Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan
My solution would be a secondary points structure.
|
I have put some thought into this over the past few days and I have an idea that is somewhat similar to what ScotsBrutesFan proposes.
I believe some type of system that limits the number of power unit components used over the course of the season needs to remain. We should not return to the era of qualifying specials and engines that only last one session or race weekend. With restrictions comes a penalty system, with the current penalty system being the problem.
I would do three things...
1. Increase the allocation of components for the span of the remainder of this engine formula. This specification is complex and while somewhat mature, clearly is still a problem for multiple manufactures. Increased allocation should help push problems like this until later in the season. Right now we are seeing a large number of penalties just a bit past half way.
2. Change the balance for component allocations. Roughly speaking it seems that the ICE is relatively stable while the ERS-H components have lower reliability. So I would allow for a larger allocation for those that are failing left and right now. This allocation may change (reduction) year by year as we approach the end of this specification and manufactures technology matures. (To be honest, I haven't looked into the current allocations and this suggestion may already be in place.)
3. Move from a grid penalty to reduction of points scored system. Similar to what ScotsBrutesFan proposes above, I would reduce any points scored during the race in which extra components are used. However my solution is both simpler and more drastic. If at least one component is used beyond allocation, then points would be cut in half. I think this will be simpler for fans to understand and with less outrage as there are no penalties to stack up to large numbers as component swaps are added up. There is no formula to define the size of the penalty, but rather a simple trigger for the single penalty. Which points would be cut? Constructor, driver or both? Most conversations here talk to it being constructor points only and leaving driver points as is. At the moment, I am leaning toward the cut happening for both (see below on why). But I am open to it just being constructor points and leaving driver points alone. Just to be clear... this impact points "scored" in the race in which components are changed. So no removing if prior won points and no team ending up with negative points.
What are the problems with this proposal? First, the team will take a full hit as soon as the first component needs to be swapped. So they will clearly take advantage and replace all components in the engine (i.e. a completely new power unit). That is fine. My concept is to focus on both delaying when the penalty happens, and for a simple solution when/if it does happen.
Second, if both constructor and driver points are not cut, I am concerned about teams gaming the system and it having unexpected impacts on (or rather manipulation of) the driver championship. If unintended strategic loophole come in to play which alter the shape of the drivers championship, then fans will be very upset. It would be some type of scenario in which a team may take the hit on the constructor championship just to ensure a better result in the driver championship. This will be seen as unfair to drivers.
If analysis showed that these scenarios don't exists, or are rare edge cases, then maybe only the constructor points is cut in half and the driver points is left alone.
Third, we will see half points being awarded. But that is not without precedent.
Lastly, not a problem with the proposal above, but... existing rules that impose grid penalties for changes between race and qualifying, etc. or rules to prevent "banking" of power units by swapping multiple within a race weekend would remain unchanged.
Richard