|
I think we need to look back over the origin of the penalty system. The FIA decided that teams should be restricted to X number of engines and gearboxes per season. (Just like most club racers: if I lost an engine, that was my season over.) But they didn't want to be so draconian as to say "That's it. You can't race for the rest of the year." So they needed to come up with some sort of penalty for those who transgress the rule. It can't be a fine as that negates the idea of reducing costs by limiting engines. The chosen solution was grid penalties. It used to work well because initially teams were able to improve reliability/durability so that they rarely fell foul of the penalties. Occasionally one car (or maybe two) would get hit. This was the way it was supposed to work.
With the introduction of the hybrid engines, the system needed to take account of the changing of each of the major elements in the power unit. I can't remember the exact numbers, but this meant instead of just a 5 place penalty for an engine change, a driver could now get a 30 place penalty for changing all the bits that make up the power unit. Even this would work OK (look at Mercedes and Ferrari) if the power units were reliable. But the problem arises because the Renault is pretty poor and the Honda is an unadulterated pile of poo. So whose fault is it? The FIA? Or Renault and Honda?
There seem to be a lot of people suggesting loss of constructor points instead of grid penalties. But how will it look when McLaren finish the season on -200 points, beaten by some other team that has only -50?
|