46 replies to this topic

[DutchQuicksilver]

Couldn't find a recent topic about F1's current regulations, so starting a new one.

 

Isn't F1 making a fool of themselves to the world, fans and possible newcomers with these ridiculous grid penalties? They are even releasing official statements with driver A getting 60 grid penalties whilst the grid only has 20 slots. Why don't they just alter the regulations so a driver can't get more grid penalties than the grid allows them? That way, the press statements don't look utter ridiculous and the world won't laugh at F1.

[Cloxxki]

Pit delay penalties would seem less in-your-face. Seconds in stead of grid places. And perhaps more of them then.
Could be inthe form of pit lane starts. Mechanics can fire the car up just before the release, to prevent overheating and all. Or, the fire-up is only  upon release by FIA. Taking part in quali seems needless then anyway. Gives more drivers a chance to shine in Q3.

[Cloxxki]

Pit delay penalties would seem less in-your-face. Seconds in stead of grid places. And perhaps more of them then.
Could be inthe form of pit lane starts. Mechanics can fire the car up just before the release, to prevent overheating and all. Or, the fire-up is only  upon release by FIA. Taking part in quali seems needless then anyway. Gives other drivers a chance to shine in Q3.

[ANF]

But that way, Ricciardo would have been given only a 4-place grid penalty today (a drop from P15 to P19). And then, some time in the very near future when Lewis Hamilton will be given a 5-place penalty for changing the gearbox, certain people would go WAIT A MINUTE, Lewis has to drop FIVE places for that, and HOW many places did Ricciardo have to drop when Red Bull changed HOW many engines, and really, this is the FIA for you, isn't it, interpreting the rules as they wish to make the championship exciting and by the way, Bernie has to go!

[Garndell]

Perhaps for every 5 places (or any part of 5 places) past last place on the grid adds a 1 second penalty to be taken at a pit stop.  The whole drive through for Max's bodywork though, surely they should make it half distance and not lap 1 so as to properly penalise the team.  All similar penalties in F1 (pre race ones anyway) should be this way.  There should also be a punishment for those intentionally not taking a full part in qualification, it sucks as a spectator for a car or cars to not be doing their utmost to qualify or not even take part.

[jonpollak]

If they started these cars from 50 km away and had an in-car camera on it .... IE: Rikki starts from Bergamo... Extra points for actually getting to the track!!!

[Nonesuch]

Why don't they just alter the regulations so a driver can't get more grid penalties than the grid allows them?

 

These large penalties are not for one offence but rather a whole list of them.

 

If you want to prevent such huge penalties you'll have to reduce the penalties for each single offence. But this would result in rather significant changes only leading to losing one or two places on the grid, which would arguably be equally odd.

 

The FIA has created this mess by giving in to the complaints of teams. The FIA should have known that teams would bundle penalties now that they no longer have to serve additional penalties after ending up at the back of the grid.

 

In Belgium the McLaren-Honda team showed such ridiculous incompetence that they were handed a total of 105-grid penalties, but because they are also very slow and tend to qualify at the back anyway they only served a dozen or so. What a great system these so-called professionals have cooked up!

 

If the teams want to limit the number of engines they use over a full season - which they do - there should be consequences to failing to meet that target.
 

Edited by Nonesuch, 05 September 2015 - 21:53.

[Rob]

It is rather silly.

[Maustinsj]

Damon Hill had a good suggestion on Sky of the penalties transforming into Constructor points deductions rather than penalising the driver for something out of his control.

[Wuzak]

People are getting too excited by the numbers. All the numbers do is help work out the order of the grid.

 

It is normal practice that the order the penalties are taken is the order they were issued. By giving a high number of grid place penalties a driver with two engine penalties, say, will start behind a driver with one, even if the latter had his penalty later.

 

It could be worse for them - a few years ago unused penalties were brought forward to the next race, where the unused penalties would be applied. Button and Alonso would still be paying theirs off from Austria.

[JAW97]

Damon Hill had a good suggestion on Sky of the penalties transforming into Constructor points deductions rather than penalising the driver for something out of his control.

 

This imo.

 

I do think a Verstappen penalty is the wrong decision, should be a hefty fine and perhaps a WCC penalty to make sure they don't do it again. Verstappen had no control over it and unlike in say, an unsafe release, didn't gain any advantage from it happening. 

Edited by JAW97, 05 September 2015 - 22:49.

[smitten]

The only thing wrong is the fact that the rules have been relaxed by people more interested in the show than the sport.

