Jump to content


Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

F1 Penalty Points


  • Please log in to reply
136 replies to this topic

#1 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,046 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 May 2013 - 15:06

Flavio Briatore messing around and then points penalties.
http://www.autosport...t.php/id/107138

This hand it all to the stewards philosophy has gone way too far...

Advertisement

#2 SealTheDiffuser

SealTheDiffuser
  • Member

  • 2,416 posts
  • Joined: June 12

Posted 02 May 2013 - 15:16

2014 cars with weak engines and cheese tyres.

#3 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,046 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 02 May 2013 - 15:32

DRS?

#4 Cavani

Cavani
  • Member

  • 905 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 02 May 2013 - 15:34

this is not world championship points deducted its points on every driver superlicense

#5 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 02 May 2013 - 16:17

This is not about what F1 needs it's about the FIA protecting its position. If you ban a driver who's getting paid race-by-race, or has personal sponsorship that won't pay up for races where he doesn't compete, and you can't show you've got a fair procedure for deciding these things, he may elect to sue for lost earnings. Particularly if he can show that the ban had a detrimental effect on his career.

The Grosjean thing last year, for example, seemed pretty arbitrary in terms of how the decision to ban him was arrived at. Okay, he had a terrible record of involvement in incidents which perhaps justified the ban, but they never warned him in advance of Spa that he was getting involved in too many incidents, that the FIA was keeping count, or that he was being watched by, for example, putting points on his racing license. Had they done so, perhaps the Spa incident could have been avoided altogether.

And if you read the stewards' decision it didn't refer to the previous incidents, it just said the crash could have had very serious consequences and had eliminated major title contenders from the race (the latter phrase plainly referring to Alonso). But almost any accident could have very serious consequences; the almost-hideous chain of events following Grosjean's chop on Hamilton were not predictable in advance by Grosjean; there's no way the Spa incident on its own could justify a ban; and it is patantly unfair for the penalty for taking out a championship contender to be worse than the penalty for taking out any other driver. So I think had Grosjean and Lotus challenged the FIA's decision, they might have had a hard time justifying it. That's probably why they're looking at a penalty points system.

I don't see why it's "the last thing F1 needs". What's wrong with having a fair procedure for deciding driver penalties, reprimands, and bans?

#6 Les

Les
  • Member

  • 2,116 posts
  • Joined: January 09

Posted 02 May 2013 - 16:19

Stability control. That would be the end. Thankfully I don't think it'll come to that.

#7 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 8,144 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 02 May 2013 - 16:19

IPO.

#8 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 2,541 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 02 May 2013 - 16:26

...and it is patantly unfair for the penalty for taking out a championship contender to be worse than the penalty for taking out any other driver.


+∞

Having said that, the last things F1 needs are:

-Flavio (agree with above)
-Piquet Jr.
-Points deduction system
-Ferrari's bargaining power
-DRS
-Show mentality
-Tracks like Valencia, et.al.
-Hopefully not going to happen soon but re-introduction of refueling
-Tyres that don't allow real, sustained wheel to wheel racing
-Uglier cars
-Long etc.

Edited by RealRacing, 02 May 2013 - 16:31.


#9 noikeee

noikeee
  • Member

  • 21,797 posts
  • Joined: February 06

Posted 02 May 2013 - 18:05

this is not world championship points deducted its points on every driver superlicense


This.. someone got a bit too worried by a misleading headline. :D

#10 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 02 May 2013 - 20:30

IPO.

Absolutely - we have a winner, ladies and gentlemen; I wanted to write the same, but you beat me to it. This IPO idea IMHO will be last nail to the coffin of sporting side of F1. On positive side of things, disintegration of F1 might give a rise to proper GP ideals, one can hope.

#11 Music Lover

Music Lover
  • Member

  • 1,114 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 02 May 2013 - 21:17

Having said that, the last things F1 needs are:

A fatal crash


#12 03011969

03011969
  • Member

  • 656 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 02 May 2013 - 21:33

- Goal line technology

- Seafood

- Gladiators

- Measles

- Stewart Hall

These are the last things F1 needs. (Have I got this right?)

Edited by 3011969, 02 May 2013 - 21:34.


#13 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 02 May 2013 - 21:59

Absolutely - we have a winner, ladies and gentlemen; I wanted to write the same, but you beat me to it. This IPO idea IMHO will be last nail to the coffin of sporting side of F1. On positive side of things, disintegration of F1 might give a rise to proper GP ideals, one can hope.


I agree. The IPO is going to be what kills F1 in my opinion.

What I do feel though is that since grand prix racing existed long before F1, there will always be a possible chance someone ambitious enough will field a true alternative to F1, which coincidentally resembles what F1 was till Mosley came along and started playing engineer with his idiot ideas, and helping his pal Bernie out with the sweetheart deal for the commercial rights. Those two did immense damage to F1, that still hasn't been fully realized by many.

Sure there was always going to be a commercial side because it was just the way things go with all sports, but I feel over time things became more and more skewed in favor of the commercial side. The constant crying over the need for things to be equal via budget caps is in my opinion a total disregard for the spirit what F1 was about. It was never about full equality whether people like it or not. It was never intended to be a spec race per se. There were other avenues for that, that people could pursue as fans if they desired.

#14 SpartanChas

SpartanChas
  • Member

  • 910 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 02 May 2013 - 22:01

Hooligan 'fans'.

#15 jj2728

jj2728
  • Member

  • 2,966 posts
  • Joined: January 04

Posted 03 May 2013 - 00:01

What I do feel though is that since grand prix racing existed long before F1, there will always be a possible chance someone ambitious enough will field a true alternative to F1, which coincidentally resembles what F1 was till Mosley came along and started playing engineer with his idiot ideas, and helping his pal Bernie out with the sweetheart deal for the commercial rights. Those two did immense damage to F1, that still hasn't been fully realized by many.

Sure there was always going to be a commercial side because it was just the way things go with all sports, but I feel over time things became more and more skewed in favor of the commercial side. The constant crying over the need for things to be equal via budget caps is in my opinion a total disregard for the spirit what F1 was about. It was never about full equality whether people like it or not. It was never intended to be a spec race per se. There were other avenues for that, that people could pursue as fans if they desired.


I don't think an alternative will happen. Not unless Ferrari pulls the plug. And I don't see the clan from Maranello doing that, at least not in the forseeable future. A Drivers World Championship is just that, a Driver's World Championship, that alone holds alot of clout and respect in the world of motorsport. Eff 1 turned the page from being a gentleman's sport (as it was known) into a global entity as soon as ABC turned everyone on their heels and showed up with GLTL colours on the Lotus.
hey, it's still Eff1, let's enjoy it........

#16 OzzDB

OzzDB
  • New Member

  • 10 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 May 2013 - 00:17

.. Become a spec series.

#17 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 41,845 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 May 2013 - 07:49

I agree. The IPO is going to be what kills F1 in my opinion.

What I do feel though is that since grand prix racing existed long before F1, there will always be a possible chance someone ambitious enough will field a true alternative to F1, which coincidentally resembles what F1 was till Mosley came along and started playing engineer with his idiot ideas, and helping his pal Bernie out with the sweetheart deal for the commercial rights. Those two did immense damage to F1, that still hasn't been fully realized by many.

Sure there was always going to be a commercial side because it was just the way things go with all sports, but I feel over time things became more and more skewed in favor of the commercial side. The constant crying over the need for things to be equal via budget caps is in my opinion a total disregard for the spirit what F1 was about. It was never about full equality whether people like it or not. It was never intended to be a spec race per se. There were other avenues for that, that people could pursue as fans if they desired.


Unfortunately the best placed person to actually do this is BE with GP1.


#18 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 03 May 2013 - 08:26

I seriously doubt that.

#19 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 41,845 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 May 2013 - 11:54

Doubt what?

He already has GP2 and 3 up and running, GP1 would be easy for him to start and would be serious rival to F1.

Advertisement

#20 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 03 May 2013 - 12:35

I am assuming we are talking about BE, as in Ecclestone, a man over age of seventy with his money making way mindset? My preference would be to get away as far as possible from that business model because under circumstance he is not able to change; hence, I am in doubt GP1 or whatever you wish to name it, would be nothing more than F1 in incarnation under a different name, whereas I want a proper GP series.

#21 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 41,845 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 03 May 2013 - 13:11

I am assuming we are talking about BE, as in Ecclestone, a man over age of seventy with his money making way mindset? My preference would be to get away as far as possible from that business model because under circumstance he is not able to change; hence, I am in doubt GP1 or whatever you wish to name it, would be nothing more than F1 in incarnation under a different name, whereas I want a proper GP series.


Not arguing with any of that. If you check the post I was replying to and then my reply then I'm confused by your own reply. It has nothing to do with who anyone would want to do it, but who could do it. At this time I can't see anyone better placed to start an alternative series.


