planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Mar 20, 2019 5:07 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 1:52 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Nov 28, 2013 11:29 am
Posts: 746
Does anyone think any of these are reasonable alternatives to grid penalties?

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/14081 ... ternatives


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2012 10:29 am
Posts: 1827
I voted points deductions. It's the only way to not ruin a race weekend for the fans.

A percentage deduction makes perfect sense, for example a first gearbox change will result in a 5% deduction in driver or constructor points (depending on who caused it), the second being 10%, etc.

That way it affects both the big and small teams and makes it fair for all.

_________________
#KeepFightingMichael


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 5:55 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:54 pm
Posts: 1480
MistaVega23 wrote:
I voted points deductions. It's the only way to not ruin a race weekend for the fans.

A percentage deduction makes perfect sense, for example a first gearbox change will result in a 5% deduction in driver or constructor points (depending on who caused it), the second being 10%, etc.

That way it affects both the big and small teams and makes it fair for all.


Is that the % deduction for the race weekend. Or accumulated points attained too that point during the season.

For example. A 5% point deducrion after a engine change and them goes onto win the race will be a 1.25 point deduction. So 23.75 points as opposed too 25 points.
Whereas a 5% points deduction for vettel who has 350 points too date will be 17.5 points deduction in points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Dec 30, 2018 7:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 786
Location: Kansas
Well for any teams and drivers who have not scored points through the first few races, that would make changing components a no brainer. Just change the power unit, turbo, battery, transmission... and get no penalty. If you have underperformed at the start of the season then by all means, refresh your car on the cheap.

Don't know how they would assign a blown engine fault to either a team or to a driver. Would Daniel Ricciardo's blown engines be attributed to him or RBR last year?

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:40 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1618
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Instead of considering various penalty systems, each one as unfair as the rest IMO, why not consider a financial bonus system, a manufacturers championship if you will, based on the average points score by an engine manufacturer per car powered by the engine minus components used in excess of the prescribed allotment?

For example, Ferrari powered cars scored at total of 712 pts in 2018. Divide that by the number of cars used to score those points, in this instance 6 (2 x Ferrari, 2 x Haas, 2 x Sauber). This gives us an average of 118.6 points / car ( It needs to be an avg pts / car because not every supplier supplies the same amount of cars). Now lets say for every component used over the allowed amount, 10 points are deducted from their end of year total. Whoever comes out on top wins the $$$$ bonus to be distributed between the teams.

It doesn't have to be an official championship, it can just be added into the payment system.

For me any penalty system used in this this instance is unfair, especially when one considers that customer teams not only possibly miss out on points and the payments that come with those points due to a component failure, but then have to take grid penalties for issues that they quite possibly have absolutely no influence over in the first place.

It's not perfect concept and yes there's flaws in it but I can't think of a fairer way to do it.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner - 119 & counting.

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 303 spots available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 2:27 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6564
Location: Michigan, USA
Jezza13 wrote:
It's not perfect concept and yes there's flaws in it but I can't think of a fairer way to do it.

I can think of a way that I think would be fair, prioritize reliability, not disproportionately hurt the little teams, and not ruin the enjoyment of people who can't handle their driver starting down the grid, all at the same time. Here it is:

You can replace the engine any time you want between weekends, or during a weekend if an FIA delegate can confirm that it failed due to factors outside the team's control. There's no penalty for the team or the driver, but the engine manufacturer who supplied the engine has to pay an FIA fine for every time an engine is replaced. Combine that with a mandated cost for an engine supply to prevent the cost just getting passed on to teams, and eliminating the ability of manufacturers to throttle back their customer engines, and you have a simple way to incentivize reliability without hurting anyone except the guys who make the engines.

The fines would need to be moderately steep - possibly on an increasing scale - to make sure factory teams don't ditch an engine per weekend. Maybe something tied to replaced engines per team, not total supply? That way if it's halfway through the year and Williams blows an engine it might be only $2m, but if Mercedes wants to take their eighth new power unit they'd have to pay $36m or whatever for it.

I'm sure it has kinks to iron out, but I think the basic idea would work.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:07 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1618
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Exediron wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
It's not perfect concept and yes there's flaws in it but I can't think of a fairer way to do it.

