Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

The biggest grid penalty..... EVER


  • Please log in to reply
80 replies to this topic

#51 black magic

black magic
  • Member

  • 4,477 posts
  • Joined: June 00

Posted 21 November 2014 - 23:27

why bother starting. why not just take it on the chin and not race or do you have to line up to be punished.

 

in that case do a lap and retire. sve engine for next yr testing and give fia the proverbial bird



Advertisement

#52 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 21 November 2014 - 23:52

You consider it sensible, that a team that changes the whole PU (which consists of 6 parts) only needs to start from the pitlane, while a team that canĀ“t /doesnĀ“t effort that and therefore changes only  3 out of 6 parts, receives a harsher punishment?

 

It's sensible to convert a grid penalty to a race penalty, if the driver in question cannot be penalised the required number of places. I made no comment on the reasons for Grosjean's punishment.



#53 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 00:00

The stewards started doing it last year, in response to the backmarkers constantly getting penalties that had no effect.

 

It's actually quite a sensible solution.

 

But where does it actually say they can do this? There is nothing in the rules that allows for grid penalties to be converted into time penalties. They are acting without authority and, in my opinion, Lotus should call them to account by ignoring the time penalty directives.

 

Edit: Here's the Stewards report:

 

Offence     Breach of Article 28.4 (a) of the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations.
Decision    Drop of 20 grid positions.
Reason     The 6th ICE, TC, MGU-H has been used by car 8, this is in breach of Article 28.4 a) of
                 the FIA Formula One Sporting Regulations. A 20 grid position penalty is imposed in
                 accordance with Article 28.4 c), as this is the first time a 6th power unit element has
                 been used.

                 Any remaining grid positions will be taken in the form of a time penalty during the race,
                 in accordance with the following :

                1 ā€“ 5       5 Second Time Penalty
                6 -10      10 Second Time Penalty
                11-20      Drive-through Penalty
                Over 20 10 Second Stop and Go Penalty

 

 

And the referenced articles of the sporting regulations state:

 

28.4 a) Unless he drives for more than one team (see 28.4(d) below), each driver may use no more than five power units during a Championship season.

       c) Should a driver use more than five of any one of the elements a grid place penalty will

           be imposed upon him at the first Event during which each additional element is used.

           Penalties will be applied according to the following table and will be cumulative :

          Replacement of a complete power unit     The driver concerned must start the race from the pit lane.
          The first time a 6th of any of the               Ten grid place penalty.
          elements is used.
          The first time a 6th of any of the               Five grid place penalty.
          remaining elements is used.
          The first time a 7th of any of the               Ten grid place penalty.
          elements is used.
          The first time a 7th of any of the               Five grid place penalty.
          remaining elements is used, and so on.

          A power unit or any of the six components will be deemed to have been used once the

          carā€™s timing transponder has shown that it has left the pit lane.

          If a grid place penalty is imposed, and the driverā€™s grid position is such that the full

          penalty cannot be applied, the remainder of the penalty will be applied at the driverā€™s

          next Event. However, no such remaining penalties will be carried forward for more than

          one Event.

 

 

There is nothing there that mentions time penalties. Nor can I find anything else in the sporting regs mention such a conversion of grid places to time penalties. Nor does the stewards report cite any such article in the sporting regs. They are making up a bogus penalty.


Edited by pdac, 22 November 2014 - 00:27.


#54 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,546 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 00:19

But where does it actually say they can do this? There is nothing in the rules that allows for grid penalties to be converted into time penalties. They are acting without authority and, in my opinion, Lotus should call them to account by ignoring the time penalty directives.

 

I presume somewhere in the International Sporting Code or the F1 Sporting Regulations the stewards have the authority to change the penalties.

 

There has to be space for interpretation, as you can't regulate for every conceivable situation.


Edited by Fastcake, 22 November 2014 - 00:21.


#55 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 00:36

I presume somewhere in the International Sporting Code or the F1 Sporting Regulations the stewards have the authority to change the penalties.

 

There has to be space for interpretation, as you can't regulate for every conceivable situation.

 

Piss poor regulations if that's the case. I'm sure a seven year old could figure out that grid penalties of the magnitude specified might not be able to be served in a single race weekend (the rules actually suggest that they thought about this by mentioning the carry-over). So it's pretty obvious that there is no carry-over for the last race. Also it's pretty obvious that the nature of the particular regulations means that it's likely that a be breached might occur in the last race. So the situation was easy for any sensible person to predict and, as such, should have been covered.



