Rate the 2019 Australian GP! viewtopic.php?f=17&t=15942

F1 Grid Penalties.

Current Formula One related news, information and discussion.
Post Reply
User avatar
Everso Biggyballies
Ultimate Member
Ultimate Member
Posts: 24678
Joined: 13 years ago
Real Name: Chris
Favourite Motorsport: Anything that goes left and right.
Favourite Racing Car: Too Many to mention
Favourite Driver: Raikkonen, Lauda, Clark etc
Favourite Circuit: Nordschleife, Spa, Mt Panorama.
Car(s) Currently Owned: BMW 330C M Sport Coupe
Location: 8 kms from Albert Park, Melbourne.

F1 Grid Penalties.

Post by Everso Biggyballies » 2 months ago

F1 offers hints at grid penalty alternatives

For a long time now the whole concept of grid penalties have been the subject of debate. My own position is one of dismay that
a) they are so unnecessarily complex,
b) I believe mechanical defects should penalise the team more than the driver. (I am more than happy for drivers to be penalised for their own infractions in previous races.)

There have been some changes made in recent years, but none of the main issues have been resolved. Coupled to the ongoing reduction of annual engine and gearbox components allowed, we often see teams saving engines sitting in the garage during time they could / should be on track.

It seems now 'F1' is starting to talk to the fans about their (the fans) thoughts on penalties, and have promised to look at alternatives. In the latest of these surveys, it notes that "Research conducted by Formula 1 shows that fans are not satisfied with the existing grid penalties system", (no shit Sherlock! :roll: ) and says it would like to "understand your view on some alternative options".

F1 has said and asks fans to consider that "any alternative should be... simple to understand; a temporary setback for the driver; not encourage drivers to avoid running in qualifying; not financially related". I dont agree that the target should be the driver, and as for simple to understand they (F1) got us into the cesspit of confusion we currently have.

Alternatives that are being put forward as options are
Alternatives that would affect a driver's free practice preparation are either reducing the number of tyres available to a driver for that weekend, or reducing their track time to give them less chance of finding a perfect set-up.

Potential qualifying punishments suggested are adding extra ballast to a car for qualifying, reducing the fuel flow or electrical energy, or removing the use of DRS for that driver - all with the aim of "increasing lap time and resulting in a lower grid position".

Other penalties put forward for consideration are reducing a team's permitted windtunnel testing time, or giving drivers a stop-go penalty that could be taken at any time during the race.

With the suggestion of applying points penalties, which has often been suggested by teams and fans in the past, the survey asks fans to "Note that points are not deducted for any other infringement in Formula 1".

Points penalties would either be applied to the driver or the team, depending on which committed the infringement.

For the penalties that would affect a driver's free practice or qualifying, any rules breach that occurred too late in the weekend for the penalty to be served would be carried over to the following event.
What do others here think would be a good way forward with the whole penalty debacle.

Am I in the minority thinking teams rather than drivers should be penalised?
They talk of no points deductions are made.... why not take away constructors points? Of course the downside of that is that some of the lower teams are likely to be more affected given their usual minimal pointscoring, and would be detrimental to their earning potential.

Put forward your thoughts in what is a problem that needs to be tackled. What would you suggest? :dunno:

What do you think of the potential options put forward to date?

(It will give us something to discuss in the quiet times we are currently enduring.... :wink: )

https://au.eurosport.com/formula-1/f1-o ... tory.shtml

*My woman cant wrestle. But you should see her box!*


*I married Miss Right. Just didn't know her first name was Always

User avatar
Vassago
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 866
Joined: 15 years ago
Location: Poland

Post by Vassago » 2 months ago

Adding ballast? Good grief, that would be a killer for me... any new rules would eventually force a proper scolding from the teams and then it would turn out the old grid rules aren't so bad after all. Penalising the teams makes no sense. They are punished enough with having so few engines for the entire season and bad reliability is another punishment even though some cars are almost bulletproof now.

There's way too much bickering around the proposed rules, Liberty really wants to micromanage this like a video game? A ton of additional and downright useless on-screen information, a whole new set of clueless penalties. Where is the simplicity in all that? Standard -10 grid penalty is simple. Who cares about affecting fuel flow? These cars are not racing 100% for most of the race anyway.

