What to replace grid penalties with?

[nickf1]

i dont like these grid penalties at all i think maybe they should dock points from the affected team on they're constructers points as mark priestley was saying on the f1 show , it makes a mockery of all us fans watching and paying a lot of money to go see our heroes qualify and then start from the back of the grid when an engine problem is out of they're control

[Zynerji]

My point exactly

[Steven]

It's very interesting to see that grid penalties have been there in F1 for quite a while now, but suddenly, in the latest few months, everybody seems to think it's a bad idea. Of course this is due to the penalties of this year coming through, and Honda amassing them like hot cakes. The system was obviously made complicated by including the various PU components as penalty-sensitive.

For me, it would go a long way if we'd just exclude electronics, MGU-H and MGU-K from the penalty list. It would reduce the amount of penalties, and make the system more clear to distant fans. We just consider ICU and Turbo as one component, which when replaced, counts for x places back on the grid.

But then again, if we really need to get rid of the grid penalties, then I'd still propose the above system, but remove some points in the constructors' championship standings.

[marmer]

How about a race engine that starts from practice 3 (to shake it down) and the race. IF its damaged in an accident or blows up in the race the team gets s free engine for the next race but force teams to use the engine until failure in race conditions they could run whatever they want in practice 1 and 2 so teams actually run. I think this way races would be more exciting than the current system drivers would always start where they qualify and there would be more unexpected failures mid race. If a team demands to change engine for a performance upgrade they would then take a grid pen 5 places per component unless it was replacing a unit that failed on track.

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[rosters]

In the case of free engine change if it fails im the race they can 100% make it fail if outside the points. By using an abusive fuel map, wrong ignition timing and overboost. They will find a way to get most out of it....

[marmer]

In the case of free engine change if it fails im the race they can 100% make it fail if outside the points. By using an abusive fuel map, wrong ignition timing and overboost. They will find a way to get most out of it....

So in most cases this would only help the slower teams I don't see an issue with that personally

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk

[CBeck113]

Only have penalties for engines, and let the teams pay into a pool for each engine change. At the end of the season this money is distributed according to the constructor's championship points in reverse order, so basically the slower teams are paying money they'll get back, and the better teams are financing the slower teams...win-win for all involved, and every fan can follow this.

[skoop]

To me the problem aren't the penalties. The problem is that most of the teams need more then the allowed number of engines and the FIA makes them use even less engines with more races.

[Gerhardsa]

I don't think they will agree on removing the electric components as Steven suggested although I agree with the argument for it.

How about they keep it as it is but just tweak it a bit (ok maybe lots) whereby you only get penalised, as a driver (not saying contructor) if you have a failure on one complete set of components?

So to explain this.
You (as they probably do now) get allocated 4 of each "component" in the PU, but I will the gearbox in there as well (so 7 elements)

4 x Turbos
4 x ICE
4 x H
4 x K
4 x ES
4 x CE
3-4 GB

Only once 1 of each of those components failed and had to be replaced with one outside the 4 allocated for the season, the driver takes a penalty.(Maybe the team can be docked points for each component that fails. I am more concerned with the grid penalties at this stage)

So bottom line...
You might go through the whole season replacing 10 x turbos, 8 x H's, 5 x K's, but you only used the 4 allocated ICE's you got for 2017. That would mean that you didn't get any grid penalties for PU failures because you didn't use more than 4 of each component.

So only when you have used a 5th of each component do you get a penalty,
Again, only when all components hit 6 or more , then you get the next grid penalty
The team can be penalized in some way for each component more than 4, but that can be a background type thing (that can be a fine or points deduction per component etc.)


I've always been of the opinion that WDC and WCC should be separate from each other in terms of results and points allocation.
So example:
So Merc might have both drivers at 1 and 2 at end of season, meaning they are constructors as well? Well, no....
they used more PU components than allowed so they lost WCC points to Ferrari that way. Ferrari had better reliability and won the WCC that way ?

