planetf1.com

Okay the one thing apart from the way some people react to and interperate the rules that is annoying me is the actual penalties

It used to be a 18 second stop go.. Or a drive through the pots, personally the drive through was a bit fairer but anyway yes time penalties were used then too they are being over used now and for example in Canada Vettel came in first but wasn't really due to that penalty, it looks and is daft as hell plus there is the theory that if Vettel managed to pull.. Sy a 5.1 second gap.. He would have won and rendered the whole penalty meaningless, a drive through, he would have lost time and his place on track, would have had to do it within 3 laps, sure people would have argued but I think it wouldn't have looked s such a farce

Another thing.. That will sound controversial is once the podium happens, unless it's a severe thing that results in a crash or something serious, the places are locked in and any punishment has to happen next race, avoiding the tension of the last races incident also drivers calling for investigations is starting to get frustrating

In many walks of life people wait for results. Be it a minute or two for var or up to weeks for other results. F1 is a complex business. A result is given in a timely manner given all the other opposing pressures post race. When the results are known that becomes the news. Its not up to F1 or any other body to make decisions and announce results to satisfy broadcasters, fans, or forums. Results drive the news, not the other way round.

I agree that the race should be continuous and the end result should be known at the end of the race.

The rules need to be written to make that the likely outcome. They may have to combine that with changes to the track and maybe use of GPS location. Drivers could be given audible warnings of when they are likely to exceed the track limits so they can stay within limits. It could also be used to give an audible warning of where a car is in relation to their car.

In terms of overlap, ideally a significant overlap would be visible to both drivers, but that situation can arise very suddenly, so some warning of it's impending occurrence could help avoid accidents and maybe make for cleaner driving. It might also provide information to stewards to make fast decisions.

Professional, trained stewards - trained to make the decisions fast - would be a necessity.

Bobafett wrote:Another thing.. That will sound controversial is once the podium happens, unless it's a severe thing that results in a crash or something serious, the places are locked in and any punishment has to happen next race

What about car infringements? I can't see many team bosses happy with another team who's won with an illegal car, get to keep the win and only get a penalty for the next race.

Revolving Stewards only creates wildly different thoughts on the application of the rule and how they are to be applied.

The same thing happens in Law. Different courts interpret and apply the same law differently.

F1 needs to have the same Stewards at every event - at least, even if they are wrong, they will do so consistently!

mmi16 wrote:Revolving Stewards only creates wildly different thoughts on the application of the rule and how they are to be applied.

The same thing happens in Law. Different courts interpret and apply the same law differently.

F1 needs to have the same Stewards at every event - at least, even if they are wrong, they will do so consistently!

You mean consistently rule against a driver they don't like for example?

shoot999 wrote:

mmi16 wrote:Revolving Stewards only creates wildly different thoughts on the application of the rule and how they are to be applied.

The same thing happens in Law. Different courts interpret and apply the same law differently.

F1 needs to have the same Stewards at every event - at least, even if they are wrong, they will do so consistently!

You mean consistently rule against a driver they don't like for example?

Couldn’t agree more with this. But it goes beyond dislike – unconscious bias is close to unavoidable.

Bobafett wrote:Okay the one thing apart from the way some people react to and interperate the rules that is annoying me is the actual penalties

It used to be a 18 second stop go.. Or a drive through the pots, personally the drive through was a bit fairer but anyway yes time penalties were used then too they are being over used now and for example in Canada Vettel came in first but wasn't really due to that penalty, it looks and is daft as hell plus there is the theory that if Vettel managed to pull.. Sy a 5.1 second gap.. He would have won and rendered the whole penalty meaningless, a drive through, he would have lost time and his place on track, would have had to do it within 3 laps, sure people would have argued but I think it wouldn't have looked s such a farce

Another thing.. That will sound controversial is once the podium happens, unless it's a severe thing that results in a crash or something serious, the places are locked in and any punishment has to happen next race, avoiding the tension of the last races incident also drivers calling for investigations is starting to get frustrating

The time penalties are not a new concept, they have been introduced to allow a less serious infractions be given a less significant consequence.

