planetf1.com

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:You either have engine and gearbox limitations or you don't, in the case of impending failure under inspection you are granted a fresh engine or component then you reap the benefit of that compared to others who have to continue on with old components/engines, you are penalised for having better reliability, that's all upside down to me.

The point is that if you make the rules and associated penalties directly connected to what is in people's control you have more chance of affecting their behavior and forcing change. Currently it's a complete lottery in certain circumstances so a penalty just gets shrugged off as inevitable but nothing changes. A driver knows he can't cut a corner or he will get penalized, so he takes care to ensure he doesn't break the rules and compromise his race. But if his gearbox fails and he compromises both his current race and the next one as a result then what is he supposed to do differently to ensure it doesn't happen again? In other words, what does the penalty actually achieve?

F1 is a highly sophisticated sport, but the rules and regulations sometimes look as though they've been written on the back of a fag packet. There's a complete disconnect between the technology employed on track and the rules made to govern them.

Drivers sometimes damage gearboxes by crashing or clipping walls, engines can be damaged by crashing, maybe the drivers fault, maybe not?

The fact is advantage is gained everytime you have a new component, you have rules or you don't have rules or do we argue about proof of fault?

Well let's take the crashing one as an example. A driver runs into the back of another, resulting in the other driver's engine being written off. So he needs a PU and as a result gets an additional penalty to boot. How is any of that the driver or team's fault and what purpose does a penalty serve?

This I have always thought to be unfair but in respect to gearboxes in particularly these have often been damaged through error of the driver himself.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: The point is that if you make the rules and associated penalties directly connected to what is in people's control you have more chance of affecting their behavior and forcing change. Currently it's a complete lottery in certain circumstances so a penalty just gets shrugged off as inevitable but nothing changes. A driver knows he can't cut a corner or he will get penalized, so he takes care to ensure he doesn't break the rules and compromise his race. But if his gearbox fails and he compromises both his current race and the next one as a result then what is he supposed to do differently to ensure it doesn't happen again? In other words, what does the penalty actually achieve?

F1 is a highly sophisticated sport, but the rules and regulations sometimes look as though they've been written on the back of a fag packet. There's a complete disconnect between the technology employed on track and the rules made to govern them.

Drivers sometimes damage gearboxes by crashing or clipping walls, engines can be damaged by crashing, maybe the drivers fault, maybe not?

The fact is advantage is gained everytime you have a new component, you have rules or you don't have rules or do we argue about proof of fault?

Well let's take the crashing one as an example. A driver runs into the back of another, resulting in the other driver's engine being written off. So he needs a PU and as a result gets an additional penalty to boot. How is any of that the driver or team's fault and what purpose does a penalty serve?

This I have always thought to be unfair but in respect to gearboxes in particularly these have often been damaged through error of the driver himself.

Agreed. But with the telemetry they have these days you don't think it possible they can ascertain that from the data?

The engine example above highlights the necessity to have greater flexibility in the rules and not have a one size fits all approach. Someone can have two races compromised because of the actions of another and there must be a way they can manage that better

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

Fiki wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too?

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too?

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too?

Well, yes. In the old days of spare cars, some drivers would be able to race in one, if their car developed a fault or was involved in a crash. Some others might be forced to sit out the race.
I agree with Siao that there is no ideal solution. Especially not in an era when we don't even have a full grid of participating cars. Where are the days when a driver could rent a Ferrari to enter his national Grand Prix? And be familiar with all the functions on the steering wheel?

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too?

Well, yes. In the old days of spare cars, some drivers would be able to race in one, if their car developed a fault or was involved in a crash. Some others might be forced to sit out the race.
I agree with Siao that there is no ideal solution. Especially not in an era when we don't even have a full grid of participating cars. Where are the days when a driver could rent a Ferrari to enter his national Grand Prix? And be familiar with all the functions on the steering wheel?

yes but that's the race where the issue happened. This would penalize the victim twice as they'd be out in the race where the incident took place and then be penalized for taking an engine/PU change as a result and be forced to miss out the next one, which seems unnecessarily draconian.

I agree with the principle of harsher penalties for genuine rule violations, but think it's unfair to apply a universal solution that would further punish the innocent along with transgressors. There needs to be a way to differentiate these.

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

Fiki wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

Fiki wrote:

Zoue wrote:

Fiki wrote:

WHoff78 wrote:So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too?

Well, yes. In the old days of spare cars, some drivers would be able to race in one, if their car developed a fault or was involved in a crash. Some others might be forced to sit out the race.
I agree with Siao that there is no ideal solution. Especially not in an era when we don't even have a full grid of participating cars. Where are the days when a driver could rent a Ferrari to enter his national Grand Prix? And be familiar with all the functions on the steering wheel?

Yellowbin74 wrote:Maybe time penalties to be served during pit stops?

Similar to existing, +5 seconds (or whatever) before you can do a wheel change.

pokerman wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Maybe time penalties to be served during pit stops?

Similar to existing, +5 seconds (or whatever) before you can do a wheel change.

Which may be no penalty at all if you have sufficient gap to the car behind?

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: The point is that if you make the rules and associated penalties directly connected to what is in people's control you have more chance of affecting their behavior and forcing change. Currently it's a complete lottery in certain circumstances so a penalty just gets shrugged off as inevitable but nothing changes. A driver knows he can't cut a corner or he will get penalized, so he takes care to ensure he doesn't break the rules and compromise his race. But if his gearbox fails and he compromises both his current race and the next one as a result then what is he supposed to do differently to ensure it doesn't happen again? In other words, what does the penalty actually achieve?

F1 is a highly sophisticated sport, but the rules and regulations sometimes look as though they've been written on the back of a fag packet. There's a complete disconnect between the technology employed on track and the rules made to govern them.

Drivers sometimes damage gearboxes by crashing or clipping walls, engines can be damaged by crashing, maybe the drivers fault, maybe not?

The fact is advantage is gained everytime you have a new component, you have rules or you don't have rules or do we argue about proof of fault?

Well let's take the crashing one as an example. A driver runs into the back of another, resulting in the other driver's engine being written off. So he needs a PU and as a result gets an additional penalty to boot. How is any of that the driver or team's fault and what purpose does a penalty serve?

This I have always thought to be unfair but in respect to gearboxes in particularly these have often been damaged through error of the driver himself.

Agreed. But with the telemetry they have these days you don't think it possible they can ascertain that from the data?

The engine example above highlights the necessity to have greater flexibility in the rules and not have a one size fits all approach. Someone can have two races compromised because of the actions of another and there must be a way they can manage that better

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:Drivers sometimes damage gearboxes by crashing or clipping walls, engines can be damaged by crashing, maybe the drivers fault, maybe not?

The fact is advantage is gained everytime you have a new component, you have rules or you don't have rules or do we argue about proof of fault?

Well let's take the crashing one as an example. A driver runs into the back of another, resulting in the other driver's engine being written off. So he needs a PU and as a result gets an additional penalty to boot. How is any of that the driver or team's fault and what purpose does a penalty serve?

This I have always thought to be unfair but in respect to gearboxes in particularly these have often been damaged through error of the driver himself.

Agreed. But with the telemetry they have these days you don't think it possible they can ascertain that from the data?

The engine example above highlights the necessity to have greater flexibility in the rules and not have a one size fits all approach. Someone can have two races compromised because of the actions of another and there must be a way they can manage that better

I'm not sure what teams can hide and what they can't hide but I know they will always look to protect themselves like they do their drivers.

Yellowbin74 wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Yellowbin74 wrote:Maybe time penalties to be served during pit stops?

Similar to existing, +5 seconds (or whatever) before you can do a wheel change.

Which may be no penalty at all if you have sufficient gap to the car behind?

quite possibly, so maybe make it a 10 / 15 / 20 second or something like that.

Make them serve it in the first 5 (or so) laps so it throws the optimum race program out the window.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Well let's take the crashing one as an example. A driver runs into the back of another, resulting in the other driver's engine being written off. So he needs a PU and as a result gets an additional penalty to boot. How is any of that the driver or team's fault and what purpose does a penalty serve?

This I have always thought to be unfair but in respect to gearboxes in particularly these have often been damaged through error of the driver himself.

Agreed. But with the telemetry they have these days you don't think it possible they can ascertain that from the data?

The engine example above highlights the necessity to have greater flexibility in the rules and not have a one size fits all approach. Someone can have two races compromised because of the actions of another and there must be a way they can manage that better

I'm not sure what teams can hide and what they can't hide but I know they will always look to protect themselves like they do their drivers.

sure they will, but that's down to the FIA to make sure they police it effectively. The sport is ultra-high tech but the penalty system seems designed over a beer in the pub.

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:This I have always thought to be unfair but in respect to gearboxes in particularly these have often been damaged through error of the driver himself.

Agreed. But with the telemetry they have these days you don't think it possible they can ascertain that from the data?

The engine example above highlights the necessity to have greater flexibility in the rules and not have a one size fits all approach. Someone can have two races compromised because of the actions of another and there must be a way they can manage that better

I'm not sure what teams can hide and what they can't hide but I know they will always look to protect themselves like they do their drivers.

sure they will, but that's down to the FIA to make sure they police it effectively. The sport is ultra-high tech but the penalty system seems designed over a beer in the pub.

Well it's actually straight forward without any grey areas were you can argue your case.

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote: Agreed. But with the telemetry they have these days you don't think it possible they can ascertain that from the data?

The engine example above highlights the necessity to have greater flexibility in the rules and not have a one size fits all approach. Someone can have two races compromised because of the actions of another and there must be a way they can manage that better

I'm not sure what teams can hide and what they can't hide but I know they will always look to protect themselves like they do their drivers.

sure they will, but that's down to the FIA to make sure they police it effectively. The sport is ultra-high tech but the penalty system seems designed over a beer in the pub.

Well it's actually straight forward without any grey areas were you can argue your case.

but it also encompasses arguably too much - back to the driver being hit again - that surely someone with some expertise in these areas could cover effectively so that the innocent aren't punished along with the guilty

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:

Zoue wrote:

pokerman wrote:I'm not sure what teams can hide and what they can't hide but I know they will always look to protect themselves like they do their drivers.

sure they will, but that's down to the FIA to make sure they police it effectively. The sport is ultra-high tech but the penalty system seems designed over a beer in the pub.

Well it's actually straight forward without any grey areas were you can argue your case.

but it also encompasses arguably too much - back to the driver being hit again - that surely someone with some expertise in these areas could cover effectively so that the innocent aren't punished along with the guilty

Like I say when you allow teams to argue their case then you are deep into the grey, we see at times how teams are prepared to protect their drivers even when they are clearly in the wrong, Red Bull would be a prime example of this.