planetf1.com

It is currently Thu Sep 20, 2018 6:01 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 4:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Not a fan of the 10-second penalty. It's a real penalty when enforced during a pit stop... 10-seconds added to the length of the stop itself. Much less a penalty when added as time at the end of a race. Verstappen's 10-second penalty in China amounted to an inconvenience, more than a penalty, as he lost only 1 place in the finishing order. The better drivers with better equipment can more or less eliminate the penalty, especially if it occurs early enough in the race, and the penalized driver has plenty of time to make back all the time. No harm, no foul, for causing an accident. I'm sure Verstappen did not lose any sleep (or learn any lessons) over his "penalty" in China.

Not fair, IMO. Further, the mid-pack and backmarkers don't get the opportunity to wipe-out the penalty as easily with their lesser equipment/skills, so they are punished more than drivers at the front. So, I see this as unfair all around.

I'd like to see the penalty lengthened to at least 20-seconds (maybe 30?) In this manner, it would be more like the old days of drive through penalties, when the in/out time on pit lane equalled 20-seconds or so.

Discuss...

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 8:04 am
Posts: 1855
I understand its same for all, but it rarely is same for all. There have been numerous occasions where drivers have lost nothing because they were able to make up that 10 sec loss at the expense of the driver they hit.
I say get rid of 10 sec time penalty. It has to be 10 second stop and go penalty(cant be combined with the pit stop) or whatever the average pit time is. If you spin out any driver or cause race hampering damage to his car and its judged as primarily mistake of one driver, that should be minimum punishment. I know it will ruin races of some offending drivers, but when you spoil someone else's race, you must face that. Exclude corner 1 and 2 incidents on opening lap from this automatic penalty, let stewards actually do their job and judge those on merit. But for something like what Max did, it should be stop and go penalty minimum.


Last edited by funkymonkey on Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:09 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:22 pm 
I think it can equally be a none issue when served in a pit stop too. For example, Rosberg got one in 2016 and pulled away enough to be able to come out still in front. Ironically, Mercedes gave him an 8 second penalty in error and he still came out behind but he shouldn't have. It also, will always hurt you more the earlier in the race it is given since the cars are less spread out then.

However, to say Max lost nothing is incorrect. My take was, he didn't bother to overtake Kimi and Bottas because by the time he caught them, there was only 4 laps to go and he wasn't going to be able to pull 10 seconds to them so just held station. So Verstappen arguably lost 2nd and ended up 5th.

I much prefer this new penalties to the old ones we had were the minimum penalty has a drive through, that would cost you 15-20 seconds depending on the track.


Top
  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 5:53 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2013
I prefer the drive-through penalty because then, after serving the penalty, the order of cars on the track is the real one - which is more viewer-friendly. Even more ideal would be a penalty lane where differing severe penalties could be served by driving through it - but, of course, it would be expensive/impossible to build in some circuits.

I also like the idea of a yellow card system, where a driver receives a warning and a certaion number of warnings results in penalties like grid penalties and - at the end of the day - a race-ban. For instance, for any 20 race period, third warning = 5 place grid penalty, fourth warning = 10 place grid penalty, fifth warning = one frace-ban, or so.
I know there is this penalty point system on the licences but it seems rather intransparent and jumping from no penalty to a race-ban - which I find too much. Also, only things that are the fault of the driver should lead to such warnings/penalty points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 6:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 2:03 pm
Posts: 1307
The main problem is that 10 seconds added onto the end of the race doesn't effect track position, so it can it's effects can be very uneven depending upon the race situation

I quite like the 5 second penalty though for minor infractions, and a pit drive through penalty is way more than that, so I guess my solution would be a penalty lane.

If the penalty lane was equivalent to 5 seconds added lap time then it would remove all this questionable "giving back of places" that seems fairly informal, as well as making the 5 second penalty have the same effect whenever it happens in the race. You could even give out consecutive penalties instead of 10 seconds etc.

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jan 28, 2012 4:13 pm
Posts: 14042
I agree, 5 seconds for a minor infraction, drive through for more.

I guess though you could say a drive through is unfair. I drive through in Silverstone is a much smaller penalty than a drive through in Shanghai.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 7:56 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 12:07 pm
Posts: 9256
What if the FIA could order a driver to give back a place? Would be a better penalty than a time penalty for minor infringements IMO. Drive through for anything more major.

_________________
Räikkönen - Vettel - Bottas
Thank you Nico - You´re the champ!

PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2016: CHAMPION (2 wins, 8 podiums)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 8:03 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Jul 20, 2014 10:15 am
Posts: 1447
I still think 10 seconds and 2 penalty points seemed realistic at the time. If they ever waited until the end of the race and found out that the driver who wasn't at fault suffered, it would be interesting if they could add a larger penalty then. But every time we think of something that may work out better, there will suddenly be a disadvantage found somewhere. Compared to incidents over the last few years, 10 seconds seemed ok. Think about what Kimi did on Bottas at the end of Russia in 2015. I think we can all agree that was much worse than what Verstappen did. He got a 30 second time penalty. 3 penalty points too if I am correct. Although it was incredibly clumsy, it was only light contact with Vettel. It caused some damage, but not that much. 30 seconds or a drive through would seem unfair compared to others. But then this reminds me of what Bottas did in Bahrain 2016. He had contact with Hamilton and Hamilton got probably similar damage to Vettel. He got an instant drive through penalty for a first corner incident. That was one penalty I thought seemed very harsh at the time.

Maybe they have become more relaxed since 2017, but I have to say, I'm agreeing with the penalties much more than I used to. The thing that I don't think enough people realise is when they complain about 2 accidents being exactly the same and getting different penalties. You never get a totally identical accident. The stewards have more date and evidence than we do. I do get a bit wound up with some of their decisions, but I think we should respect them in the time they sometimes have to decide in. They can't predict what will happen later on in the race and find out that the penalty did nothing. And it would be unfair to add another penalty on top if that happened.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Apr 16, 2018 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon May 30, 2005 7:58 pm
Posts: 90
Yeah I prefer drive through penalties/stop-go's that they have to do within 3 laps and stuff because its a real time punishment, the driver has to do something he would rather not do, this adding 10 to a time at the end is silly, id understand if the decision was reached a lap or 2 from the end but all it did was more or less tell max to try and get as close to 10 seconds or over so it doesn't compromise your race too much.

One thing that always irked me was stuff like when schumi go pole for Mercedes in Monaco but had a penalty drop to take but they interviewed him and stuff as if he was still starting from pole, he's not really on pole..whoever came second technically is, this sorting out penalties after its all done takes away from the result


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 4:01 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 21, 2009 5:09 am
Posts: 2784
Location: Perth, Australia
I would support five and 10-second penalties for minor infractions like repeated cutting (Massa in Brazil in 2013) and timed pit-lane penalties for incidents in which serious contact is made between two cars (Verstappen on Vettel in China, 2018).

_________________
Image


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
I too prefer a drive through penalty. However, I think people are misunderstanding the point of the penalty.

It is not to lose places, or to impact the result. It is a handicap. You need to be better +10. It's just unfortunate that there's often another driver who was crashed in to, and is now missing out.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 10:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 11, 2010 5:05 pm
Posts: 2596
Location: Finland
Basically they set a precedent, that you can knock another car out and get away with just a 10 second penalty. Such scenario could come in handy many times, especially when a championship is on the line later on.

_________________
“I'm happy, but there's nothing to jump around about.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:04 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23692
Ennis wrote:
I too prefer a drive through penalty. However, I think people are misunderstanding the point of the penalty.

It is not to lose places, or to impact the result. It is a handicap. You need to be better +10. It's just unfortunate that there's often another driver who was crashed in to, and is now missing out.

is that the point, though? Surely it's to act as a deterrent against doing it again, and if that's the case then the consequences of the actions should factor into the punishment


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Jun 09, 2014 8:26 pm
Posts: 199
froze wrote:
Basically they set a precedent, that you can knock another car out and get away with just a 10 second penalty.
This

before Senna & Schumacher inspired a generation of "I Own The Tarmac" kids, mindsets such as Verstappen's (And Marquez in MotoGp) would never have been tolerated. A delegation of other drivers would have taken the kid behind the bike sheds and forcibly explained why they shouldn't do that again, ever!

God knows I don't want to discourage overtaking but from Karts upwards today all you see are drivers putting their cars in a place where unless the other driver gives way they will be a collision. This isn't circuit racing, it's Demolition Derby.

Nothing will change until and unless high profile rider/drivers receive race bans, both Marquez and Verstappen are serial offenders, enough is enough.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
froze wrote:
Basically they set a precedent, that you can knock another car out and get away with just a 10 second penalty. Such scenario could come in handy many times, especially when a championship is on the line later on.
Back in the 60's-70's, you didn't dare knock out another car, because it could mean your life, or another's. Today's bumper cars make it safer and more understandable to hip-check another car to the side. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

The slap on the wrist time penalties simply don't fit the "crime." And a 10-second penalty is nothiung more than a joke, considering that in the past, people have died, instead.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 1:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6294
MB-BOB wrote:
froze wrote:
Basically they set a precedent, that you can knock another car out and get away with just a 10 second penalty. Such scenario could come in handy many times, especially when a championship is on the line later on.
Back in the 60's-70's, you didn't dare knock out another car, because it could mean your life, or another's. Today's bumper cars make it safer and more understandable to hip-check another car to the side. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

The slap on the wrist time penalties simply don't fit the "crime." And a 10-second penalty is nothiung more than a joke, considering that in the past, people have died, instead.


I'm sorry, what a nonsensical sentence... People died in the past, but what does this have to do with anything? This is 2018, times change and cars are safer, shall we penalise them for that? People also used to challenge each other in duels, shall we revert to that?

Plus, you are overreacting here; NO driver risks hitting their cars intentionally. Yes it doesn't cost anyone's life anymore, but why would anyone risk any kind of damage costing them points? They way some posters write is like they are in Super Mario Kartland... It's not, no driver would rather hit someone risking damage. Max made contact as he misjudged his breaking point, he didn't try to ram Vettel off the track, so why comparing this failed overtake to intentionally knocking out other cars? Beggars belief...

It just leaves bad taste as the culprit finished ahead of the victim, I agree with this. Maybe they should revisit the penalty system, yes, but don't overreact.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 6:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sat May 26, 2012 2:04 pm
Posts: 2013
froze wrote:
Basically they set a precedent, that you can knock another car out and get away with just a 10 second penalty. Such scenario could come in handy many times, especially when a championship is on the line later on.


:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 30, 2017 12:58 am
Posts: 323
Location: Kansas
Drive though penalty makes sense to me. Pit stop should not be combined with penalty. On some tracks a separate penalty lane could be implemented. Separate penalty lane would not be feasible at Monaco or possibly a few other tracks. Time in the pit stall can be added to the drive through depending on the severety of the infraction.

Make sure that the penalty is served during a window of a few laps set by the stewards, NOT the team or driver. If the driver does not serve the penalty during that window, stop scoring them.

Infractions late in the race will still require a time penalty as a drive through can't be imposed for infractions in the last couple of laps. Witness Max Verstappen's corner cutting during last year's US GP.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 11:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Dec 02, 2017 7:05 pm
Posts: 235
Location: Dallas, TX, USA
Siao7 wrote:
MB-BOB wrote:
froze wrote:
Basically they set a precedent, that you can knock another car out and get away with just a 10 second penalty. Such scenario could come in handy many times, especially when a championship is on the line later on.
Back in the 60's-70's, you didn't dare knock out another car, because it could mean your life, or another's. Today's bumper cars make it safer and more understandable to hip-check another car to the side. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

The slap on the wrist time penalties simply don't fit the "crime." And a 10-second penalty is nothiung more than a joke, considering that in the past, people have died, instead.


I'm sorry, what a nonsensical sentence... People died in the past, but what does this have to do with anything? This is 2018, times change and cars are safer, shall we penalise them for that? People also used to challenge each other in duels, shall we revert to that?

Plus, you are overreacting here; NO driver risks hitting their cars intentionally. Yes it doesn't cost anyone's life anymore, but why would anyone risk any kind of damage costing them points? They way some posters write is like they are in Super Mario Kartland... It's not, no driver would rather hit someone risking damage. Max made contact as he misjudged his breaking point, he didn't try to ram Vettel off the track, so why comparing this failed overtake to intentionally knocking out other cars? Beggars belief...

It just leaves bad taste as the culprit finished ahead of the victim, I agree with this. Maybe they should revisit the penalty system, yes, but don't overreact.

You should be sorry, indeed. My opinion is mine, and your opinoin is yours. My post was neither nonsensical nor overreacting, and your personal attack is not warranted.

Verstappen (and others) fully decide to divebomb in these situations, coldly calculating that either they get through, or they risk damage, possibly race-ending damage. So, it's my opinion that Verstappen "intentionally risks" hitting another car, thinking the risk is worth the potential reward. To suggest he thinks otherwise is to think he is just stupid, instead, so I give Verstappen the benefit of the doubt.

Point is, there is little risk to life or limb as in the past, so why not go for it... the worse that can happen is that he punts himself from the race, or in this case, acquires a worthless 10-second penalty that he can make up in just a few laps.

State your opinion, but keep the condescending remarks to yourself.

_________________
Short-time member, Life-Long Fan from 1965 -- More than 550 Grand Prix recorded since 1982 (all but 3), and counting...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23692
MB-BOB wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MB-BOB wrote:
froze wrote:
Basically they set a precedent, that you can knock another car out and get away with just a 10 second penalty. Such scenario could come in handy many times, especially when a championship is on the line later on.
Back in the 60's-70's, you didn't dare knock out another car, because it could mean your life, or another's. Today's bumper cars make it safer and more understandable to hip-check another car to the side. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

The slap on the wrist time penalties simply don't fit the "crime." And a 10-second penalty is nothiung more than a joke, considering that in the past, people have died, instead.


I'm sorry, what a nonsensical sentence... People died in the past, but what does this have to do with anything? This is 2018, times change and cars are safer, shall we penalise them for that? People also used to challenge each other in duels, shall we revert to that?

Plus, you are overreacting here; NO driver risks hitting their cars intentionally. Yes it doesn't cost anyone's life anymore, but why would anyone risk any kind of damage costing them points? They way some posters write is like they are in Super Mario Kartland... It's not, no driver would rather hit someone risking damage. Max made contact as he misjudged his breaking point, he didn't try to ram Vettel off the track, so why comparing this failed overtake to intentionally knocking out other cars? Beggars belief...

It just leaves bad taste as the culprit finished ahead of the victim, I agree with this. Maybe they should revisit the penalty system, yes, but don't overreact.

You should be sorry, indeed. My opinion is mine, and your opinoin is yours. My post was neither nonsensical nor overreacting, and your personal attack is not warranted.

Verstappen (and others) fully decide to divebomb in these situations, coldly calculating that either they get through, or they risk damage, possibly race-ending damage. So, it's my opinion that Verstappen "intentionally risks" hitting another car, thinking the risk is worth the potential reward. To suggest he thinks otherwise is to think he is just stupid, instead, so I give Verstappen the benefit of the doubt.

Point is, there is little risk to life or limb as in the past, so why not go for it... the worse that can happen is that he punts himself from the race, or in this case, acquires a worthless 10-second penalty that he can make up in just a few laps.

State your opinion, but keep the condescending remarks to yourself.

you're the one who linked the 10s penalty to people dying in the past, so I think it's legitimate to say that's an overreaction. Besides which, today's penalty has no bearing on previous situations, when rules and safety protocols were substantially different. It just doesn't make sense to draw any kind of parallel, I'm afraid


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2012 7:07 am
Posts: 11411
Clearly remember last year in AD when Hulk just straightlined a turn, passed Perez in the process, never gave the place back and was slapped with a 5-sec penalty which he served in the pits after he had more than created the needed 5s gap to not lose back the position.

Bit nonsensical when you think of it. Place should just be handed back ASAP.

In this case it's a bit harder. But Verstappen didn't just get a 10 seconds penalty, he also got 2 penalty points. Both of them together will be a deterrent, in addition to a lost podium.

_________________
Go Vandoorne - Verstappen - Vettel!


Last edited by mds on Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:26 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 1:25 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6294
MB-BOB wrote:
Siao7 wrote:
MB-BOB wrote:
froze wrote:
Basically they set a precedent, that you can knock another car out and get away with just a 10 second penalty. Such scenario could come in handy many times, especially when a championship is on the line later on.
Back in the 60's-70's, you didn't dare knock out another car, because it could mean your life, or another's. Today's bumper cars make it safer and more understandable to hip-check another car to the side. But that doesn't make it acceptable.

The slap on the wrist time penalties simply don't fit the "crime." And a 10-second penalty is nothiung more than a joke, considering that in the past, people have died, instead.


I'm sorry, what a nonsensical sentence... People died in the past, but what does this have to do with anything? This is 2018, times change and cars are safer, shall we penalise them for that? People also used to challenge each other in duels, shall we revert to that?

Plus, you are overreacting here; NO driver risks hitting their cars intentionally. Yes it doesn't cost anyone's life anymore, but why would anyone risk any kind of damage costing them points? They way some posters write is like they are in Super Mario Kartland... It's not, no driver would rather hit someone risking damage. Max made contact as he misjudged his breaking point, he didn't try to ram Vettel off the track, so why comparing this failed overtake to intentionally knocking out other cars? Beggars belief...

It just leaves bad taste as the culprit finished ahead of the victim, I agree with this. Maybe they should revisit the penalty system, yes, but don't overreact.

You should be sorry, indeed. My opinion is mine, and your opinoin is yours. My post was neither nonsensical nor overreacting, and your personal attack is not warranted.

Verstappen (and others) fully decide to divebomb in these situations, coldly calculating that either they get through, or they risk damage, possibly race-ending damage. So, it's my opinion that Verstappen "intentionally risks" hitting another car, thinking the risk is worth the potential reward. To suggest he thinks otherwise is to think he is just stupid, instead, so I give Verstappen the benefit of the doubt.

Point is, there is little risk to life or limb as in the past, so why not go for it... the worse that can happen is that he punts himself from the race, or in this case, acquires a worthless 10-second penalty that he can make up in just a few laps.

State your opinion, but keep the condescending remarks to yourself.

Good grief, touchy are we?

Pray tell, where did I attack you personally? Feel free to report me to the mods if you feel wronged, though you'll find that I commented on the opinion (see the word "sentence", not "poster" or something); but even then I didn't stop you from posting it, did I? Don't be so sensitive, I can assure you it is not a personal attack, if you got confused. I do recognise that your last post makes more sense though, a bit more insight as to why you think Verstappen did it on purpose.

Not that I agree with it; no driver, especially at the front, wants to risk these manoeuvres. There's one driver that blatantly uses the old Senna "out of the way or else" move, Ricciardo, and people are calling his moves out, just read this forum. The worst that can happen is not just that he can punt himself out of the race. It is risk of damage to the car, loss of points for him and the team and money for repairs, license points, the list is long for the off chance that you may gain a position that you may lose later in the race anyway. Verstappen's demeanour after the race says it all, it was a mistake, he apologised, hopefully learnt his lesson and life goes on.

I also can't see how you give him the benefit of the doubt when you say that he decided cold blooded to divebomb risking taking both cars out. You are painting him as a madman without even contemplating that it could just be a mistake, that's how it comes across. Making a mistake is not suggesting that he is just stupid by the way, otherwise every single driver is a moron... Since they all do mistakes. A very logical and simple explanation really.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Apr 18, 2018 5:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2533
Location: England
My main issue with the 10 second penalty is that the 'penalty' part of it is pretty much inverse proportionally to how good your car is at that given time. A 10 second penalty for a Torro Rosso is going to cost a few positions, and have a much harder time getting them back due to the speed of the car. 10 seconds for a Mercedes/Ferrari, most cases they can probably gap that before they need to serve the penalty and even if it does put you behind a few cars, your still in a much better position to make the places back due to the speed of the car.

Not that I have any realistic alternatives. The problems with the 'just swap the place back' have been documented before if the wronged party has pitted/retired from the race in the meantime, and more draconian measurs (a full on stop and go) are race ruiners for what could be genuine mistakes. Post race time penalties could be a thing, but if it changes podium order, people **** bricks, and it opens up a whole new can of conspiracy theories if people suddenly start getting penalties that put them in an exact position to shake or even things up in the title hunt.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 1st | 2 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
I too prefer a drive through penalty. However, I think people are misunderstanding the point of the penalty.

It is not to lose places, or to impact the result. It is a handicap. You need to be better +10. It's just unfortunate that there's often another driver who was crashed in to, and is now missing out.

is that the point, though? Surely it's to act as a deterrent against doing it again, and if that's the case then the consequences of the actions should factor into the punishment


The deterrent is based upon your actions, not the consequences of your actions. If you make a stupid move, you will get penalised. Unfortunately, sometimes someone else also loses out (Vettel) or your car is so fast that the end result doesn't change anyway.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23692
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
I too prefer a drive through penalty. However, I think people are misunderstanding the point of the penalty.

It is not to lose places, or to impact the result. It is a handicap. You need to be better +10. It's just unfortunate that there's often another driver who was crashed in to, and is now missing out.

is that the point, though? Surely it's to act as a deterrent against doing it again, and if that's the case then the consequences of the actions should factor into the punishment


The deterrent is based upon your actions, not the consequences of your actions. If you make a stupid move, you will get penalised. Unfortunately, sometimes someone else also loses out (Vettel) or your car is so fast that the end result doesn't change anyway.
But the consequences aren't irrelevant, surely? it would seem to make sense that these are factored in


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23692
Flash2k11 wrote:
My main issue with the 10 second penalty is that the 'penalty' part of it is pretty much inverse proportionally to how good your car is at that given time. A 10 second penalty for a Torro Rosso is going to cost a few positions, and have a much harder time getting them back due to the speed of the car. 10 seconds for a Mercedes/Ferrari, most cases they can probably gap that before they need to serve the penalty and even if it does put you behind a few cars, your still in a much better position to make the places back due to the speed of the car.

Not that I have any realistic alternatives. The problems with the 'just swap the place back' have been documented before if the wronged party has pitted/retired from the race in the meantime, and more draconian measurs (a full on stop and go) are race ruiners for what could be genuine mistakes. Post race time penalties could be a thing, but if it changes podium order, people **** bricks, and it opens up a whole new can of conspiracy theories if people suddenly start getting penalties that put them in an exact position to shake or even things up in the title hunt.

:thumbup:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 10:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6294
Zoue wrote:
Flash2k11 wrote:
My main issue with the 10 second penalty is that the 'penalty' part of it is pretty much inverse proportionally to how good your car is at that given time. A 10 second penalty for a Torro Rosso is going to cost a few positions, and have a much harder time getting them back due to the speed of the car. 10 seconds for a Mercedes/Ferrari, most cases they can probably gap that before they need to serve the penalty and even if it does put you behind a few cars, your still in a much better position to make the places back due to the speed of the car.

Not that I have any realistic alternatives. The problems with the 'just swap the place back' have been documented before if the wronged party has pitted/retired from the race in the meantime, and more draconian measurs (a full on stop and go) are race ruiners for what could be genuine mistakes. Post race time penalties could be a thing, but if it changes podium order, people **** bricks, and it opens up a whole new can of conspiracy theories if people suddenly start getting penalties that put them in an exact position to shake or even things up in the title hunt.

:thumbup:

Yeah, I missed this post, very well summarised.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 11:37 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:22 pm
Posts: 1822
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
I too prefer a drive through penalty. However, I think people are misunderstanding the point of the penalty.

It is not to lose places, or to impact the result. It is a handicap. You need to be better +10. It's just unfortunate that there's often another driver who was crashed in to, and is now missing out.

is that the point, though? Surely it's to act as a deterrent against doing it again, and if that's the case then the consequences of the actions should factor into the punishment


The deterrent is based upon your actions, not the consequences of your actions. If you make a stupid move, you will get penalised. Unfortunately, sometimes someone else also loses out (Vettel) or your car is so fast that the end result doesn't change anyway.
But the consequences aren't irrelevant, surely? it would seem to make sense that these are factored in


Well the consequences either should or should not be irrelevant, but I think the stewards incorrectly chop and change.

As an example - if Vettel simply got the hell out the way, Verstappen would likely have gotten no punishment. So they're not punishing the action, but the result.
But for another example - if Verstappen had ended Vettel's race completely, his punishment would likely have been the same. So they're not fully punishing the result either.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Apr 20, 2018 12:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6294
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Ennis wrote:
I too prefer a drive through penalty. However, I think people are misunderstanding the point of the penalty.

It is not to lose places, or to impact the result. It is a handicap. You need to be better +10. It's just unfortunate that there's often another driver who was crashed in to, and is now missing out.

is that the point, though? Surely it's to act as a deterrent against doing it again, and if that's the case then the consequences of the actions should factor into the punishment


The deterrent is based upon your actions, not the consequences of your actions. If you make a stupid move, you will get penalised. Unfortunately, sometimes someone else also loses out (Vettel) or your car is so fast that the end result doesn't change anyway.
But the consequences aren't irrelevant, surely? it would seem to make sense that these are factored in


Well the consequences either should or should not be irrelevant, but I think the stewards incorrectly chop and change.

As an example - if Vettel simply got the hell out the way, Verstappen would likely have gotten no punishment. So they're not punishing the action, but the result.
But for another example - if Verstappen had ended Vettel's race completely, his punishment would likely have been the same. So they're not fully punishing the result either.


Then the'd be no infraction. We are talking about the case of an incident, then the consequences of it shall be factored in


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: Alex53, Mercedes-Benz 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