Meanwhile the God awful track limits still exist because astro-turf rules. That's one thing that truly annoys me and nobody will do anything about it.
07.04.1968 - Flower of Scotland when will we see your like again?
01.05.1994 - We'll never forget...

User avatar
Everso Biggyballies
Ultimate Member
Ultimate Member
Posts: 24678
Joined: 13 years ago
Real Name: Chris
Favourite Motorsport: Anything that goes left and right.
Favourite Racing Car: Too Many to mention
Favourite Driver: Raikkonen, Lauda, Clark etc
Favourite Circuit: Nordschleife, Spa, Mt Panorama.
Car(s) Currently Owned: BMW 330C M Sport Coupe
Location: 8 kms from Albert Park, Melbourne.

Post by Everso Biggyballies » 2 months ago

Vassago wrote:
2 months ago
Adding ballast? Good grief, that would be a killer for me... any new rules would eventually force a proper scolding from the teams and then it would turn out the old grid rules aren't so bad after all. Penalising the teams makes no sense. They are punished enough with having so few engines for the entire season and bad reliability is another punishment even though some cars are almost bulletproof now.

There's way too much bickering around the proposed rules, Liberty really wants to micromanage this like a video game? A ton of additional and downright useless on-screen information, a whole new set of clueless penalties. Where is the simplicity in all that? Standard -10 grid penalty is simple. Who cares about affecting fuel flow? These cars are not racing 100% for most of the race anyway.

Meanwhile the God awful track limits still exist because astro-turf rules. That's one thing that truly annoys me and nobody will do anything about it.
Very valid observation re the teams being penalised already re the mechanical components lists. There is a lot to be said for a simple penalty such as a 5 for components changed and 10 for a complete power unit change.

Agreed also re ballast and concur wholeheartedly re the astro-turf fantasy and run off areas.

*My woman cant wrestle. But you should see her box!*


*I married Miss Right. Just didn't know her first name was Always

User avatar
MonteCristo
FMB Representative
FMB Representative
Posts: 3545
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Openwheel
Favourite Racing Car: Tyrrell P34/Protos
Favourite Driver: JV
Favourite Circuit: Road America
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by MonteCristo » 2 months ago

FFS. Just allow more engines, gearboxes, whatever internal systems, etc.
Danny Ric in F1! Catch the fever!

Vettel Hate Club. Life membership.

2012 GTP Non-Championship Champion | 2012 Guess the Kai-Star Half Marathon Time Champion | 2018 GTP Champion

User avatar
kals
Forum Administrator
Forum Administrator
Posts: 27265
Joined: 11 years ago
Real Name: Kieran
Favourite Motorsport: F1..BTCC..MotoGP
Favourite Racing Car: Benetton B189
Favourite Circuit: Donington Park
Location: New Jersey

Post by kals » 2 months ago

I don't buy the argument that teams should be penalised over the drivers, as both are one and the same. If a driver makes a mistake then the team suffers and vice versa.

F1 should be investigating what the penalties are for and why there are so many, instead of thinking up new or alternative penalties. That would lead them to the point @MonteCristo is making. But F1 shouldn't just stop there as they should be analysing why teams need to use so many more components over and above the restrictions.

User avatar
Picci
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 3 years ago
Real Name: Stephen Piccinino
Favourite Motorsport: Formula One
Favourite Racing Car: Ferrari
Favourite Driver: Kimi Raikkonen
Favourite Circuit: Spa Francorchamps
Car(s) Currently Owned: Honda Fit
Location: London, United Kingdom

Post by Picci » 2 months ago

Fine the team instead. If it is an engine component, fine the supplier so as not to disadvantage smaller teams who aren't necessarily at fault if a component breaks down. Stop this grid penalty nonsense.

User avatar
kals
Forum Administrator
Forum Administrator
Posts: 27265
Joined: 11 years ago
Real Name: Kieran
Favourite Motorsport: F1..BTCC..MotoGP
Favourite Racing Car: Benetton B189
Favourite Circuit: Donington Park
Location: New Jersey

Post by kals » 2 months ago

Picci wrote:
2 months ago
Fine the team instead. If it is an engine component, fine the supplier so as not to disadvantage smaller teams who aren't necessarily at fault if a component breaks down. Stop this grid penalty nonsense.
Can't say I agree with this. How are we to know whether the issue that causes a component to break down is due to the manufacturer rather than the installation or use?

User avatar
Everso Biggyballies
Ultimate Member
Ultimate Member
Posts: 24678
Joined: 13 years ago
Real Name: Chris
Favourite Motorsport: Anything that goes left and right.
Favourite Racing Car: Too Many to mention
Favourite Driver: Raikkonen, Lauda, Clark etc
Favourite Circuit: Nordschleife, Spa, Mt Panorama.
Car(s) Currently Owned: BMW 330C M Sport Coupe
Location: 8 kms from Albert Park, Melbourne.

Post by Everso Biggyballies » 2 months ago

kals wrote:
2 months ago
Picci wrote:
2 months ago
Fine the team instead. If it is an engine component, fine the supplier so as not to disadvantage smaller teams who aren't necessarily at fault if a component breaks down. Stop this grid penalty nonsense.
Can't say I agree with this. How are we to know whether the issue that causes a component to break down is due to the manufacturer rather than the installation or use?
The installation is one of the more critical aspects determining reliability IMHO. Look at the unreliability suffered by Red Bull-Renault over the works team and also McLaren in power unit issues. The same engine but Renault had just one failure over the season, but use a less marginal installation and cooling setup.

Of course Red Bull also supply their own gearbox and I believe clutch assembly as well.

*My woman cant wrestle. But you should see her box!*


*I married Miss Right. Just didn't know her first name was Always

User avatar
Picci
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 337
Joined: 3 years ago
Real Name: Stephen Piccinino
Favourite Motorsport: Formula One
Favourite Racing Car: Ferrari
Favourite Driver: Kimi Raikkonen
Favourite Circuit: Spa Francorchamps
Car(s) Currently Owned: Honda Fit
Location: London, United Kingdom

Post by Picci » 2 months ago

Everso Biggyballies wrote:
2 months ago
kals wrote:
2 months ago
Picci wrote:
2 months ago
Fine the team instead. If it is an engine component, fine the supplier so as not to disadvantage smaller teams who aren't necessarily at fault if a component breaks down. Stop this grid penalty nonsense.
Can't say I agree with this. How are we to know whether the issue that causes a component to break down is due to the manufacturer rather than the installation or use?
The installation is one of the more critical aspects determining reliability IMHO. Look at the unreliability suffered by Red Bull-Renault over the works team and also McLaren in power unit issues. The same engine but Renault had just one failure over the season, but use a less marginal installation and cooling setup.

Of course Red Bull also supply their own gearbox and I believe clutch assembly as well.
I agree with both of you. I know it's not easy to determine but if there is enough FiA scrutiny then I'm sure they'll be able to determine. In any case I still believe fines would work better because that's the only solution I can think of that does not directly impact the driver.

User avatar
Circuitmaster
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 334
Joined: 3 years ago

Post by Circuitmaster » 2 months ago

Maybe increase tyre allowance, then take away tyres as a penalty for mechanical reasons such as gearbox changes etc? This would mean teams that stick to mechanical limitations are able to blast the practice and quali sessions much more than they currently are. I think.
Guess the pole champion 2014
Guess the pole champion 2015
Guess the pole accuracy champion 2015

User avatar
MonteCristo
FMB Representative
FMB Representative
Posts: 3545
Joined: 3 years ago
Favourite Motorsport: Openwheel
Favourite Racing Car: Tyrrell P34/Protos
Favourite Driver: JV
Favourite Circuit: Road America
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Post by MonteCristo » 2 months ago

Circuitmaster wrote:
2 months ago
Maybe increase tyre allowance, then take away tyres as a penalty for mechanical reasons such as gearbox changes etc? This would mean teams that stick to mechanical limitations are able to blast the practice and quali sessions much more than they currently are. I think.
You couldn't add tyres to their current allocation, because they wouldn't use them - because of the ridiculous mechanical reliability rules.

At best you could take away from the current number of tyres.
Danny Ric in F1! Catch the fever!

Vettel Hate Club. Life membership.

2012 GTP Non-Championship Champion | 2012 Guess the Kai-Star Half Marathon Time Champion | 2018 GTP Champion

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests