planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Jun 21, 2018 8:03 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:36 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:44 am
Posts: 170
Hey crew, I've been back at it again thinking about F1 in the shower.

So this year Redbull have an outside chance performance-wise to to mix it with Ferrari and Mercedes on a good day. However, I think most of us agree that they're unlikely to have the reliability to give Dan a real shot at the championship.

Now, I'm going to make a couple of purely anecdotal assumptions to begin with so feel free to correct me if you disagree. First is that the average or casual F1 fan cares a whole lot more about the driver championship than they do the constructors champion. The second is that the casual F1 fan probably doesn't fully understand why occasionally their favourite driver has to start at the back of grid, and this is probably frustrating.

So the problem I'm tackling here is how to impose a reliability penalty on teams WITHOUT penalising the fans or the entertainment value of the series. The answer I've arrived at is to take constructor championship points for going over the PU limit rather than grid penalties.

In theory this is just a more direct way to achieve the same result as is currently in place. IE, a team starting at the back of the grid is highly likely to score less points in that race. However, the difference with directly taking points is that it does NOT penalise the driver or the driver championship.

As I understand it a teams ranking in the constructor championship plays an important role in how prize money is awarded, so there is still a strong incentive to push for higher reliability from the teams end, however the fans and drivers are not penalised in the process.

I had more thoughts on this but forgot them throughout the day, so that should do it as a vague outline, and now the thought is part of the public domain and no longer my burden to carry.

Thanks guys!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1289
I have read your whole post and I don't mean to be dismissive, but: You win as a team and you lose as a team. As soon as you start separating the two where do you draw the line?

_________________
===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶ ===\ō͡≡\ō͡≡o˞̶===


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:44 am
Posts: 170
wolfticket wrote:
I have read your whole post and I don't mean to be dismissive, but: You win as a team and you lose as a team. As soon as you start separating the two where do you draw the line?


No problem at all! I suppose my answer to that would be that they are already separated, which is why we have a constructors and driver championship. I do take your point in the sense that it could further erode that sense of unity though!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:07 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13398
The big problem I would have with it is that it's not a penalty with parity down the field. A ten point penalty costs Sauber, FI and STR far more than it costs Merc, Ferrari or Red Bull.

It's frustrating but I think you win and lose as a team. If the driver crashes into the wall you wouldn't still give the team the WCC they would have got.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:11 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 9:44 am
Posts: 170
mikeyg123 wrote:
The big problem I would have with it is that it's not a penalty with parity down the field. A ten point penalty costs Sauber, FI and STR far more than it costs Merc, Ferrari or Red Bull.

It's frustrating but I think you win and lose as a team. If the driver crashes into the wall you wouldn't still give the team the WCC they would have got.


I'm actually having a tough time arguing with either of these points, great feedback.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 11:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 22608
I suppose one way of looking at it would be to separate sporting infringements from purely mechanical ones, although that would still have its own issues.

I think it's silly that if eg an engine fails in practice then a car/driver may suffer a grid penalty as a result. Who wins in this scenario? Particularly if it's a customer team with no control over manufacturing standards. I can't abide grid penalties in these situations


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:21 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2565
veffy wrote:
Hey crew, I've been back at it again thinking about F1 in the shower...
I may well have stopped reading at this point.

But I guess that you are seeking to separate the constructor punishment from the driver. All well and good but they are all part of the same team. It's a little like having a star footballer in a mediocre team - as good as he is, he is unlikely to win any trophies.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 161
Location: Kansas
veffy wrote:
Hey crew, I've been back at it again thinking about F1 in the shower.

So this year Redbull have an outside chance performance-wise to to mix it with Ferrari and Mercedes on a good day. However, I think most of us agree that they're unlikely to have the reliability to give Dan a real shot at the championship.

Now, I'm going to make a couple of purely anecdotal assumptions to begin with so feel free to correct me if you disagree. First is that the average or casual F1 fan cares a whole lot more about the driver championship than they do the constructors champion. The second is that the casual F1 fan probably doesn't fully understand why occasionally their favourite driver has to start at the back of grid, and this is probably frustrating.

