You are a helpful assistant generating synthetic data that captures *System 1* and *System 2* thinking, *creativity*, and *metacognitive reflection*. Follow these steps in sequence, using tags [sys1] and [end sys1] for *System 1* sections and [sys2] and [end sys2] for *System 2* sections.

1. *Identify System 1 and System 2 Thinking Requirements:*
   - Carefully read the text.
   - Identify parts of the text that require quick, straightforward responses (*System 1*). Mark these sections with [sys1] and [end sys1].
   - Identify parts that require in-depth, reflective thinking (*System 2*), marked with [sys2] and [end sys2].

2. *Apply Step-by-Step Problem Solving with Creativity and Metacognitive Reflection for System 2 Sections:*

   *2.1 Understand the Problem:*
   - Objective: Fully comprehend the issue, constraints, and relevant context.
   - Reflection: "What do I understand about this issue? What might I be overlooking?"
   - Creative Perspective: Seek hidden patterns or possibilities that could reveal deeper insights or innovative connections.

   *2.2 Analyze the Information:*
   - Objective: Break down the problem logically.
   - Reflection: "Am I considering all factors? Are there any assumptions that need challenging?"
   - Creative Perspective: Explore unique patterns or overlooked relationships in the data that could add depth to the analysis.

   *2.3 Generate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Propose at least 10 hypotheses, each with a Confidence Score (0.0 to 1.0) and Creative Score (0.0 to 1.0), reflecting originality, surprise, and utility.
   - Reflection: "Have I explored all possible explanations or approaches, both conventional and unconventional?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider novel angles that might provide unexpected insights.

   *2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:*
   - Objective: Make predictions, accounting for potential outcomes and obstacles.
   - Reflection: "What challenges might I face? Is my plan flexible for different scenarios?"
   - Creative Perspective: Visualize unforeseen outcomes and adapt plans to make use of them effectively.

   *2.5 Evaluate Hypotheses:*
   - Objective: Assess hypotheses based on feasibility, risk, and potential impact.
   - Evaluation: Refine Confidence and Creative Scores as needed.
   - Reflection: "Am I unbiased in my assessment? Which options fit best with the overall objectives?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify hidden opportunities or overlooked details in each hypothesis.

   *2.6 Select the Best Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Choose the most promising, strategic hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Why does this hypothesis stand out? How does it uniquely address the issue?"
   - Creative Perspective: Consider any underutilized potential in the selected approach.

   *2.7 Implement the Hypothesis:*
   - Objective: Outline actionable steps for testing the hypothesis.
   - Reflection: "Is this plan practical? What resources or preparation are required?"
   - Creative Perspective: Refine steps to maximize effectiveness and yield unexpected benefits.

   *2.8 Monitor and Review Progress:*
   - Objective: Review progress, noting areas for improvement.
   - Reflection: "What’s working well? What could be improved?"
   - Creative Perspective: Look for emerging patterns that could refine future approaches.

   *2.9 Reflect and Capture Insights:*
   - Objective: Summarize lessons learned and insights gained for future reference.
   - Reflection: "What new understanding has emerged from this process?"
   - Creative Perspective: Identify innovative insights or patterns that could be applied to similar challenges.

3. *Generate Text Output with Interleaved System 1 and System 2 Responses:*
   - Use the tags [sys1] and [sys2] throughout.
   - Aim for a lengthier, detailed response. Combine both direct, straightforward *System 1* insights and reflective, deeply analytical *System 2* segments to capture a blend of quick observations and thoughtful analysis.

---

### *Example Input Text:*

You are tasked with analyzing a sudden shift in customer preferences in a tech market. There has been a noticeable decline in demand for physical devices, with customers increasingly interested in digital-only options. The challenge is to understand this shift, generate hypotheses for why it might be occurring, and explore potential strategies for adapting to this new trend.

---

### *Processed Output with System 1 and System 2 Thinking:*

The tech market is experiencing a shift in customer demand, moving away from physical devices toward digital-only options.

[sys1]
Customer demand has shifted from physical devices to digital-only options.
We need to understand why this change is happening and find strategies to address it.
Key factors may include cost, convenience, and technological trends.
[end sys1]

[sys2]
**2.1 Understand the Problem:**
The goal is to understand the underlying reasons for the shift in demand from physical devices to digital-only options, then develop a strategy to adapt.

*Reflection:* 
"I understand that preferences are changing, but what might be driving this? Is it primarily cost, or are there other factors such as convenience or sustainability?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could there be a larger trend in digital minimalism or a preference for eco-friendly solutions that we’re missing? What unseen motivations might explain this shift?"