#56 f1RacingForever

f1RacingForever
  • Member

  • 1,384 posts
  • Joined: October 13

Posted 22 November 2014 - 04:48

If they didn't do this then there would be no concern for teams like marussia and caterham from abusing the rules and replacing any and all parts at will. a fresh engine could make the difference in scoring that all important point with the millions in award money that comes with it.

#57 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 2,393 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 22 November 2014 - 05:31

Is it guranteed that if they use more parts they pay for them, or is it part of the engine contract they pay for whatever it takes to finish the season? It sounds like a stupid series of penalties but it's equally perhaps stupid of Lotus not taking the complete power unit like Vettel did.

Edited by FPV GTHO, 22 November 2014 - 05:35.


#58 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 22 November 2014 - 07:29

Is it guranteed that if they use more parts they pay for them, or is it part of the engine contract they pay for whatever it takes to finish the season? It sounds like a stupid series of penalties but it's equally perhaps stupid of Lotus not taking the complete power unit like Vettel did.


I'm not sure Lotus were able to swop the complete unit for a 6th version to start from the pit lane. As well as changing the ICE, turbo and MGU-H they also changed the control electronics but this was within the allowed units:

http://www.fia.com/s...ocument - 9.pdf

The following driver will start the nineteenth Event of the 2014 Formula One World Championship with a new control electronics PSU (CE PSU):

08 Lotus Renault Romain Grosjean 5

The control electronics PSU used by Romain Grosjean is one of the five new control electronics PSU allowed for the 2014 Championship season and this is in conformity with Article 28.4a of the 2014 Formula One Sporting Regulations.



#59 Nonesuch

Nonesuch
  • Member

  • 15,870 posts
  • Joined: October 08

Posted 22 November 2014 - 08:40

There is nothing there that mentions time penalties. Nor can I find anything else in the sporting regs mention such a conversion of grid places to time penalties. Nor does the stewards report cite any such article in the sporting regs. They are making up a bogus penalty.

 

To briefly play Devil's Advocate, breaching the Sporting Regulations is an 'Incident' (2014 F1 Sporting Regulations, 'Article 16.1 "Incident" means any occurrence or series of occurrences involving one or more drivers, or any action by any driver, which is reported to the stewards by the race director (or noted by the stewards and subsequently investigated) which: (...) b)  Constituted a breach of these Sporting Regulations or the Code.')

 

Article 16.3 goes on to state:

 

The stewards may impose any one of the penalties below on any driver involved in an Incident:
a)  A five second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least five seconds and then re-join the race. (...)

b)  A drive-through penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane and re-join the race without stopping.

c)  A ten second time penalty. The driver must enter the pit lane, stop at his pit for at least ten seconds and then re-join the race. (...)

d)  A time penalty.
e)  A reprimand. (...)
f)  A drop of any number of grid positions at the driverā€™s next Event.
g)  Exclusion from the results.
h)  Suspension from the driverā€™s next Event.

 

It's a bit of a stretch, perhaps, but then again that is what Whiting and his associates are known for: creative interpretations of the regulations.



Advertisement

#60 Tsarwash

Tsarwash
  • Member

  • 13,725 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 08:55

But where does it actually say they can do this? There is nothing in the rules that allows for grid penalties to be converted into time penalties. They are acting without authority and, in my opinion, Lotus should call them to account by ignoring the time penalty directives.

 

Edit: Here's the Stewards report:

 

And the referenced articles of the sporting regulations state:

 

 

There is nothing there that mentions time penalties. Nor can I find anything else in the sporting regs mention such a conversion of grid places to time penalties. Nor does the stewards report cite any such article in the sporting regs. They are making up a bogus penalty.

If they genuinely are making it up as they go along, then Lotus ought to just ignore the penalty, and subsequent black flag and take it to tribunal later on, as I think has been done before. Whether the penalty is just or not is irrelevant to some extent, the idea that the rule makers can just change or add anything off the hoof, especially about a situation that is actually so predictable is just amateurish in the extreme. I mean, who would have thought that a midfield team or backmarker would run out of engines for the very last race, eh ?



#61 Rurouni

Rurouni
  • Member

  • 768 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 08:59

Maybe they don't have the money to change the whole thing? I think this is a stupid rule, especially if the changes happens in the same race. Maybe if someone take 1 part this race and the other part next race, you could rationalize it. But relative to Vettel' punishment, this is harsher for less benefit.

Edit: basically because they are poor, they take more penalties vs rich team that can afford the whole PU.

Edited by Rurouni, 22 November 2014 - 09:01.