What if an engine manufacturer wanted to spend 30 tokens - send them to the back for one race then let them trounce the field for the remaining 10? No, all the teams signed up (and campaigned for some of) these rules and are now miffed that they are being applied to them.

[pdac]

The huge grid penalties are the result of teams taking advantage of the modified rules (in a way that the FIA probably didn't consider). If the unused penalty places were still being carried over from race to race you would not be seeing this.

[V8 Fireworks]

 

If the teams want to limit the number of engines they use over a full season - which they do - there should be consequences to failing to meet that target.
 

 

Are you sure?  The fans don't want it. It doesn't seem to make the PUs any cheaper either... as it is much more difficult to make them last that long. and costs a lot more $ in development... compared to nominal cost of manufacturing one PU per race...

 

Don't you find it absurd that drivers in WEC can push flat out, lap after lap, for 24 hours... whereas drivers in F1, which is meant to be a sprint by comparison, are conserving engines and tyres for 95% of the "race"....

Edited by V8 Fireworks, 05 September 2015 - 23:14.

[anneomoly]

Couldn't find a recent topic about F1's current regulations, so starting a new one.

 

Isn't F1 making a fool of themselves to the world, fans and possible newcomers with these ridiculous grid penalties? They are even releasing official statements with driver A getting 60 grid penalties whilst the grid only has 20 slots. Why don't they just alter the regulations so a driver can't get more grid penalties than the grid allows them? That way, the press statements don't look utter ridiculous and the world won't laugh at F1.

 

I've never heard anyone ask: are the engine manufacturers making a fool out of F1 by providing engines that can't do what they're specifically asked to be done? You know, like everyone says of Pirelli.

 

The teams have been given four engines per season. There can't be no penalty for going over that limit, what else are the FIA meant to do?

 

This imo.

 

I do think a Verstappen penalty is the wrong decision, should be a hefty fine and perhaps a WCC penalty to make sure they don't do it again. Verstappen had no control over it and unlike in say, an unsafe release, didn't gain any advantage from it happening. 

 

If there was no advantage to Verstappen in him being out on track in that session, then why would they have sent him out? He got an installation lap in, which sets him up for the race better. If they'd secured the bodywork, he wouldn't have made it out before the session ended. Performance advantage = performance penalty. You would hope, given Wilson's funeral in Northamptonshire next week, the FIA have remembered just what loose bodywork flying around a track can do and would look dimly on a team deciding to send out a car with bits flapping in the breeze. At least in pit releases it's normally a screw up.

[clipper]

The engine penalties are there to deter teams from changing engine as a cost savings measure.

 

The rules should then be

 

- 4/5 engines for the season for saturday/qually/race.

- unlimited engines for friday free practice or cap it at another 4/5

-can't change above the 4/5 engines unless they fail, and the only time they will fail is in a session that counts (qually/race)

- new engine can be swapped in for failed engine - no penalty (as drive has already be punished with a DNF or bad qually position)

- only big penalties for intentional engine failure (strategical failure to get a fresh engine)

[DerFlugplatz]

I guess this will sound a bit weird. But for me, who will get the biggest grid penalty (usually a Mclaren) is one of the more intersting things during a race weekend nowadays.

[Wuzak]

Don't you find it absurd that drivers in WEC can push flat out, lap after lap, for 24 hours... whereas drivers in F1, which is meant to be a sprint by comparison, are conserving engines and tyres for 95% of the "race"....

 

That's because the WEC cars pushing the whole 24 hours is a myth. They aren't using the engines to their fullest and they do conserve tyres and fuel.

[HP]

This imo.

 

I do think a Verstappen penalty is the wrong decision, should be a hefty fine and perhaps a WCC penalty to make sure they don't do it again. Verstappen had no control over it and unlike in say, an unsafe release, didn't gain any advantage from it happening. 

From what he said Verstappen was fully aware that the bodywork was attached only half way. So IMO that penalty is fine with me.

[JAW97]

If there was no advantage to Verstappen in him being out on track in that session, then why would they have sent him out? He got an installation lap in, which sets him up for the race better. If they'd secured the bodywork, he wouldn't have made it out before the session ended. Performance advantage = performance penalty. You would hope, given Wilson's funeral in Northamptonshire next week, the FIA have remembered just what loose bodywork flying around a track can do and would look dimly on a team deciding to send out a car with bits flapping in the breeze. At least in pit releases it's normally a screw up.

From what he said Verstappen was fully aware that the bodywork was attached only half way. So IMO that penalty is fine with me.

To be honest I thought I had a good idea in regards to grid penalties but taking into account other drivers' penalties I realised it breaks my logic so I'll forget about that one.