If Vettel had made a pit stop after receiving his time penalty, he would have had to remained stationary for 5 seconds before the pitstop started, and then the finishing order would have been the same. Likewise, if he had received a drive through but was unable to have served the drive through penalty, then he would have had 25 seconds added to his race time, just like the 5 second penalty he received.

This is how it has been in the regulations for a long, long time. The shorter time penalties were added to stop drivers receiving excessive punishment for minor infractions. Given the uproar from a lot of people over a 5 second penalty, can you imagine the reaction to receiving a drive though? He would have finished miles behind the both Hamilton and his team mate.

I don't understand this somewhat religious like fervour that surrounds the sanctity of the podium celebration being locked in until time immemorial - it's never been the case in the sport that who stands on the podium has that result carved into stone and is immune against penalties. Formula 1 has always been about rules and regulations, in fact, that's what its name means.

Canada and Austria aren't the only races where the podium position has been in doubt after it occurred. Spa 2008 is a carbon copy of Canada, and one where a 5 second penalty would have been more proportionate. Brazil 2003 was another.

And why limit it to the podium? Ricciardo's position in France was determined a long time after the race ended. It happens in a large number of races, we just notice it more when its about a podium position or concerns a top driver.

We can't start arbitrarily start drawing a line in a sand and saying "if you break these rules, but manage to stand on the podium it's fine, but these more serious rules are different" - it would be even more ridiculous. If the rule is not serious enough to be able to keep your position because you stood on the podium then it shouldn't be a rule in the first place.

I'd do away with the 5 second penalty.

It's lead to over-debate and over-analysis of pretty minor infractions.

Things that happened in the blink of an eye, are played 100 times from 10 camera angles, in.slow motion and opinions formed.

Driver A must have thought this, could have did this, etc

Track limits CANNOT be a painted line.

Exceeding track limits must be self policing - a broken wing, a damaged floor, a spin through the grass, impacting a barrier.

If nothing gets broken or damaged and time is gained by the driver - it is not a track limit.

Badgeronimous wrote:I'd do away with the 5 second penalty.

It's lead to over-debate and over-analysis of pretty minor infractions.

I actually think the opposite has happened. More serious infractions are getting too light a penalty. It is now better to barge a competitor out of your way or cut a corner to pass him so that he stops holding you up. Then you get a 5 second penalty but you have pulled away from your competitor by a much larger margin than 5 seconds so that you are still ahead of him even though you cheated with the overtake; rendering the penalty as not enough of a deterrent.

For example if Seb hadn't have made his mistake in Canada 2019, Hamilton would have been better off straightlining the final chicane to physically get his car ahead of Seb's, and then proceed to pull out more than 5 or 10 seconds on him over the remaining 20 or so laps so that he would still be ahead after the penalty gets applied.

How many examples of this have happened?

Badgeronimous wrote:How many examples of this have happened?

It's happened a few times in the midfield and I think once or twice with the frontrunners over the years, but never for the win I don't believe. I can't recall any specific examples but I know that drivers have picked up some 5 second time penalties for not giving the place back after completing an unfair overtake, and on many occasions they have still beaten their rival despite not passing them fairly and squarely on track.

In any case though, my point still stands that someone can do this at the moment, Hamilton could have done this to Vettel in Canada and won the race via incurring a 5 second time penalty himself whilst utilising superior pace once out in front. It's only a matter of time until it happens for a race win and then people are going to be mad.

By overpunishing on penalties, say a mandatory drive through, (or 20 second time penalty if decided post-race due to a late race offence), then it takes away this potential loophole of being able to bully your way past unfairly and then only needing to pull out a measly 5 seconds on track.

It's almost like the stewards are worried about ruling wrongly on certain incidents, so if they only give out a tiny time penalty each time then even when they've got it wrong, they haven't hurt the unlucky victim too much. They just need to get better at stewarding and over punish when they spot offences, that is the real solution; not wimping out with baby punishments. They should have a system where it is basically never profitable to pick up deliberate penalties and still be better off for doing so; the current system unfortunately allows a certain element of exploitation.

As I and others have said time penalties have potential to be abused.. didn't max get one in China one year that didn't really make a difference to him?

a drive through has to be taken within 3 laps, see why I think its more effective

Bobafett wrote:As I and others have said time penalties have potential to be abused.. didn't max get one in China one year that didn't really make a difference to him?

a drive through has to be taken within 3 laps, see why I think its more effective

Many drivers have had penalties not really affecting them.

Your last sentence is ok with me, but what about incidents in the last 2 laps?

Siao7 wrote:

Bobafett wrote:As I and others have said time penalties have potential to be abused.. didn't max get one in China one year that didn't really make a difference to him?

a drive through has to be taken within 3 laps, see why I think its more effective

Many drivers have had penalties not really affecting them.

Your last sentence is ok with me, but what about incidents in the last 2 laps?

I'll be honest, I think that time penalties not carried out at pitstops should have five seconds added to them, or have them doubled. An extra 5 seconds at a pitstop can make a huge difference as it's liable to cost track position. 5 seconds added at the end can be managed far more easily.

As was also pointed out, getting five seconds for illegally overtaking is a complete joke. In Canada, if Hamilton knew he would only receive a 5 second penalty for cutting a corner to overtake, he should have done it. He could have pulled 5 seconds out with ease on Vettel before the end of the race. While I think it's unlikely an overtake for the lead would be treated so inconsequentially - I can remember several occasions where this has happened in the midfield. Can you imagine if Max had straightlined the chicane at Monaco and stayed ahead,. but received a 5 or 10 second penalty? He would have finished 20 seconds ahead of Hamilton so it wouldn't have mattered.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Bobafett wrote:As I and others have said time penalties have potential to be abused.. didn't max get one in China one year that didn't really make a difference to him?

a drive through has to be taken within 3 laps, see why I think its more effective

Many drivers have had penalties not really affecting them.

Your last sentence is ok with me, but what about incidents in the last 2 laps?

I'll be honest, I think that time penalties not carried out at pitstops should have five seconds added to them, or have them doubled. An extra 5 seconds at a pitstop can make a huge difference as it's liable to cost track position. 5 seconds added at the end can be managed far more easily.

As was also pointed out, getting five seconds for illegally overtaking is a complete joke. In Canada, if Hamilton knew he would only receive a 5 second penalty for cutting a corner to overtake, he should have done it. He could have pulled 5 seconds out with ease on Vettel before the end of the race. While I think it's unlikely an overtake for the lead would be treated so inconsequentially - I can remember several occasions where this has happened in the midfield. Can you imagine if Max had straightlined the chicane at Monaco and stayed ahead,. but received a 5 or 10 second penalty? He would have finished 20 seconds ahead of Hamilton so it wouldn't have mattered.

Fully agreed Alien

.

The FIA just can't help themselves, can they ?

They impose a miniscule (non relevant) fine for an unsafe release on Ferrari, a company to whom they give tens of millions of dollars just to turn up, instead of the normal time penalty, which they now say should be (as it always has been) the normal penalty !

What is it "FIA" stands for ?

( Maybe having a Schumacher around gave them a sense of deja vu ? )

.

Greenman wrote:.

The FIA just can't help themselves, can they ?

They impose a miniscule (non relevant) fine for an unsafe release on Ferrari, a company to whom they give tens of millions of dollars just to turn up, instead of the normal time penalty, which they now say should be (as it always has been) the normal penalty !

What is it "FIA" stands for ?

( Maybe having a Schumacher around gave them a sense of deja vu ? )

.

As I understand it, it was the teams who asked for a time penalty instead of the fine. Which I find hard to understand, because an error by the team is now going to cost their drivers time again.

I don't believe there should be a difference in fines between rich and poor teams, just as there aren't different time penalties between quick and slow teams.

.

So, IF a fine is to mean anything it should at least "sting" the offender - how much should the fine be so as to "sting" Ferrari who gets tens of millions just to take part ?

I suggest $10 million - don't know what that would do to Williams though.

.

Greenman wrote:.

So, IF a fine is to mean anything it should at least "sting" the offender - how much should the fine be so as to "sting" Ferrari who gets tens of millions just to take part ?