#22 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 03 May 2013 - 15:30

Not arguing with any of that. If you check the post I was replying to and then my reply then I'm confused by your own reply. It has nothing to do with who anyone would want to do it, but who could do it. At this time I can't see anyone better placed to start an alternative series.


I assume that the title of this thread has been changed recently? 'Cause I can not find the link between BE and penalty system. So sorry for jumping in to this discussion if it were taking own good course.

I do agree that BE is making the series too expensive fro which not only the level of competition but also the attitude,politics around it has been making clear one liner tendency.

Reflecting what the title says, let me ask you this question. What is wrong wit penalizing a driver who almost killed the other one not because he was placed in a unavoidable situation but because he intentionally went over the risk border which may cause deadly accident? Grosjean had these nasty moments and indeed it may have been the fault of FIA not taking actions, but it was Grosjean who took actions not to brake early enough, keeping space for other cars and so on.

Never the less I recall Rosberg was also penalized, clear line must be drawn about what FIA should call enough to hand out Red Card. It is possible in Foot ball, it should be possible in other sport as well, like well, Formula One...

#23 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,046 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 03 May 2013 - 15:53

My original thread title was better and served the broader purpose of trying to get people to post whatever they think F1 has or hasn't yet that will serve no good. And I jestly listed Briatore and points penalties. The steward intervention philosophy has gone too far and not be turned up a notch.

#24 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 03 May 2013 - 16:01

Not arguing with any of that. If you check the post I was replying to and then my reply then I'm confused by your own reply. It has nothing to do with who anyone would want to do it, but who could do it. At this time I can't see anyone better placed to start an alternative series.

Would you entertain a proposition that it might be someone who is momentarily not even mentioned on this BB? To explore my idea, I am thinking about a very smart commissioner of a kind we see in US, who gets owners together (like NFL). Everyone is replaceable, and Ecclestone doesn't qualify for a vision of GP series I would like to see in forming to replace F1.

Sorry for digressing off topic. End.

Edited by Sakae, 03 May 2013 - 16:03.


#25 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 03 May 2013 - 16:02

I don't think an alternative will happen. Not unless Ferrari pulls the plug. And I don't see the clan from Maranello doing that, at least not in the forseeable future. A Drivers World Championship is just that, a Driver's World Championship, that alone holds alot of clout and respect in the world of motorsport. Eff 1 turned the page from being a gentleman's sport (as it was known) into a global entity as soon as ABC turned everyone on their heels and showed up with GLTL colours on the Lotus.
hey, it's still Eff1, let's enjoy it........


Who knows what goes through the head of Montezemolo at times though, so I suppose anything is possible. But I'd also say the Ferrari name is bigger than F1 now, so I don't think Ferrari needs F1. Sportscar and prototype racing would be more relevant to them now I feel.

I don't disagree regarding the Gold Leaf sponsorship changing things with the commercial side. But the commercial side has already dwarfed the sporting side to a point where it doesn't bode well for the long-term in my opinion.

#26 Kucki

Kucki
  • Member

  • 1,472 posts
  • Joined: June 09

Posted 03 May 2013 - 16:27

Hahah penalty points could it become any lamer.

Boring cars, boring tracks, fake overtaking, drivers trying to not push the tyres, F1 has become a sport for complete nerds.

#27 Sakae

Sakae
  • Member

  • 19,256 posts
  • Joined: December 03

Posted 04 May 2013 - 12:55

I wonder if situation would improve if series divorces itself from FiA.

#28 Cavani

Cavani
  • Member

  • 905 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 04 May 2013 - 15:28

Hahah penalty points could it become any lamer.

Boring cars, boring tracks, fake overtaking, drivers trying to not push the tyres, F1 has become a sport for complete nerds.


bye bye :wave:,

#29 ApexMouse

ApexMouse
  • Member

  • 909 posts
  • Joined: January 13

Posted 04 May 2013 - 15:34

Hahah penalty points could it become any lamer.

Boring cars, boring tracks, fake overtaking, drivers trying to not push the tyres, F1 has become a sport for complete nerds.


Dumbest thing I've ever read.

The 'complete nerds' are 100% responsible for the cars and thus results of any year. Eve the 'ultra cool' drivers are obsessed with minute suspension settings and differential tweaks.

#30 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 May 2013 - 13:05

What is wrong wit penalizing a driver who almost killed the other one not because he was placed in a unavoidable situation but because he intentionally went over the risk border which may cause deadly accident? Grosjean had these nasty moments and indeed it may have been the fault of FIA not taking actions, but it was Grosjean who took actions not to brake early enough, keeping space for other cars and so on.