#62 h4887

h4887
  • Member

  • 936 posts
  • Joined: July 04

Posted 22 November 2014 - 11:46

The whole principle of penalising the driver for something which is beyond his control is simply wrong. Dock the manufacturers some points if they must, but don't take it out on the driver.



#63 bourbon

bourbon
  • Member

  • 7,265 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 12:14

I don't like the engine penalties either.  They really need to rethink that. This is an example of how draconian the penalties can be and from a fan's viewpoint, it is ridiculous.  On the other hand, I think the team should have just taken the pitlane start penalty.  It isn't easy to pass, but it can be done with the proper set up as we saw in 2012 when Vettel went 3rd from the pitlane. 



#64 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 22 November 2014 - 12:54

why bother starting. why not just take it on the chin and not race or do you have to line up to be punished.

 

in that case do a lap and retire. sve engine for next yr testing and give fia the proverbial bird

What's the point in saving the engine? It will have plenty of life left, there's no limit in testing, and Renault should be bring out an improved engine anyway. 



#65 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 44,619 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 22 November 2014 - 12:57

If they didn't do this then there would be no concern for teams like marussia and caterham from abusing the rules and replacing any and all parts at will. a fresh engine could make the difference in scoring that all important point with the millions in award money that comes with it.

Except they are struggling to just make it to the grid let alone being able to afford another PU.



#66 Rurouni

Rurouni
  • Member

  • 768 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 13:11

I don't like the engine penalties either. They really need to rethink that. This is an example of how draconian the penalties can be and from a fan's viewpoint, it is ridiculous. On the other hand, I think the team should have just taken the pitlane start penalty. It isn't easy to pass, but it can be done with the proper set up as we saw in 2012 when Vettel went 3rd from the pitlane.

But changing the whole PU is more expensive than changing some parts. The rule definitely need to be adjusted because of this PU parts thing.

#67 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 November 2014 - 14:51

No its not sensible buts it is clearly in the rules so its the teams own fault for not taking advantage of the pit-lane start 'easy option' like Red Bull did. A bit of better planning from Lotus could have seen them able to do the same but I guess they were not expecting to need to change to the 6th elements?

 

Or it's a daft rule to penalise customer teams as compared to works teams, because a customer supply deal is unlikely to run to an entirely new, out-of-allocation PU if the existing unit can be fixed by replacing some of the components.



#68 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 November 2014 - 15:01

The whole principle of penalising the driver for something which is beyond his control is simply wrong. Dock the manufacturers some points if they must, but don't take it out on the driver.

 

No it isn't, because if that approach were taken, teams involved in a WDC fight but not a WCC fight, would break the rules on purpose and take any penalty on the chin if it would give their driver an advantage. The PU mileage rules, along with all the other technical and sporting regs that the team, as opposed to the driver, has to comply with, are there for a reason and if teams break the rules and gain an advantage, the driver gains an advantage as well.

 

When drivers break the rules and gain an advantage (e.g. if a driver went off track, missed out an entire sequence of corners and took the lead as a result) , nobody would ever suggest letting the race run its course, leaving the finishing order unchanged and then decucting WDC points from the driver, leaving the WCC points intact and leaving the driver that was overtaken by a cheat to finish second.



#69 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 November 2014 - 15:05

On the issue of the stewards making up a penalty, don't forget the stewards are allowed to use the full range of penalties specified in the ISC. The penalties specified in the Sporting Regulations can be used instead of, or in addition to, the standard ISC penalties. Basically they can do anything they like. In this case, I don't understand what people are getting upset about, because it's not possible for this penalty to be carried over to another event so the stewards have to do something to ensure this doesn't become a non-penalty, out of fairness to those who have managed to comply with the regulations.There always has to be an incentive to comply rather than breach a rule, otherwise the rule is meaningless.



#70 Rurouni

Rurouni
  • Member

  • 768 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 18:26

On the issue of the stewards making up a penalty, don't forget the stewards are allowed to use the full range of penalties specified in the ISC. The penalties specified in the Sporting Regulations can be used instead of, or in addition to, the standard ISC penalties. Basically they can do anything they like. In this case, I don't understand what people are getting upset about, because it's not possible for this penalty to be carried over to another event so the stewards have to do something to ensure this doesn't become a non-penalty, out of fairness to those who have managed to comply with the regulations.There always has to be an incentive to comply rather than breach a rule, otherwise the rule is meaningless.

My problem is that the difference between this penalty and the one Vettel's got is that this one is much more severe probably because they can't afford the whole PU! Why someone that change the whole PU get lesser penalty than someone that change 3 component of the PU? If Grosjean had changed the whole PU, he would only need to start from the pitlane regardless of his position! If we give the piecemeal penalties to Vettel, he would get 10+(5x5) because there are 6 elements/parts that forms the PU and that would be 35 grid penalty! So the best case scenario if that were to happen, Vettel would qualify 3rd (which frankly is still impossible), so 35-15 (because there was only 18 cars) equals 20 grid penalty. 20 grid penalty equals to a drive through. Miss out on 3rd? 10s stop and go.

While I'm personally don't mind that Grosjean got a penalty for changing the PU, I do think that the penalty is unfair, thus making me upset.



#71 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 22 November 2014 - 19:53

My problem is that the difference between this penalty and the one Vettel's got is that this one is much more severe probably because they can't afford the whole PU! Why someone that change the whole PU get lesser penalty than someone that change 3 component of the PU? If Grosjean had changed the whole PU, he would only need to start from the pitlane regardless of his position! If we give the piecemeal penalties to Vettel, he would get 10+(5x5) because there are 6 elements/parts that forms the PU and that would be 35 grid penalty! So the best case scenario if that were to happen, Vettel would qualify 3rd (which frankly is still impossible), so 35-15 (because there was only 18 cars) equals 20 grid penalty. 20 grid penalty equals to a drive through. Miss out on 3rd? 10s stop and go.

While I'm personally don't mind that Grosjean got a penalty for changing the PU, I do think that the penalty is unfair, thus making me upset.

 

Yep, I agree with the bolded part completely. But it's not the stewards' fault. That's what happens if you effectively let the manufacturers set the rules.



#72 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 22 November 2014 - 23:10

My problem is that the difference between this penalty and the one Vettel's got is that this one is much more severe probably because they can't afford the whole PU!


I don't think it has anything to do with money though - they weren't able to replace the whole unit for a 6th part even if they had wanted to, I posted a link to the technical report earlier which showed that they had only used 4 CE parts so the replacement CE was within their allowed allocation so couldn't attract a penalty.

Its a daft rule though, with the individual punishments being so much worse than the combined one - who knows why they created it like this. Red Bull were clever by deciding to change the whole lot to take advantage of the lesser penalty (it looked like they would only need a 6th ICE, TC, MGU-K and MGU-H but used the 5th parts of ES and CE in Japan in preparation for changing the whole thing in Sochi - even though that later became Austin due to customs holding up parts (the 5th CE and ES should have been perfectly able to get to the end of the season at that point but they knew the penalty for just changing 4 elements (25 grid places which would have carried over to Brazil as well) was worse than the whole lot and only 1 race from the back.

Edited by Exb, 22 November 2014 - 23:13.


#73 Nigol

Nigol
  • Member

  • 2,740 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 23:16

Can someone tell me why changing the parts AND starting from the pitlate doesn't work? 



#74 Exb

Exb
  • Member

  • 3,961 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 22 November 2014 - 23:33

Can someone tell me why changing the parts AND starting from the pitlate doesn't work?


The penalty of starting from the pit-lane is only if all 6 elements (ICE, TC, MGU-K, MGU-H, ES and CE) are changed at the same time for a 6th version. If individual components are changed its a 10 place grid penalty for the 1st one and 5 places for any further 6th parts.

As Grosjean had only used 4 CE parts, if Lotus had changed everything for a new part, the new CE would only have been the 5th part and still in the allowed allocation, therefore the pit-lane penalty would not have been issued.

#75 Nigol

Nigol
  • Member

  • 2,740 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 23:42

The penalty of starting from the pit-lane is only if all 6 elements (ICE, TC, MGU-K, MGU-H, ES and CE) are changed at the same time for a 6th version. If individual components are changed its a 10 place grid penalty for the 1st one and 5 places for any further 6th parts.

As Grosjean had only used 4 CE parts, if Lotus had changed everything for a new part, the new CE would only have been the 5th part and still in the allowed allocation, therefore the pit-lane penalty would not have been issued.

 

Yeah I know, I know.

 

And now tell me again. Why can't they just start from pitlane?


Edited by Nigol, 22 November 2014 - 23:43.


#76 pdac

pdac
  • Member

  • 17,074 posts
  • Joined: February 10

Posted 22 November 2014 - 23:51

Yeah I know, I know.

 

And now tell me again. Why can't they just start from pitlane?

 

Probably because the rule writers are total idiots. They probably started with the idea that the odd part might have to be changed and so the norm would be a 5-place penalty, with the odd 10-place one in rare occasions.

 

Then someone probably pointed out that there might be some situation where the whole PU might need replacing and the grid penalties would be ridiculous. And so they added the pit-start bit, without ever considering that someone might actually need to replace more than a couple or parts at one time.