In any case, I still maintain that the team needs to be punished more severely for things like this, more than just a grid penalty anyway.

Edited by JAW97, 06 September 2015 - 01:35.

[Nathan]

 this is the FIA for you, isn't it, interpreting the rules as they wish to make the championship exciting and by the way, Bernie has to go!

Sooo if this is the FIA's doing, why does Bernie need to go because of it?

[alfa1]

Damon Hill had a good suggestion on Sky of the penalties transforming into Constructor points deductions rather than penalising the driver for something out of his control.

 

Constructor points are a bit horribly differential.

Take 20 points away from Mercedes or Ferrari and they wouldnt even notice. It would make not the slightest bit of difference in any way whatsoever.

Take 20 points away from Toro Rosso/Sauber/McLaren and it will cost them $MILLIONS$ (and in the case of Sauber maybe their entire existence) by falling them back in the constructor standings.

[Wuzak]

 this is the FIA for you, isn't it, interpreting the rules as they wish to make the championship exciting and by the way, Bernie has to go!

 

Really? Penalising teams that aren't making the top 10 will make the championship more exciting?

 

As far as interpreting the rules, the grid penalty case there is no interpreting - so many place grid penalty for each section or new power unit, the total adding up.

[HP]

Constructor points are a bit horribly differential.

Take 20 points away from Mercedes or Ferrari and they wouldnt even notice. It would make not the slightest bit of difference in any way whatsoever.

Take 20 points away from Toro Rosso/Sauber/McLaren and it will cost them $MILLIONS$ (and in the case of Sauber maybe their entire existence) by falling them back in the constructor standings.

This underlines that the entire constructor points based pay out of money is badly broken.

 

If anything, teams should get a base payout, and then lets talk about performance related bonuses.

[itsademo]

Are you sure?  The fans don't want it. It doesn't seem to make the PUs any cheaper either... as it is much more difficult to make them last that long. and costs a lot more $ in development... compared to nominal cost of manufacturing one PU per race...

 

Don't you find it absurd that drivers in WEC can push flat out, lap after lap, for 24 hours... whereas drivers in F1, which is meant to be a sprint by comparison, are conserving engines and tyres for 95% of the "race"....

 

No not really when you consider the fact F1 cars 702 kg v  WEC cars Their minimum weight depends on whether they have hybrid technology (LMP1-H 870kg /LMP1-L 850 kg

so an F1 car is between 148 kg's to 168 kg's lighter thats an awful lot of extra weight you can use to make your engine more reliable

combine that with the fact the F1 engines tends to be 20% more powerful than the WEC one (excluding ERS)

 

 

To compare the speed of LMP1 with F1, Mark’s (Webber) fastest lap at last year’s British Grand Prix (average speed: 227.059kph) was just over 10.5 seconds quicker than the fastest WEC lap there (average speed: 203.600kph).

 

data from http://www.markwebber.com/wec/wec-g

[RealRacing]

It's just a part of the whole F1 as an endurance category extravaganza...

[ardbeg]

I don't like the shuffling, the "who got the penalty first" kind of thing. If you quali 6th and have 5 spots, you start as #11, if you q 18th and have 20 penalty spots, you start 38th. At the start of the race, the drivers starting 29th 33rd and 56th simply fill up the grid in that order.
Only those who are without penalties can move up. Or something. I'm tired

[itsademo]

I don't like the shuffling, the "who got the penalty first" kind of thing. If you quali 6th and have 5 spots, you start as #11, if you q 18th and have 20 penalty spots, you start 38th. At the start of the race, the drivers starting 29th 33rd and 56th simply fill up the grid in that order.
Only those who are without penalties can move up. Or something. I'm tired

there is a good reason why they have this rule in place

take this as an example why they introduced it you have a driver who qualified 5th but got a ten place grid penalty (15th) and a person who finished 10th but got a 5 place grid penalty (15th also).

so who gets 15th and who gets 14th

Thats why they have the who got the penalty first rule, as with that penalty they would in effect have already been drooped to 15th

so when the second person gets their penalty the first will move up one position as would have happened if that was there actual qualification position.

[Victor_RO]

No not really when you consider the fact F1 cars 702 kg v WEC cars Their minimum weight depends on whether they have hybrid technology (LMP1-H 870kg /LMP1-L 850 kg
so an F1 car is between 148 kg's to 168 kg's lighter thats an awful lot of extra weight you can use to make your engine more reliable
combine that with the fact the F1 engines tends to be 20% more powerful than the WEC one (excluding ERS)

data from http://www.markwebber.com/wec/wec-g

F1 is 702 kg with driver, LMP1-H is 870 without driver => real weight difference is over 200 kg.