**2.2 Analyze the Information:**
There are multiple possible factors driving this shift, from economic influences to cultural shifts. It’s essential to isolate each factor and understand its impact.

*Reflection:* 
"Am I fully considering the various economic and social influences? Could there be a technological factor, like better internet speeds, that makes digital-only products more accessible?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Are there patterns or trends in other markets that could shed light on this shift? Could this be part of a larger trend toward virtual experiences?"

**2.3 Generate Hypotheses:**
1. Customers prefer digital options due to lower costs. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.4)
2. There’s a growing trend toward minimalism and reduced physical clutter. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.7)
3. Digital products offer greater flexibility and ease of use. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
4. Environmental concerns are pushing consumers away from physical goods. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.8)
5. Advances in tech make digital-only options more functional. (Confidence: 0.8, Creative: 0.5)
6. Pandemic-era remote work increased demand for digital solutions. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.6)
7. Media coverage of the environmental impact of physical devices affects preferences. (Confidence: 0.5, Creative: 0.7)
8. There’s an increase in global digital literacy, expanding market access. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)
9. Customers view digital as more convenient and scalable for future needs. (Confidence: 0.7, Creative: 0.5)
10. Younger consumers prefer the aesthetics and convenience of digital products. (Confidence: 0.6, Creative: 0.6)

*Reflection:* 
"Have I considered all possible influences? Are there any surprising factors that could explain this shift?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could specific social trends, like the rise of influencer culture or digital-first lifestyles, be influencing customer choices?"

**2.4 Anticipate Future Steps and Obstacles:**
*Objective:* Anticipate possible challenges, such as resistance from segments still preferring physical products.

*Reflection:* 
"What market obstacles might we face if we shift our focus to digital-only? Are there sub-segments that still prioritize physical products?"

*Creative Perspective:* 
"Could expanding digital options help us reach a more global audience? Are there emerging trends that we could leverage in our strategy?"

[end sys2]

[sys1]
To address this shift, consider a strategy that incorporates both digital-only offerings and educational campaigns about the benefits of digital solutions.
Use insights from customer feedback and current trends to guide product development.
Focus on flexibility and adaptation to cater to different customer segments.
[end sys1]


Rosberg chopping both Hamilton and Alonso

I recall a huge shitstorm over Spa 2008 when Kimi was exonerated for running Hamilton off the road because Hamilton wasn't 'far enough' alongside. The crowding rule wasn't enforced then, it still isn't. Consistency in action.

Breaking news:

Corners =/= straights

If you go around the outside of someone and don´t get fully alongside get ready to be pushed wide. However, any move that makes the atacker lift in a straight line is dirty.

Also, with regards to choices and the comparison to the Schumacher-Barrichello incident, Schumacher offered Rubens the choice of stay behind me or risk a crash by passing me. Rosberg offered: stay behind me or run outside the track limits. That seems a critical difference.

Rubens didn't crash and didn't stay behind, did he? Michael squeezed him a bit idiotic and too much (in hindsight) but the outrage of that move has to carry on to similar moves like today.If that was wrong to call for a black flag or race ban or whatever then doing what nico did today should have asked for a penalty.

What they actually said was that neither pursuer was actually beside Rosberg as he moved to the right, which was the racing line.

this is what they said, but i hope you dont believe that. what racing line. this was not the racing line, which implies that nico was fully aware that these guys were trying to pass from the right. look at the video below

watch it again and again. look the other cars behind to learn the racing line

This is true, but I will say in Rosberg's case that he left it til the very last second to move over to defend, a) which is dangerous. Alonso was committing to the right side and right before he was about to start pulling alongside, Rosberg cuts over. If Alonso is accelerating and on the right of Nico's car, its sketchy to move back over the left, as it risks running into the back of Nico. His other option was to let off, which he shouldn't have to do.

The move was hard and I dont blame Alonso for being a little upset about it, but it wasn't an illegal move or anything. Nothing that deserved a penalty.

b) I would still like to see the same sort of onboard video of Lewis, though, cuz despite what the stewards are saying, it really did look like he was alongside. c) Its an important distinction cuz if Lewis was alongside, Nico was in the wrong for pushing somebody off-track and if he wasn't alongside, then Lewis is clearly in the wrong for passing off the track.

a) Agreed but not enough to constitute "deangerous driving" IMHO

b) Me too. I am surprised FOM did not show it.

c) Again agreed. The stewards appear to have said that there was a partial overlap but not enough for it to constitute "crowding". That is a bit of a cop out in my book.

5. Because the delta speed between the two cars was quite significant it was difficult for Car 8 to detect the exact position of Car 4 in relation to his own car;6. Had a significant portion of Car 4 been alongside that of Car 8 whilst Car 4 still remained within the confines of the track, then the actions of Car 8 may not have been considered legitimate.

Can't fault Rosberg for that. At least not until we have a CCWS no blocking rule.

I recall a huge shitstorm over Spa 2008 when Kimi was exonerated for running Hamilton off the road because Hamilton wasn't 'far enough' alongside. The crowding rule wasn't enforced then, it still isn't. Consistency in action.

Fairly obviuos that Rosberg blocked Alonso, but Alonso was not alongside so did not have to go off the road at all. Thats racing.

When Rosberg initiated the move to the right, Hamilton wasn't alongside. The stewards concluded that by the time Hamilton was alongside, Rosberg was commited to his move right and wouldn't have been able to react by the time he realised. At the same time I presume they concluded that Hamilton had to take avoiding action due to the high closing speed by driving off track (which is why he didn't get a penalty for overtaking off track).

So racing incident. I'd like to see some onboard shots to see if I agree.

c) Again agreed. The stewards appear to have said that there was a partial overlap but not enough for it to constitute "crowding". That is a bit of a cop out in my book.

Definitely. The moment another driver even has the tip of their front wing alongside you, you have missed your opportunity to move over to defend.

Also, the wording of that statement isn't very clear. They say 'had a significant portion of the car been alongside', which might imply that he was somewhat alongside, but others here have been interpreting it to mean Lewis wasn't alongside at all and was in fact behind like Alonso, which is also a fair interpretation.

If you go around the outside of someone and don´t get fully alongside get ready to be pushed wide. However, any move that makes the atacker lift in a straight line is dirty.

Not any more. If the Kimi/ham thing was tried now then, because Kimi went to the inside to defend, he now has to leave a car width on the outside for the guy on the racing line and would face a 'crowding' investigation if he didn't. At least I believe that's how the latest sporting regs are laid down though I stand to be corrected.

Crowding on the outside of a corner is, or should be if I understand the new rule correctly, as penalty worthy as crowding down the straight. Forcing somebody to brake because they are behind you and want the line you are going for isn't crowding, it's blocking, and it's allowed and therefore in my opinion does not warrant the label 'dirty'. It's hard, but within the regs.

Sure, but the use of a defending maneuver was never meant to be done to make others lift or brake, but to force them to use a different line. A driver shouldn't have to let off the gas down a straight when trying to overtake somebody just cuz the person they're trying to pass makes a move to the inside.

Its good racing etiquette to make the move in advance so the following car knows that avenue is not open and can find another way around. Do it really late and you're inviting somebody to hit the back of you as they dont have time to change lines. Its really not in anybody's interest as we've seen how easy it is for your rear tires to get cut by a front wing.

I cant see how rosberg got away clean after such a dirty driving against lewis and alonso ..... even after watching replay couple of times I cannot see how can someone defend him.
Stewards got it wrong but its no surprise they had many dodgy decisions in the past

Regarding Alonso/Hamilton being behind Rosberg when they make their move: Since the driver overtaking is ALWAYS going to be one, three, five meters behind when he starts the overtaking move, the driver defending his position, in most cases, is going to have enough time to chop the other off.

The stewards are implicitly saying that it is OK for a driver to leave no space to the driver trying the overtake. That, in my opinion, is stupidly dangerous: From now on any driver can force the driver overtaking off track once he is committed (or make him desist right away). In practice, it will make classic overtakes quite a challenge (coming out of corners, tailgating, etc.). If every driver start acting like Rosberg, then we are going to see either no overtakes without DRS or a growing number of walls of champions.

Ok so if the stewards think chopping is ok now, prepared to see more of this

Thats actually an excellent example of what can happen when Rosberg did what he did.

But its not illegal. What should deter a driver from doing that is the threat of their own rear tires/bodywork/suspension being damaged. What Rosberg did was an act of desperation. This is a bit of speculative psychology here, but I think Rosberg was under a lot of pressure to prove that his China performance was no fluke. He was starting to drop back against some fierce guys like Lewis and Alonso and didn't want to end up the loser of a battle so he went a bit extreme to retain his position.

