planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:25 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 3:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
You either have engine and gearbox limitations or you don't, in the case of impending failure under inspection you are granted a fresh engine or component then you reap the benefit of that compared to others who have to continue on with old components/engines, you are penalised for having better reliability, that's all upside down to me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Jan 10, 2019 12:01 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
The point is that if you make the rules and associated penalties directly connected to what is in people's control you have more chance of affecting their behavior and forcing change. Currently it's a complete lottery in certain circumstances so a penalty just gets shrugged off as inevitable but nothing changes. A driver knows he can't cut a corner or he will get penalized, so he takes care to ensure he doesn't break the rules and compromise his race. But if his gearbox fails and he compromises both his current race and the next one as a result then what is he supposed to do differently to ensure it doesn't happen again? In other words, what does the penalty actually achieve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Well that's one area were I've never been comfortable with, a driver gets crashed out by another driver which damages his gearbox and the he has to serve a grid penalty in the next race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 6:14 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 620
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7504
Location: Belgium
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.
There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Jan 12, 2019 1:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
Fiki wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.
There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too? 8O


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 9:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue May 05, 2009 11:31 am
Posts: 6954
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.
There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too? 8O


Yeah, this is the problem, there is no "one size fits all" solution to this


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:50 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7504
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.
There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too? 8O
Well, yes. In the old days of spare cars, some drivers would be able to race in one, if their car developed a fault or was involved in a crash. Some others might be forced to sit out the race.
I agree with Siao that there is no ideal solution. Especially not in an era when we don't even have a full grid of participating cars. Where are the days when a driver could rent a Ferrari to enter his national Grand Prix? And be familiar with all the functions on the steering wheel? :D

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 10:58 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.
There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too? 8O
Well, yes. In the old days of spare cars, some drivers would be able to race in one, if their car developed a fault or was involved in a crash. Some others might be forced to sit out the race.
I agree with Siao that there is no ideal solution. Especially not in an era when we don't even have a full grid of participating cars. Where are the days when a driver could rent a Ferrari to enter his national Grand Prix? And be familiar with all the functions on the steering wheel? :D

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 11:42 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 11:06 am
Posts: 7504
Location: Belgium
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.
There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too? 8O
Well, yes. In the old days of spare cars, some drivers would be able to race in one, if their car developed a fault or was involved in a crash. Some others might be forced to sit out the race.
I agree with Siao that there is no ideal solution. Especially not in an era when we don't even have a full grid of participating cars. Where are the days when a driver could rent a Ferrari to enter his national Grand Prix? And be familiar with all the functions on the steering wheel? :D

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

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

_________________
Use every man after his desert, and who should scape whipping? Use them after your own honour and dignity.

Maria de Villota - Jules Bianchi


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 1:09 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 787
Maybe time penalties to be served during pit stops?

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

_________________
Should I grow a beard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:17 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.

I'm 100% against points penalties and I don't understand why any penalty is given to the team separate from the driver.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:19 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
Fiki wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.
There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

I would say that's quite ridiculous.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:21 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
Fiki wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Fiki wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
So Red Bull have already come out and said that they are likely to use 5 engines over the next season. Pretty good reason right there why the penalty has to be tied to the team, be it a grid penalty or points. Point penalty wouldn't go down well though when a team wins the final race but loses the title because they use a new engine and get docked a certain percentage of points.
There's another possibility; the FIA forbid a team taking part in the race with a new engine, after it has used its allocated maximum.

so back to the scenario where a driver needs to change an engine because another driver crashed into him: he has to forfeit a race, too? 8O
Well, yes. In the old days of spare cars, some drivers would be able to race in one, if their car developed a fault or was involved in a crash. Some others might be forced to sit out the race.
I agree with Siao that there is no ideal solution. Especially not in an era when we don't even have a full grid of participating cars. Where are the days when a driver could rent a Ferrari to enter his national Grand Prix? And be familiar with all the functions on the steering wheel? :D

I think that's quite different from a driver having to sit out the following race after a race ending engine failure.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 14, 2019 2:23 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
Yellowbin74 wrote:
Maybe time penalties to be served during pit stops?

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

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

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 1:27 pm 
Offline

Joined: Fri Jul 20, 2007 6:28 pm
Posts: 787
pokerman wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
Maybe time penalties to be served during pit stops?

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

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


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

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

_________________
Should I grow a beard?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:10 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
The point is that if you make the rules and associated penalties directly connected to what is in people's control you have more chance of affecting their behavior and forcing change. Currently it's a complete lottery in certain circumstances so a penalty just gets shrugged off as inevitable but nothing changes. A driver knows he can't cut a corner or he will get penalized, so he takes care to ensure he doesn't break the rules and compromise his race. But if his gearbox fails and he compromises both his current race and the next one as a result then what is he supposed to do differently to ensure it doesn't happen again? In other words, what does the penalty actually achieve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Drivers sometimes damage gearboxes by crashing or clipping walls, engines can be damaged by crashing, maybe the drivers fault, maybe not?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:27 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
Yellowbin74 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Yellowbin74 wrote:
Maybe time penalties to be served during pit stops?

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

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


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

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

I guess that's a possibility you have to stop on lap 5 with a 5 second timed penalty, it would be a killer at places like Monaco though, I still prefer my ballast related qualifying penalties and then a straight forward race.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 3:29 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Well let's take the crashing one as an example. A driver runs into the back of another, resulting in the other driver's engine being written off. So he needs a PU and as a result gets an additional penalty to boot. How is any of that the driver or team's fault and what purpose does a penalty serve?

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 15, 2019 4:02 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
This I have always thought to be unfair but in respect to gearboxes in particularly these have often been damaged through error of the driver himself.

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

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

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

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

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

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:12 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29571
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
Agreed. But with the telemetry they have these days you don't think it possible they can ascertain that from the data?

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

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

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

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

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

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

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition

2013: 5th Place
2014: Champion
2015: 3rd Place
2016: 4th Place

2017: 9th Place
2018: 7th place

Wins: Canada 2018, Abu Dhabi 2017
Podiums: (6)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 16, 2019 3:37 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I'm not sure what teams can hide and what they can't hide but I know they will always look to protect themselves like they do their drivers.

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

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

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

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

Agreed. But you can't make rules on the basis of "oh but they'll talk their way out of it." The FIA should be determining what behavior is expected and then setting rules to ensure that the teams have severely limited room to wriggle out of it. But they should do it in such a way that they don't punish the guilty along with the innocent. It seriously can't be that hard but you just need a few more teeth than the FIA appear to have at the moment.

Take the latest Verstappen "punishment" that's being discussed. The fact that a driver appears to have a say in his punishment is bad enough - and if he doesn't, then the fact that he's allowed to give that impression is just as bad - but the "punishment" he received is a joke. It basically amounted to a PR day at the races. Ridiculous. If that's the FIA's idea of discipline it's no wonder the teams are able to walk all over them


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: Lt. Drebin, pokerman, TheGiantHogweed 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