I don't think there was anything intentional about Grosjean's actions that led to the Spa incident. He was faster off the line than Hamilton and was always going to get clear of him before braking for Turn 1. Hamilton left his nose in quite unnecessarily, actually, because it was inevitable that Grosjean would close the line for Turn 1 and not allow Hamilton the chance to make a move on the inside under braking. Hamilton might as well have lifted and tucked in behind Grosjean- not lifting only meant he'd have had to brake earlier for the corner to avoid the back of Grosjean. So the accident was caused by a combination of Hamilton unnecessarily leaving the nose of his car in a disappearing space on the inside of Grosjean, and Grosjean moving over to cover the line too early, too quickly, not realising Hamilton was still alongside him, thereby forcing Hamilton off the track.

Nor do I think it was predictable that the move Grosjean made would cause such a potentially serious incident. Any contact can potentially have serious consequences when you're driving fast racing cars. Are you suggesting bans for any avoidable contact?

#31 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 08 May 2013 - 13:21

I don't think there was anything intentional about Grosjean's actions that led to the Spa incident. He was faster off the line than Hamilton and was always going to get clear of him before braking for Turn 1. Hamilton left his nose in quite unnecessarily, actually, because it was inevitable that Grosjean would close the line for Turn 1 and not allow Hamilton the chance to make a move on the inside under braking. Hamilton might as well have lifted and tucked in behind Grosjean- not lifting only meant he'd have had to brake earlier for the corner to avoid the back of Grosjean. So the accident was caused by a combination of Hamilton unnecessarily leaving the nose of his car in a disappearing space on the inside of Grosjean, and Grosjean moving over to cover the line too early, too quickly, not realising Hamilton was still alongside him, thereby forcing Hamilton off the track.

Nor do I think it was predictable that the move Grosjean made would cause such a potentially serious incident. Any contact can potentially have serious consequences when you're driving fast racing cars. Are you suggesting bans for any avoidable contact?


This is the most insane interpretation of what happened that i have ever read. As a reminder, here is the video:



From the front:



There was no chance of braking and allowing him through. Grosjean has already closed the door so suddenly and so completely that their wheels are in line so when Hamilton does brake their wheels touch. Really is unbelievable that anyone could see this any other way.

#32 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 May 2013 - 13:41

Who cares about the past. I should say give out penality to:

1. someone crash on championship contender up to fourth place after summer break.
2. Give out punishment if a driver hit other cars while obviously avoidable more than twice in three consecutive races.
3. Did ignore the sporting code.
4. Say F word on radio.
5. failed to act like a gentleman

pretty much the same way as Football players get yellow or red. If Red then the guy is out of one race.


#33 bonjon1979a

bonjon1979a
  • Member

  • 4,333 posts
  • Joined: August 10

Posted 08 May 2013 - 14:26

Who cares about the past. I should say give out penality to:

1. someone crash on championship contender up to fourth place after summer break.

2. Give out punishment if a driver hit other cars while obviously avoidable more than twice in three consecutive races.
3. Did ignore the sporting code.
4. Say F word on radio.
5. failed to act like a gentleman

pretty much the same way as Football players get yellow or red. If Red then the guy is out of one race.

Don't agree with this. We can't have top few drivers afforded special status where by other cars are too worried to race them.

#34 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 36,497 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 08 May 2013 - 14:42

Who cares about the past. I should say give out penality to:

1. someone crash on championship contender up to fourth place after summer break.
2. Give out punishment if a driver hit other cars while obviously avoidable more than twice in three consecutive races.
3. Did ignore the sporting code.
4. Say F word on radio.
5. failed to act like a gentleman

pretty much the same way as Football players get yellow or red. If Red then the guy is out of one race.


1. No. All competitors should be treated equally when possible. (Edit: Case in point, that could have massively affected Alonso in 2010, who was 5th after the summer break.)
2. Fair enough I suppose.
3. Again seems fair.
4. They can say what they effing want on the radio. It's up to the TV director not to broadcast it.
5. A bit too woolly. Best stick to defined offences.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 08 May 2013 - 14:45.


#35 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 May 2013 - 14:59

Don't agree with this. We can't have top few drivers afforded special status where by other cars are too worried to race them.


Agreed. The accident in question probably cost Alonso the title, so it was massively frustrating for Ferrari, but it was also frustrating for the likes of Perez, Kobayashi and everyone else who was taken out. You can't say the penalty has to be worse because of where Alonso was in the championship.

This is the most insane interpretation of what happened that i have ever read.... There was no chance of braking and allowing him through.


I'm not saying it was Hamilton's fault, I'm saying that Hamilton was the only driver other than Grosjean who might have been able to avoid the accident. He would only have needed to blend out of the throttle and tuck in behind. Okay, he'd have needed sharp reactions to do so due to how quickly Grosjean moved across, but I'm sure we'd both agree Hamilton's reflexes are pretty quick. It's the sort of accident that people like Hamilton, Maldonado, Kobayashi or Grosjean would get involved in where others wouldn't. Button, for example, would have lifted. Most drivers would have lifted, in fact.

If this had been the only first lap accident in which Grosjean had been involved, he could have considered himself unfortunate to be penalised so heavily for it, even though it was undoubtedly his fault for crowding another car off the track.

As it was, if you assume the penalty was as harsh as it was because the stewards did some kind of totting-up exercise, fine, but this really ought to be done transparently if at all. And you can only assume that Grosjean's previous record was considred by the stewards, we don't know that. You can't get that from the text of the stewards' decision. Judging from the stewards' decision one could infer he was banned specifically because he took out Alonso, and if he'd only taken out a couple of Saubers and a Force India, say, he wouldn't have been banned. We're agreed that's totally unfair. So I think it's good that moves appear to be underway to try to promote consistency in the way these penalties are assessed.


#36 redreni

redreni
  • Member

  • 4,707 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 08 May 2013 - 15:04

They can say what they effing want on the radio. It's up to the TV director not to broadcast it.


Is encryption banned? I.e. can teams directly monitor their rivals' radio messages or do they rely on what they get from FOM? Because if it's the latter, it might be beneficial to blanket sensitive messages about race strategy in expletives just to make sure they won't be aired!

#37 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 08 May 2013 - 15:12

1. No. All competitors should be treated equally when possible. (Edit: Case in point, that could have massively affected Alonso in 2010, who was 5th after the summer break.)
2. Fair enough I suppose.
3. Again seems fair.
4. They can say what they effing want on the radio. It's up to the TV director not to broadcast it.
5. A bit too woolly. Best stick to defined offences.


Agreed.

Looking back strange how Romain got ousted... was more combination of some of those points ...

#38 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 36,497 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 08 May 2013 - 16:06

Is encryption banned? I.e. can teams directly monitor their rivals' radio messages or do they rely on what they get from FOM? Because if it's the latter, it might be beneficial to blanket sensitive messages about race strategy in expletives just to make sure they won't be aired!


Not sure to be honest. I think the rule is that FOM must have access to it. I'm sure someone would know better.

#39 Diablobb81

Diablobb81
  • Member

  • 8,144 posts
  • Joined: August 09

Posted 09 May 2013 - 16:22

So here is how it looks like according to AMuS :
http://www.auto-moto...re-7054389.html

http://www.f1fanatic...es-step-closer/

Infraction Points
Race ban 5
Exceeded the speed limit (at any time) by more than 20kph 3
Caused a dangerous collision 3
Ignored the black flag 3
Exceeded the speed limit (at any time) by 10-20kph 2
Caused a collision 2
Dangerously impeded another driver 2
Dangerously forced another driver off the track 2
Drove too quickly in a yellow or red flag situation 2
Ignored the blue flag 2
False start 2
Overtook the Safety Car 2
Exceeded the Safety Car delta time 2
Dangerous exit from a pit stop 2
Ignored the weigh station during qualifying 2
Missed the drivers’ briefing or arrived late 1
Exceeded the speed limit (at any time) by up to 10kph 1
Impeded another driver 1
Forced another driver off the track 1
Gained an advantage by leaving the track 1
Crossed the white line at the pit lane exit 1
Ignored the red light at the pit lane exit 1
Overtook another car under the Safety Car 1
Failed to maintain correct distance to the Safety Car 1

Existing penalties will remain in place so a driver who was given a grid drop for impeding a driver would also receive the corresponding penalty points.

12 points = race ban. Points will be deleted after 12 months of being issued.


They are still discussing some details. System was approved by 7 of the 11 teams.

Edited by Diablobb81, 09 May 2013 - 16:25.


Advertisement

#40 Atreiu

Atreiu
  • Member

  • 17,046 posts
  • Joined: May 07

Posted 09 May 2013 - 18:12

In related news, the F1 world steward championship begins in 2014...
Heck, they will be the news from now on.