[itsademo]

F1 is 702 kg with driver, LMP1-H is 870 without driver => real weight difference is over 200 kg.

thanks for that

so even more weight available for enhanced reliability

[Atreiu]

The cost based reasoning is sensible, it's not useful if a team can afford 30 engines a season while others scrape by with 4 or 5, but they have definitely missed the mark with the current reliability goals. They have become so untenable that there is little sense in trying to follow them entirely.

 

The entire engine regulation needs adjusting, from the token systems to realiability targets and race weekend restrictions.

[Marklar]

F1 is 702 kg with driver, LMP1-H is 870 without driver => real weight difference is over 200 kg.

702 kg with driver but w/o fuel

[ConsiderAndGo]

It's not like the teams could do a better job or anything, is it?.....

[Tourgott]

F1 is completely ****ed up.

 

[Marklar]

I don't like the shuffling, the "who got the penalty first" kind of thing. If you quali 6th and have 5 spots, you start as #11, if you q 18th and have 20 penalty spots, you start 38th. At the start of the race, the drivers starting 29th 33rd and 56th simply fill up the grid in that order.
Only those who are without penalties can move up. Or something. I'm tired

They are already somehow doing that. For example in Monza

11. Nasr = 12
12. Ericsson 10+3 = 13
13. Stevens = 19
14. Merhi = 20
15. Button 16+5 = 21
16. Alonso 17+10 = 27
17. Sainz 13+35 = 48
18. Kvyat 14+35 = 49
19. Ricciardo 15+50 = 65
20. Verstappen NC + 20 = NC

Edited by Marklar, 06 September 2015 - 07:02.

[Nonesuch]

Are you sure?

 

Absolutely. Who do you think came up with these engine regulations? It definitely wasn't the PR-department of Hockenheim Ring GmbH.

Limiting and freezing development on the engines also wasn't thought up by FOM in order to make things more exciting and unpredictable as it is anything but.

It's the teams and the manufacturers who are constantly moaning about how expensive F1 is and how parts should be used for multiple races.

That's all well and good, it's their sport after all, but rules need penalties to be meaningful.

 

Unfortunately, but not unsurprisingly, the FIA gave in to the teams at the first sign of trouble and scrapped the in-race penalties. It's only logical that we now we get teams taking 105=4 grid penalties, which is even more laughable than the situation was before.
 

Don't you find it absurd that drivers in WEC can push flat out, lap after lap, for 24 hours... whereas drivers in F1, which is meant to be a sprint by comparison, are conserving engines and tyres for 95% of the "race"....

 

I'm not sure F1 is meant to be anything in relation to an entirely different category of racing. The F1 Grand Prix are some of the longest - IndyCar excepted - single seater, open wheel races around. Compared to the junior Formula's F1 races are really rather long.

 

More importantly however; of course the WEC is making a lot of recent changes to F1 seem ridiculous by comparison. It therefore doesn't surprise me at all that in Germany, home of Audi and Porsche - and in some ways the Toyota race team - the attendance numbers for last weekend's WEC race at the Nürburgring (62.000 on raceday) were higher than those for last year's F1 race at Hockenheim (50.000 on raceday).

[Lee Nicolle]

The huge grid penalties are the result of teams taking advantage of the modified rules (in a way that the FIA probably didn't consider). If the unused penalty places were still being carried over from race to race you would not be seeing this.

Red Bull  or McLaren would be starting 2 laps later if that was the case.

A combination of bloody stupid engine rules,, eg these stupid hybrid gunkers that make less noise than a street car and only cost the national debt of a small country to manufacture. Then with no testing allowed they all expire when fitted to a racing car. 

While Ferrari are somewhere on the pace they really are only the pace of a customer Mercedes team and their drivers cost far more !

 Then the crap tyres that produce crap racing, actually not racing just a controlled Sunday drive makes F1 a mockery. Then the races are on Fox!!

Why on earth do most of us care. I seldom ever would watch now anyway. 

[PayasYouRace]

Constructor points are a bit horribly differential.

Take 20 points away from Mercedes or Ferrari and they wouldnt even notice. It would make not the slightest bit of difference in any way whatsoever.

Take 20 points away from Toro Rosso/Sauber/McLaren and it will cost them $MILLIONS$ (and in the case of Sauber maybe their entire existence) by falling them back in the constructor standings.