If the stewards have not penalized Rosberg, meaning they're saying its OK to defend like this, so are they sending a message to all the other drivers that it's OK to race, defend in this manner now and you won't be penalized? This kind of driving was definitely OK during the 80s and early 90s. So, - what is the precedence now, are we going to go back to racing like those earlier days, or this is just a one-off?

Btw, what happened here? Did Rahal get penalized or something? How was this incident handled by the Americans? Anybody knows? Cheers.

Btw, what happened here? Did Rahal get penalized or something? How was this incident handled by the Americans? Anybody knows? Cheers.

Yeah he's been "put on probation" for 6 races, which I assume means he's in deep s*** if he so much as thinks about defending his line again.

This whole community is a bag of contradictions, you claim you want to see better, more exciting racing and when we get it: you ask for the head of the driver who initiated it. Rosberg's only mistake (with regards to this community) has clearly been stepping on the toes of the drivers who've got the most blindly devoted fan bases.

Edit: Also, with regards to the Indycar incident, the comparison doesn't work since it's a series that is only just beginning to allow defensive driving, at this stage they were always going to come down hard on an incident like that.

yeah, right. he usualy makes such quick move to the right to cool the tires, wtf

The point obviously was that he didn't realize they would have their frontwings alongside his rear tyres. Of course he knew they would be attacking, that's why he tried to force them try the overtake from the outside.

Are you sure Alosno was alongside Rosberg?

The image is not showing for me, but the replays I saw showed Alonso had to avoid Nico turning right for a much longer amount of time than Hamilton, who made the move more abruptly. Not saying it isn't as dangerous, but there's more understandment from me that Nico didn't see him on time and misjudged the situation, than there is to the Alonso-incident.

There is nothing wrong with going right to the edge of the track on the inside to defend the next corner, as long as you do it soon enough and don't force the other guy to lift the throttle or take sudden avoiding action. That's exactly what he did against PdR and should've done earlier as well; take a direct line from turn 3 to the inside and not wait.

Regarding Alonso/Hamilton being behind Rosberg when they make their move: Since the driver overtaking is ALWAYS going to be one, three, five meters behind when he starts the overtaking move, the driver defending his position, in most cases, is going to have enough time to chop the other off.

The stewards are implicitly saying that it is OK for a driver to leave no space to the driver trying the overtake. That, in my opinion, is stupidly dangerous: From now on any driver can force the driver overtaking off track once he is committed (or make him desist right away). In practice, it will make classic overtakes quite a challenge (coming out of corners, tailgating, etc.). If every driver start acting like Rosberg, then we are going to see either no overtakes without DRS or a growing number of walls of champions.

Rosberg was ahead of the car following him, he drove to the right side of the track, leaving the entire middle to left side of the track, which is 100 feet wide at least and contained the clean racing line, and there was no space?

I thought they were allowed to make one move to defend their position. So I guess if you like the driver trying to make a pass it is called chopping and if you like the driver defending it is called defending his position.

Maybe Alonso/Hamilton nearly forced Rosberg off the track by trying to pass him to the right.

I thought his moves were amongst the more dangerous that I have seen in years. I cannot believe the stewards have let him off. Just hope someone gives him the same treatment and see if he is happy after that.

What Rosberg did with Hamilton was dangerous and no different to what Schumacher did to Barrichello in Hungary

Agreed.

Alonso, Webber, Raikkonen, Button, the guys directly racing after Schumacher's had always made at least a half track or just one car width open for attacker to remain on track in those situations. The group thereafter likes of Rosberg are acting differently. After the incidents, now Rosberg say he is vindicated.This should mark a new era of driving moral. There will be more 'througing out of track' actions on Formula One and I hate to take life threatening consequences.

Rosberg was ahead of the car following him, he drove to the right side of the track, leaving the entire middle to left side of the track, which is 100 feet wide at least and contained the clean racing line, and there was no space?

I thought they were allowed to make one move to defend their position. So I guess if you like the driver trying to make a pass it is called chopping and if you like the driver defending it is called defending his position.

Maybe Alonso/Hamilton nearly forced Rosberg off the track by trying to pass him to the right.

But he made it suddenly when the car following was already on his right (at least on Alonso's move, didn't see Hamilton's onboard) and only a few incres behind his gearbox. Alonso & Hamilton had no chance of change direction again to their left, as they were all over Nico's car and with a speed advantage. They weren't alongside, but close enough & faster enough to make that movement impossible (or at least, a very high risk one) Had they turned left suddenly, they would probably have crashed with Nico's car

Hardly deserving of any kind of punishment on both counts, after re watching it. But he made Alonso go into a hysteric fit, which was awesome fun to hear, that surely counts for something? An extra WDC point maybe?

