Jump to content


Photo

Dodgy penalty decisions regarding gearboxes


  • Please log in to reply
51 replies to this topic

#1 Wiggy

Wiggy
  • Member

  • 450 posts
  • Joined: October 11

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:11

http://m.gpupdate.ne...lty-for-alonso/

This whole grid drop thing is ruining race weekends. Especially when one can have a penalty and another doesn't get one...

Advertisement

#2 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,628 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:13

The difference between the two situations is made clear in the article. Nothing dodgy about it.

#3 SkorbiF1

SkorbiF1
  • Member

  • 1,208 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:17

So the ruling is that the teams have to name the engine and the gearbox they are going to use in the qualifying and in the race, but they can use different ones in the friday practice sessions?

If that is the case, then nothing dodgy.

Can someone confirm the ruling?

#4 garoidb

garoidb
  • Member

  • 4,028 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:17

http://m.gpupdate.ne...lty-for-alonso/

This whole grid drop thing is ruining race weekends. Especially when one can have a penalty and another doesn't get one...


Were the rules followed or not?

#5 kosmos

kosmos
  • Member

  • 7,311 posts
  • Joined: December 06

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:21

Rules are clear, it's not about Alonso, it's about rules, it's not that hard to understand.

#6 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:27

Time we got rid of these rules it is just spoils races. The regs should also allow teams to bring complete spare cars to races.

#7 SkorbiF1

SkorbiF1
  • Member

  • 1,208 posts
  • Joined: December 04

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:27

If I understand Autosport article correctly, a gearbox can be changed before the qualifying without a penalty, if the unit has already been used for five events.

Which apparently has been the case for Alonso, and does not apply to Di Resta.

Edited by SkorbiF1, 08 September 2012 - 10:30.


#8 River

River
  • Member

  • 177 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 08 September 2012 - 10:48

If I understand Autosport article correctly, a gearbox can be changed before the qualifying without a penalty, if the unit has already been used for five events.

Which apparently has been the case for Alonso, and does not apply to Di Resta.


Gearbox change doesn't effect Alonso as he is allowed a free change, as he didn't finish Spa.

#9 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:45

As far as the FIA are concerned Friday practice sessions don't count towards the race weekend. Alonso had his problems with old gearboxes/engines on Friday. Don't get me wrong I love to get involved in a good old fashioned Alonso/Ferrari/FIA conspiracy, but this one ain't one.

#10 engel

engel
  • Member

  • 5,037 posts
  • Joined: November 08

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:54

As far as the FIA are concerned Friday practice sessions don't count towards the race weekend. Alonso had his problems with old gearboxes/engines on Friday. Don't get me wrong I love to get involved in a good old fashioned Alonso/Ferrari/FIA conspiracy, but this one ain't one.



Friday sessions count in gearbox allocations, they also count in engine allocations (ie you can only use one of your 8 engines and once you declare an engine unuseable you can't use it on Fridays either)

#11 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 1,179 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 08 September 2012 - 11:58

The rules are here: http://www.formula1....s/8689/fia.html.

As I read it, it can be summarised as follows:

- Once a new gearbox is used at a race weekend in FP3, qualifying or the race, that same gearbox must be used in all sessions (including F1 and F2) for that weekend and the following 4 races. If it is not, then a penalty will apply

- The exception is if the car fails to complete a race, in which case the gearbox can be changed without penalty. However, the first race weekend is only considered to start with FP3.

#12 britishtrident

britishtrident
  • Member

  • 1,954 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 02 October 2012 - 14:59

Now Button suffers a gearbox penalty, these engine and gearbox change regs really need a major re-think.

#13 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 10,364 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 15:03

The only thing I can think of is a decent fine, something that if accumulated would reach the level of points lost in WCC standings anyway. It's a step away from point-blank taking points away.

I'm sick of interventionist penalties as it is, but when was the last time the qualifying session even remotely resembled how they line up on Sunday? I have to say my interest in qualifying is dwindling, I skip Q1 now, even if the format is great. The tyre rules, the nature of the tyres, trigger-happy race control with the SC and penalties make it increasingly meaningless.

The teams turn up with cars that may or may not suit tyres on certain tracks, they might as well make qualifying a lottery as the entire weekend form guide is.

Edited by Disgrace, 02 October 2012 - 15:06.


#14 seahawk

seahawk
  • Member

  • 3,132 posts
  • Joined: November 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 15:24

To see more cars been driven on fridays, I think FP1 andFP2 should not count towards engine and gearbox allocations and they should have at least 2 sets of extra tires for friday only.

#15 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 15:29

It's all about cost cutting and reliability, they put in harsh penalties to force manufacturers to go for increased reliability in order to reduce costs. Although I'm not sure how much room the technical regulations give the manufacturers to play with to push for reliability.

At the end of the day F1 is no way just about what happens on the track, I think we all know that. It goes right from the manufacturing stage through to the chequered flag. The driver is just another member of the process of Formula One. He's not the only one being punished anyway, you think the team isn't either when a car gets dropped down the grid. Who knows what Di Resta could have done for Force India in Monza had he not had the grid drop. Shit happens...

#16 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,628 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 02 October 2012 - 15:30

The only thing I can think of is a decent fine, something that if accumulated would reach the level of points lost in WCC standings anyway. It's a step away from point-blank taking points away.

I'm sick of interventionist penalties as it is, but when was the last time the qualifying session even remotely resembled how they line up on Sunday? I have to say my interest in qualifying is dwindling, I skip Q1 now, even if the format is great. The tyre rules, the nature of the tyres, trigger-happy race control with the SC and penalties make it increasingly meaningless.

The teams turn up with cars that may or may not suit tyres on certain tracks, they might as well make qualifying a lottery as the entire weekend form guide is.

If you look back at the season, qualifying has a very strong correlation to race results, just like any other year.

As far as penalties go, a 5 place grid penalty isn't the end of the world. Its much better than having it blow during the race itself. A fine doesn't make sense as that defeats the purpose of 'cost saving'. The best thing for a team to do is to build a reliable gearbox. Its not like its impossible. Its only been Button and Webber of the top guys that have had a grid penalty for this, right?

#17 mlsnoopy

mlsnoopy
  • Member

  • 2,356 posts
  • Joined: June 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 15:38

The gearbox rules should be similar to the engine rules.

#18 joshb

joshb
  • Member

  • 3,336 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 15:45

I don't like the idea of punishing the driver for something out of his control.
I'd rather a system whereby the driver can do the race as normal and score WDC points as normal, but his car would be ineligable to score WCC points at that meeting.
Though coming 11th woud not give the team 1 point, as you simply have the cars in their order, and if the driver comes 6th, he gets 8 points, but the team gets 0 instead of 8 and those below score 6,4,2 and 1 as normal.

#19 sosidge

sosidge
  • Member

  • 1,672 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 15:50

The gearbox rules should be similar to the engine rules.


I agree. They seem to penalise "normal" unreliability in a rather dramatic fashion. An allocation of four per season would surely have the same effect on costs.

Advertisement

#20 Buttoneer

Buttoneer
  • RC Forum Admin

  • 16,870 posts
  • Joined: May 04

Posted 02 October 2012 - 16:05

Of 33 replies, 12 have been deleted because they pointlessly attack the OP, reference other uninvolved drivers or make general ad hominem statements.

if the topic of a thread does not interest you, or if you have nothing of any value to add, you are not required to post anyway.

Edit; make that 14 posts deleted, and 'trolling' to the list.

#21 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,634 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 October 2012 - 16:12

The gearbox rules should be similar to the engine rules.


This.

Is there any technical reason why they can not be allowed a set number of gearboxes per season and a penalty only applied if the allowance is exceeded?

#22 goldenboy

goldenboy
  • Member

  • 3,492 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 16:13

I hate this gearbox penalty rule! Why can they not at least make it the same as engines I don't know.

#23 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,417 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 16:17

I don't like the idea of punishing the driver for something out of his control.
I'd rather a system whereby the driver can do the race as normal and score WDC points as normal, but his car would be ineligable to score WCC points at that meeting.
Though coming 11th woud not give the team 1 point, as you simply have the cars in their order, and if the driver comes 6th, he gets 8 points, but the team gets 0 instead of 8 and those below score 6,4,2 and 1 as normal.


That would only make the whole situation more complex for the fans, and doesn't really solve anything in the process...

F1 is a team sport anyway, I see nothing wrong with getting a penalty if your team wasn't able to attend the event with a reliable car.

#24 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,792 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 16:36

The gearbox rules should be similar to the engine rules.


I have said this many times here too. The most logical approach. They changed the engine rules which also resulted in 10 grid places penalty, but did not touch the GB rules. But that's how FIA and TWG work - slowly, painfully and lagging behind. And absolutely unsystematic.

Edit: wrong quote

Edited by sharo, 02 October 2012 - 16:39.


#25 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,634 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 02 October 2012 - 16:41

If you look back at the season, qualifying has a very strong correlation to race results, just like any other year.

As far as penalties go, a 5 place grid penalty isn't the end of the world. Its much better than having it blow during the race itself. A fine doesn't make sense as that defeats the purpose of 'cost saving'. The best thing for a team to do is to build a reliable gearbox. Its not like its impossible. Its only been Button and Webber of the top guys that have had a grid penalty for this, right?


Hamilton, China.


#26 Skinnyguy

Skinnyguy
  • Member

  • 4,391 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 17:22

And Räikkönen in Malaysia.


#27 HP

HP
  • Member

  • 14,356 posts
  • Joined: October 99

Posted 02 October 2012 - 17:49

Is it just me or have this year been more gearbox failures, thus highlighting the rules?

If indeed gearbox failures have been more frequently, then there's the question what do teams different to previous years?

#28 A.Fant

A.Fant
  • Member

  • 180 posts
  • Joined: April 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 18:05

Is it just me or have this year been more gearbox failures, thus highlighting the rules?

If indeed gearbox failures have been more frequently, then there's the question what do teams different to previous years?


I think this is in part because they removed the "joker" gearbox, which allowed one unpenalized gearbox change out of sequence.

#29 g1n

g1n
  • Member

  • 877 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 18:25

this silly rule should go, it would have been more productive if instead of grid drops they would impose a fine on the team, with money donated to some named charity.

#30 AlexS

AlexS
  • Member

  • 2,568 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 02 October 2012 - 18:36

this silly rule should go, it would have been more productive if instead of grid drops they would impose a fine on the team, with money donated to some named charity.


No it wouldn't. One more after the money...

The OP is just trying to present the case like if there is any injustice. There isn't.

I think we should have less rules and if not the case be made simpler.

Edited by AlexS, 02 October 2012 - 18:40.


#31 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 18:50

Is it just me or have this year been more gearbox failures, thus highlighting the rules?

If indeed gearbox failures have been more frequently, then there's the question what do teams different to previous years?

Maybe they are just more cautious than last season and rather take a grid drop than risk a DNF. There have been 17 gearbox grid drops this season compared to just two in 2010, but looking at VivaF1.com's reliability statistics, we've had just 5 gearbox-related DNFs this season compared to 13 in 2011.

#32 August

August
  • Member

  • 2,224 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 18:50

Is it just me or have this year been more gearbox failures, thus highlighting the rules?

If indeed gearbox failures have been more frequently, then there's the question what do teams different to previous years?



Maybe we've seen more gearbox changes, and thus penalties, because it's easier to overtake. Previously it was worth taking a risk with possibly damaged gearbox otherwise you wouldn't finish high. Now you can even win from 6th on the grid.

#33 Tardis40

Tardis40
  • Member

  • 737 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 19:07

This is the first year that gearboxes had to last five races. Last year is was four.

I don't see why they can't service the gearbox and the engine. It's more cost effective to replace a few parts and save the unit instead of blowing it up and losing everything.


#34 MrMontecarlo

MrMontecarlo
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 02 October 2012 - 19:26

Cost saving? In F1? What a joke.
These penalties are ruining the GPs

#35 PinkZepStones

PinkZepStones
  • Member

  • 220 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 02 October 2012 - 19:26

Rules are the same for everyone.

Gearboxs's restricted so the bigger teams cant gain advantage by throwing a new one every bleeding practice session.

#36 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 19:34

This is the first year that gearboxes had to last five races. Last year is was four.

No, it was five in 2011 as well, four was in 2010.

#37 Tonka

Tonka
  • Member

  • 834 posts
  • Joined: November 11

Posted 02 October 2012 - 20:35

If the difference between a sturdy, reliable gearbox is down to weight. Why are teams bothering to make problems for themselves ?

A couple of years ago the minimum weight of cars was increased and given the gearbox is low in the car, paring down the gearbox is pretty much pointless when McLaren have decreased reliability for the sake of few kilo's. Moreso when they still have to use ballast to keep the cars up to weight.

As to recent events. Did McLaren replace LH's gearbox after Spa to look at the problem they were aware of? It wouldn't have cost them to put a new gearbox in for Monza.

Edited by Tonka, 02 October 2012 - 20:35.


#38 ryan86

ryan86
  • Member

  • 1,100 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 21:12

How much does a gearbox cost (in financial terms?)

#39 Seanspeed

Seanspeed
  • Member

  • 14,628 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 02 October 2012 - 21:16

Cost saving? In F1? What a joke.
These penalties are ruining the GPs

What race has been ruined?

Advertisement

#40 ForzaGTR

ForzaGTR
  • Member

  • 3,068 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 02 October 2012 - 21:20

Cost saving? Then why make it so teams build new cars every few years when the regs change?

Edited by Olly F1, 02 October 2012 - 21:21.


#41 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 6,421 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 02 October 2012 - 21:41

Cost saving? Then why make it so teams build new cars every few years when the regs change?


Because it's necessary? You have to save money but at the same time you need cars that can actually race with each other.

#42 johnmhinds

johnmhinds
  • Member

  • 2,417 posts
  • Joined: July 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:18

How much does a gearbox cost (in financial terms?)


Somewhere around £80,000-100,000 for the top teams.

#43 Youichi

Youichi
  • Member

  • 3,000 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 October 2012 - 07:42

I have said this many times here too. The most logical approach. They changed the engine rules which also resulted in 10 grid places penalty, but did not touch the GB rules. But that's how FIA and TWG work - slowly, painfully and lagging behind. And absolutely unsystematic.

Edit: wrong quote


The gearbox rules will be the same as the engine ones in 2014, also the same will apply for kers units/turbos etc.

#44 SenorSjon

SenorSjon
  • Member

  • 1,588 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:09

Great.... why even bother watching Q then? When was the last time we had an unmodified grid? A very common thing ten years ago, but a rarity now.

#45 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,578 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 08:35

Cost saving? Then why make it so teams build new cars every few years when the regs change?

The teams build new cars every year. Even several a year some time ago. Incorporating a larger fuel tank or making the front wing a few inches wider isn't that much of a substantial change, is it?

#46 F1ultimate

F1ultimate
  • Member

  • 2,921 posts
  • Joined: November 10

Posted 03 October 2012 - 09:27

Now Button suffers a gearbox penalty, these engine and gearbox change regs really need a major re-think.


They must. Driver has absolutely zero say in the hardware and technical development of gearboxes. Why should they feel the wrath of the law for one failing? Slapping constructors a points deduction could work for the big teams but would be harsh for the lagging teams that only pick up 1-20 points in one season.

#47 ForzaGTR

ForzaGTR
  • Member

  • 3,068 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 03 October 2012 - 11:07

The teams build new cars every year. Even several a year some time ago. Incorporating a larger fuel tank or making the front wing a few inches wider isn't that much of a substantial change, is it?


But is all of it needed? Do big regulation changes help cut costs? Do the plans to scrap the new engines in 2014 help save costs? (considering lots of R&D must have been done on them already)

#48 Fonzey

Fonzey
  • Member

  • 278 posts
  • Joined: January 12

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:24

WCC point deductions should be the way to go, but I understand that a 5point penalty for McLaren is different from a 5point penalty for Force India for example.

So How about a % based penalty? For every "illegal" Gearbox change - the team loses 5% of their WCC points.

#49 Darren1

Darren1
  • Member

  • 64 posts
  • Joined: October 10

Posted 05 October 2012 - 08:40

Are we all suffering a bit of Anthony Davidson syndrome here??? All of this "poor darling drivers" nonsence, being let down by the evil teams.

So as he puts it, if a gearbox needs changing, or a team botches a pitstop, why should the driver be penalised?? So if the driver spins and loses time, or smashes his car into a jigsaw puzzle, why should the team be penalised??? You win as a team and lose as a team, and the driver is part of the team.

I you weren't equally penalised you could have cars with qualifying engines, a new gearbox every race etc to gain unfair advantage and cruising to win the WDC, while scoring nothing in the constructors championship (I remember teams in the past looking more to the WDC than the WCC. There there would be cries of unfair again.

I do however agree that the current rules suck, and that you should be able to pick and chose gearboxes through the season, provided you dont use over "X" amount. I dream of the day we have a qualifying session that decided the grid, as opposed to one that picks it before the shuffle takes place.

#50 Lee Nicolle

Lee Nicolle
  • Member

  • 6,145 posts
  • Joined: July 08

Posted 05 October 2012 - 09:06

Cost saving? Then why make it so teams build new cars every few years when the regs change?

Most teams build complete new cars every year and have done so for decades. And quite often new transaxles and sometimes new engines too.