I can think of a way that I think would be fair, prioritize reliability, not disproportionately hurt the little teams, and not ruin the enjoyment of people who can't handle their driver starting down the grid, all at the same time. Here it is:

You can replace the engine any time you want between weekends, or during a weekend if an FIA delegate can confirm that it failed due to factors outside the team's control. There's no penalty for the team or the driver, but the engine manufacturer who supplied the engine has to pay an FIA fine for every time an engine is replaced. Combine that with a mandated cost for an engine supply to prevent the cost just getting passed on to teams, and eliminating the ability of manufacturers to throttle back their customer engines, and you have a simple way to incentivize reliability without hurting anyone except the guys who make the engines.

The fines would need to be moderately steep - possibly on an increasing scale - to make sure factory teams don't ditch an engine per weekend. Maybe something tied to replaced engines per team, not total supply? That way if it's halfway through the year and Williams blows an engine it might be only $2m, but if Mercedes wants to take their eighth new power unit they'd have to pay $36m or whatever for it.

I'm sure it has kinks to iron out, but I think the basic idea would work.


Yeah I can kinda see the merit in that concept Exed though do you think it may encourage the supplier teams (Merc, Ferrari, Renault) to supply items to customer teams with software that would sacrifice performance for reliability so much that it would effectively increase the chasm between the manufacturer & customer teams? Either that or they could simply sell them the components with a warning like " Your component must be run within these parameters in order to maximise the life of the unit and if you go outside these parameters you do so at your own risk & expense".

On the plus side, this concept would've been great while RB were supplied with Renault engines. Imagine the handbags being thrown between Cyril & Christian as to who's fault the component failure is & who'll be ponying up the cash for the fine, especially as the works team had nowhere near the reliability issues RB had with the exact same parts.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner - 119 & counting.

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 303 spots available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:50 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6564
Location: Michigan, USA
Jezza13 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
It's not perfect concept and yes there's flaws in it but I can't think of a fairer way to do it.

I can think of a way that I think would be fair, prioritize reliability, not disproportionately hurt the little teams, and not ruin the enjoyment of people who can't handle their driver starting down the grid, all at the same time. Here it is:

You can replace the engine any time you want between weekends, or during a weekend if an FIA delegate can confirm that it failed due to factors outside the team's control. There's no penalty for the team or the driver, but the engine manufacturer who supplied the engine has to pay an FIA fine for every time an engine is replaced. Combine that with a mandated cost for an engine supply to prevent the cost just getting passed on to teams, and eliminating the ability of manufacturers to throttle back their customer engines, and you have a simple way to incentivize reliability without hurting anyone except the guys who make the engines.

The fines would need to be moderately steep - possibly on an increasing scale - to make sure factory teams don't ditch an engine per weekend. Maybe something tied to replaced engines per team, not total supply? That way if it's halfway through the year and Williams blows an engine it might be only $2m, but if Mercedes wants to take their eighth new power unit they'd have to pay $36m or whatever for it.

I'm sure it has kinks to iron out, but I think the basic idea would work.

Yeah I can kinda see the merit in that concept Exed though do you think it may encourage the supplier teams (Merc, Ferrari, Renault) to supply items to customer teams with software that would sacrifice performance for reliability so much that it would effectively increase the chasm between the manufacturer & customer teams? Either that or they could simply sell them the components with a warning like " Your component must be run within these parameters in order to maximise the life of the unit and if you go outside these parameters you do so at your own risk & expense"

Yeah, that certainly occurred to me as an issue. I think it would need to go hand-in-hand with stringent regulations about customer engine modes, essentially making it illegal for the manufacturer to run different engine modes from their customers. Maybe a requirement that all engines from the same manufacturer have to run in the same mode at a GP? Or, alternatively, ban engine modes entirely.

Jezza13 wrote:
On the plus side, this concept would've been great while RB were supplied with Renault engines. Imagine the handbags being thrown between Cyril & Christian as to who's fault the component failure is & who'll be ponying up the cash for the fine, especially as the works team had nowhere near the reliability issues RB had with the exact same parts.

:lol:

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 7:53 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1618
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Exediron wrote:
Or, alternatively, ban engine modes entirely.


100% back that idea :thumbup: :thumbup:

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner - 119 & counting.

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 303 spots available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 9:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
I don't like the penalties described in the article and I really don't agree with the whole idea of grid penalties for issues beyond the driver's control. I do like the idea above, to pass on mechanical component penalties to the manufacturers rather than the customer, and indeed have proposed it myself on more than one occasion. I don't see how it's in any way fair to penalise a customer when an engine component fails, for example. Penalties should be about changing behaviour and it's difficult to see what e.g. Sauber can do differently should one of their Ferrari engines give up the ghost. What is the point in giving them a penalty for that? Who gains?

Then there's the issue of penalising new entrants for not getting it perfect from day one. The whole farce with McLaren getting some 70 place deductions at one race when clearly Honda were struggling with getting their PU working properly just encapsulates this perfectly for me. With the almost complete ban on testing, coupled with the increasing complexity and long-life demands of these power units, it's inevitable that new entrants will get a disproportionate amount of penalties as they effectively have to do all their testing on the track. Again, who gains by penalising them for learning on the job, especially when the rules don't allow them to do it any other way? It's just another barrier for entry and hands yet another advantage to those manufacturers who have had the benefit of being around longer, as if they needed it.

Then, not strictly a grid penalty, but the issue with McLaren getting their gear ratios wrong and being stuck with it for a whole year is frankly baffling to me (as it was when Ferrari were forced to run their too-small turbo for the entirety of 2014). I can't see what possible benefit there is in forcing a team to run a heavily compromised setup all year, without any possibility of changing what they know is wrong. It's utterly insane and, more to the point, adversely impacts the spectator experience. What possible logic is there in not allowing a competitor to rectify an error for the entire season?

There's too much of a one size fits all mentality in the penalty system and little thought given to the magnitude of the offence itself. As already mentioned, penalties should be there to encourage a change in behaviour, but at the moment they also issue them when clearly they will have little effect on what the team or driver does. They should be focusing on that instead of changing one unfair practice for another


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 11:02 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3041
Location: UK
I'd rather they just relaxed these limits on numbers of engine components that can be used over the season. I would strongly question the level of cost saving that this achieves given that the majority of the cost of the engines is in their design and development, and even when it comes to manufacturing, the tooling costs (i.e. the fixed cost of creating the manufacturing processes, independent of the number of engines actually made) would dwarf the material cost per engine. Halving the number of engines you make does not half the cost, far from it in fact.

One engine per race weekend, just to prevent the wasteful practice of using one engine per qualifying run (not that that would be case any more as we no longer have one-lap qualifying), was sufficient in my view.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:45 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
j man wrote:
I'd rather they just relaxed these limits on numbers of engine components that can be used over the season. I would strongly question the level of cost saving that this achieves given that the majority of the cost of the engines is in their design and development, and even when it comes to manufacturing, the tooling costs (i.e. the fixed cost of creating the manufacturing processes, independent of the number of engines actually made) would dwarf the material cost per engine. Halving the number of engines you make does not half the cost, far from it in fact.

One engine per race weekend, just to prevent the wasteful practice of using one engine per qualifying run (not that that would be case any more as we no longer have one-lap qualifying), was sufficient in my view.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 786
Location: Kansas
Jezza13 wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Or, alternatively, ban engine modes entirely.


100% back that idea :thumbup: :thumbup:


Much easier said than done. Teams have to be able to adjust to elevation and weather conditions. Mexico City is at an elevation of more than 7,300 ft above sea level. OTOH Sochi, Monaco, and Yas Marina are all right at sea level and Baku is 92ft. below sea level. Add the need to compensate for temperature, barometric, & humidity variables means that you need to give the teams control of both fuel/air mixture and ignition timing. Once this is done you have given the teams most everything they need to dial up engine modes at will.

At Interlagos Lewis Hamilton was less than a lap from exhaust system failure when the lean mixture sent the temperatures soaring above 1000 degrees F. The team enriched the fuel mapping and Lewis was able to finish and win the race.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Last edited by Mort Canard on Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9452
What's wrong with grid penalties?

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 786
Location: Kansas
I have wondered about letting teams rebuild engines, transmissions, and turbo chargers instead of treating them as units that must be replaced as a whole. The question is then what components are you allowed to replace? Certainly one would allow bearings and gaskets to be replaced but how about connecting rods, valves, cams, crankshafts, or pistons? On transmissions would you allow anything more than replacing the bearings? How about dog rings or shredded gears?

This would mean that technicians from F1 would need to be stationed at each teams engine facilities to monitor every rebuild undertaken.

_________________
Mission WinLater


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 26, 2015 9:33 pm
Posts: 2034
What about a rolling system where x amount of reliability related infractions are allowed over x period of time, with various failures allocated an amount of points for its severity. The amount of points one goes over that during the time is the number of positions they are dropped in grid position for the next GP yet raced. Reset the process after the summer break.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:23 pm
Posts: 274
What about a points system? Failures earn a driver points depending on it's severity and when a driver gets a certain number of points he gets a grid penalty, a higher number of points will then get a second penalty and so on.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 5:34 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Nov 27, 2013 11:13 am
Posts: 1729
Once the cars can overtake the grid penalties wont matter as with Raikkonen in '05, in race reliability was the sticking point for him.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Dec 31, 2018 8:25 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6564
Location: Michigan, USA
Mort Canard wrote:
At Interlagos Lewis Hamilton was less than a lap from exhaust system failure when the lean mixture sent the temperatures soaring above 1000 degrees F. The team enriched the fuel mapping and Lewis was able to finish and win the race.

Then he would have DNF'd, and we'd have one step further towards unpredictable races. Isn't that what most people want? The lack of DNFs we get nowadays is a huge part of why results are so predictable, you know.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 12:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:54 am
Posts: 134
They’ll duck it up and it’ll end up with drivers being in the negative.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 9:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2003 1:36 pm
Posts: 2393
Exediron wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
At Interlagos Lewis Hamilton was less than a lap from exhaust system failure when the lean mixture sent the temperatures soaring above 1000 degrees F. The team enriched the fuel mapping and Lewis was able to finish and win the race.

Then he would have DNF'd, and we'd have one step further towards unpredictable races. Isn't that what most people want? The lack of DNFs we get nowadays is a huge part of why results are so predictable, you know.


I agree, but others will accuse you of wanting 'artificial' excitement... of course in the good old days when the engine only had to last one weekend and the teams squeezed every last drop of power out of it it was always likely to blow up at any moment, but surely it's far better for every driver to complete the race using the least possible fuel and exerting the least possible stress to the machinery.... (sarcasm).

_________________
Shoot999: "And anyone who puts a Y on the end of his name as a nickname should be punched in the face repeatedly."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:13 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7504
Location: Belgium
How about approaching this question of avoiding artificial excitement from a logistics point of view? Seriously reduce the amount of cargo any team can bring to the paddock, expressed in weight or space, or both. Teams might for instance lean towards bringing more wings, rather than engine parts/components. For one thing, it might just convince some drivers to keep it on the black stuff, and perhaps even reduce the amount of accidents they are so keen to get involved in.
If you run out of parts prior the race, you either race your car in whatever mechanical state it is in, or you don't race at all.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 10:40 am 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6965
Fiki wrote:
How about approaching this question of avoiding artificial excitement from a logistics point of view? Seriously reduce the amount of cargo any team can bring to the paddock, expressed in weight or space, or both. Teams might for instance lean towards bringing more wings, rather than engine parts/components. For one thing, it might just convince some drivers to keep it on the black stuff, and perhaps even reduce the amount of accidents they are so keen to get involved in.
If you run out of parts prior the race, you either race your car in whatever mechanical state it is in, or you don't race at all.


But how would they police that? How would they stop a team bringing parts over night? In someone's suitcase? UPS it? Drive it in case of the European races? Or however else they could think of?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 2:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7504
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
How about approaching this question of avoiding artificial excitement from a logistics point of view? Seriously reduce the amount of cargo any team can bring to the paddock, expressed in weight or space, or both. Teams might for instance lean towards bringing more wings, rather than engine parts/components. For one thing, it might just convince some drivers to keep it on the black stuff, and perhaps even reduce the amount of accidents they are so keen to get involved in.
If you run out of parts prior the race, you either race your car in whatever mechanical state it is in, or you don't race at all.


But how would they police that? How would they stop a team bringing parts over night? In someone's suitcase? UPS it? Drive it in case of the European races? Or however else they could think of?
I don't know whether transport arrangements have changed drastically since Bernie took care of them, but if they are similar; simply by putting a limit on weight/space and mandatory loading manifestos. Once in situ, the teams can use their cargo and nothing more.

How is Parce Fermé policed? It is no more difficult than it is now.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:22 pm 
Online

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6965
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
How about approaching this question of avoiding artificial excitement from a logistics point of view? Seriously reduce the amount of cargo any team can bring to the paddock, expressed in weight or space, or both. Teams might for instance lean towards bringing more wings, rather than engine parts/components. For one thing, it might just convince some drivers to keep it on the black stuff, and perhaps even reduce the amount of accidents they are so keen to get involved in.
If you run out of parts prior the race, you either race your car in whatever mechanical state it is in, or you don't race at all.


But how would they police that? How would they stop a team bringing parts over night? In someone's suitcase? UPS it? Drive it in case of the European races? Or however else they could think of?
I don't know whether transport arrangements have changed drastically since Bernie took care of them, but if they are similar; simply by putting a limit on weight/space and mandatory loading manifestos. Once in situ, the teams can use their cargo and nothing more.

How is Parce Fermé policed? It is no more difficult than it is now.

That's what I mean, that they could sneak in parts in anyone's luggage, or get them there overnight in however manner they can think of.

I will admit my ignorance on Parc ferme policing, so I may be talking none sense here, but I'm afraid that they could find a way around this.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 4:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8072
The idea seems to have slipped from the original intent of preventing the use of more that the allocated number of units, to punishing those that do use them, and spoiling the race through it.

The ideal would dissuade teams from running the engine at a level that would give more performance at the expense of extra stress on the engine but still somehow allow equal racing when they do comply. This applies not only to the engine manufacturer as teams (RBR in particular) seem to stretch the limits and cause fails, so a manufacturer penalty would not be feasible. Just a fine would weight it in favour of the bigger teams, as they would not be concerned with the cost as long as it gave them a performance edge, disadvantaging the worse off teams.

This is an idea that is not thought through well, so is full of pitfalls, some of which I can see, but some sort of loss of testing would have the biggest effect on the biggest teams, so if there was a standard allocation of 3 test days per quarter, run at the same time as a GP, and for each 'offense' a half day is lost, it would be more of a deterrent to those who make the engine, -Merc-Ferrari-Renault-Honda (would have to consider RBR the Honda team) than to the teams they supply.

It would hurt them more than a cash fine, and not be such a crippling blow to the lower teams.
There is perhaps the option of 'selling' the time back to the engine supplier by the customer team, being offset against supply cost.

The rich teams still gain more than the 'poor' teams, but the race is not spoiled and poor teams get something out of it, be it extra testing (with a pay driver?) or rebate.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:01 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 29, 2012 11:57 am
Posts: 613
Location: Ayrshire, Scotland
Instead of penalising teams for unreliability....

Why not reward a % of constructors championship points, thus potentially prize money, for reliability?

Get through the season within your engine allowance 100% bonus.

_________________
I started competing in real life... if anyone cares.
Blog: Car #36


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5910
The penalties are not that bad. The problem is the point at which they are imposed. A 3 engine limit for an F1 season is absurd. Double it and I think you'll have a more reasonable outcome; without grid penalties at every round.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 03, 2019 6:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Aug 28, 2011 8:48 pm
Posts: 3041
Location: UK
ALESI wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
At Interlagos Lewis Hamilton was less than a lap from exhaust system failure when the lean mixture sent the temperatures soaring above 1000 degrees F. The team enriched the fuel mapping and Lewis was able to finish and win the race.

Then he would have DNF'd, and we'd have one step further towards unpredictable races. Isn't that what most people want? The lack of DNFs we get nowadays is a huge part of why results are so predictable, you know.


I agree, but others will accuse you of wanting 'artificial' excitement... of course in the good old days when the engine only had to last one weekend and the teams squeezed every last drop of power out of it it was always likely to blow up at any moment, but surely it's far better for every driver to complete the race using the least possible fuel and exerting the least possible stress to the machinery.... (sarcasm).

