96 replies to this topic

[Jerem]

PayasYouRace, on 31 May 2017 - 10:47, said:

To borrow from another sport, in those case snooker, have a set of possible penalties with the worst outcome taken.

The case study being hitting the wrong ball, where the penalty is 4, the value of the object ball or the value of the ball struck. So in F1 you could have a penalty of, for example, 1 race position, or 5 seconds, whichever is worse. Something along those lines could be an answer.

Makes sense. Position swap (especially for unsafe release) would solve most of the situations I was thinking about.

[Rinehart]

Kristian, on 31 May 2017 - 10:07, said:

That thought occurred to me, but then its difficult to quantify how to implement the penalty - if the driver behind (who was wronged) suddenly pits, then does the guilty driver have to wait for the next one down the road, who could be 15s away? Or wait ofr the pitted driver to catch him? 

 

Penalties need to be designed in a way so they are broadly consistent in every situation. 

Yup.

 

Thing is a 5 second penalty added onto a pitstop or the end of a race costs exactly that, 5 seconds. Whereas a pitlane penalty can cost 15-25 seconds depending on the circuit. And all of these have a different effect on themselves (strategically) and other competitors, depending on when the penalty is served. 

 

What if the FIA went down a different route and instead of time and pitlane penalties, used the PU technology to restrict power for a period of time (10s, 30s or lap) depending on the infringement. They could just disable the Hybrid, Turbo or restrict fuel flow... possibly...

[BillBald]

thegforcemaybewithyou, on 31 May 2017 - 08:06, said:

Here's a different approach for penalties that happen after a driver's last pit stop. Once the stewards make a time penalty public the team/driver in question nominate one of the future three laps to be the penalty lap. In this lap a certain sector has to be much slower than the previous few times. How much slower depends on the given penalty.

 

I can just imagine a driver going slowly, but using dangerous blocking moves on cars which are going full speed.

[sopa]

While a 5-second penalty can work fine for some truly minor offences, I think Wehrlein should have got a drive through at Monaco, because due to his ruling Button got an additional handicap.

 

FIA should be flexible in the way how they hand out the penalties, so they take the on-track situation into account in each situation. It was obvious at a place like Monaco Button was never going to pass him.

[BillBald]

SenorSjon, on 31 May 2017 - 08:30, said:

The unsafe release was a calculated risk. At least you have gained track position on a track like Monaco. 

 

If the FIA don't punish unsafe releases adequately, more teams will take this calculated risk, and accidents will result.

[BillBald]

jrv_t644e, on 31 May 2017 - 09:43, said:

Of the examples, the only one that seemed ultimately problematic was the Wehrlein unsafe release.

Perhaps in addition to the 5s penalty (or perhaps instead of it) it might be better to require the driver to relinquish the position, as they are required to do after cutting a corner for example.

 

I actually don't understand why teams will often ask their drivers to give back the position, since in most cases it would be better to stay ahead and take the 5s penalty.

 

The 5s penalty is basically ridiculous, especially if the team can choose when to serve it. If an offense is not serious enough for a drive-through, it maybe shouldn't be punished at all.

[thegforcemaybewithyou]

BillBald, on 31 May 2017 - 12:42, said:

I can just imagine a driver going slowly, but using dangerous blocking moves on cars which are going full speed.

 

This would obviously result in an additional stop-and-go penalty. The rules for slowing down could be written that the driver has to move away from the racing line towards the opposite edge of the track and stay there for the part he is going slow. Slowing down could only be allowed in sections of the track where the driver is always visible for the approaching cars, so generally at the straights.

[muramasa]

banning mgu-k assist for whole lap will solve em all!

[Gretsch]

The 5s penalty is OK in most cases, but not if the act that gave the penalty helped gaining one or more positions on the track. One position is usually worth much more than 5 seconds and, like we saw in Monaco, it can penalize the "victim" much more than it penalizes the culprit.

 

In those situations, they should need to give back the positions ASAP in addition to the 5s penalty.

Edited by Gretsch, 31 May 2017 - 13:11.

[Kristian]

Maybe we need to think outside the box a bit more, regarding penalties. Maybe...

 

- Being given Pirelli ultra hard tyres on your next stop? 

- Having to do your next race weekend with a Honda engine? 

- Half an hour with only the crazy frog song on loop in your earpiece? 

- etc. 

[SophieB]

I quite like the 'just make them swap positions on track' for stuff like an unsafe release because that seems reasonable although at the same time I am also desperately keen to see a situation where an unsafe release somehow disadvantages two cars in the same move just to see how they'd deal with that under this system. 

[Kalmake]

In general penalties should be harsh enough that it's not worth risking taking one. If the reward is gaining one place, the penalty needs to be more than giving it back.

 

Unsafe release should have a higher penalty, because it's literally unsafe. I feel they are not taking it seriously enough until somebody gets hurt.

[kevinracefan]

muramasa, on 31 May 2017 - 13:06, said:

banning mgu-k assist for whole lap will solve em all!

DANGER DANGER DANGER, WILL ROBINSON (robot arms flailing)

 

slow car on track in the way..

[Gretsch]

Joker laps. 
I'm only half joking, having following the RX it has become obvious that joker laps are the only thing that brings any excitements on tracks that does not allow overtakes. So on tracks like that, Monaco, Sochi, Barcelona... there should be joker laps. Some mandatory, some as penalties. Of course, for it to be strategically interesting for the spectator, the joker lap should ideally be quicker so that passes can be made and that makes them unsuitable for penalties, so the need to have a stop & hold box at that lap as well.

Yes, I admit, F1 is harder and harder to watch and I'm getting desperate. I really want to be a fan, but it is almost like being in love with someone that does not even care if you exist. At some point you need to look elsewhere.

[kevinracefan]

the time penalty would be OK if it was more equal to the stop / go delta..

 

25 seconds, not 5...

[kevinracefan]

I'm an old guy, and traditionalists will roll over in their graves, but there are instances where joker laps would enhance the race / racing...

[Kristian]

Joker laps (for gains) would be strategically interesting, but not for F1. Call me an old git, but part of me would die if they came into F1. 

[muramasa]

kevinracefan, on 31 May 2017 - 14:31, said:

DANGER DANGER DANGER, WILL ROBINSON (robot arms flailing)

 

slow car on track in the way..

nothing more dangerous than limping car trying to make it back to the pit, plus it's not about running out of deployment suddenly

mgu-k less due to trouble yet still made it to flag sometimes happened in the past, you just lose 120kW hence susceptible to being passed, the rest, just usual racing rule applies. Serves 2 purposes, rather proportional punishment (not as light as 5sec but not too heavy like DT) plus actions, jolly good!

[Jerem]

muramasa, on 31 May 2017 - 15:30, said:

nothing more dangerous than limping car trying to make it back to the pit, plus it's not about running out of deployment suddenly

mgu-k less due to trouble yet still made it to flag sometimes happened in the past, you just lose 120kW hence susceptible to being passed, the rest, just usual racing rule applies. Serves 2 purposes, rather proportional punishment (not as light as 5sec but not too heavy like DT) plus actions, jolly good!

How does it apply to Honda drivers though?

[Kristian]

muramasa, on 31 May 2017 - 15:30, said:

nothing more dangerous than limping car trying to make it back to the pit, plus it's not about running out of deployment suddenly

mgu-k less due to trouble yet still made it to flag sometimes happened in the past, you just lose 120kW hence susceptible to being passed, the rest, just usual racing rule applies. Serves 2 purposes, rather proportional punishment (not as light as 5sec but not too heavy like DT) plus actions, jolly good!

 

Using this idea allied to my sin bin idea, I guess you could have a 'penalty zone', eg. a straight, off the racing line, where the cars have to go to slow down at a certain speed (not pit speed, but enough speed to lose time). The penalty could be tailored to the offence, also depending on the track and length of the zone - so a minor transgression could be "1 run through the penalty zone" (say equivalent of losing 5s) whereas more serious offences would be "3 runs through the penalty zone". 

