|
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
30 Oct 2017, 15:39 (Ref:3777522) | #101 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: May 2001
Posts: 6,635
|
One of the things that deluded me about these penalties, is that Schumi was deprived of what could be his last ever victory. Had he started from pole in 2012 Monaco GP... Words are not enough.
|
||
|
30 Oct 2017, 17:07 (Ref:3777548) | #102 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
You seem to forget his car broke down during the race, making the penalty irrelevant
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
31 Oct 2017, 23:57 (Ref:3777854) | #103 | ||||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,447
|
Quote:
Quote:
Well, it's only marginally dafter than what's actually happening. |
||||
__________________
Bill Bryson: It is no longer permitted to be stupid and slow. You must choose one or the other. |
1 Nov 2017, 19:35 (Ref:3778038) | #104 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 950
|
There's a piece on Pitpass where they've added up the grid penalties for 2017 so far and for power unit related penalties (not driver infringements) the totals are...
Mercedes power units - 25 places (3 teams) Ferrari power units - 60 places (3 teams) Renault power units - 290 places (3 teams) Honda power units - 390 places (1 team!) For comparison, there's only 400 grid places over the whole 2017 championship. |
||
__________________
I haven't got a life, just an anorak. |
1 Nov 2017, 20:00 (Ref:3778044) | #105 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 5,865
|
To be honest, I don't get what the fuss is about. Other than... the media blows it up with the fans. It's just a number. No matter how many penalties you get you can go no farther back than... the back of the grid.
Richard |
|
__________________
To paraphrase Mark Twain... "I'm sorry I wrote such a long post; I didn't have time to write a short one." |
2 Nov 2017, 06:01 (Ref:3778128) | #106 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 2,835
|
Why not just one or two place grid penalties per element change over the limit, with the extra condition that the team must complete qualifying as normal, otherwise they automatically start from the pit lane.
The added penalty for PU element changes, is that the car must also start the race on the compound they set their final grid position in. This ensures 1) grid penalties aren't utterly ridiculous and are capped to less than the actual grid size, 2) qualifying still occurs in its entirety, 3) the extra 'penalty' of less Sunday flexibility on strategy. |
||
__________________
Part time wingman, full time spud. |
2 Nov 2017, 08:48 (Ref:3778135) | #107 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,351
|
Quote:
I also question the validity of the source data - at which events did Ferrari and Mercedes powered cars pick up so many grid penalties??? In that case, the positions lost due to PU changes are as follows: Honda (69 total) Vandoorne 28 Button 11 Alonso 30 Renault (62 total) Kvyat 2 Verstappen 21 Ricciardo 22 Hulkenberg 2 Palmer 4 Sainz Jr 4 Hulkenberg 3 Hartley 5 |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
2 Nov 2017, 11:28 (Ref:3778154) | #108 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
I wonder if that means Honda were hampered because they were running a sole engine program unlike others?
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
2 Nov 2017, 12:52 (Ref:3778166) | #109 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
Quote:
These stats should be about the average per car or driver, not the total number as it makes the Honda look closer to the Renault than it actually is. These are the averages, based purely on the numbers posted here Positions penalised Mercedes - 6 per driver Ferrari - 10 per driver Renault - 48 per driver Honda - 195 per driver Actual slots lost Renault - 8 per driver Honda - 23 per driver |
||
|
2 Nov 2017, 12:53 (Ref:3778167) | #110 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
You'll gather less data and test less new parts, certainly. So it really depends on what the problem is. Do they have a lack of data? Do they know what the issue is? Do they know how to potentially fix it? Is it a manufacturing problem, and they have all the data, they just can't actually produce the fix? Lab and real world testing are very different. I guess only Honda know the answer to that.