So the problem I'm tackling here is how to impose a reliability penalty on teams WITHOUT penalising the fans or the entertainment value of the series. The answer I've arrived at is to take constructor championship points for going over the PU limit rather than grid penalties.

In theory this is just a more direct way to achieve the same result as is currently in place. IE, a team starting at the back of the grid is highly likely to score less points in that race. However, the difference with directly taking points is that it does NOT penalise the driver or the driver championship.

As I understand it a teams ranking in the constructor championship plays an important role in how prize money is awarded, so there is still a strong incentive to push for higher reliability from the teams end, however the fans and drivers are not penalised in the process.

I had more thoughts on this but forgot them throughout the day, so that should do it as a vague outline, and now the thought is part of the public domain and no longer my burden to carry.

Thanks guys!


I have advocated for this for a while now. For failures of any of the mechanical parameters that the FIA limits, making the team forfeit WCC points makes sense. As I remember the FIA have in the past penalized drivers WDC points for personal infractions for personal misdeeds. The FIA does hand out penalty points to drivers like Max Verstappen and Romain Grosjean. Grosjean was suspended by the FIA in 2012 for the Italian GP and was replaced by Lotus test and reserve driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio. The team still competed but Romain was not allowed to compete. It makes sense to me that the FIA would penalize only teams for things that are not in the drivers control.


Care should be take when separating penalties of WDC and WCC point because the teams and drivers should, to a significant extent, function as responsible for each other. Still in this case, the driver is an employee of the team and is not in charge of the quality or durability of the car provided for him or her.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 8:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13398
Mort Canard wrote:
veffy wrote:
Hey crew, I've been back at it again thinking about F1 in the shower.

So this year Redbull have an outside chance performance-wise to to mix it with Ferrari and Mercedes on a good day. However, I think most of us agree that they're unlikely to have the reliability to give Dan a real shot at the championship.

Now, I'm going to make a couple of purely anecdotal assumptions to begin with so feel free to correct me if you disagree. First is that the average or casual F1 fan cares a whole lot more about the driver championship than they do the constructors champion. The second is that the casual F1 fan probably doesn't fully understand why occasionally their favourite driver has to start at the back of grid, and this is probably frustrating.

So the problem I'm tackling here is how to impose a reliability penalty on teams WITHOUT penalising the fans or the entertainment value of the series. The answer I've arrived at is to take constructor championship points for going over the PU limit rather than grid penalties.

In theory this is just a more direct way to achieve the same result as is currently in place. IE, a team starting at the back of the grid is highly likely to score less points in that race. However, the difference with directly taking points is that it does NOT penalise the driver or the driver championship.

As I understand it a teams ranking in the constructor championship plays an important role in how prize money is awarded, so there is still a strong incentive to push for higher reliability from the teams end, however the fans and drivers are not penalised in the process.

I had more thoughts on this but forgot them throughout the day, so that should do it as a vague outline, and now the thought is part of the public domain and no longer my burden to carry.

Thanks guys!


I have advocated for this for a while now. For failures of any of the mechanical parameters that the FIA limits, making the team forfeit WCC points makes sense. As I remember the FIA have in the past penalized drivers WDC points for personal infractions for personal misdeeds. The FIA does hand out penalty points to drivers like Max Verstappen and Romain Grosjean. Grosjean was suspended by the FIA in 2012 for the Italian GP and was replaced by Lotus test and reserve driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio. The team still competed but Romain was not allowed to compete. It makes sense to me that the FIA would penalize only teams for things that are not in the drivers control.


Care should be take when separating penalties of WDC and WCC point because the teams and drivers should, to a significant extent, function as responsible for each other. Still in this case, the driver is an employee of the team and is not in charge of the quality or durability of the car provided for him or her.


As far as I know, no driver has had a point taken away for personal infractions. As I said in the thread previously the trouble with taking points from teams is that it's a much bigger penalty for the smaller teams. Merc won't notice a ten point penalty where as it would be a disaster for Sauber.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 340
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
veffy wrote:
Hey crew, I've been back at it again thinking about F1 in the shower.

