the 10 seconds was chosen for this particular set of circumstances to cancel out the benefit from the rule breach or whether it's going to be 10 seconds for such a breach regardless. Because if it's the latter it really isn't that big of a deterrent and where a call comes down to either a >10sec loss/DNF or taking the penalty it'll be a no-brainer for teams to flout the rule, and regardless of whether I think the rule as it stands is a good idea or not it is still a rule and the FIA were very firm post-Baku that it wouldn't be changing anytime soon.
Most of the sage voices are roughly in agreement- yesterday everyone from here to hamilton to horner voiced dubiousness of the blanket rule that leaves drivers stuggling with computer nonsense, while appreciating the effort to remove coaching.
Question is- how do you allow technical adjustments without the possibility of driver coaching/driving assisstance? Is "engine map 9 nico" coaching? What if "engine map 9" is kinder to tyres and nicos are going off and wont last the projected stint?
Question is- how do you allow technical adjustments without the possibility of driver coaching/driving assisstance? Is "engine map 9 nico" coaching? What if "engine map 9" is kinder to tyres and nicos are going off and wont last the projected stint?
KaraK said:
Well I didn't expect this to come up again quite so soon! Now I stand by my original comments in this thread that troubleshooting messages should be allowed (so in "my" version of the rules Rosberg would have been completely fine yesterday).
That said it's now going to be interesting to see if/how the teams factor in Rosberg's 10sec penalty in the future - I wonder how many situations we'll see where a team takes a hit of a penalty in order to give information/instructions and still come out ahead. My crystal ball is a little hazy but from my armchair it looks to me like Rosberg would have lost more than the 10 seconds he was penalised, maybe not quite enough to have put him behind Ricciardo though as that would have required a full 20sec of loss which I think would have been doubtful in such a short span of laps.
The 64-million-dollar question is whether the 10 seconds was chosen for this particular set of circumstances to cancel out the benefit from the rule breach or whether it's going to be 10 seconds for such a breach regardless. Because if it's the latter it really isn't that big of a deterrent and where a call comes down to either a >10sec loss/DNF or taking the penalty it'll be a no-brainer for teams to flout the rule, and regardless of whether I think the rule as it stands is a good idea or not it is still a rule and the FIA were very firm post-Baku that it wouldn't be changing anytime soon.
Is the 10 secs now set in stone? I dont see why the stewards couldn't judge offences individually or standardise the 10 but hand down 20/30 sec penalties if they feel a competitor committed the offence due to feeling the "crime was worth the time". Some risrepute clause etc etc, not legally unprecedented. But of course it's fia stewards, best leave logic at the door sometimes.That said it's now going to be interesting to see if/how the teams factor in Rosberg's 10sec penalty in the future - I wonder how many situations we'll see where a team takes a hit of a penalty in order to give information/instructions and still come out ahead. My crystal ball is a little hazy but from my armchair it looks to me like Rosberg would have lost more than the 10 seconds he was penalised, maybe not quite enough to have put him behind Ricciardo though as that would have required a full 20sec of loss which I think would have been doubtful in such a short span of laps.
The 64-million-dollar question is whether the 10 seconds was chosen for this particular set of circumstances to cancel out the benefit from the rule breach or whether it's going to be 10 seconds for such a breach regardless. Because if it's the latter it really isn't that big of a deterrent and where a call comes down to either a >10sec loss/DNF or taking the penalty it'll be a no-brainer for teams to flout the rule, and regardless of whether I think the rule as it stands is a good idea or not it is still a rule and the FIA were very firm post-Baku that it wouldn't be changing anytime soon.
hairyben said:
Is the 10 secs now set in stone? I dont see why the stewards couldn't judge offences individually or standardise the 10 but hand down 20/30 sec penalties if they feel a competitor committed the offence due to feeling the "crime was worth the time". Some risrepute clause etc etc, not legally unprecedented. But of course it's fia stewards, best leave logic at the door sometimes.
Exactly, I gather that there is no set penalty in the regulations for the offence so I don't think the 10 seconds is set in stone per se but it certainly sets a precedent that should there be another breach any team punished more than that may well use to argue an appeal. Especially since the published text of the decision doesn't seem to make any indication as to how that 10 second figure was arrived at.hairyben said:
Most of the sage voices are roughly in agreement- yesterday everyone from here to hamilton to horner voiced dubiousness of the blanket rule that leaves drivers stuggling with computer nonsense, while appreciating the effort to remove coaching.
Question is- how do you allow technical adjustments without the possibility of driver coaching/driving assisstance? Is "engine map 9 nico" coaching? What if "engine map 9" is kinder to tyres and nicos are going off and wont last the projected stint?
The way I'd do it is only relaxing the rules for troubleshooting information in response to a quantifiable issue and not performance-related adjustments to a "healthy" car, this could be easily enforced since the stewards could just ask the teams to provide the telemetry data showing the problem.Question is- how do you allow technical adjustments without the possibility of driver coaching/driving assisstance? Is "engine map 9 nico" coaching? What if "engine map 9" is kinder to tyres and nicos are going off and wont last the projected stint?
They should have been disqualified (maybe the whole team) Mercedes cheated, all the other teams have respected this rule to the letter, last week Merc claimed that they couldn't tell NR his brakes had failed, then there is LH steering wheel issue, other teams have had DNF's and crashes because of this rule. it is a stupid rule but MB cheated.
I think that I am in agreement with the majority that driver coaching, things like telling them what gear to use for what corner, should be banned but if there is a genuine technical fault with a car then the team ought to be allowed to tell the driver which knob to twiddle.
The real problem is that there are too many in-car adjustable modes in the current cars. If I was writing the rules the steering wheel would look a lot simpler.
The real problem is that there are too many in-car adjustable modes in the current cars. If I was writing the rules the steering wheel would look a lot simpler.
king stupid to work out the difference between DRIVING coaching and asisstance operating the cars technical systems I'd rather they just not tax their little minds with it and forget the whole radio ban idea.I don't see what the problem is if you're having brake/safety issues you come on the radio & tell your driver how to resolve it then take your drive through penalty, the reason you should get the penalty is because had you not been able to tell the driver how to resolve the issue you'd either have to visit the pits or park the car.
So the penalty redresses the advantage gained by making the adjustment on track.
So the penalty redresses the advantage gained by making the adjustment on track.
ZX10R NIN said:
I don't see what the problem is if you're having brake/safety issues you come on the radio & tell your driver how to resolve it then take your drive through penalty, the reason you should get the penalty is because had you not been able to tell the driver how to resolve the issue you'd either have to visit the pits or park the car.
So the penalty redresses the advantage gained by making the adjustment on track.
That's a very good point, If you are going to get the penalty anyway..........So the penalty redresses the advantage gained by making the adjustment on track.
Gassing Station | Formula 1 | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff