125 replies to this topic

[PayasYouRace]

Discussion seems to be turning towards taking advantage of a new engine in the final few races and having enough performance to overcome the penalty.

The catalyst for this discussion was Lewis Hamilton’s incredible win in Brazil and starting from 10th in the Grand Prix proper hardly affected his charge through the field, going on to take a famous victory*. That’s not including making up 15 places in the sprint race after an his exclusion for a technical infringement.

The penalties for component changes aren’t a grey area. They’re laid out explicitly for each component. But do they provide enough deterrent to changing components if the performance advantage of doing so is so great? Surely the idea is to cut costs by making it not worth putting a new component in?

Or maybe the whole idea is obsolete now that cost capping is in place?

Discuss.

*I make no apologies for channelling Murray Walker there. That’s how he’s have put it, and I was thoroughly enjoying the 1984 Brazilian GP highlights the other day.

[TheFish]

Kinda funny that Merc are taking advantage of these rules after they were changed to this because Honda couldn't make an engine last 2 races.

[chrcol]

If its within the cost cap, there is no issue, you cant just keep adding restrictions to try and force sporting results you want.

[SophieB]

One indicator might be if Mercedes or indeed Red Bull choose to do this next race too.

[flyboym3]

I quite like the variability it's bringing to the race. It's far more entertaining and brings another element to it in an era where everything is too restrained and becoming more and more like a spec swries which isn't the right formula.

Just goes to show that next year will be even worse when they will have even less engines right?

This is better than reverse grids for sure.

[smitten]

Didn't the change penalty get reduced because people were complaining that they were too severe?

[sofarapartguy]

Honestly it has become really tricky. If I was a FIA I would not know how to handle this. 

 

Merc basically is doing a modern Quali trip PU trick while still following rules.

 

Make more strict penalty - rest of the field is suffering. Leave it as it is - embrace a PU war next season and following. 

 

Costcap should solve this case theoretically. Otherwise big teams now can basically develop a 1500+ HP units and bolt them each weekend. Forget 5 place penalty as driver will clear the rest of the field in 3 straights before DRS is even deployed. 

Edited by sofarapartguy, 15 November 2021 - 11:01.

[SenorSjon]

Well. We could do with 1 engine/weekend and failing that is pitlane start. 

[Requiem84]

As mentioned in another thread, if Mercedes is smart enough to use the rules to their benefit they could do the following (credits to Dissident for first coming up with this idea):

 

1. Qatar: give Bottas a new PU ('new PU1'). Do not race new PU1, keep it in the pool

2. Saudi Arabia: give Bottas a new PU ('new PU2'). Do not race new PU2, keep it in the pool.

 

Abu Dhabi:

 

New PU1 is only used for qualifying. The PU is specifically mapped to only do FP3 and Q1, Q2, and Q3. total mileage needed: about 200 km/h (compared to 7500 km/h for normal PU life). This PU can be used as a pure qualifying PU. A lot of additional HP can be extracted if it only needs to do 200 km. If Hamilton already could use 15-25 hp extra for a 4 race PU, I'm wildly guessing this PU could do up to 75hp extra

 

Then comes race: use New PU2 for the race. Only needs to do 300km, can be mapped almost as aggressive as New PU1, bit with slightly more margin. Might have up to 50hp extra.

 

The current rules allow this fully. Meaning that the rules probably are open to exploitation...

[HP]

The issue for me is that it circumvents the intent of the rules.

 

If I'd be the FIA, for this scenario I'd introduce heaver restrictions for every added engine. An entire engine change put a car a the back of the grid. If the team repeats that, it's again back to the grid and some extra time penalty that is based on estimates of time advantage per lap multiplied with the number of laps.

 

So yesterday for example it'd been in the frame of 30 seconds that would have been added to Lewis time. If a new engine is used again, make it so that the estimated time added is doubled, tripled and so fort.

[Stephane]

Just don't let them exceed the number of engine.

3 ice for the season and deal with it. Take care of them so you don't have to sit out the end of the season

[Gareth]

There seems to be an assumption it was changed for performance reasons, but Merc did say there was a drop in water pressure in Mexico that led to the change.

 

Not that it's impossible that this isn't true, of course.

[Anja]

The weird part is that the first change costs you 10 places and the consecutive ones only 5. Logic suggests it should be the other way around. 

[sofarapartguy]

Funny part is that the rule was introduced to reduce costs and improve reliability in first place. 

 

And in the end teams are just willing to throw those reasons out of the window for the sake of winning.

 

Just shows how sport should always be about pure performance rather than business / environment / pleasing social movement. 

[Jerem]

If it's within the cost cap, then I think it's OK, it's taking the p*** at the FIA but who doesn't like that?

What is a bit weird is how earlier in the year Mercedes were supposedly struggling to match the cost cap, now they seem to be running a new ICE every other weekend. How is the cost of the ICE evaluated for the cost cap exactly?

And more importantly, what would happen if it turned out that one or several competitors had exceeded the cost cap? Would they be disqualified from WCC? Would their drivers be disqualified for the WDC? Even if they'd won either of those? Or would we never hear about it? 

[ToniF1]

They started 3 engines per year rule when they had 20 races, now they want 24. They need 4 again.

[ToniF1]

What is a bit weird is how earlier in the year Mercedes were supposedly struggling to match the cost cap, now they seem to be running a new ICE every other weekend. How is the cost of the ICE evaluated for the cost cap exactly?

 

 

Engines are not in cost cap. Its chassis development.

Edited by ToniF1, 15 November 2021 - 11:12.

[Arundo]

A few years ago teams were changing two engines in a weekend to get a pool, they adjusted that as it was against the spirit of the cost reducing engine allocation.
In my opinion this is basicly the same.

 

Will it be changed this year, no. Next year, probably. 

 

If engines are not in the budget cap as ToniF1 says then thats another major loophole and if the FIA does not adress this we will see more of this next year.
Big teams have still money to burn, cant do it on the car etc lets burn it on engines. 

Edited by Arundo, 15 November 2021 - 11:17.

[smitten]

The issue for me is that it circumvents the intent of the rules.

The problem is that people keep saying that intent or spirit of the rules don't have a place in F1.

 

I kinda think spirit of the rules is a thing, but has to be applied equally to all teams and the forum does tend to fall back on 'spirit of the rules' when a team they would like inconvenienced does something legal but ethically dodgy.

[SophieB]

The weird part is that the first change costs you 10 places and the consecutive ones only 5. Logic suggests it should be the other way around. 

It does sound a bit mad put like that. Maybe when it was dreamed up they wanted to avoid compounding the problems of a theoretical badly struggling team, so wanted to avoid doing the equivalent of increasing the amount of a fine not paid the longer someone is in debtor’s prison.

[TheFish]

Just don't let them exceed the number of engine.

3 ice for the season and deal with it. Take care of them so you don't have to sit out the end of the season

McLaren in 2015 would have had a very short season.

[Marklar]

I like how this stuff always gets questioned as soon as Hamilton/Merc exploit it (same was the case with stockpiling in 2016) LOL

I'm generally of the opinion that engine penalties are too harsh because often it proceeds (not in this case, mind) a DNF and it turns into a double penalty. So I'm much happier this way. But obviously the way Merc uses it is not something most others could because it's damn expensive, so it's certainly something you have to overthink.

As usual there probably isnt the one perfect solution to it.

[Requiem84]

I like how this stuff always gets questioned as soon as Hamilton/Merc exploit it (same was the case with stockpiling in 2016) LOL
 

 

Yes, we know it - criticism only comes it Ham/Merc does it (this has to be repeated in every situation I guess?).

 

Or could it be that these questions arise the first moment any team exploits this possibility? 

Edited by Requiem84, 15 November 2021 - 11:22.

[chrcol]

I like how this stuff always gets questioned as soon as Hamilton/Merc exploit it (same was the case with stockpiling in 2016) LOL

I'm generally of the opinion that engine penalties are too harsh because often it proceeds (not in this case, mind) a DNF and it turns into a double penalty. So I'm much happier this way. But obviously the way Merc uses it is not something most others could because it's damn expensive, so it's certainly something you have to overthink.

As usual there probably isnt the one perfect solution to it.

 

Pretty much yeah, if Merc win then we must change the rules.  Hence my first reply to this thread.

 

Not to mention this is just one race on one of the best tracks of the season, massive over reaction here.

[Heyli]

I like how this stuff always gets questioned as soon as Hamilton/Merc exploit it (same was the case with stockpiling in 2016) LOL

I'm generally of the opinion that engine penalties are too harsh because often it proceeds (not in this case, mind) a DNF and it turns into a double penalty. So I'm much happier this way. But obviously the way Merc uses it is not something most others could because it's damn expensive, so it's certainly something you have to overthink.

As usual there probably isnt the one perfect solution to it.

You think it wouldnt get questioned here if RB exploits it?

[Shambolic]

If you know replacing your engine will give you half a second a lap, and you're at a track where extra power makes overtaking easy, then you'd be stupid not to take the 5 place hit.

 

Which is why the penalty needs to be more than 5 places.

[JustNotFastEnough]

With the long straight in Qatar, If I was Merc, I'd give Hamilton another 5 place engine penalty. That would mean 2 races, with 2 engines at maximum BHP, at power sensitive tracks. Declare it before Red Bull does. I can see Red Bull pulling the same trick.

[smitten]

Yes, we know it - criticism only comes it Ham/Merc does it (this has to be repeated in every situation I guess?).

 

Or could it be that these questions arise the first moment any team exploits this possibility? 

Not really.  Remember the red flag conversation?  Or changing penalties because the didn't penalise 'enough'?

[Arundo]

I like how this stuff always gets questioned as soon as Hamilton/Merc exploit it (same was the case with stockpiling in 2016) LOL

 

I believe there have been a few rules changes this year to slow down a certain team so its not only with Hamilton/Merc. 

[timmy bolt]

Rules are fine. It's always been the way that a penalty in one instance has very little impact and in another has a significant one.

In this instance, the Merc had the pace to just about negate the impact. In most races this year it would have been a straight forward max win in such circumstances.

[JosD]

With the long straight in Qatar, If I was Merc, I'd give Hamilton another 5 place engine penalty. That would mean 2 races, with 2 engines at maximum BHP, at power sensitive tracks. Declare it before Red Bull does. I can see Red Bull pulling the same trick.

The performance drop of for the Honda is reported to be much lower than MB, as a result Honda and RBR reportedly gain far less than MB by replacing the older engines. At the same time I suspect that Honda and RB are looking into the policy as well, but I feel that it is the wrong way to go. The sport has introduced a budget cap, and the entire engine policy is aimed at cost savings, yet what we are seeing here is an engine manufacturer making use of the intent of the policies to gain the upper hand performance wise. The later being very debatable in my eyes.

[JosD]

I believe there have been a few rules changes this year to slow down a certain team so its not only with Hamilton/Merc. 

Some people tend to forget that the rear wing changes and tire changes have at the very least not hurt MB (and actually benefited them), but that apparently does not fit the picture some wish to present.

[chrcol]

You think it wouldnt get questioned here if RB exploits it?

 

Not the first time no.  Maybe after consecutive races.

 

For Ferrari, I didnt think they were initially cheating, I just assumed they worked hard on a legit upgrade.

Edited by chrcol, 15 November 2021 - 11:37.

[TomNokoe]

I think it's exacerbated by the massive performance difference between the midfield and the front, but I agree it doesn't quite sit right.

Smart from Mercedes, though. It almost makes me wonder how much they had left in the tank in 17-18, considering they never went to these extreme lengths!

[Sterzo]

There seems to be an assumption it was changed for performance reasons, but Merc did say there was a drop in water pressure in Mexico that led to the change.

 

Not that it's impossible that this isn't true, of course.

Wolff did say on a couple of occasions that this year's unreliability (as he called it) led to gradually diminishing performance, which was why they chose Brazil for a new engine rather than waiting until later in the year; and that they might reuse the discarded unit if they have to.

 

I don't really see this as a major problem, though I've always thought allowing a replacement is a "get out" from the engine rule. But then we wouldn't want decimated grids...

[Marklar]

Yes, we know it - criticism only comes it Ham/Merc does it (this has to be repeated in every situation I guess?).

 

Or could it be that these questions arise the first moment any team exploits this possibility? 

McLaren was stockpiling for ages before that, but to be fair no one cared because they were royaly ****ed anyway 

[Scotracer]

It's stupid. If it was changed for Honda back in the day, then it's still stupid as they were running near the back anyway.

 

What sort of message does this send out for resource conservation - yeah mate, just keep sticking them in, no worries.

[Marklar]

You think it wouldnt get questioned here if RB exploits it?

 

I believe there have been a few rules changes this year to slow down a certain team so its not only with Hamilton/Merc. 

Easy guys, I was talking about engine penalties

[Requiem84]

McLaren was stockpiling for ages before that, but to be fair no one cared because they were royaly ****ed anyway 

It’s the same reason we don’t have a 30 page topic about Tsunoda and Stroll, but we do have a massive topic about a race situation where 2 drivers didn’t even touch.

Anything at the front of the grid will draw out more attention.

[jpm2019]

When the benefit is bigger than te punishment the penalties are not enough. So it could even depend on team.

[engineblock1]

I would like to see an overall maximum that can be used. Otherwise that kills the whole idea behind cost cutting.

 

E.g every driver is allowed to have maximum of 6 engines. This can go to maximum of 8. The 7th and 8th incur penalty. Also there can be a minimum gap between when the new units can be taken upon.

The penalty should be rather bit harsh. I'd be for forcing such driver to start from pitlane.

[AnR]

I would like to see an overall maximum that can be used. Otherwise that kills the whole idea behind cost cutting.

 

E.g every driver is allowed to have maximum of 6 engines. This can go to maximum of 8. The 7th and 8th incur penalty. Also there can be a minimum gap between when the new units can be taken upon.

The penalty should be rather bit harsh. I'd be for forcing such driver to start from pitlane.

 

Fitting username for the discussion : )

 

It's a bit fitting for this engine era to end it by just outspending the competition

[Ali623]

The weird part is that the first change costs you 10 places and the consecutive ones only 5. Logic suggests it should be the other way around. 

 

I think this was done initially to save engine manufacturers (Honda) from too much embarrassment, having to take constant penalties throughout the season.

 

I think it should switch now though, so more engines taken means greater penalties each time.

[P123]

I would like to see an overall maximum that can be used. Otherwise that kills the whole idea behind cost cutting.

 

E.g every driver is allowed to have maximum of 6 engines. This can go to maximum of 8. The 7th and 8th incur penalty. Also there can be a minimum gap between when the new units can be taken upon.

The penalty should be rather bit harsh. I'd be for forcing such driver to start from pitlane.

The maximum is three though, in the supposed interest of cost savings.  But we know teams rarely go through seasons without incurring penalties, especially as the number of race increases ever more.  It will probably end up cheaper for engine manufacturers to throw in an extra component or two to the pool rather than the huge R&D costs required to stretch these engines out.  How many millions and engine components did it take Honda to get to where they are today?  'Cost savings'... not a chance!

 

Mercedes already had to change ICUs in other races, none of which were a benefit, and in fact gave away potentially better results. And neither was starting 10th a benefit either.  So I don't think any rules need tweaked, save for the suggestion above that the first additional PU component should be a lighter penalty, and then the 5th element onwards should be the 10 place penalty.

[smitten]

I would like to see an overall maximum that can be used. Otherwise that kills the whole idea behind cost cutting.

 

E.g every driver is allowed to have maximum of 6 engines. This can go to maximum of 8. The 7th and 8th incur penalty. Also there can be a minimum gap between when the new units can be taken upon.

The penalty should be rather bit harsh. I'd be for forcing such driver to start from pitlane.

That sort of thing sounds great in theory - but could ultimately prevent a championship contender even entering the final deciding race of the season. 

 

I know I'm exaggerating for effect, but we genuinely don't want to see fewer cars on the grid.

[SenorSjon]

There seems to be an assumption it was changed for performance reasons, but Merc did say there was a drop in water pressure in Mexico that led to the change.

 

Not that it's impossible that this isn't true, of course.

 

Air pressure was also low in Mexico. They will say anything. 

 

With the long straight in Qatar, If I was Merc, I'd give Hamilton another 5 place engine penalty. That would mean 2 races, with 2 engines at maximum BHP, at power sensitive tracks. Declare it before Red Bull does. I can see Red Bull pulling the same trick.

 

The Honda was designed with using 3 engines a season, so they only gain about a tenth by doing this. Other teams are in full 2022 mode, so an engine penalty will bring you almost no opposition.

Edited by SenorSjon, 15 November 2021 - 12:13.

[P123]

Yes, we know it - criticism only comes it Ham/Merc does it (this has to be repeated in every situation I guess?).

 

Or could it be that these questions arise the first moment any team exploits this possibility? 

The cynicism is well placed, perfectly demonstrated by the exsistence of this topic.  It wasn't and issue, until Merecedes won a race.  Not too different to the number of times DRS has been mentioned this weekend.

 

Going by some of the comments it seems some also think that the only engine costs are in manufacturing...

[engineblock1]

The maximum is three though, in the supposed interest of cost savings.  But we know teams rarely go through seasons without incurring penalties, especially as the number of race increases ever more.  It will probably end up cheaper for engine manufacturers to throw in an extra component or two to the pool rather than the huge R&D costs required to stretch these engines out.  How many millions and engine components did it take Honda to get to where they are today?  'Cost savings'... not a chance!

 

Mercedes already had to change ICUs in other races, none of which were a benefit, and in fact gave away potentially better results. And neither was starting 10th a benefit either.  So I don't think any rules need tweaked, save for the suggestion above that the first additional PU component should be a lighter penalty, and then the 5th element onwards should be the 10 place penalty.

 

I missed adding one comment that maximum assignment (without penalties) may be increased. It is inevitable as the calendar keeps growing.

 

I also do not want drivers to be in damage limitation mode during races. However, once the quota is exceeded, my point is penalties should be very harsh. At the moment it looks like that pushing your PU altogether with penalties is more profitable in terms of performance and championship battle than going into limitation mode and not take those. This is exactly what is opposite to the spirit of good cost saving measures - spending more should not be an easy option.

[Rediscoveryx]

Just scrap these rules altogether and enforce the cost cap.

 

Greater engine fragility would be a blessing to the sport.

[engineblock1]

That sort of thing sounds great in theory - but could ultimately prevent a championship contender even entering the final deciding race of the season. 

 

I know I'm exaggerating for effect, but we genuinely don't want to see fewer cars on the grid.

 

Indeed a point to consider. But then I would also propose "degree of penalties" to apply.

 

Assigned number of engines= no penalties

+2 new units= Ten place grid drop

+3 onwards= Pitlane start

 

Again the idea is that taking new units should not be easy.