Home Mobile Forum News Cookbook FaceBook Us T-Shirts etc.: Europe/Worldwide. eBay Motorsport Links Advertising Live Chat  
Site Partners: SpotterGuides  
Related Sites: Your Link Here  

Go Back   TenTenths Motorsport Forum > Single Seater Racing > Formula One


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 3 Sep 2017, 10:23 (Ref:3764027)   #16
steve nielsen
Veteran
 
steve nielsen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2000
Netherlands
Rotterdam- Holland
Posts: 3,870
steve nielsen should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
It has already changed again, 25 place penalty for Vandoorne
steve nielsen is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 11:12 (Ref:3764040)   #17
MTW
Rookie
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 4
MTW should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Totally silly, especially in yesterday's qualifying, as soon as I was impressed with a display by a driver, the commentator kept saying, "but he won't get eh position because of grid penalty", I couldn't even keep track of it.

Perhaps instead they should give a whining-penalty, first driver to whine that it is too wet to race gets a 10 second penalty. "oh my goodness I slid off the track, I could have broke a finger nail, stop the race!"

MTW is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 11:50 (Ref:3764048)   #18
F1Guy
Veteran
 
F1Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Antarctica
Driving dangerously
Posts: 619
F1Guy should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Jean Todt from the grid in Monza on these silly penalties: "If we can make the situation better, we will do it. We are open to suggestions and we will have a meeting."

Sooner the better Mr Todt. Sooner the better.

Mr Todt has asked for some serious suggestions on this. Please post them here. He often frequents this forum.
F1Guy is offline  
__________________
When did I do dangerous driving???
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 14:24 (Ref:3764075)   #19
TrapezeArtist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
United Kingdom
England
Posts: 963
TrapezeArtist should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridTrapezeArtist should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridTrapezeArtist should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
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?
TrapezeArtist is offline  
__________________
The older I get, the faster I was.
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 14:48 (Ref:3764078)   #20
crmalcolm
Veteran
 
crmalcolm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Italy
Posts: 2,003
crmalcolm should be qualifying in the top 10 on the gridcrmalcolm should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist View Post
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?


Sauber are the only team running a Ferrari or Mercedes engine who have received a penalty so far connected to power unit reliability - which is how the system should work.
The complaints should be addressed to the manufacturers of those engines that are not meeting the reliability requirements of F1 in 2017.

Jean Todt should be told that nothing needs to be changed with the penalty system, something needs to be done with the engine manufacturers.
crmalcolm is offline  
__________________
"Wasn't fair! I brake for animals, Lewis doesn't"
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 14:52 (Ref:3764079)   #21
ScotsBrutesFan
Race Official
Veteran
 
ScotsBrutesFan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Scotland
West Lothian
Posts: 4,590
ScotsBrutesFan has a real shot at the championship!ScotsBrutesFan has a real shot at the championship!ScotsBrutesFan has a real shot at the championship!ScotsBrutesFan has a real shot at the championship!ScotsBrutesFan has a real shot at the championship!
Quote:
Originally Posted by TrapezeArtist View Post
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?
As I have posted in the Future Rules Change thread....

For me the obvious option if F1 is to continue with the "limited" number of power unit bits, would be to hit the teams with championship points penalties.

But struggling teams (possibly because of engine issues) may not be getting many points, so do we want to see the lower places in the contractors championship decided in a battle between teams in negative numbers?

Likewise imposing a fine on teams wouldn't work either, what is beer money for Mercedes or Ferrari could be a significant amount over the season for a smaller team.

My solution would be a secondary points structure.

Firstly lets start with a reasonable number of bits to begin with for the season...lets face it 10 or 12 are built per car as spares for the 4 that are allowed, plus any new development bits as the season goes on.

Each race where a constructor uses 1 additional part they are racing for a revised constructors points list of 2 points less than normal scored and have to finish in the top 9 to score points.

1st: 23pts, 2nd: 16pts, 3rd: 13pts, 4th: 10pts, 5th: 8pts, 6th: 6pts, 7th: 4pts, 8th: 2pts and 9th 1pt.

If 2 or more parts are used then a points list of 4 points less than normal and have to finish in the top 8

1st: 21pts, 2nd: 16pts, 3rd: 11pts, 4th: 8pts, 5th: 6pts, 6th: 4pts 7th: 2pts and 8th 1pt.

Drivers points would remain the same.

Edit to add

If there was a way of including gearbox into this in a fair way, I'd be for removing that grid penalty as well.
ScotsBrutesFan is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 16:43 (Ref:3764112)   #22
Akrapovic
Veteran
 
Akrapovic's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Scotland
Posts: 4,727
Akrapovic is going for a new world record!Akrapovic is going for a new world record!Akrapovic is going for a new world record!Akrapovic is going for a new world record!Akrapovic is going for a new world record!Akrapovic is going for a new world record!Akrapovic is going for a new world record!Akrapovic is going for a new world record!
So for Monza, Perez qualified 11th, got a 5 place penalty and started 10th. Good to see we're making this sport accessible to fans.
Akrapovic is offline  
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 20:38 (Ref:3764250)   #23
Aysedasi
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
20KPINAL
 
Aysedasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
England
Lymington, New Forest, England
Posts: 29,649
Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Yep, it makes complete sense......
Aysedasi is offline  
__________________
234
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 21:02 (Ref:3764270)   #24
NaBUru38
Veteran
 