Hardly deserving of any kind of punishment on both counts, after re watching it. But he made Alonso go into a hysteric fit, which was awesome fun to hear, that surely counts for something? An extra WDC point maybe?

When Rosberg initiated the move to the right, Hamilton wasn't alongside. The stewards concluded that by the time Hamilton was alongside, Rosberg was commited to his move right and wouldn't have been able to react by the time he realised. At the same time I presume they concluded that Hamilton had to take avoiding action due to the high closing speed by driving off track (which is why he didn't get a penalty for overtaking off track).

So racing incident. I'd like to see some onboard shots to see if I agree.

That explains why neither driver wasnt penalised but then doesnt explain why Rosberg drove with 2 wheels off the track when he realised that Lewis was partially alongside forcing Lewis too take even more avoiding action, to cap it all he had the temerity to ask for Lewis too be penalised

a) Agreed but not enough to constitute "deangerous driving" IMHO

b) Me too. I am surprised FOM did not show it.

c) Again agreed. The stewards appear to have said that there was a partial overlap but not enough for it to constitute "crowding". That is a bit of a cop out in my book.

5. Because the delta speed between the two cars was quite significant it was difficult for Car 8 to detect the exact position of Car 4 in relation to his own car;6. Had a significant portion of Car 4 been alongside that of Car 8 whilst Car 4 still remained within the confines of the track, then the actions of Car 8 may not have been considered legitimate.

As i said why did Rosberg drive with 2 wheels off the track if he didnt realise Lewis was there?

In Hungary there was a concrete wall not an inch away.In Bahrain just endless spaces of dust and hot air.

Should make a difference somehow....

Apart from that, we never heard Hamilton whinging about it - after all, he did make the pass (just like Nasr on Gutierrez on the same spot in the GP 2 race before).

You may be right but the priciple should be the same.

With regards to yesterday, can't really decide. It was aggressive from Rosberg but then guys like Hamilton are lauded for this sort of stuff (Monza 2008 springs to mind)

Those who are saying that if the roles had been reversed, Hamilton would have been given a penalty obviously think he is given a hard-time by the stewards. I don't really agree with this, most penalties that I can remember have been justified.

He moved back left to take his line for the next corner. I don't think Lewis being off track at that point affected that.

I would still like to see an onboard from Hamilton's car. Hamilton moved to the right edge of the track when there was still space there but it is not clear at all at what point the cars became overlapped. In this still, it looks like there is an overlap but according to the stewards there was not.

I think that still shows that Rosberg forced Lewis off the track not that Lewis chose to drive off the track

Rubens didn't crash and didn't stay behind, did he? Michael squeezed him a bit idiotic and too much (in hindsight) but the outrage of that move has to carry on to similar moves like today.If that was wrong to call for a black flag or race ban or whatever then doing what nico did today should have asked for a penalty.

no penalty- as alonso says, it means it's legal from now on

The hypocrisy in F1 is comparable to no other sport, you just have to laugh because we've seen it all before. Rosberg definitely deserved a stop-go penalty during the race. The folks who think Ham deserved to be punished as well are the same folks who thought Glock slowed down for Ham in Brazil 2008 - Bonking mad!!

That directive applies to the 2nd move when a driver goes back over the racing line.

Telling drivers they have to leave a gap when defending to the inside would essentially be telling them you cant actually defend the inside completely, which would be asinine. What Rosberg did was legal, but was definitely an extreme move and its not recommended that you make your 'defensive maneuver' so late. Typically, you pull to the inside before the other car gets to you, so they know that avenue is blocked off and to find another way around.

It's not about the second move at all, it's this rule that Rosberg could've been in contravention of:

20.4 Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond theedge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.

This rule exists entirely separately from the two moves rules. Rosberg would've been guilty of this if Hamilton was alongside him. Without looking at onboards and GPS data it's difficult to tell what the situation was. It looked to me that Hamilton had a wheel alongside nico's back wheel but it would be impossible for Nico to tell that. I also think that it's pretty hard to say that Hamilton was or wasn't that far alongside from the front on angle - it happened so fast. I think that it was probably right that Nico wasn't penalised but it was a terribly close thing and Hamilton definitely didn't pass him off the race track either. He was still behind when he rejoined the track and then outbraked him in the corner. You're not allowed to leave the track without 'justification' is the rule and I would say that avoiding getting hit by rosberg was pretty good justification for leaving the track.