Ah yes the old reliability lottery. To each their own, but personally I don't miss it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:41 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7504
Location: Belgium
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
Fiki wrote:
How about approaching this question of avoiding artificial excitement from a logistics point of view? Seriously reduce the amount of cargo any team can bring to the paddock, expressed in weight or space, or both. Teams might for instance lean towards bringing more wings, rather than engine parts/components. For one thing, it might just convince some drivers to keep it on the black stuff, and perhaps even reduce the amount of accidents they are so keen to get involved in.
If you run out of parts prior the race, you either race your car in whatever mechanical state it is in, or you don't race at all.


But how would they police that? How would they stop a team bringing parts over night? In someone's suitcase? UPS it? Drive it in case of the European races? Or however else they could think of?
I don't know whether transport arrangements have changed drastically since Bernie took care of them, but if they are similar; simply by putting a limit on weight/space and mandatory loading manifestos. Once in situ, the teams can use their cargo and nothing more.

How is Parce Fermé policed? It is no more difficult than it is now.

That's what I mean, that they could sneak in parts in anyone's luggage, or get them there overnight in however manner they can think of.

I will admit my ignorance on Parc ferme policing, so I may be talking none sense here, but I'm afraid that they could find a way around this.
It would be an interesting story to read in the morning papers "Team member quizzed at the airport for trying to get an engine through security in his luggage". No, I don't think that's the problem at all.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:28 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29603
Covalent wrote:
What's wrong with grid penalties?

Indeed when it involves over complicated alternatives and I hate the idea of points penalties, at least with a grid penalty you still have the opportunity to recover what you lost, in Germany Hamilton started 14th and still won the race.

I think the only workable alternative would be ballast penalties in qualifying which probably wouldn't be as draconian as the penalties we see now?

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 1:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29603
j man wrote:
ALESI wrote:
Exediron wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
At Interlagos Lewis Hamilton was less than a lap from exhaust system failure when the lean mixture sent the temperatures soaring above 1000 degrees F. The team enriched the fuel mapping and Lewis was able to finish and win the race.

Then he would have DNF'd, and we'd have one step further towards unpredictable races. Isn't that what most people want? The lack of DNFs we get nowadays is a huge part of why results are so predictable, you know.


I agree, but others will accuse you of wanting 'artificial' excitement... of course in the good old days when the engine only had to last one weekend and the teams squeezed every last drop of power out of it it was always likely to blow up at any moment, but surely it's far better for every driver to complete the race using the least possible fuel and exerting the least possible stress to the machinery.... (sarcasm).

Ah yes the old reliability lottery. To each their own, but personally I don't miss it.

I agree any kind of lottery is not what racing should be about.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Jan 04, 2019 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 620
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 10:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7504
Location: Belgium
pokerman wrote:
I think the only workable alternative would be ballast penalties in qualifying which probably wouldn't be as draconian as the penalties we see now?
They could well be a lot worse. Where are you going to fix the ballast? Introduding such a penalty would require the teams to foresee a penalty weight point of some kind in the design of their cars, which are already heavier than they used to be a few years ago. Though the weight difference problem between cars+drivers is now gone. But don't forget that a few years ago, ballast used for balancing the car, was more of a problem for a taller/heavier driver than his team-mate. This kind of penalty could potentially bring that handicap back for no better reason than mechanical reliability.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29603
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the only workable alternative would be ballast penalties in qualifying which probably wouldn't be as draconian as the penalties we see now?
They could well be a lot worse. Where are you going to fix the ballast? Introduding such a penalty would require the teams to foresee a penalty weight point of some kind in the design of their cars, which are already heavier than they used to be a few years ago. Though the weight difference problem between cars+drivers is now gone. But don't forget that a few years ago, ballast used for balancing the car, was more of a problem for a taller/heavier driver than his team-mate. This kind of penalty could potentially bring that handicap back for no better reason than mechanical reliability.

It's only for qualifying and the lead obviously would be put on the seat, I think presently the penalty system is 5, 10, 15, then back of the grid penalties?

I think 10Kg is worth about 0.3s, so the penalties could be 10Kg, 20kg then onto a maximum of 30Kg, having a 1 second qualifying disadvantage has got to be better than automatically starting from the back of the grid?

Let's not forget we are simply looking for a replacement system for the poor souls who get so confused by grid penalties and this has got to be better than taking WDC points off drivers and is less draconian then the present system.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 1:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29603
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

Penalising anybody but the drivers themselves is ridiculous, at the sharp end of the grid teams would look at times to put a fresh PU in for their WDC contender without penalty to the driver himself, the WDC tends to be seen as the most important goal even though it doesn't necessarily bring in the money.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 620
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the only workable alternative would be ballast penalties in qualifying which probably wouldn't be as draconian as the penalties we see now?
They could well be a lot worse. Where are you going to fix the ballast? Introduding such a penalty would require the teams to foresee a penalty weight point of some kind in the design of their cars, which are already heavier than they used to be a few years ago. Though the weight difference problem between cars+drivers is now gone. But don't forget that a few years ago, ballast used for balancing the car, was more of a problem for a taller/heavier driver than his team-mate. This kind of penalty could potentially bring that handicap back for no better reason than mechanical reliability.

It's only for qualifying and the lead obviously would be put on the seat, I think presently the penalty system is 5, 10, 15, then back of the grid penalties?

I think 10Kg is worth about 0.3s, so the penalties could be 10Kg, 20kg then onto a maximum of 30Kg, having a 1 second qualifying disadvantage has got to be better than automatically starting from the back of the grid?

Let's not forget we are simply looking for a replacement system for the poor souls who get so confused by grid penalties and this has got to be better than taking WDC points off drivers and is less draconian then the present system.

Would a ballast penalty be fairly even on every circuit? Can see this causing problems quite quickly if this becomes a bigger handicap at certain races and certain drivers qualify right at the back on some tracks and other times only lose 5-10 positions. Of course the current system is unfair in this way to because starting at the back is much worse at certain races.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 8:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

grid penalties for infringements are all well and good, but giving a penalty for something outside a team or driver's control is pretty pointless IMO.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 05, 2019 9:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 6564
Location: Michigan, USA
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the only workable alternative would be ballast penalties in qualifying which probably wouldn't be as draconian as the penalties we see now?
They could well be a lot worse. Where are you going to fix the ballast? Introduding such a penalty would require the teams to foresee a penalty weight point of some kind in the design of their cars, which are already heavier than they used to be a few years ago. Though the weight difference problem between cars+drivers is now gone. But don't forget that a few years ago, ballast used for balancing the car, was more of a problem for a taller/heavier driver than his team-mate. This kind of penalty could potentially bring that handicap back for no better reason than mechanical reliability.

It's only for qualifying and the lead obviously would be put on the seat, I think presently the penalty system is 5, 10, 15, then back of the grid penalties?

I think 10Kg is worth about 0.3s, so the penalties could be 10Kg, 20kg then onto a maximum of 30Kg, having a 1 second qualifying disadvantage has got to be better than automatically starting from the back of the grid?

Let's not forget we are simply looking for a replacement system for the poor souls who get so confused by grid penalties and this has got to be better than taking WDC points off drivers and is less draconian then the present system.

Giving drivers qualifying ballast is just a less honest form of grid penalty. It still has the effect of putting them out of position and reducing their ability to start where they 'should' be.

On top of that, with the current Formula 1/1.5 system, a class A driver given 1 second of ballast would probably still start 6th. I don't see any good reason to reinforce the two-class system we've ended up with.

_________________
PICK 10 COMPETITION (4 wins, 14 podiums): 3rd in 2016
TOP THREE CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): Champions in 2015 & 2018 | 2nd in 2017
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 USA & P-F1 Champion | #2 in the world in 2017


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 12:03 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1618
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

grid penalties for infringements are all well and good, but giving a penalty for something outside a team or driver's control is pretty pointless IMO.


Agree.

This is the main issue I have with ANY penalty for excessive component use under the current regulations.

How is it even remotely reasonable for a team to be penalised for a regulatory infringement that could well have been totally outside of their sphere of influence?

Is there any other situation in any other sport where this happens?

Also, the way the sport's evolved into a 2 tier competition, any penalty in this instance adversely affects smaller customer (tier 2) teams greater than the larger manufacturer or works (tier 1) teams due to the potential loss of points & prize money that accompany's any penalty, which basically only works to increase the chasm between the 2 tiers.

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner - 119 & counting.

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 303 spots available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: froze, kleefton, RaggedMan, Siao7, thermal and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group