NaBUru38's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Uruguay
Las Canteras, Uruguay
Posts: 7,025
NaBUru38 should be qualifying in the top 5 on the gridNaBUru38 should be qualifying in the top 5 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by djinvicta View Post
Nearly half of them start on the back row..How do they work that out?
They could do a landrush start, like motocross or short course off road truck racing.
NaBUru38 is offline  
__________________
"Show me a driver who didnít make a handful of errors this year, and Iíll show you someone who wasnít trying hard enough." - David Malsher
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 21:05 (Ref:3764273)   #25
Aysedasi
Ten-Tenths Hall of Fame
20KPINAL
 
Aysedasi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
England
Lymington, New Forest, England
Posts: 29,649
Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!Aysedasi is the undisputed Champion of the World!
Forget qualifying. Line them up in Echelon in reverse points order and have the drivers sprint from a line at the exit of the last corner to get in their cars.....
Aysedasi is offline  
__________________
234
Quote
Old 3 Sep 2017, 21:44 (Ref:3764290)   #26
TrapezeArtist
Veteran
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
United Kingdom
England
Posts: 963
TrapezeArtist should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridTrapezeArtist should be qualifying in the top 3 on the gridTrapezeArtist should be qualifying in the top 3 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan View Post
My solution would be a secondary points structure.

Firstly lets start with a reasonable number of bits to begin with for the season...lets face it 10 or 12 are built per car as spares for the 4 that are allowed, plus any new development bits as the season goes on.

Each race where a constructor uses 1 additional part they are racing for a revised constructors points list of 2 points less than normal scored and have to finish in the top 9 to score points.

1st: 23pts, 2nd: 16pts, 3rd: 13pts, 4th: 10pts, 5th: 8pts, 6th: 6pts, 7th: 4pts, 8th: 2pts and 9th 1pt.

If 2 or more parts are used then a points list of 4 points less than normal and have to finish in the top 8

1st: 21pts, 2nd: 16pts, 3rd: 11pts, 4th: 8pts, 5th: 6pts, 6th: 4pts 7th: 2pts and 8th 1pt.

Drivers points would remain the same.
Yeah, that seems simple enough.
TrapezeArtist is offline  
__________________
The older I get, the faster I was.
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2017, 01:12 (Ref:3764322)   #27
JABWOA
Veteran
 
JABWOA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Australia
3rd star to the left
Posts: 660
JABWOA should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aysedasi View Post
Forget qualifying. Line them up in Echelon in reverse points order and have the drivers sprint from a line at the exit of the last corner to get in their cars.....
Vandorne would win!
(Interesting stat from Monza - Vandorne has taken 1 kilometer of grid penalties this year (based on the 8m per grid spots)
JABWOA is offline  
__________________
"We've heard that a million monkeys at a million keyboards could produce the complete works of Shakespeare; now, thanks to the Internet, we know that is not true." -Robert Wilensky
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2017, 02:25 (Ref:3764330)   #28
F J Nedos
Veteran
 
F J Nedos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Australia
Canberra
Posts: 1,186
F J Nedos should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Make every car in the grid change everything after qualifying. They all get the same grid penalty therefore their qualifying positions stand!
F J Nedos is offline  
__________________
I'm not saying "let's go and kill all the stupid people"... I'm just saying "let's remove all of the warning labels and let the problem sort itself out".
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2017, 08:21 (Ref:3764403)   #29
marcel82
Veteran
 
marcel82's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
European Union
Beersel, Belgium
Posts: 853
marcel82 should be qualifying in the top 10 on the grid
Quote:
Originally Posted by steve nielsen View Post
It has already changed again, 25 place penalty for Vandoorne
which basically meant that Sainz, who got a 10 place penalty, started where he qualified.
But I do believe the situation is being caused by suppliers s****ing all over the rules, and not delivering on the mileage required.
marcel82 is offline  
__________________
Heaven is a checkered flag.
Quote
Old 4 Sep 2017, 14:50 (Ref:3764451)   #30
Richard Casto
Subscriber
Veteran
 
Richard Casto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
United States
Durham, NC, USA
Posts: 2,265
Richard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of FameRichard Casto will be entering the Motorsport Hall of Fame
Quote:
Originally Posted by ScotsBrutesFan View Post
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
Richard Casto is offline  
__________________
Money can't buy happiness, but somehow it's more comfortable to cry in a Porsche than a Kia.
Quote
Reply

Bookmarks




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
[Rules] Hamilton 5 Place Penalty? Peter Mallett Formula One 55 17 Apr 2012 00:49
10 place penalty for Hamilton and Rosberg alonso11 Formula One 299 24 Jun 2008 02:06
Five place penalty for Kovalainen Down F0rce Formula One 107 23 Jun 2008 16:42
Vettel gets 5 place penalty Marbot Formula One 13 19 May 2008 20:11
Massa first to be hit with '10 place penalty' following De la Rosa Incident Damon Formula One 3 17 Sep 2002 11:41


Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

All times are GMT. The time now is 10:27.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Original Website Copyright © 1998-2003 Craig Antil. All Rights Reserved.
Ten-Tenths Motorsport Forums Copyright © 2004-2016 Royalridge Computing. All Rights Reserved.