I suggest $10 million - don't know what that would do to Williams though.

.

So are you advocating different amount for different teams? Is it Ferrari's fault that they have more $$'s that Williams?

It is a team fault, punishing the driver is not the solution. Dock them WDC points and then this will hurt them, but to put a time penalty on the driver is completely wrong.

Also, cheap shot for Schumacher and FIA, you can do better than that

.

How is that a "cheap shot" - the FIA go off on a complete tangent and ends up being soft on Ferrari - just as in the Schumacher era.

Imposing a few thousand dollars fine on a company you give tens to millions of dollars to is meaningless - why not make the fine something that will "sting" ? Or, of course, you could just impose the standard penalty - but somehow that isn't allowed by the FIA on Ferrari.

.

Greenman wrote:.

So, IF a fine is to mean anything it should at least "sting" the offender - how much should the fine be so as to "sting" Ferrari who gets tens of millions just to take part ?

I suggest $10 million - don't know what that would do to Williams though.

.

The solution is so much easier, no wonder F1 can't seem to come up with it; no more mandatory pitstops.

Greenman wrote:.

How is that a "cheap shot" - the FIA go off on a complete tangent and ends up being soft on Ferrari - just as in the Schumacher era.

Imposing a few thousand dollars fine on a company you give tens to millions of dollars to is meaningless - why not make the fine something that will "sting" ? Or, of course, you could just impose the standard penalty - but somehow that isn't allowed by the FIA on Ferrari.

.

What does "have a Schumacher around" have to do with anything? And you need to get more up to speed, FIA the last few years have been dubbed MA-FIA for Mercedes Assistance...

As mentioned before, the unsafe release has brought many different penalties, from reprimands to even a time penalty to be served in the next race within the first 3 laps. They judge it as individual incidents every time. If you find this a Ferrari assistance, good for you.

There are ways to make it better, like Fiki's suggestion or mine above.

Fiki wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

So, IF a fine is to mean anything it should at least "sting" the offender - how much should the fine be so as to "sting" Ferrari who gets tens of millions just to take part ?

I suggest $10 million - don't know what that would do to Williams though.

.

The solution is so much easier, no wonder F1 can't seem to come up with it; no more mandatory pitstops.

Remember though the unsafe release in Germany wasn't due to cars stopping due to a mandatory pit stops rule. The cars stopped in reaction to changeable conditions. This scenario increases the risk of an unsafe release because, as in Germany, you tend to get a heap of cars stop at the same time.

Having no mandatory stops in Germany wouldn't have changed a thing.

My thoughts? Deduct WCC points.

Jezza13 wrote:

Fiki wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

So, IF a fine is to mean anything it should at least "sting" the offender - how much should the fine be so as to "sting" Ferrari who gets tens of millions just to take part ?

I suggest $10 million - don't know what that would do to Williams though.

.

The solution is so much easier, no wonder F1 can't seem to come up with it; no more mandatory pitstops.

Remember though the unsafe release in Germany wasn't due to cars stopping due to a mandatory pit stops rule. The cars stopped in reaction to changeable conditions. This scenario increases the risk of an unsafe release because, as in Germany, you tend to get a heap of cars stop at the same time.

Having no mandatory stops in Germany wouldn't have changed a thing.

My thoughts? Deduct WCC points.

+1

.

No, the FIA have NOT been labelled "MA-FIA" - that is you just making things up.

Have you any sensible suggestion as to why the FIA invented the fine last week, just for Ferrari, instead of just imposing the standard (and again now standardised) time penalty ?

The one-off just involved the FIA and Ferrari, no matter which way you look at it.

.

Greenman wrote:.

No, the FIA have NOT been labelled "MA-FIA" - that is you just making things up.

Have you any sensible suggestion as to why the FIA invented the fine last week, just for Ferrari, instead of just imposing the standard (and again now standardised) time penalty ?

The one-off just involved the FIA and Ferrari, no matter which way you look at it.

.

Calling for teams to be fined rather than drivers be penalised has been going on for years from fans. They tried it, apparently the teams were not happy with this as it could impact on the safety of pit crews and so it has been agreed not to do so again in future.

Non-issue. You're only making yourself look silly with the tinfoil hat talk.

Greenman wrote:.

No, the FIA have NOT been labelled "MA-FIA" - that is you just making things up.

Have you any sensible suggestion as to why the FIA invented the fine last week, just for Ferrari, instead of just imposing the standard (and again now standardised) time penalty ?

The one-off just involved the FIA and Ferrari, no matter which way you look at it.

.

Sure, same as FIA stands for... what where you saying?

I posted the link where they mentioned that they judge unsafe releases as separate incidents. Frankly I couldn't care less if you agree with this, but here it is where Masi says that "you treat each case on its own merits": https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/lecl ... a/4503963/.

Finally, the FIA just agreed to impose a standard time penalty, after Germany, so your "standardised" penalty is an afterthought when talking about the German GP.

Black_Flag_11 wrote:

Greenman wrote:.

No, the FIA have NOT been labelled "MA-FIA" - that is you just making things up.

Have you any sensible suggestion as to why the FIA invented the fine last week, just for Ferrari, instead of just imposing the standard (and again now standardised) time penalty ?

The one-off just involved the FIA and Ferrari, no matter which way you look at it.

.

Calling for teams to be fined rather than drivers be penalised has been going on for years from fans. They tried it, apparently the teams were not happy with this as it could impact on the safety of pit crews and so it has been agreed not to do so again in future.

Non-issue. You're only making yourself look silly with the tinfoil hat talk.

Indeed the fines have been the standard for unsafe release, if there was contact as a direct result of the unsafe release that has resulted in a time penalty. No double standards here.

That said, I'm glad from now on all unsafe releases will result in a time penalty.

I can't see how a time penalty is justifiable & reasonable.

The driver is totally, 100% in the hands of the pit crew & it is the pit crew who has the obligation to release the car in a safe manner.

I'm against someone receiving a penalty, in racing or any other area of life, for an incident that was unavoidable on their behalf and the cause of actions by an external force. This is one example of that

It is the team that should be penalized, not the driver.

Jezza13 wrote:I can't see how a time penalty is justifiable & reasonable.

The driver is totally, 100% in the hands of the pit crew & it is the pit crew who has the obligation to release the car in a safe manner.

I'm against someone receiving a penalty, in racing or any other area of life, for an incident that was unavoidable on their behalf and the cause of actions by an external force. This is one example of that

It is the team that should be penalized, not the driver.

The driver is part of the team though, and therefore isn't it right that the driver should suffer for a pit crew mistake. Just as the pit crew have to suffer when a driver puts it in the wall.

Jezza13 wrote:I can't see how a time penalty is justifiable & reasonable.

The driver is totally, 100% in the hands of the pit crew & it is the pit crew who has the obligation to release the car in a safe manner.

I'm against someone receiving a penalty, in racing or any other area of life, for an incident that was unavoidable on their behalf and the cause of actions by an external force. This is one example of that

It is the team that should be penalized, not the driver.

It's totally unfair that Ferrari the team lost WCC points when Vettel impeded Hamilton at Canada. The team shouldn't lose points because of the actions that were solely down to the driver and not the team. The driver should be penalized, not the team.

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:I can't see how a time penalty is justifiable & reasonable.

The driver is totally, 100% in the hands of the pit crew & it is the pit crew who has the obligation to release the car in a safe manner.

I'm against someone receiving a penalty, in racing or any other area of life, for an incident that was unavoidable on their behalf and the cause of actions by an external force. This is one example of that

It is the team that should be penalized, not the driver.

It's totally unfair that Ferrari the team lost WCC points when Vettel impeded Hamilton at Canada. The team shouldn't lose points because of the actions that were solely down to the driver and not the team. The driver should be penalized, not the team.

For me it is not the same though, you can't separate WDC and WCC points like that. The team does not run as a separate entity to the driver during the race. You can't say that Vettel finished second but Ferrari deserved to win, so here are 25 WCC points.

On the contrary, the driver is separate from the team in the pit stop, he is not changing the tyres himself. If that makes sense.

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:I can't see how a time penalty is justifiable & reasonable.

The driver is totally, 100% in the hands of the pit crew & it is the pit crew who has the obligation to release the car in a safe manner.

I'm against someone receiving a penalty, in racing or any other area of life, for an incident that was unavoidable on their behalf and the cause of actions by an external force. This is one example of that

It is the team that should be penalized, not the driver.

It's totally unfair that Ferrari the team lost WCC points when Vettel impeded Hamilton at Canada. The team shouldn't lose points because of the actions that were solely down to the driver and not the team. The driver should be penalized, not the team.

For me it is not the same though, you can't separate WDC and WCC points like that. The team does not run as a separate entity to the driver during the race. You can't say that Vettel finished second but Ferrari deserved to win, so here are 25 WCC points.

On the contrary, the driver is separate from the team in the pit stop, he is not changing the tyres himself. If that makes sense.

But could you not argue that had the team not broken the rules and released Leclerc dangerously we have no way of knowing what would've happened? Leclerc gained an illegal advantage and gets that benefit.

If you do start factoring out team mistakes then why do it just for that? Both Ferrari's broke down in quali that wasn't the drivers fault either.

I think in situations where they both gain an advantage by doing something against the rules they both have to feel the penalty.

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:I can't see how a time penalty is justifiable & reasonable.

The driver is totally, 100% in the hands of the pit crew & it is the pit crew who has the obligation to release the car in a safe manner.

I'm against someone receiving a penalty, in racing or any other area of life, for an incident that was unavoidable on their behalf and the cause of actions by an external force. This is one example of that

It is the team that should be penalized, not the driver.

It's totally unfair that Ferrari the team lost WCC points when Vettel impeded Hamilton at Canada. The team shouldn't lose points because of the actions that were solely down to the driver and not the team. The driver should be penalized, not the team.

For me it is not the same though, you can't separate WDC and WCC points like that. The team does not run as a separate entity to the driver during the race. You can't say that Vettel finished second but Ferrari deserved to win, so here are 25 WCC points.

On the contrary, the driver is separate from the team in the pit stop, he is not changing the tyres himself. If that makes sense.

But could you not argue that had the team not broken the rules and released Leclerc dangerously we have no way of knowing what would've happened? Leclerc gained an illegal advantage and gets that benefit.

If you do start factoring out team mistakes then why do it just for that? Both Ferrari's broke down in quali that wasn't the drivers fault either.

I think in situations where they both gain an advantage by doing something against the rules they both have to feel the penalty.

That's a good argument. But let's respect the Mod's wishes and maybe discuss somewhere else!

Siao7 wrote:

mikeyg123 wrote:

Siao7 wrote:

Alienturnedhuman wrote:

Jezza13 wrote:I can't see how a time penalty is justifiable & reasonable.

The driver is totally, 100% in the hands of the pit crew & it is the pit crew who has the obligation to release the car in a safe manner.

I'm against someone receiving a penalty, in racing or any other area of life, for an incident that was unavoidable on their behalf and the cause of actions by an external force. This is one example of that

It is the team that should be penalized, not the driver.

It's totally unfair that Ferrari the team lost WCC points when Vettel impeded Hamilton at Canada. The team shouldn't lose points because of the actions that were solely down to the driver and not the team. The driver should be penalized, not the team.

For me it is not the same though, you can't separate WDC and WCC points like that. The team does not run as a separate entity to the driver during the race. You can't say that Vettel finished second but Ferrari deserved to win, so here are 25 WCC points.

On the contrary, the driver is separate from the team in the pit stop, he is not changing the tyres himself. If that makes sense.

But could you not argue that had the team not broken the rules and released Leclerc dangerously we have no way of knowing what would've happened? Leclerc gained an illegal advantage and gets that benefit.

If you do start factoring out team mistakes then why do it just for that? Both Ferrari's broke down in quali that wasn't the drivers fault either.

I think in situations where they both gain an advantage by doing something against the rules they both have to feel the penalty.

That's a good argument. But let's respect the Mod's wishes and maybe discuss somewhere else!

Feel free to continue this conversation here