#41 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,085 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 09 May 2013 - 18:23

So here is how it looks like according to AMuS :
http://www.auto-moto...re-7054389.html

http://www.f1fanatic...es-step-closer/

Infraction Points
Race ban 5
Exceeded the speed limit (at any time) by more than 20kph 3
Caused a dangerous collision 3
Ignored the black flag 3
Exceeded the speed limit (at any time) by 10-20kph 2
Caused a collision 2
Dangerously impeded another driver 2
Dangerously forced another driver off the track 2
Drove too quickly in a yellow or red flag situation 2
Ignored the blue flag 2
False start 2
Overtook the Safety Car 2
Exceeded the Safety Car delta time 2
Dangerous exit from a pit stop 2
Ignored the weigh station during qualifying 2
Missed the drivers’ briefing or arrived late 1
Exceeded the speed limit (at any time) by up to 10kph 1
Impeded another driver 1
Forced another driver off the track 1
Gained an advantage by leaving the track 1
Crossed the white line at the pit lane exit 1
Ignored the red light at the pit lane exit 1
Overtook another car under the Safety Car 1
Failed to maintain correct distance to the Safety Car 1

Existing penalties will remain in place so a driver who was given a grid drop for impeding a driver would also receive the corresponding penalty points.

12 points = race ban. Points will be deleted after 12 months of being issued.


They are still discussing some details. System was approved by 7 of the 11 teams.


I don't think off-track infractions like that should be potentially punishable by an on-track penalty. :well:

But apart from that, seems good to me. No more Maldonado getting a drive-through every week but still racing is something to be praised.

#42 PayasYouRace

PayasYouRace
  • RC Forum Host

  • 36,497 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 May 2013 - 19:44

Does anyone want to tot up the points for the current drivers as things stand over the past 12 months to see what sort of effect it would have?

I don't think off-track infractions like that should be potentially punishable by an on-track penalty. :well:

But apart from that, seems good to me. No more Maldonado getting a drive-through every week but still racing is something to be praised.


The drivers' briefing is an important part of the meeting and really nobody should be allowed on track if they haven't attended. That is where the drivers are told about any safety and sporting particulars about the circuit and it can have a big bearing on events on track.

Edited by PayasYouRace, 09 May 2013 - 19:45.


#43 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 09 May 2013 - 20:14

I wonder if situation would improve if series divorces itself from FiA.


I think there is the potential for quite a few things if the series divorced from the FIA.

However, whether they would be good things is another story altogether.

Perhaps we'd get the famed sprinkler system to create artificial wet races?

#44 Disgrace

Disgrace
  • Member

  • 27,267 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 09 May 2013 - 20:32

This will decide a championship.

#45 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 41,845 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 May 2013 - 20:39

Does anyone want to tot up the points for the current drivers as things stand over the past 12 months to see what sort of effect it would have?



The drivers' briefing is an important part of the meeting and really nobody should be allowed on track if they haven't attended. That is where the drivers are told about any safety and sporting particulars about the circuit and it can have a big bearing on events on track.


It should be on TV as well. There is no good reason why it should be conducted in secret.

#46 BoschKurve

BoschKurve
  • Member

  • 1,525 posts
  • Joined: September 12

Posted 09 May 2013 - 20:40

This will decide a championship.


But so long as there is only tenths of second separating the cars on the track, that should make people happy, no?

#47 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 41,845 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 09 May 2013 - 20:43

But so long as there is only tenths of second separating the cars on the track, that should make people happy, no?


What's the relevance of that?


#48 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,085 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 09 May 2013 - 21:13

The drivers' briefing is an important part of the meeting and really nobody should be allowed on track if they haven't attended. That is where the drivers are told about any safety and sporting particulars about the circuit and it can have a big bearing on events on track.


True I suppose.

This will decide a championship.


Probably, but as much as it would be a shame to see it happen you're not much of a deserving champion if you've broke rules all season.

#49 Fastcake

Fastcake
  • Member

  • 12,085 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 09 May 2013 - 22:30

So if you have a false start for example you would lose 2 points and get a drive through right?

Specially for the smaller teams the points deduction will be massive.

not sure if I like it or not.


It's not a championship point reduction. They're introducing penalty points a la the ones you can receive on your driving licence.

#50 Kyo

Kyo
  • Member

  • 1,313 posts
  • Joined: February 11

Posted 09 May 2013 - 22:36

It's not a championship point reduction. They're introducing penalty points a la the ones you can receive on your driving licence.

ahh duh. See no problem with that then.