So this year Redbull have an outside chance performance-wise to to mix it with Ferrari and Mercedes on a good day. However, I think most of us agree that they're unlikely to have the reliability to give Dan a real shot at the championship.

Now, I'm going to make a couple of purely anecdotal assumptions to begin with so feel free to correct me if you disagree. First is that the average or casual F1 fan cares a whole lot more about the driver championship than they do the constructors champion. The second is that the casual F1 fan probably doesn't fully understand why occasionally their favourite driver has to start at the back of grid, and this is probably frustrating.

So the problem I'm tackling here is how to impose a reliability penalty on teams WITHOUT penalising the fans or the entertainment value of the series. The answer I've arrived at is to take constructor championship points for going over the PU limit rather than grid penalties.

In theory this is just a more direct way to achieve the same result as is currently in place. IE, a team starting at the back of the grid is highly likely to score less points in that race. However, the difference with directly taking points is that it does NOT penalise the driver or the driver championship.

As I understand it a teams ranking in the constructor championship plays an important role in how prize money is awarded, so there is still a strong incentive to push for higher reliability from the teams end, however the fans and drivers are not penalised in the process.

I had more thoughts on this but forgot them throughout the day, so that should do it as a vague outline, and now the thought is part of the public domain and no longer my burden to carry.

Thanks guys!


I have advocated for this for a while now. For failures of any of the mechanical parameters that the FIA limits, making the team forfeit WCC points makes sense. As I remember the FIA have in the past penalized drivers WDC points for personal infractions for personal misdeeds. The FIA does hand out penalty points to drivers like Max Verstappen and Romain Grosjean. Grosjean was suspended by the FIA in 2012 for the Italian GP and was replaced by Lotus test and reserve driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio. The team still competed but Romain was not allowed to compete. It makes sense to me that the FIA would penalize only teams for things that are not in the drivers control.


Care should be take when separating penalties of WDC and WCC point because the teams and drivers should, to a significant extent, function as responsible for each other. Still in this case, the driver is an employee of the team and is not in charge of the quality or durability of the car provided for him or her.


As far as I know, no driver has had a point taken away for personal infractions. As I said in the thread previously the trouble with taking points from teams is that it's a much bigger penalty for the smaller teams. Merc won't notice a ten point penalty where as it would be a disaster for Sauber.

First one that springs to mind is Schumacher being disqualified from the whole 1997 season and Ferrari keeping points...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13398
dompclarke wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
veffy wrote:
Hey crew, I've been back at it again thinking about F1 in the shower.

So this year Redbull have an outside chance performance-wise to to mix it with Ferrari and Mercedes on a good day. However, I think most of us agree that they're unlikely to have the reliability to give Dan a real shot at the championship.

Now, I'm going to make a couple of purely anecdotal assumptions to begin with so feel free to correct me if you disagree. First is that the average or casual F1 fan cares a whole lot more about the driver championship than they do the constructors champion. The second is that the casual F1 fan probably doesn't fully understand why occasionally their favourite driver has to start at the back of grid, and this is probably frustrating.

So the problem I'm tackling here is how to impose a reliability penalty on teams WITHOUT penalising the fans or the entertainment value of the series. The answer I've arrived at is to take constructor championship points for going over the PU limit rather than grid penalties.

In theory this is just a more direct way to achieve the same result as is currently in place. IE, a team starting at the back of the grid is highly likely to score less points in that race. However, the difference with directly taking points is that it does NOT penalise the driver or the driver championship.

As I understand it a teams ranking in the constructor championship plays an important role in how prize money is awarded, so there is still a strong incentive to push for higher reliability from the teams end, however the fans and drivers are not penalised in the process.

I had more thoughts on this but forgot them throughout the day, so that should do it as a vague outline, and now the thought is part of the public domain and no longer my burden to carry.

Thanks guys!


I have advocated for this for a while now. For failures of any of the mechanical parameters that the FIA limits, making the team forfeit WCC points makes sense. As I remember the FIA have in the past penalized drivers WDC points for personal infractions for personal misdeeds. The FIA does hand out penalty points to drivers like Max Verstappen and Romain Grosjean. Grosjean was suspended by the FIA in 2012 for the Italian GP and was replaced by Lotus test and reserve driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio. The team still competed but Romain was not allowed to compete. It makes sense to me that the FIA would penalize only teams for things that are not in the drivers control.


Care should be take when separating penalties of WDC and WCC point because the teams and drivers should, to a significant extent, function as responsible for each other. Still in this case, the driver is an employee of the team and is not in charge of the quality or durability of the car provided for him or her.


As far as I know, no driver has had a point taken away for personal infractions. As I said in the thread previously the trouble with taking points from teams is that it's a much bigger penalty for the smaller teams. Merc won't notice a ten point penalty where as it would be a disaster for Sauber.

First one that springs to mind is Schumacher being disqualified from the whole 1997 season and Ferrari keeping points...


Schumacher actually kept his points. All he lost was his official championship position. The points he scored still count towards all his stats.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 340
mikeyg123 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
veffy wrote:
Hey crew, I've been back at it again thinking about F1 in the shower.

So this year Redbull have an outside chance performance-wise to to mix it with Ferrari and Mercedes on a good day. However, I think most of us agree that they're unlikely to have the reliability to give Dan a real shot at the championship.

Now, I'm going to make a couple of purely anecdotal assumptions to begin with so feel free to correct me if you disagree. First is that the average or casual F1 fan cares a whole lot more about the driver championship than they do the constructors champion. The second is that the casual F1 fan probably doesn't fully understand why occasionally their favourite driver has to start at the back of grid, and this is probably frustrating.

So the problem I'm tackling here is how to impose a reliability penalty on teams WITHOUT penalising the fans or the entertainment value of the series. The answer I've arrived at is to take constructor championship points for going over the PU limit rather than grid penalties.

In theory this is just a more direct way to achieve the same result as is currently in place. IE, a team starting at the back of the grid is highly likely to score less points in that race. However, the difference with directly taking points is that it does NOT penalise the driver or the driver championship.

As I understand it a teams ranking in the constructor championship plays an important role in how prize money is awarded, so there is still a strong incentive to push for higher reliability from the teams end, however the fans and drivers are not penalised in the process.

I had more thoughts on this but forgot them throughout the day, so that should do it as a vague outline, and now the thought is part of the public domain and no longer my burden to carry.

Thanks guys!


I have advocated for this for a while now. For failures of any of the mechanical parameters that the FIA limits, making the team forfeit WCC points makes sense. As I remember the FIA have in the past penalized drivers WDC points for personal infractions for personal misdeeds. The FIA does hand out penalty points to drivers like Max Verstappen and Romain Grosjean. Grosjean was suspended by the FIA in 2012 for the Italian GP and was replaced by Lotus test and reserve driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio. The team still competed but Romain was not allowed to compete. It makes sense to me that the FIA would penalize only teams for things that are not in the drivers control.


Care should be take when separating penalties of WDC and WCC point because the teams and drivers should, to a significant extent, function as responsible for each other. Still in this case, the driver is an employee of the team and is not in charge of the quality or durability of the car provided for him or her.


As far as I know, no driver has had a point taken away for personal infractions. As I said in the thread previously the trouble with taking points from teams is that it's a much bigger penalty for the smaller teams. Merc won't notice a ten point penalty where as it would be a disaster for Sauber.

First one that springs to mind is Schumacher being disqualified from the whole 1997 season and Ferrari keeping points...


Schumacher actually kept his points. All he lost was his official championship position. The points he scored still count towards all his stats.

I sit corrected, weird decision then


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13398
dompclarke wrote:
I sit corrected, weird decision then


Just a clever way to look like you're giving a very harsh penalty without actually doing anything.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1941
This doesn't really work.

Imagine this scenario: its five races to go and Ferrari don't have a realistic chance of winning the WCC because Kimi has crashed too often, but Vettel has been consistent and picked up a couple of wins and is 20 odd points behind Lewis and Max who are neck and neck (as are Merc and RBR in the WCC). Ferrari's historic payments mean they are coming out of the season with a healthy pay packet regardless of their WCC position. Under this scenario they could just give Vettel a new engine every race - giving him an unfair disadvantage in the WDC.

Might be a far fetched scenario, (and I've not put that much thought into so it might not be mathematically possible) but I think it illustrates how it could be abused with a bit of thought.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:33 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1289
I do appreciate that the OP is attempting to deal with issues that have an effect on the fans and racing. But I also perceive this as a band-aid, and not dealing with the actual disease.

This is Formula One, I (and I am sure, many others) want to see the drivers and cars going 100% all the time. Yet recently, we have seen very slow races, all the drivers driving to deltas because of reliability issues or conserving the tires. I already expressed my opinion on the tires, fix them, don't make them so freaking fragile or requiring running within a very narrow temperature range. The original concept had good intentions on spicing up the show, but the end result is that in too many races, we the fans suffer by a lack of hard racing.

And so it goes with the power unit rules. Yes, the engine manufacturers want to look good by having hybrid engines that last. But I say, screw the engine manufacturers. Formula one is not a benefit for them, it is to serve the fans, to give them excitement and thrills. The solution is to relax the power unit penalties, don't squeeze the life out of the engines and enjoyment.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jun 17, 2018 9:42 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 145
Mort Canard wrote:
Care should be take when separating penalties of WDC and WCC point because the teams and drivers should, to a significant extent, function as responsible for each other. Still in this case, the driver is an employee of the team and is not in charge of the quality or durability of the car provided for him or her.


Just playing devils advicate, but what if the issues are as a result of the way the driver drives? He might be pushing too much, or he bins the car, and forces the team to make the necessary changes.

I agree with the win as a team, lose as a team comment. Perhaps we get rid of the grid penalty and award the penalised team and driver 50% of the points haul they would have received.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:35 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:49 am
Posts: 266
A problem to consider is what if a team decides they do not care about the manufacturer points as most publicity will go to the team with the winning driver. So new engine every week to give their lead driver the most chance of winning the championship....and just market being the provider of the winning car.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 23, 2014 3:53 am
Posts: 5251
Location: Michigan, USA
mikeyg123 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
I sit corrected, weird decision then

Just a clever way to look like you're giving a very harsh penalty without actually doing anything.

This is frequently stated, and I disagree with it every time. Taking away Schumacher's lifetime legacy - his points and wins - was not the point of the penalty, and would have been totally disconnected to what he did anyway; he didn't cheat for any of those wins, so why take them away? The point was to disqualify him from the season, meaning that any future attempt to ram a championship rival to win the championship would be met with instant disqualification, hence rendering it an impossible way to win a championship and meaning that nobody would ever try. The penalty worked: nobody has tried it since, while the previous 9 years saw 4 separate attempts (1989, 1990, 1994, 1997).

If you think Schumacher should have been banned for some length of time I can also see that, but that's a separate argument. I don't see any reason however why his wins earlier in the season should have been rendered void simply because he cheated later in the season.

I think there's a better case for 2007, where Lewis and Fernando arguably shouldn't have been allowed to keep wins they scored in an illegal car, which was illegal (copied from a competitor's intellectual property) for every one of those wins.

_________________
PF1 PICK 10 COMPETITION (3 wins, 12 podiums): 2017: 19th| 2016: 3rd| 2015: 4th
PF1 TOP THREE TEAM CHAMPIONSHIP (No Limit Excedrin Racing): 2017: 2nd| 2015: 1st
AUTOSPORT GP PREDICTOR: 2017 United States Champion! (world #2)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 5:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 13398
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
I sit corrected, weird decision then

Just a clever way to look like you're giving a very harsh penalty without actually doing anything.

This is frequently stated, and I disagree with it every time. Taking away Schumacher's lifetime legacy - his points and wins - was not the point of the penalty, and would have been totally disconnected to what he did anyway; he didn't cheat for any of those wins, so why take them away? The point was to disqualify him from the season, meaning that any future attempt to ram a championship rival to win the championship would be met with instant disqualification, hence rendering it an impossible way to win a championship and meaning that nobody would ever try. The penalty worked: nobody has tried it since, while the previous 9 years saw 4 separate attempts (1989, 1990, 1994, 1997).

If you think Schumacher should have been banned for some length of time I can also see that, but that's a separate argument. I don't see any reason however why his wins earlier in the season should have been rendered void simply because he cheated later in the season.

I think there's a better case for 2007, where Lewis and Fernando arguably shouldn't have been allowed to keep wins they scored in an illegal car, which was illegal (copied from a competitor's intellectual property) for every one of those wins.


I understand the logic of the penalty. I would also have extended a ban into the following season. And yes you could certainly make a sporting argument for the Mclaren drivers to be DSQ'd in 07. I think had they not been in such a dramatic championship fight they would have been.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 7:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 145
iano wrote:
A problem to consider is what if a team decides they do not care about the manufacturer points as most publicity will go to the team with the winning driver. So new engine every week to give their lead driver the most chance of winning the championship....and just market being the provider of the winning car.


So, much like the good ol’ days, where Grand Prixs were measured as individual races, before they threw in the championship


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 11:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:47 pm
Posts: 2833
Dragging the thread slightly back on-topic, the only way I can see deducting WCC points instead of grid penalties working is if the deduction is based on a certain percentage of a team's WCC points. You couldn't simply replace (and this is purely an example) a 5 place grid drop with a 5 point WCC deduction because, as has been mentioned, it's a penalty that is going to punish each team differently. If it was a set percentage of a team's WCC points - again, as an example, 5% of their total - then I'd consider it a more even penalty. Even then it's still not ideal because if a team has a large enough cushion over the next team - or in Ferrari's case, they simply put more focus on the WDC than the WCC - then it isn't going to actually act as a deterrent.

Also, if the point of removing grid penalties is to help avoid situations where drivers are penalised through no (or little) fault of their own, doesn't this just mean teams are going to end up being penalised through no fault of their own? It hardly seems fair if a small team like Haas are buying engines from Ferrari, suffering reliability issues with those engines, and then losing WCC points because of that.

In terms of simplicity, WCC points deductions is definitely the easiest route. But it seems like it would just be replacing one flawed system with another flawed system. Not that I can propose a better solution! In my opinion the only real solution is to remove the limitations on gearbox/engine elements entirely, as that's the only way you'll never have to penalise teams/drivers from using more than they're allowed to. But that's a no-go because as soon as you do that, costs will spiral out of control and that becomes a whole other problem in itself...

_________________
Cheering for: Leclerc, Hulkenberg, Vandoorne
Pick 10 | 1 win, 10 podiums
2017: 6th | 2016: 8th | 2015: 2nd | 2014: 15th | 2013: 17th | 2012: 11th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 12:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1042
Location: Far side of Koozebane
So here's some cannon fodder for the thinkers out there.

Start up a 3rd championship for engine suppliers with a pretty decent carrot at the end for the winner. Each component failure costs the supplier points in that championship.

That way it won't affect the WDC or WCC.

Yes obviously there's flaws that are plain to see but would those flaws be any worse than we have now? I don't think there's a perfect answer here but I reckon a suppliers championship could go as close as it's going to get.

_________________
Pressure is a Messerschmitt up your ar$e, cricket is not.
- Keith Miller, Australian cricket legend and WWII pilot.


2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 12:49 am
Posts: 266
Jezza13 wrote:
So here's some cannon fodder for the thinkers out there.

Start up a 3rd championship for engine suppliers with a pretty decent carrot at the end for the winner. Each component failure costs the supplier points in that championship.

That way it won't affect the WDC or WCC.

Yes obviously there's flaws that are plain to see but would those flaws be any worse than we have now? I don't think there's a perfect answer here but I reckon a suppliers championship could go as close as it's going to get.

That thought occurred to me also.... but I was thinking that to do it properly you would need to have arms length between engine supplier and all teams. So Ferrari engines supplying Ferrari chassis should have same deal as Haas does. Not sure if that is practical though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jun 18, 2018 9:22 pm 
Offline

Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 8:31 am
Posts: 145
Jezza13 wrote:
So here's some cannon fodder for the thinkers out there.

Start up a 3rd championship for engine suppliers with a pretty decent carrot at the end for the winner. Each component failure costs the supplier points in that championship.

That way it won't affect the WDC or WCC.

Yes obviously there's flaws that are plain to see but would those flaws be any worse than we have now? I don't think there's a perfect answer here but I reckon a suppliers championship could go as close as it's going to get.


That’s a good idea. CART did a similar thing in the 90s. They would show championship points based on Chasis, Engine and Tyres. They also had a Nations Cup one year, and would show points based on driver nationality.
Not sure if there was ever any monetary award attached to it, but it’s not a foreign concept


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 12:47 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 161
Location: Kansas
mikeyg123 wrote:
Mort Canard wrote:
veffy wrote:
Hey crew, I've been back at it again thinking about F1 in the shower.

So this year Redbull have an outside chance performance-wise to to mix it with Ferrari and Mercedes on a good day. However, I think most of us agree that they're unlikely to have the reliability to give Dan a real shot at the championship.

Now, I'm going to make a couple of purely anecdotal assumptions to begin with so feel free to correct me if you disagree. First is that the average or casual F1 fan cares a whole lot more about the driver championship than they do the constructors champion. The second is that the casual F1 fan probably doesn't fully understand why occasionally their favourite driver has to start at the back of grid, and this is probably frustrating.

So the problem I'm tackling here is how to impose a reliability penalty on teams WITHOUT penalising the fans or the entertainment value of the series. The answer I've arrived at is to take constructor championship points for going over the PU limit rather than grid penalties.

In theory this is just a more direct way to achieve the same result as is currently in place. IE, a team starting at the back of the grid is highly likely to score less points in that race. However, the difference with directly taking points is that it does NOT penalise the driver or the driver championship.

As I understand it a teams ranking in the constructor championship plays an important role in how prize money is awarded, so there is still a strong incentive to push for higher reliability from the teams end, however the fans and drivers are not penalised in the process.

I had more thoughts on this but forgot them throughout the day, so that should do it as a vague outline, and now the thought is part of the public domain and no longer my burden to carry.

Thanks guys!


I have advocated for this for a while now. For failures of any of the mechanical parameters that the FIA limits, making the team forfeit WCC points makes sense. As I remember the FIA have in the past penalized drivers WDC points for personal infractions for personal misdeeds. The FIA does hand out penalty points to drivers like Max Verstappen and Romain Grosjean. Grosjean was suspended by the FIA in 2012 for the Italian GP and was replaced by Lotus test and reserve driver Jérôme d'Ambrosio. The team still competed but Romain was not allowed to compete. It makes sense to me that the FIA would penalize only teams for things that are not in the drivers control.


Care should be take when separating penalties of WDC and WCC point because the teams and drivers should, to a significant extent, function as responsible for each other. Still in this case, the driver is an employee of the team and is not in charge of the quality or durability of the car provided for him or her.


As far as I know, no driver has had a point taken away for personal infractions. As I said in the thread previously the trouble with taking points from teams is that it's a much bigger penalty for the smaller teams. Merc won't notice a ten point penalty where as it would be a disaster for Sauber.


You are probably right about not having points being removed but there have been quite a number of drivers who have been excluded from one or more races for personal infractions. Their teams were then allowed to go ahead and use substitute drivers to fill the seat for those races.

Obviously you can't just exclude a team for a team infraction and not penalize the driver. What would the driver drive. The solution is to remover WCC points and not penalize the driver.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 3858
Herb wrote:
This doesn't really work.

Imagine this scenario: its five races to go and Ferrari don't have a realistic chance of winning the WCC because Kimi has crashed too often, but Vettel has been consistent and picked up a couple of wins and is 20 odd points behind Lewis and Max who are neck and neck (as are Merc and RBR in the WCC). Ferrari's historic payments mean they are coming out of the season with a healthy pay packet regardless of their WCC position. Under this scenario they could just give Vettel a new engine every race - giving him an unfair disadvantage in the WDC.

Might be a far fetched scenario, (and I've not put that much thought into so it might not be mathematically possible) but I think it illustrates how it could be abused with a bit of thought.

I agree.

It could and, under the right circumstances, would be abused.

The WDC is largely dependent on the car anyway, so I can't see the point of introducing this type of system.

Edit - As others have said, win as a team - lose as a team. Much as we all occasionally dislike the loss of grid positions as a result of car problems - penalising constructor points rather than driver positions would only open a new 'can of worms'.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jun 19, 2018 4:39 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Jun 11, 2012 3:22 am
Posts: 3858
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
I sit corrected, weird decision then

Just a clever way to look like you're giving a very harsh penalty without actually doing anything.

This is frequently stated, and I disagree with it every time. Taking away Schumacher's lifetime legacy - his points and wins - was not the point of the penalty, and would have been totally disconnected to what he did anyway; he didn't cheat for any of those wins, so why take them away? The point was to disqualify him from the season, meaning that any future attempt to ram a championship rival to win the championship would be met with instant disqualification, hence rendering it an impossible way to win a championship and meaning that nobody would ever try. The penalty worked: nobody has tried it since, while the previous 9 years saw 4 separate attempts (1989, 1990, 1994, 1997).

If you think Schumacher should have been banned for some length of time I can also see that, but that's a separate argument. I don't see any reason however why his wins earlier in the season should have been rendered void simply because he cheated later in the season.

I think there's a better case for 2007, where Lewis and Fernando arguably shouldn't have been allowed to keep wins they scored in an illegal car, which was illegal (copied from a competitor's intellectual property) for every one of those wins.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 12:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 340
Exediron wrote:
mikeyg123 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
I sit corrected, weird decision then

Just a clever way to look like you're giving a very harsh penalty without actually doing anything.

This is frequently stated, and I disagree with it every time. Taking away Schumacher's lifetime legacy - his points and wins - was not the point of the penalty, and would have been totally disconnected to what he did anyway; he didn't cheat for any of those wins, so why take them away? The point was to disqualify him from the season, meaning that any future attempt to ram a championship rival to win the championship would be met with instant disqualification, hence rendering it an impossible way to win a championship and meaning that nobody would ever try. The penalty worked: nobody has tried it since, while the previous 9 years saw 4 separate attempts (1989, 1990, 1994, 1997).

If you think Schumacher should have been banned for some length of time I can also see that, but that's a separate argument. I don't see any reason however why his wins earlier in the season should have been rendered void simply because he cheated later in the season.

I think there's a better case for 2007, where Lewis and Fernando arguably shouldn't have been allowed to keep wins they scored in an illegal car, which was illegal (copied from a competitor's intellectual property) for every one of those wins.

Where's the evidence that the car had any parts on it that had been influenced by competitors intellectual property? McLaren was found to be in possession of documents and that there was no evidence of their information having being passed into the team or used in their car.

Also I would argue that the cars were not illegal even if they had contained parts influenced by these documents, illegal would mean not being able to pass FIA tests and inspections to compete in the championship, therefore the drivers should keep their points from that perspective.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jun 20, 2018 1:04 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 340
iano wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
So here's some cannon fodder for the thinkers out there.

Start up a 3rd championship for engine suppliers with a pretty decent carrot at the end for the winner. Each component failure costs the supplier points in that championship.

That way it won't affect the WDC or WCC.

Yes obviously there's flaws that are plain to see but would those flaws be any worse than we have now? I don't think there's a perfect answer here but I reckon a suppliers championship could go as close as it's going to get.

That thought occurred to me also.... but I was thinking that to do it properly you would need to have arms length between engine supplier and all teams. So Ferrari engines supplying Ferrari chassis should have same deal as Haas does. Not sure if that is practical though.

I'd go a step futher and say that this would only work with engine manufacturers not owning teams at all. If you take the engine penalties so they don't affect the team just the engine championship then Ferrari/Merc etc would have a new engine every session whereas the customer teams wouldn't due to cost and therefore wouldn't be able to run their engines as hard.

I suppose you could get around this by making season engine costs to customers set regardless of number of units used and that customer teams must have unrestricted access to the same number of units used by the Manufacturer/factory team. This was every time Mercedes fit an extra unit to one of their cars Williams and FI have immediate access to do the same...

Don't think it's practical, but...


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: AravJ, Google Adsense [Bot], Lotus49, RaggedMan and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group