 

Again, on modern tracks this would be easy to implement,  but it would be a lot trickier at places like Monaco. 

Edited by Kristian, 31 May 2017 - 15:41.

[sopa]

Gretsch, on 31 May 2017 - 14:45, said:

Joker laps. 
I'm only half joking, having following the RX it has become obvious that joker laps are the only thing that brings any excitements on tracks that does not allow overtakes. So on tracks like that, Monaco, Sochi, Barcelona... there should be joker laps. Some mandatory, some as penalties. Of course, for it to be strategically interesting for the spectator, the joker lap should ideally be quicker so that passes can be made and that makes them unsuitable for penalties, so the need to have a stop & hold box at that lap as well.

Yes, I admit, F1 is harder and harder to watch and I'm getting desperate. I really want to be a fan, but it is almost like being in love with someone that does not even care if you exist. At some point you need to look elsewhere.

 

Essentially a drive through penalty in F1 is a "penalty joker lap".

 

Instead of racing on the start-finish straight you have to take the slower alternative and thus lose time.

 

Joker lap as genuinely part of racing?

 

Well, let's put it this way - there are worse things that can happen to F1. I.e success ballast or reverse grids. So I could just about live with it.

 

The difference with rallycross is that that a rallycross race lasts only for about 6 laps. And without joker laps chances of action and overtaking anyone are absolutely miniscule. In F1 race lasts far longer, and opportunities to turn the race in your own favour (either via passing or strategy) are much greater.

 

For example a "mandatory pitstop" is a bit like a "joker lap". Obviously I only mean in cases, when tyres are rock-solid like back in 2010 and have very little drop-off, so it is highly preferable to race without a pitstop. Yet team have to choose, when to make that pitstop to comply with rules. DTM has two mandatory pitstops per race.

 

Overall I am not sure it would add much to F1, certainly compared to rallycross. Maybe if each driver had like at least 5 joker laps per race, it would make some difference. Then again it would be hard to count and would be a mess in other ways.

[f1paul]

Why not just have a redress rule. For example, the FIA could've told Wehrlein to let Button back through on Sunday which would sort the incident out immediately. 

 

5 second penalties are okay though. For the Hamilton incident in Bahrain, that we fair enough. So the FIA are doing a decent job they should just add a redress option when necessary. 

 

The Ozzie Supercars do it and it generally works quite well. F1 can learn a lot from the happy Australians! 

[quaint]

BillBald, on 31 May 2017 - 12:48, said:

If the FIA don't punish unsafe releases adequately, more teams will take this calculated risk, and accidents will result.

 

Which is why a position swap is not a sufficient penalty – if you want to avoid unsafe releases, that is. The team would lose (almost*) nothing by disregarding other cars, and may gain in the cases they would have been too cautious in fear of an actual penalty.

 

* There's of course the risk of an accident.

[HeadFirst]

Penalties should be based on the infraction, and not affected by how said penalty impacts the race.

[PlatenGlass]

If a driver has a five-second penalty to be added on at the end of the race, and there's a driver directly behind them (so ahead on "aggregate"), what happens if the leader then gets between them on the last lap? Adding five seconds is no penalty when you've completed one more lap than the driver behind.

[kevinracefan]

PlatenGlass, on 01 Jun 2017 - 21:16, said:

If a driver has a five-second penalty to be added on at the end of the race, and there's a driver directly behind them (so ahead on "aggregate"), what happens if the leader then gets between them on the last lap? Adding five seconds is no penalty when you've completed one more lap than the driver behind.

the clock doesn't stop..

 

adding 5 seconds isn't hard..

[Jerem]

kevinracefan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 16:11, said:

the clock doesn't stop..

 

adding 5 seconds isn't hard..

What PlatenGlass means is that your race is over at the moment you take the flag. So if two backmarkers are split by the race leader, one of them is one lap down and the other is on the lead lap. So, even if they finished the penultimate lap within 5s from each other, one of them will have completed one more lap in the race, hence the +5s won't change the result.

 

This had never occurred to me. It's not a very unlikely situation actually, it could even be used deliberately.

[kevinracefan]

you back the offender up 5 seconds and whatever lap he is on doesn't matter.. is he ahead or behind the following car in the order?

 

if the following car was within 5 seconds when the offender crosses the finish line, he wins..

[redreni]

I think it's right that there is a range of different penalties available to the stewards.

 

The problem is, in F1, the stewards have a little book that contains a table of all the offences and a suggested penalty. They simply read off the appropriate penalty and apply it unthinkingly. They're obviously scared to depart from it.

 

In the criminal courts in the jurisdiction where I live, there are sentencing guidelines, but they're nuanced. Some offences have statutory minimum and maximum penalties, and then the sentencing guidelines specify suggested penalties which are the starting point for the judge's sentencing deliberations. The judge then, following the guidelines, takes account of the circumstances of the offence, the offender's past record, aggravating and mitigating factors, whether the person owned up to the crime and at what stage, and so on, and arrives as a sentence which could be harsher or more lenient than the suggested starting point. In following the guidelines, he judge will also take account of the need to deter others, including the issue of whether the person has benefited from his crime, since you won't deter if people are better off having offended and been punished than they would have been if they hadn't offended.

 

I don't, of course, advocate anything this complex for any sport, even a sport as inherently complex as F1. I do think the stewards need to have discretion to vary the penalty according to the circumstances, though.

 

A few years ago Button was released from a pit stop at Silverstone without his front right wheel nut fastened. He stopped in pit out. Iirc the team got away with it i.e. it wasn't even investigated. I don't personally think it should be left to the Race Director's discretion to not refer something like that to the stewards, but the reason it wasn't penalised was because the race officials were understandably grateful for the fact that the driver had the sense to stop before he picked up enough speed for the wheel to fly off and hurt somebody. If it had gone to the stewards, they'd have read off the appropriate penalty and converted it to a grid drop for the next race. These are the kinds of factors that the stewards should be able to take in mitigation, along with the fact the error caused the car to retire and therefore no advantage was gained, and, perhaps, apply a reprimand to the entrant for the unsafe release rather than a grid penalty for the next race if that's what they (not Whiting) deem appropriate in the circumstances.

 

On the other hand there are infamous examples, such as Hamilton, in Valencia 2010, overtaking the SC thereby gaining nearly a lap on the car immediately behind him, but only being penalised with a drive through, where the gain from the rules breach clearly far exceeded the loss from the penalty. This is where the stewards need to be able to bring people in for a lengthy stop and hold. I really feel they should have discretion to impose a stop-go penalty of any length of time they see fit - if you gain a minute by passing the SC illegally, they should absolutely be able to impose a 90 second stop-go, to first negate the advantage gained and second to reflect the seriousness of the offence.

 

Incidentally, presumably if somebody were to overtake the SC these days, given it was only a drive-through before, they would now only get a 5s stop-go. It makes you wonder why anybody pays any attention to the SC at all? If the SC leaves the pit lane in front of you, just pass it and drive around on the SC deltas. Okay, you'll get a 5s penalty but you'll also keep your gap to the cars behind and get your free pit stop before the field bunches up, so you're quids in. All I can think is teams don't want to be seen to be obviously cheating on purpose, but again, one wonders why not given that the penalty seems to stay the same regardless?

Edited by redreni, 02 June 2017 - 17:24.

[Bleu]

As far as it comes to the SC, it will pick the leader as soon as possible and wave everyone else by. If the leader passes it without permission, I could imagine driver being black-flagged. It happened to Hamilton in GP2.

 

 However, there is one exception where non-leaders are not allowed to pass SC and that's what happened in Valencia 2010: When the medical car is sent to the track it goes ahead of SC and no driver is allowed to overtake SC before medical car has stopped to the scene of accident and SC has gone past that spot. Webber's accident in Valencia was obviously serious enough that medical car was sent out, so no one was allowed to overtake SC, but Hamilton did it anyway.

[redreni]

Bleu, on 02 Jun 2017 - 18:20, said:

As far as it comes to the SC, it will pick the leader as soon as possible and wave everyone else by. If the leader passes it without permission, I could imagine driver being black-flagged. It happened to Hamilton in GP2.

 

 However, there is one exception where non-leaders are not allowed to pass SC and that's what happened in Valencia 2010: When the medical car is sent to the track it goes ahead of SC and no driver is allowed to overtake SC before medical car has stopped to the scene of accident and SC has gone past that spot. Webber's accident in Valencia was obviously serious enough that medical car was sent out, so no one was allowed to overtake SC, but Hamilton did it anyway.

 

When the medical car is deployed, the SC follows it out. It doesn't wait for the leader and it doesn't wave anybody by until it has passed the scene of the accident. So the first car to catch the SC and be held back may not be the leader. In Valencia 2010 I think Hamilton was P2 or P3.

 

Prior to last weekend I thought the procedure of holding cars behind the SC rather than allowing them to pass the SC and medical car was daft. Why not send the medical car out on its own, covered by white flags, and have the SC wait for the leader to come around, I thought. I mean, what kind of amateur hour numpty would you have to be to crash into a course car or crash while being waved past the Safety Ca - oh, hang on...

 

It doesn't really matter if it's the leader or not, though, the point is if the SC comes out in front of you (i.e. before you've had a chance to pit), that's when it's advantageous to pass it so that you can go around on the SC deltas. I appreciate it doesn't happen often, but it happens and I'm just curious as to why people think it might be that nobody's "done a Hamilton" since that Valencia 2010 race, given that the penalty is insignificant next to the benefit of doing it?

[PlatenGlass]

kevinracefan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 16:40, said:

you back the offender up 5 seconds and whatever lap he is on doesn't matter.. is he ahead or behind the following car in the order?
 
if the following car was within 5 seconds when the offender crosses the finish line, he wins..

Obviously you could make it so that his race finishes on the penultimate lap if he is less than five seconds away from being lapped when the leader finishes (if that's what you meant), but is that what they actually would do in practice?

[Kalmake]

PlatenGlass, on 06 Jun 2017 - 16:07, said:

Obviously you could make it so that his race finishes on the penultimate lap if he is less than five seconds away from being lapped when the leader finishes (if that's what you meant), but is that what they actually would do in practice?

Time is added after finish. He never gets lapped.

[kevinracefan]

Kalmake, on 06 Jun 2017 - 22:40, said:

Time is added after finish. He never gets lapped.

I gave up, LOL.. 

[PlatenGlass]

kevinracefan, on 07 Jun 2017 - 13:21, said:

I gave up, LOL..

Your posts weren't clear.

[kevinracefan]

PlatenGlass, on 07 Jun 2017 - 13:58, said:

Your posts weren't clear.

LOL... okie dokie..  how complicated is add 5 seconds?? don't know what words to use to make it clearer than that..

[PlatenGlass]

kevinracefan, on 07 Jun 2017 - 14:05, said:

LOL... okie dokie..  how complicated is add 5 seconds?? don't know what words to use to make it clearer than that..

In any case, you seemed to be making the opposite point to Kalmake. You seemed to be saying that the penalised driver finishes behind his rival in the race; Kalmake said he finishes ahead.

[kevinracefan]

PlatenGlass, on 07 Jun 2017 - 14:20, said:

In any case, you seemed to be making the opposite point to Kalmake. You seemed to be saying that the penalised driver finishes behind his rival in the race; Kalmake said he finishes ahead.

if you say so..

 

I give up on this not complicated discussion..

[Tsarwash]

Rinehart, on 31 May 2017 - 12:19, said:

Yup.

 

Thing is a 5 second penalty added onto a pitstop or the end of a race costs exactly that, 5 seconds. Whereas a pitlane penalty can cost 15-25 seconds depending on the circuit. And all of these have a different effect on themselves (strategically) and other competitors, depending on when the penalty is served. 

 

What if the FIA went down a different route and instead of time and pitlane penalties, used the PU technology to restrict power for a period of time (10s, 30s or lap) depending on the infringement. They could just disable the Hybrid, Turbo or restrict fuel flow... possibly...

I have a different idea. Force the driver to go around for a set number of laps with the DRS constantly open. That'll slow them down and make it more fun to watch.

[PlatenGlass]

kevinracefan, on 07 Jun 2017 - 14:30, said:

if you say so..
 
I give up on this not complicated discussion..

Well done on a completely useless contribution then. First answering my question (in a fairly unclear and unhelpful way), then when someone posts the direct opposite answer to you, appearing to agree with them, while all the time making out that it was a pointless and trivial question. Amazing.

And yes I do say so. It's there in black and white.

Edited by PlatenGlass, 07 June 2017 - 15:06.

[kevinracefan]

PlatenGlass, on 07 Jun 2017 - 15:05, said:

Well done on a completely useless contribution then. First answering my question (in a fairly unclear and unhelpful way), then when someone posts the direct opposite answer to you, appearing to agree with them, while all the time making out that it was a pointless and trivial question. Amazing.

And yes I do say so. It's there in black and white.

i'm pretty sure you mis-understood him, too..

 

good luck with your journey to enlightenment... I won't bother you with simple correct answers anymore...

[PlatenGlass]

kevinracefan, on 02 Jun 2017 - 16:40, said:

if the following car was within 5 seconds when the offender crosses the finish line, he wins..

Driver without penalty is awarded the place.

Kalmake, on 06 Jun 2017 - 22:40, said:

Time is added after finish. He never gets lapped.

Driver with penalty is awarded the place.

kevinracefan, on 07 Jun 2017 - 13:21, said:

I gave up, LOL..

Inane comment implying the whole question and discussion was a waste of time, completely unaware that the responses by the two posters gave the opposite answer.

[kevinracefan]

PlatenGlass, on 07 Jun 2017 - 15:58, said:

Driver with penalty is awarded the place.

 

wrong

[sopa]

Tsarwash, on 07 Jun 2017 - 14:57, said:

I have a different idea. Force the driver to go around for a set number of laps with the DRS constantly open. That'll slow them down and make it more fun to watch.

 

Lol.

 

Yeah sounds fun, but unfortunately it would be pretty hard to overtake a car, whose DRS is constantly open. And it doesn't matter if he goes slowly in corners, he can block there.

 

It penalizes drivers, who are directly behind him and were suffering from a rule violation to begin with. Imagine - cut a corner to maintain a position, get this "small penalty", and you can still keep defending against the driver in different ways.

[PlatenGlass]

kevinracefan, on 08 Jun 2017 - 15:42, said:

wrong

I think you'd argue black is white to save face here.

[ensign14]

I've said before that F1 penalties are disproportionate.  Driver A punts Driver B off and ends his race.  Driver A might get a time penalty.  No, his penalty for ending another driver's race should be a) his race is ended instantly (penalty) and b) he gets banned for a race (deterrent).

 

But what we miss out with the euphemism "unsafe release" is that it is perhaps the most dangerous thing anyone can do in motorsports.  Sending Driver A out into a collision with Driver B, in a crowded pitlane, with inflammable material all around?  We've seen pit crew members die because of mistakes in the pit lane. 

 

And yet the penalty for that is 5 seconds?  That is ludicrous.

[kevinracefan]

PlatenGlass, on 09 Jun 2017 - 13:02, said:

I think you'd argue black is white to save face here.

or, I understand how it works...

 

#not_rocket_science

 

I have no reason to try to "save face".. I understand how clocks work..

Edited by kevinracefan, 09 June 2017 - 18:45.