 

Take away a percentage of the constructor's points instead. A penalty of 5% (for example) is equally punishing no matter if you're Mercedes or Sauber.

[Zava]

Don't you find it absurd that drivers in WEC can push flat out, lap after lap, for 24 hours... whereas drivers in F1, which is meant to be a sprint by comparison, are conserving engines and tyres for 95% of the "race"....

talking about WEC and engine penalties... aren't 2 engines deducted from the #7 audi's total of 5 for the year, for mixing up the FIA seals on them? and for an extra engine they won't just get 10 places on the grid, which is not the end of the world in f1, but a 3 minute stop&go which totally eliminates them from competing for the win?

well, probably they'll still beat the toyotas, but you get it.

[V8 Fireworks]

The teams have been given four engines per season. There can't be no penalty for going over that limit, what else are the FIA meant to do?

 

Like I said:

 

Don't you find it absurd that drivers in WEC can push flat out, lap after lap, for 24 hours... whereas drivers in F1, which is meant to be a sprint by comparison, are conserving engines and tyres for 95% of the "race"....

 

It's a farce.

[V8 Fireworks]

 

If anything, teams should get a base payout, and then lets talk about performance related bonuses.

 

Actually they do, but it's very small.

 

The largest bonuses are historic (i.e. Bernie bribe) bonuses......

 

The whole system is a disgrace.

[superden]

168 places.

[ANF]

Sooo if this is the FIA's doing, why does Bernie need to go because of it?

It's a conspiracy, obviously! certain people would say. Just ask yourself who benefits from a close battle for the championship! and so on.

[DutchQuicksilver]

I've never heard anyone ask: are the engine manufacturers making a fool out of F1 by providing engines that can't do what they're specifically asked to be done? You know, like everyone says of Pirelli.

 

The teams have been given four engines per season. There can't be no penalty for going over that limit, what else are the FIA meant to do?

You're missing my point. I'm not against the penalty itself, but it looks so ridiculous when they say, oh driver A gets a 65 place grid penalty whilst that isn't possible because there are only 20 grid slots. They should just state, driver A is demoted to the back of the grid, or starting from the pitlane etc.

[Massa]

They are force to do so because if a team change 2 or 3 times their engines it's 10*2 or 3. Renault and Honda are a pure disgrace for this sport, well I'm harsh on Honda because they came up a year too soon. Renault is a huge disgrace, and they were threatening to leave without these engines rules. FIA are simply doing their jobs.

[pdac]

Red Bull  or McLaren would be starting 2 laps later if that was the case.

A combination of bloody stupid engine rules,, eg these stupid hybrid gunkers that make less noise than a street car and only cost the national debt of a small country to manufacture. Then with no testing allowed they all expire when fitted to a racing car. 

While Ferrari are somewhere on the pace they really are only the pace of a customer Mercedes team and their drivers cost far more !

 Then the crap tyres that produce crap racing, actually not racing just a controlled Sunday drive makes F1 a mockery. Then the races are on Fox!!

Why on earth do most of us care. I seldom ever would watch now anyway. 

 

The engine rules were stupid in as much as they made the assumption that manufacturers would get it right straight away. I would have preferred to see unrestricted development in the first year. However, most of the stupid regs are down to the manufacturers themselves.

 

Each thought that they would come with the best PU and the others would be stuffed if they got it wrong. Well, Mercedes were right on that, but Renault and Ferrari also agreed with the rules (from, I think, rather selfish motives). Anyone with any sense would not have frozen development so much in the first year, at least.

[itsademo]

 

Like I said:

 

Don't you find it absurd that drivers in WEC can push flat out, lap after lap, for 24 hours... whereas drivers in F1, which is meant to be a sprint by comparison, are conserving engines and tyres for 95% of the "race"....

 

It's a farce.

 

thats not what WEC themselves claim

 

 

Apart from the weather, tyre management as ever, will be absolutely critical. 

 

http://www.fiawec.co...-race_2328.html

 

and to quote Anthony Davidson

 

We’ve got drivers who’ve learned the art of tyre management all the way up from karting, so levels of knowledge are quite similar.

 

http://www.evo.co.uk...llery-and-video

 

just goes to show what most people know management of tyres and cars goes on throughout motorsport not just in F1

Its just some people like to try to claim it is only F1 while ignoring the fact its always gone on in almost every Motorsport category (perhaps with the exclusion of drag racing for very obvious reasons)

 

FYI pirelli did offer to supply each team a set of rubber that would last all race weekend but the teams did not want such long lived tyres they want the deg

Edited by itsademo, 06 September 2015 - 11:16.