#77 Viceroy

Viceroy
  • Member

  • 411 posts
  • Joined: January 01

Posted 23 November 2014 - 01:55

If they didn't do this then there would be no concern for teams like marussia and caterham from abusing the rules and replacing any and all parts at will. a fresh engine could make the difference in scoring that all important point with the millions in award money that comes with it.

Even if they wanted to do that, they couldnĀ“t afford it.


Edited by Viceroy, 23 November 2014 - 02:01.


#78 Rurouni

Rurouni
  • Member

  • 768 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 23 November 2014 - 04:22

Do teams need to pay for the whole 5 PU or just the PU parts that they've used? For example, if a team can finish this season by only using 3 whole PU + 2 new PU parts for the last race, are they only need to paid for that? I think the logical answer is that they only need to pay for the stuff that they've used, thus probably a smaller team can't pull RB stunt by trying to create a situation where you can change the whole PU by the time you hit 6 because of cost reason. Btw, should a team that can save parts be encouraged and not punished (at least in this ear of cost saving)?
Edit: in Lotus case, since they are switching to Mercedes PU, I'm sure they don't want to spend more than necessary for Renault PU. Maybe if they are fighting for a tangible WCC position it would've been different.

Edited by Rurouni, 23 November 2014 - 04:29.


#79 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,709 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 23 November 2014 - 10:37

Do teams need to pay for the whole 5 PU or just the PU parts that they've used? For example, if a team can finish this season by only using 3 whole PU + 2 new PU parts for the last race, are they only need to paid for that? I think the logical answer is that they only need to pay for the stuff that they've used, thus probably a smaller team can't pull RB stunt by trying to create a situation where you can change the whole PU by the time you hit 6 because of cost reason. Btw, should a team that ca
n save parts be encouraged and not punished (at least in this ear of cost saving)?
Edit: in Lotus case, since they are switching to Mercedes PU, I'm sure they don't want to spend more than necessary for Renault PU. Maybe if they are fighting for a tangible WCC position it would've been different.


I don't know for sure but I imagine it's a fixed price for a season's supply, with replacement for parts that fail when in-life included in the upfront price. Would be crazy to expct customers to pay extra for unreliability. But in that case the supplier is only going to want to replace whatever needs replacing, not throw in extra new components just to help the team circumvent the regulations. They did it for Red Bull, but it's hardly surprising they don't want to do it for Lotus. The Enstone/Renault love affair is long dead.

Advertisement

#80 Rurouni

Rurouni
  • Member

  • 768 posts
  • Joined: May 10

Posted 23 November 2014 - 11:07

Maybe the price for the 5 PU is upfront, but the 6th is extra? Or it's still the engine supplier responsibility to provide as many PU as possible? I read about the engine cost around $20M a season, but it just a number being thrown up without any details about it. Is it just a projection from $4M * 5PU or $20M for the whole season regardless of how many a team would use or $20M for up to 5 PU.

Also from what I understand, although the deal probably was being made upfront (a team would do a $20M deal for the engine) but the actual payment isn't upfront, meaning that the team might be able to negotiate for only paying PU and parts/elements that they've used.

It would be extremely stupid for Lotus if they don't need to pay for the 6th PU but not doing what RB did.

 

If the deal is really for 5PU/season (4PU next season), then a team should be smarter and try to use all the PU parts/elements allocated to them as early as possible (maybe save some parts/elements for a special track like Monza), kinda like a banker usage just to make sure that if they need to take the extra PU they can take the whole PU, thus avoid this silly rule. Ultimately, it's better for the FIA to revise this rule to be fairer.



#81 Nigol

Nigol
  • Member

  • 2,740 posts
  • Joined: September 10

Posted 23 November 2014 - 11:46

Probably because the rule writers are total idiots. They probably started with the idea that the odd part might have to be changed and so the norm would be a 5-place penalty, with the odd 10-place one in rare occasions.

 

Then someone probably pointed out that there might be some situation where the whole PU might need replacing and the grid penalties would be ridiculous. And so they added the pit-start bit, without ever considering that someone might actually need to replace more than a couple or parts at one time.

 

Yeah...Probably you're right.

 

But I don't get it, you can start from pitlane and change whatever you want ANYTIME. Just like Red Bull did with Vettel in Abu Dhabi 2012 or now again in 2014.

And since the penalty for changing the whole PU is starting from the pitlane, thus the harshest penalty, it should be fine for Grosjean to start there too. Without getting a drive through.  :mad: