planetf1.com

It is currently Mon Mar 18, 2019 1:33 pm

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 7:54 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 620
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

grid penalties for infringements are all well and good, but giving a penalty for something outside a team or driver's control is pretty pointless IMO.


Agree.

This is the main issue I have with ANY penalty for excessive component use under the current regulations.

How is it even remotely reasonable for a team to be penalised for a regulatory infringement that could well have been totally outside of their sphere of influence?

Is there any other situation in any other sport where this happens?

Also, the way the sport's evolved into a 2 tier competition, any penalty in this instance adversely affects smaller customer (tier 2) teams greater than the larger manufacturer or works (tier 1) teams due to the potential loss of points & prize money that accompany's any penalty, which basically only works to increase the chasm between the 2 tiers.

But the team chooses there engine, and wouldn't get far without it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1618
Location: Far side of Koozebane
WHoff78 wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

grid penalties for infringements are all well and good, but giving a penalty for something outside a team or driver's control is pretty pointless IMO.


Agree.

This is the main issue I have with ANY penalty for excessive component use under the current regulations.

How is it even remotely reasonable for a team to be penalised for a regulatory infringement that could well have been totally outside of their sphere of influence?

Is there any other situation in any other sport where this happens?

Also, the way the sport's evolved into a 2 tier competition, any penalty in this instance adversely affects smaller customer (tier 2) teams greater than the larger manufacturer or works (tier 1) teams due to the potential loss of points & prize money that accompany's any penalty, which basically only works to increase the chasm between the 2 tiers.

But the team chooses there engine, and wouldn't get far without it.


Sorry?

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner - 119 & counting.

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 303 spots available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:23 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
WHoff78 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the only workable alternative would be ballast penalties in qualifying which probably wouldn't be as draconian as the penalties we see now?
They could well be a lot worse. Where are you going to fix the ballast? Introduding such a penalty would require the teams to foresee a penalty weight point of some kind in the design of their cars, which are already heavier than they used to be a few years ago. Though the weight difference problem between cars+drivers is now gone. But don't forget that a few years ago, ballast used for balancing the car, was more of a problem for a taller/heavier driver than his team-mate. This kind of penalty could potentially bring that handicap back for no better reason than mechanical reliability.

It's only for qualifying and the lead obviously would be put on the seat, I think presently the penalty system is 5, 10, 15, then back of the grid penalties?

I think 10Kg is worth about 0.3s, so the penalties could be 10Kg, 20kg then onto a maximum of 30Kg, having a 1 second qualifying disadvantage has got to be better than automatically starting from the back of the grid?

Let's not forget we are simply looking for a replacement system for the poor souls who get so confused by grid penalties and this has got to be better than taking WDC points off drivers and is less draconian then the present system.

Would a ballast penalty be fairly even on every circuit? Can see this causing problems quite quickly if this becomes a bigger handicap at certain races and certain drivers qualify right at the back on some tracks and other times only lose 5-10 positions. Of course the current system is unfair in this way to because starting at the back is much worse at certain races.

Surely the extra weight is also relevant to the track itself, the % performance disadvantage would still be the same?

_________________
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: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:24 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

grid penalties for infringements are all well and good, but giving a penalty for something outside a team or driver's control is pretty pointless IMO.

So engines and gearboxes should just be a free for all and the teams with the most money can benefit the most?

_________________
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: Sun Jan 06, 2019 2:25 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Exediron wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the only workable alternative would be ballast penalties in qualifying which probably wouldn't be as draconian as the penalties we see now?
They could well be a lot worse. Where are you going to fix the ballast? Introduding such a penalty would require the teams to foresee a penalty weight point of some kind in the design of their cars, which are already heavier than they used to be a few years ago. Though the weight difference problem between cars+drivers is now gone. But don't forget that a few years ago, ballast used for balancing the car, was more of a problem for a taller/heavier driver than his team-mate. This kind of penalty could potentially bring that handicap back for no better reason than mechanical reliability.

It's only for qualifying and the lead obviously would be put on the seat, I think presently the penalty system is 5, 10, 15, then back of the grid penalties?

I think 10Kg is worth about 0.3s, so the penalties could be 10Kg, 20kg then onto a maximum of 30Kg, having a 1 second qualifying disadvantage has got to be better than automatically starting from the back of the grid?

Let's not forget we are simply looking for a replacement system for the poor souls who get so confused by grid penalties and this has got to be better than taking WDC points off drivers and is less draconian then the present system.

Giving drivers qualifying ballast is just a less honest form of grid penalty. It still has the effect of putting them out of position and reducing their ability to start where they 'should' be.

On top of that, with the current Formula 1/1.5 system, a class A driver given 1 second of ballast would probably still start 6th. I don't see any good reason to reinforce the two-class system we've ended up with.

It would perhaps appease the confused though?

_________________
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: Sun Jan 06, 2019 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 620
pokerman wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I think the only workable alternative would be ballast penalties in qualifying which probably wouldn't be as draconian as the penalties we see now?
They could well be a lot worse. Where are you going to fix the ballast? Introduding such a penalty would require the teams to foresee a penalty weight point of some kind in the design of their cars, which are already heavier than they used to be a few years ago. Though the weight difference problem between cars+drivers is now gone. But don't forget that a few years ago, ballast used for balancing the car, was more of a problem for a taller/heavier driver than his team-mate. This kind of penalty could potentially bring that handicap back for no better reason than mechanical reliability.

It's only for qualifying and the lead obviously would be put on the seat, I think presently the penalty system is 5, 10, 15, then back of the grid penalties?

I think 10Kg is worth about 0.3s, so the penalties could be 10Kg, 20kg then onto a maximum of 30Kg, having a 1 second qualifying disadvantage has got to be better than automatically starting from the back of the grid?

Let's not forget we are simply looking for a replacement system for the poor souls who get so confused by grid penalties and this has got to be better than taking WDC points off drivers and is less draconian then the present system.

Would a ballast penalty be fairly even on every circuit? Can see this causing problems quite quickly if this becomes a bigger handicap at certain races and certain drivers qualify right at the back on some tracks and other times only lose 5-10 positions. Of course the current system is unfair in this way to because starting at the back is much worse at certain races.

Surely the extra weight is also relevant to the track itself, the % performance disadvantage would still be the same?

Perhaps. But there are certain circuits where engine power or downforce or other car characteristics have greater influence. Is it not likely that car weight and ballast would be the same. For instance ballast would probably have a worse effect at circuits with lots of slow corners and heavy braking zones. As others mention there is also the problem with large performance gaps softening the penalty. Just seems alot more chance of inconsistency in the severity of the penalty.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 5:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

grid penalties for infringements are all well and good, but giving a penalty for something outside a team or driver's control is pretty pointless IMO.

So engines and gearboxes should just be a free for all and the teams with the most money can benefit the most?

The teams with the most money already benefit the most. Let's not pretend that's not happening. But even with that, tell me how Red Bull, who are arguably the richest team out there (or at least top 3), benefited from Ricciardo's lack of reliability? How did the fines lead to a change in their behaviour?

I don't have a clear cut solution. But I still think that e.g. the McLaren situation was an absolute farce and the way the rules are now they seem to be almost designed to shut out new entrants. I ask again what the point of penalising a team for e.g. engine failure is when clearly they are struggling?

As someone else has said, the whole principle of trying to extend the life of every component has backfired and it hasn't actually brought the intended cost savings. And it seems somewhat of a paradox that they would create regulations for new and unproven technology and then penalise those who don't get it spot on first time. It's absurd.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 566
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 6:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1618
Location: Far side of Koozebane
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit


Why should the manufacturer be forced to foot the bill for a component failure which might have been the customers fault?

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner - 119 & counting.

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 303 spots available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Jan 06, 2019 8:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 566
Jezza13 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit


Why should the manufacturer be forced to foot the bill for a component failure which might have been the customers fault?

They wouldn't as the engine would be installed in the car with agreement on the fitment from the manufacturer


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:08 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
WHoff78 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Fiki wrote:
They could well be a lot worse. Where are you going to fix the ballast? Introduding such a penalty would require the teams to foresee a penalty weight point of some kind in the design of their cars, which are already heavier than they used to be a few years ago. Though the weight difference problem between cars+drivers is now gone. But don't forget that a few years ago, ballast used for balancing the car, was more of a problem for a taller/heavier driver than his team-mate. This kind of penalty could potentially bring that handicap back for no better reason than mechanical reliability.

It's only for qualifying and the lead obviously would be put on the seat, I think presently the penalty system is 5, 10, 15, then back of the grid penalties?

I think 10Kg is worth about 0.3s, so the penalties could be 10Kg, 20kg then onto a maximum of 30Kg, having a 1 second qualifying disadvantage has got to be better than automatically starting from the back of the grid?

Let's not forget we are simply looking for a replacement system for the poor souls who get so confused by grid penalties and this has got to be better than taking WDC points off drivers and is less draconian then the present system.

Would a ballast penalty be fairly even on every circuit? Can see this causing problems quite quickly if this becomes a bigger handicap at certain races and certain drivers qualify right at the back on some tracks and other times only lose 5-10 positions. Of course the current system is unfair in this way to because starting at the back is much worse at certain races.

Surely the extra weight is also relevant to the track itself, the % performance disadvantage would still be the same?

Perhaps. But there are certain circuits where engine power or downforce or other car characteristics have greater influence. Is it not likely that car weight and ballast would be the same. For instance ballast would probably have a worse effect at circuits with lots of slow corners and heavy braking zones. As others mention there is also the problem with large performance gaps softening the penalty. Just seems alot more chance of inconsistency in the severity of the penalty.

I think you're just over complicating things, for instance a grid penalty at Monaco is worse than at other tracks but we don't take that into account.

_________________
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)


Last edited by pokerman on Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:20 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 1:13 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

grid penalties for infringements are all well and good, but giving a penalty for something outside a team or driver's control is pretty pointless IMO.

So engines and gearboxes should just be a free for all and the teams with the most money can benefit the most?

The teams with the most money already benefit the most. Let's not pretend that's not happening. But even with that, tell me how Red Bull, who are arguably the richest team out there (or at least top 3), benefited from Ricciardo's lack of reliability? How did the fines lead to a change in their behaviour?

I don't have a clear cut solution. But I still think that e.g. the McLaren situation was an absolute farce and the way the rules are now they seem to be almost designed to shut out new entrants. I ask again what the point of penalising a team for e.g. engine failure is when clearly they are struggling?

As someone else has said, the whole principle of trying to extend the life of every component has backfired and it hasn't actually brought the intended cost savings. And it seems somewhat of a paradox that they would create regulations for new and unproven technology and then penalise those who don't get it spot on first time. It's absurd.

Fresher engines have better performance that's the reason for grid penalties, take away the penalties then the rich teams would use more engines than the poor teams.

_________________
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 07, 2019 1:18 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit

So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

_________________
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 07, 2019 1:19 am 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
dompclarke wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit


Why should the manufacturer be forced to foot the bill for a component failure which might have been the customers fault?

They wouldn't as the engine would be installed in the car with agreement on the fitment from the manufacturer

I believe you just said that the teams should be allowed to use the engines as they please?

_________________
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 07, 2019 2:00 am 
Offline

Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2006 11:54 am
Posts: 134
If spending needs to be curtailed, have the limit and once they’re used up, no more race action. Allow the teams to salvage what they can from each engine/motor/etc to bodge up a working car, until everything has been exhausted.

There likely isn’t an answer that will satisfy all possibilities and be fair on everyone- we need to reward those who do better, otherwise what’s the point of trying?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:26 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit

So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:34 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
simonr23 wrote:
If spending needs to be curtailed, have the limit and once they’re used up, no more race action. Allow the teams to salvage what they can from each engine/motor/etc to bodge up a working car, until everything has been exhausted.

There likely isn’t an answer that will satisfy all possibilities and be fair on everyone- we need to reward those who do better, otherwise what’s the point of trying?

Cars not being able to compete at all, you sure that's an answer?

_________________
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 07, 2019 12:39 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
Really don’t see the issue with Grid Penalties – as others have mentioned they are worse because of the difficulty with overtaking, not to mention manufacturers underestimating the new engines. Both of these will continue to improve and we’ll see less frequent penalties as they are intended. They should of course stop reducing the number of components available over the season if they believe the current penalties are a problem.

Not sure how you can penalize the manufacturer over the teams. Look at Renault and Red Bull last season. How do you conclude whether it was fault with the PU or fault with the packaging or even the teams pushing the units harder than recommended. Difficult to try an assign blame to something that is not black and white.

grid penalties for infringements are all well and good, but giving a penalty for something outside a team or driver's control is pretty pointless IMO.

So engines and gearboxes should just be a free for all and the teams with the most money can benefit the most?

The teams with the most money already benefit the most. Let's not pretend that's not happening. But even with that, tell me how Red Bull, who are arguably the richest team out there (or at least top 3), benefited from Ricciardo's lack of reliability? How did the fines lead to a change in their behaviour?

I don't have a clear cut solution. But I still think that e.g. the McLaren situation was an absolute farce and the way the rules are now they seem to be almost designed to shut out new entrants. I ask again what the point of penalising a team for e.g. engine failure is when clearly they are struggling?

As someone else has said, the whole principle of trying to extend the life of every component has backfired and it hasn't actually brought the intended cost savings. And it seems somewhat of a paradox that they would create regulations for new and unproven technology and then penalise those who don't get it spot on first time. It's absurd.

Fresher engines have better performance that's the reason for grid penalties, take away the penalties then the rich teams would use more engines than the poor teams.

With all the space-age technology that's already in these cars it surely can't beyond their ken to have the FIA monitor performance and only allow replacement in the event of genuine failure? Along with caveats on minimum life expectancy etc. And replaced units kept in a kind of parc fermé for the year - if a manufacturer suspiciously uses more components than a customer, then that would be a reason to go back over each unit and determine whether any deliberate "over-clocking" had been done on those specific units, in which case a heavy penalty for deliberate fraud would be warranted, up to and including exclusion from the WDC/WCC. Likewise if a customer operates their units outside the manufacturer's specifications.

or something along those lines


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:40 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
simonr23 wrote:
If spending needs to be curtailed, have the limit and once they’re used up, no more race action. Allow the teams to salvage what they can from each engine/motor/etc to bodge up a working car, until everything has been exhausted.

There likely isn’t an answer that will satisfy all possibilities and be fair on everyone- we need to reward those who do better, otherwise what’s the point of trying?

Cars not being able to compete at all, you sure that's an answer?

well that's pretty much what happened with McLaren for a couple of years


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 12:40 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit

So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?

If there are no penalties then it just becomes an engine free for all for the manufacturer teams that the small teams would not be able to keep up with financially.

_________________
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 07, 2019 12:50 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit

So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?

If there are no penalties then it just becomes an engine free for all for the manufacturer teams that the small teams would not be able to keep up with financially.

they could if they write into the rules that a manufacturer may not use more units than a customer and any excess over the limit they would need to supply for free.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 3:31 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit

So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?

If there are no penalties then it just becomes an engine free for all for the manufacturer teams that the small teams would not be able to keep up with financially.

they could if they write into the rules that a manufacturer may not use more units than a customer and any excess over the limit they would need to supply for free.

So how does that work if Honda decide to throw engines at Red Bull and STR in respect to the other teams?

_________________
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 07, 2019 4:30 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?

If there are no penalties then it just becomes an engine free for all for the manufacturer teams that the small teams would not be able to keep up with financially.

they could if they write into the rules that a manufacturer may not use more units than a customer and any excess over the limit they would need to supply for free.

So how does that work if Honda decide to throw engines at Red Bull and STR in respect to the other teams?

well we're back to the breaking down criteria. If the FIA have full access to the PUs and the teams have to demonstrate that there was an actual failure, then that would overcome that issue. And if the cars are breaking down on track then how does it help either Red Bull or TR?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 4:58 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 566
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit


Why should the manufacturer be forced to foot the bill for a component failure which might have been the customers fault?

They wouldn't as the engine would be installed in the car with agreement on the fitment from the manufacturer

I believe you just said that the teams should be allowed to use the engines as they please?

Best re read it then as I said no such thing. Why does this forum always have to descend into semantics and misinterpretation.

The teams should pay a fixed cost
This should be for a set number of units for the season which should each last x number of races
If the engine expires prematurely the team gets a replacement at no cost to them
The manufacturer will approve the installation solution, as they would anyway, and run times in certain modes
rules on parity of supply and software remain

If that's not clear enough I give up as I can't be arsed the the pages of he said she said that this forum seems to like descending into


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Jan 07, 2019 5:00 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Dec 30, 2013 4:59 pm
Posts: 566
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit

So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?

In my plan there are no penalties for extra engines as the manufacturer foots the bill due to a failed product.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 1:43 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 620
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit

So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?

In my plan there are no penalties for extra engines as the manufacturer foots the bill due to a failed product.

In that scenario certain manufacturers (and their customers) could choose performance over durability and gain an advantage if they decide the cost is worth it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 4:16 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 620
As for installation solution, how do they ensure the customers achieve the same levels of cooling etc. Which would be dependent on the efficiency of the air intakes and overall packaging and why would the manufacturers help with that? And that's just one consideration.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 7:44 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
WHoff78 wrote:
As for installation solution, how do they ensure the customers achieve the same levels of cooling etc. Which would be dependent on the efficiency of the air intakes and overall packaging and why would the manufacturers help with that? And that's just one consideration.

well they could dictate minimum flows I'm sure. These cars have monitors attached to virtually everything so I doubt it's impossible to write the specs in a way that covers these kind of eventualities.

It's not just engines, though. It's also gearboxes, for example. What's the point of a penalty if it breaks down?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 10:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1618
Location: Far side of Koozebane
While i'm sticking with my original concept at the top of the thread of a payment system based on points scored & excessive components used as an awesome remedy to this stupid penalty system, i've had another inspired vision i'd like to cast out to the masses for flaming.

Not entirely sure how it'd work but it revolves around having your set quota of components per year like now but, instead of having them sealed until they've done their required km's or they go bang, whichever comes first, teams will be allowed to, under the scrutiny of FIA officials, replace certain vital components from a limited supply of approved parts that come with the components at the start of the year.

So your not actually buying new units at a prohibitive cost when something goes pop, but instead your managing the components throughout the year via regular inspection and part replacement in the hope of delaying or preventing that pop.

So just as a basic example. Merc supply Williams with 3 ICE's per season right? Now,in addition to those 3 ICE's, Williams would also get lets say an additional crankshaft, 6 pistons, 2 water pumps & 1 exhaust manifold. Williams can then strip down their ICE after each race and, if they choose, replace 2 pistons that may be slightly worn. They can then shelve the 2 replaced pistons for use later in the season if needed. You start getting penalised if you run out of parts & have to buy a complete new component.

Surely overall it has to work out more cost effective than than the current system plus I reckon we'd see fewer penalties.

How's that for an innovative solution eh?

I'd be more than happy to present my concept to the FIA in person if requested (at the FIA's expense of course) :nod: ;)

_________________
Races since last non RB, Merc, Ferrari winner - 119 & counting.

Non RB, Merc, Ferrari podiums won in Hybrid era - 303 spots available, 23 won

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Jan 08, 2019 12:51 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?

If there are no penalties then it just becomes an engine free for all for the manufacturer teams that the small teams would not be able to keep up with financially.

they could if they write into the rules that a manufacturer may not use more units than a customer and any excess over the limit they would need to supply for free.

So how does that work if Honda decide to throw engines at Red Bull and STR in respect to the other teams?

well we're back to the breaking down criteria. If the FIA have full access to the PUs and the teams have to demonstrate that there was an actual failure, then that would overcome that issue. And if the cars are breaking down on track then how does it help either Red Bull or TR?

The cars don't always break down on track, sometimes an issue is found before hand then a team gets a fresh component/engine without any kind of penalty, this often happens with gearbox penalties.

_________________
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 08, 2019 12:54 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
dompclarke wrote:
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Jezza13 wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit


Why should the manufacturer be forced to foot the bill for a component failure which might have been the customers fault?

They wouldn't as the engine would be installed in the car with agreement on the fitment from the manufacturer

I believe you just said that the teams should be allowed to use the engines as they please?

Best re read it then as I said no such thing. Why does this forum always have to descend into semantics and misinterpretation.

The teams should pay a fixed cost
This should be for a set number of units for the season which should each last x number of races
If the engine expires prematurely the team gets a replacement at no cost to them
The manufacturer will approve the installation solution, as they would anyway, and run times in certain modes
rules on parity of supply and software remain

If that's not clear enough I give up as I can't be arsed the the pages of he said she said that this forum seems to like descending into

That doesn't have anything to do with grid penalties though.

Do the teams have to pay extra for failures?

_________________
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 08, 2019 12:55 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
dompclarke wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
dompclarke wrote:
Still think there should be a fixed price for a season of engines, with supply to all teams matched. I.e. they can't force the customers to make engines last for extra races.
If an engine goes pop for any reason the manufacturer takes the hit

So the teams run the engines at 11 and let the manufacturers pick up the bill when they blow up?

I believe the manufacturers are in control of how their engines are being used and that being the case if one blows up I don't believe the team has to pay extra?

but we're talking about penalties. If the team uses an engine in accordance with the manufacturer's specifications, then what purpose does giving them a penalty when it fails serve?

In my plan there are no penalties for extra engines as the manufacturer foots the bill due to a failed product.

You can't pay money to get you out of a sporting penalty.

_________________
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 08, 2019 12:57 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
As for installation solution, how do they ensure the customers achieve the same levels of cooling etc. Which would be dependent on the efficiency of the air intakes and overall packaging and why would the manufacturers help with that? And that's just one consideration.

well they could dictate minimum flows I'm sure. These cars have monitors attached to virtually everything so I doubt it's impossible to write the specs in a way that covers these kind of eventualities.

It's not just engines, though. It's also gearboxes, for example. What's the point of a penalty if it breaks down?

I've just posted in respect to this, such things don't necessarily fail during the race itself, faults can be found afterwards.

_________________
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 09, 2019 1:57 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 620
The bigger point is that teams have to make a trade off between performance and reliability. It's not all down to the manufacturer, and it's not likely a coincidence red Bull is much quicker but less reliable than Renault. If you limit engine components then you have to penalize the teams when they use to many.

Most of the suggestions would handicap the manufacturers playing catch up rather than merc/Ferrari anyway, and shouldn't really be an issue if Renault and honda make the progress they should for 2019.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 8:03 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
As for installation solution, how do they ensure the customers achieve the same levels of cooling etc. Which would be dependent on the efficiency of the air intakes and overall packaging and why would the manufacturers help with that? And that's just one consideration.

well they could dictate minimum flows I'm sure. These cars have monitors attached to virtually everything so I doubt it's impossible to write the specs in a way that covers these kind of eventualities.

It's not just engines, though. It's also gearboxes, for example. What's the point of a penalty if it breaks down?

I've just posted in respect to this, such things don't necessarily fail during the race itself, faults can be found afterwards.
which makes it even more important that the FIA have access to all the data and the component itself to determine whether a) it's a genuine failure, b) whether this was down to a design fault and c) whether a change in design is mandated to ensure it's not repeated. If faults all suspiciously happen between races, then this should lead to a deeper investigation and serious penalties warranted if anything suspicious is judged to be taking place

If the fear is teams flouting the rules to gain an advantage, then proper monitoring, coupled with serious punishment for genuine transgressions, is for me a far more effective deterrent than creating all-encompassing rules that makes victims out of the innocent. That's just lazy rule-making as far as I'm concerned.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 1:27 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
As for installation solution, how do they ensure the customers achieve the same levels of cooling etc. Which would be dependent on the efficiency of the air intakes and overall packaging and why would the manufacturers help with that? And that's just one consideration.

well they could dictate minimum flows I'm sure. These cars have monitors attached to virtually everything so I doubt it's impossible to write the specs in a way that covers these kind of eventualities.

It's not just engines, though. It's also gearboxes, for example. What's the point of a penalty if it breaks down?

I've just posted in respect to this, such things don't necessarily fail during the race itself, faults can be found afterwards.
which makes it even more important that the FIA have access to all the data and the component itself to determine whether a) it's a genuine failure, b) whether this was down to a design fault and c) whether a change in design is mandated to ensure it's not repeated. If faults all suspiciously happen between races, then this should lead to a deeper investigation and serious penalties warranted if anything suspicious is judged to be taking place

If the fear is teams flouting the rules to gain an advantage, then proper monitoring, coupled with serious punishment for genuine transgressions, is for me a far more effective deterrent than creating all-encompassing rules that makes victims out of the innocent. That's just lazy rule-making as far as I'm concerned.

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.

_________________
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 09, 2019 2:10 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
WHoff78 wrote:
As for installation solution, how do they ensure the customers achieve the same levels of cooling etc. Which would be dependent on the efficiency of the air intakes and overall packaging and why would the manufacturers help with that? And that's just one consideration.

well they could dictate minimum flows I'm sure. These cars have monitors attached to virtually everything so I doubt it's impossible to write the specs in a way that covers these kind of eventualities.

It's not just engines, though. It's also gearboxes, for example. What's the point of a penalty if it breaks down?

I've just posted in respect to this, such things don't necessarily fail during the race itself, faults can be found afterwards.
which makes it even more important that the FIA have access to all the data and the component itself to determine whether a) it's a genuine failure, b) whether this was down to a design fault and c) whether a change in design is mandated to ensure it's not repeated. If faults all suspiciously happen between races, then this should lead to a deeper investigation and serious penalties warranted if anything suspicious is judged to be taking place

If the fear is teams flouting the rules to gain an advantage, then proper monitoring, coupled with serious punishment for genuine transgressions, is for me a far more effective deterrent than creating all-encompassing rules that makes victims out of the innocent. That's just lazy rule-making as far as I'm concerned.

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.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:17 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
well they could dictate minimum flows I'm sure. These cars have monitors attached to virtually everything so I doubt it's impossible to write the specs in a way that covers these kind of eventualities.

It's not just engines, though. It's also gearboxes, for example. What's the point of a penalty if it breaks down?

I've just posted in respect to this, such things don't necessarily fail during the race itself, faults can be found afterwards.
which makes it even more important that the FIA have access to all the data and the component itself to determine whether a) it's a genuine failure, b) whether this was down to a design fault and c) whether a change in design is mandated to ensure it's not repeated. If faults all suspiciously happen between races, then this should lead to a deeper investigation and serious penalties warranted if anything suspicious is judged to be taking place

If the fear is teams flouting the rules to gain an advantage, then proper monitoring, coupled with serious punishment for genuine transgressions, is for me a far more effective deterrent than creating all-encompassing rules that makes victims out of the innocent. That's just lazy rule-making as far as I'm concerned.

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?

_________________
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 09, 2019 2:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 24281
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
I've just posted in respect to this, such things don't necessarily fail during the race itself, faults can be found afterwards.
which makes it even more important that the FIA have access to all the data and the component itself to determine whether a) it's a genuine failure, b) whether this was down to a design fault and c) whether a change in design is mandated to ensure it's not repeated. If faults all suspiciously happen between races, then this should lead to a deeper investigation and serious penalties warranted if anything suspicious is judged to be taking place

If the fear is teams flouting the rules to gain an advantage, then proper monitoring, coupled with serious punishment for genuine transgressions, is for me a far more effective deterrent than creating all-encompassing rules that makes victims out of the innocent. That's just lazy rule-making as far as I'm concerned.

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?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Jan 09, 2019 2:44 pm 
Online

Joined: Wed Dec 19, 2012 1:30 pm
Posts: 29572
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
pokerman wrote:
Zoue wrote:
which makes it even more important that the FIA have access to all the data and the component itself to determine whether a) it's a genuine failure, b) whether this was down to a design fault and c) whether a change in design is mandated to ensure it's not repeated. If faults all suspiciously happen between races, then this should lead to a deeper investigation and serious penalties warranted if anything suspicious is judged to be taking place

If the fear is teams flouting the rules to gain an advantage, then proper monitoring, coupled with serious punishment for genuine transgressions, is for me a far more effective deterrent than creating all-encompassing rules that makes victims out of the innocent. That's just lazy rule-making as far as I'm concerned.

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.

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

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BlackSG5, Mayox, MercBloke, mikeyg123, pokerman 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