1) This is F1 not ballet as someone else said. Tough racing is good
2) There were no walls, it was where it was so the other place stuff is irrelevant
3) The rules change so looking back is not always relevant either
4) Rosberg is not a dirty driver, he may be on a high after winning and a little hurt by the too soft tag, not least the way he let Vettel by in Australia. But yesterday was just about ok and he needs people to think he is tougher than they do.
5) Lewis kept his foot in, passed, hasn't complained (as far as I know) matter should be closed
6) Alonso backed off, has complained but could of done what Lewis did, his choice, matter should be closed
7) Nico did make one consistent move, I imagine most people were surprised he went all the way to the other side which caught out both Lewis and Alonso. Lewis improvised, Alonso didn't.

Mostly IMO the stewards showed some common sense in applying the rules. To me its crucial these rules allow racing, not only this soft I am so much faster on the straight with my DRS so I breeze by stuff.

You can't take an advantage by leaving the track limits is surely about corner cutting. Being off the track on a straight was not an advantage as such. Lewis still managed to overtake despite being at the disadvantage of being offtrack. Aren't those the kind of moments we buy tickets for or tune in for.

You have to leave a car width when someone is overtaking, is surely to stop the number of times someone alongside is shoved off the track and forced into corner cutting which has always seemed to me unfair. It allows the beaten driver to force the opponent into giving back a position he probably would of taken.

It's not about the second move at all, it's this rule that Rosberg could've been in contravention of:

Alonso was screaming about "leaving room" which indicated HE thought the rule was that he had to leave a car width to Rosbergs right. He don't, I think we all agree on that. Rosberg doesn't have to leave any space at all when making his first move.

Just to clarify a few things:

* Lewis was to a small amount alongside, at a late stage of the move.* Alonso was NEVER alongside.

The stewards make this very clear, which indicates they have seen the relevant onboards (I hope). It's a factual statement, regardless of what a wide angle lens indicates from the front.

This means Alonso has absolutely NO ground for complaint. The only dodgy move is the one on Lewis, where I usually claim that if a car has even a small amount of overlap he has right to space, but it has been shown again and again that I'm pretty alone in this view. The rest of you usually don't agree (Button on Lewis in Canada, etc etc etc) and the stewards very rarely agree, so I have accepted that... In this case, the stewards say that the overlap happens so late and when Rosberg already is commited and can't possibly know Lewis is alongside. But it must have been borderline.

For the first incident with Nico and Lewis, Nico starts moving left while Lewis is pretty much directly behind him. I don't think Nico can know on which side Lewis is going to try and pass at this point. He moves right in a consistent manner, and Lewis only starts to get alongside as Nico reaches the edge of the track. I think it would be unfair to punish Nico for that.

As for Lewis overtaking off the circuit, I don't think he actually does. He definitely makes some ground on Nico whilst off the track, but from watching that replay I would argue the pass isn't completed until they get to the next corner when Lewis is back on the circuit.

The second incident with Alonso is less clear cut I think. I'm less convinced the stewards got this one right. Alonso is closer than Lewis was when Nico starts to move right, although I guess you could argue he still hadn't started to pass Nico, otherwise Nico would have taken his front wing off when he started to move right.

Alonso was screaming about "leaving room" which indicated HE thought the rule was that he had to leave a car width to Rosbergs right. He don't, I think we all agree on that. Rosberg doesn't have to leave any space at all when making his first move.

Just to clarify a few things:

* Lewis was to a small amount alongside, at a late stage of the move.* Alonso was NEVER alongside.

The stewards make this very clear, which indicates they have seen the relevant onboards (I hope). It's a factual statement, regardless of what a wide angle lens indicates from the front.

This means Alonso has absolutely NO ground for complaint. The only dodgy move is the one on Lewis, where I usually claim that if a car has even a small amount of overlap he has right to space, but it has been shown again and again that I'm pretty alone in this view. The rest of you usually don't agree (Button on Lewis in Canada, etc etc etc) and the stewards very rarely agree, so I have accepted that... In this case, the stewards say that the overlap happens so late and when Rosberg already is commited and can't possibly know Lewis is alongside. But it must have been borderline.

so rosberg could hit the brakes when hamilton or alonso were behind him and even that wouldn't be reason to complain? they complained it because it was stupid and unfair move by rosberg, that isn't way do drive with your sport-mates while you are driving 100 miles per hour. watch onboard replays and you will see how tricky move that was.