|
|
|
2 Nov 2017, 13:35 (Ref:3778180) | #111 | |||
Race Official
Veteran
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 12,447
|
Quote:
|
|||
__________________
Bill Bryson: It is no longer permitted to be stupid and slow. You must choose one or the other. |
2 Nov 2017, 14:04 (Ref:3778188) | #112 | ||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,351
|
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
2 Nov 2017, 14:50 (Ref:3778196) | #113 | ||
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
Quote:
Totals don't mean anything because Renault supply 3 times more engines than Honda. So you need an average. It's also unfair to compare actual slots lost rather than penalised if you're wanting a picture of reliability. Mercedes cars tend to be further forward on the grid, so a 5 place drop will always be a 5 place drop. But a Honda is usually near the back, so a 25 place drop for multiple failures could turn out to only be 4 places lost. If you use the actual slots lost, this makes the Honda look more reliable than the Mercedes, when we know that isn't the case. That's why you have to compare the number penalised, because a team may not be able to serve the penalty in full. It also suggests that the engine rules were written without taking into account that there could be such reliability issues, which is a bit short sighted! I actually mashed my calculator wrongly too. It's 4 for Mercedes, not 6. Pit pass claims 25 places across 3 teams, or 6 cars. 25/6 cars is 4.16, rounded to 4. So according to PitPass stats, Mercedes cars have lost approx 4 places on the grid each throughout the year. |
||
|
2 Nov 2017, 15:33 (Ref:3778204) | #114 | |||
Subscriber
Veteran
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 12,351
|
Quote:
Tactical changes - we see teams opt to take the penalties at a certain time, in an attempt to gain the least hurt. Bulk changes - if a team know that they are going to take a penalty, and that they are likely to be at the back, then they may also opt for multiple elements simultaneously just to refresh. Do we know if the Hondas were further up the front, that they would have still made the multi-element changes? Performance stress - if a certain car is battling with a lot of traffic, or attempting to make up positions, could they be pushing their engine harder than another car in clearer air or not racing a rival? External factors - some damage to engines could be as a result of contact or driver style? For example: At the US GP, Vandoorne took a 30-place PU penalty, Verstappen a 15-place. I would imagine the RBR thinking was that Verstappen will still be able to get into the points from mid-low pack, but Vandoorne was just taking a whole refresh of all elements. Was Vettel's engine change at Malaysia attributable to damage at Singapore? Was Ricciardo's engine failure in Mexico caused by excessive heat from following cars? Possibly stress from attempting to move through the pack? My original point was that the volume of penalties received is meaningless without the context. Whether that is the impact, contributory factors or decision making behind PU changes - all of these should be known before the data can be interpreted correctly. |
|||
__________________
"When you’re just too socially awkward for real life, Ten-Tenths welcomes you with open arms. Everyone has me figured out, which makes it super easy for me." |
2 Nov 2017, 15:50 (Ref:3778207) | #115 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 18,398
|
Yes, at least a time penalty would mean qualifying would still mean something to those who have penalties
|
|
__________________
He who dares wins! He who hesitates is lost! |
2 Nov 2017, 16:20 (Ref:3778213) | #116 | |
Veteran
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 10,934
|
Bulk changes and tactical changes are why the penalised number should be analysed rather than the positions lost. The bulk and tactical changes are done at a time to minimise the number of actual positions lost. If you do them in one chunk, you get to take a 20 place grid drop, but only drop 15, which is better than the 5 drop over 4 races.
Other external factors are impossible to measure. Yes you could make a good discussion out of argument damage, because accidents are relatively rare occurrences. But things like stress due to performance and following other cars should balance out because each manufacturer besides Honda has 6 cars. So unless we have a strange situation where all the Mercedes runners cruise about all year, and all the Renault runners rag the engines all year, you have to assume that balances relatively correctly. Good point about Honda swapping parts when it isn't needed. That's why they're an outlier in it all. But it's also a good example of why you need to take the numbers penalised rather than actual positions lost. If (for example) Vandoorne qualified 18th, and then swapped so many parts that he got a 50 place drop, he still only loses 2 places. A Ferrari could then swap 1 part, drop 5 spots, and it looks worse for the Ferrari. The actual penalised spaces is a bit lost without context, but I do think that if we're just talking pure statistics, then it's much much more accurate than actual grid positions lost. The cars at the front have each penalty weighted more than the cars at the back in that situation. In an extreme case, if Manor were still here, qualifying at the back, they could blow up engines every race and never take a grid drop (or each car could only take a maximum of 1). I completely agree that no matter how it's looked at, it isn't as clear as the stats say. But even if you twist the stats the best they can be in Hondas favour, they still come out comfortably bottom. That says a lot that you can't even manipulate the situation into making Honda decent. Edit: Someone earlier suggested penalising constructors points for engine failures. But should Sauber lose a valuable point because a Ferrari engine they purchased failed? That also doesn't seem fair. |
|
|
|
|
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 |