Or am I complicating it again....

[krisfx]

i dont like these grid penalties at all i think maybe they should dock points from the affected team on they're constructers points as mark priestley was saying on the f1 show , it makes a mockery of all us fans watching and paying a lot of money to go see our heroes qualify and then start from the back of the grid when an engine problem is out of they're control

Under the proposed constructor's points system, there's one obvious question I've asked before. Should the constructor get the points for where they would have finished if their driver bins it? After all, it's (usually) not the team's fault that a driver put it in the wall, so they should receive a "refund" of sorts surely?

[Gerhardsa]

i dont like these grid penalties at all i think maybe they should dock points from the affected team on they're constructers points as mark priestley was saying on the f1 show , it makes a mockery of all us fans watching and paying a lot of money to go see our heroes qualify and then start from the back of the grid when an engine problem is out of they're control

Under the proposed constructor's points system, there's one obvious question I've asked before. Should the constructor get the points for where they would have finished if their driver bins it? After all, it's (usually) not the team's fault that a driver put it in the wall, so they should receive a "refund" of sorts surely?

Lol
I can see McLaren not making it past lap 2 of any GP then.
Qualy top 9-10! Great!
Nando makes great start and gets up to 6th. Beginning of lap 2 he conveniently makes a massive "mistake", binning the car, whereas had they finished the race, they would end up 11th or 12th and not get a single point on merit.
That's not gonna happen. there are no refunds in the worlds most expensive motorsport championship (most expensive sport it the world maybe?)

[TAG]

Under the proposed constructor's points system, there's one obvious question I've asked before. Should the constructor get the points for where they would have finished if their driver bins it? After all, it's (usually) not the team's fault that a driver put it in the wall, so they should receive a "refund" of sorts surely?

Flavio Briatore's team wins the WCC.

[krisfx]

i dont like these grid penalties at all i think maybe they should dock points from the affected team on they're constructers points as mark priestley was saying on the f1 show , it makes a mockery of all us fans watching and paying a lot of money to go see our heroes qualify and then start from the back of the grid when an engine problem is out of they're control

Under the proposed constructor's points system, there's one obvious question I've asked before. Should the constructor get the points for where they would have finished if their driver bins it? After all, it's (usually) not the team's fault that a driver put it in the wall, so they should receive a "refund" of sorts surely?

Lol
I can see McLaren not making it past lap 2 of any GP then.
Qualy top 9-10! Great!
Nando makes great start and gets up to 6th. Beginning of lap 2 he conveniently makes a massive "mistake", binning the car, whereas had they finished the race, they would end up 11th or 12th and not get a single point on merit.
That's not gonna happen. there are no refunds in the worlds most expensive motorsport championship (most expensive sport it the world maybe?)

So by removing the punishment to the driver, the team is punished in every eventuality, which isn't fair is it? And isn't being fair the whole argument? (Included to stop the whole "X isn't fair" bs). It removes team from the equation. A team wins and loses together, it's the same in many sports.

[Sevach]

Well, when engine penalties got introduced they were a simple thing, 10 place for an extra engine.

The guy who written the 2014 rules got carried away, things that cause 10 place drops include engine, turbo, MGUH, MGUK, eletronics and energy storage (i might be missing something lol).
If you are gonna get grid drops for every single component of such a complex power unit you should reduce the 10 places number to something more reasonable like 4 places.

Maybe keep the ICE 10 and 4 for the rest...

Anyways... the only option i can think it would work is constructor points, but it would have to be harsh, 20 points for every 5th element, 25 for every 6th...

[marmer]

The only problem with limiting points going to the team or taking them away would affect the smaller teams much more. The bottom 3 teams last year had less points than a race win. With Haas not many more. The top 5 teams could survive a punishment of 25 points and it not affect there positions. You take points away from the lower teams and it could really affect the money they would get. while the big teams have the gaps in points to take the hit and can afford more engines as they get more prize money

Sent from my HUAWEI VNS-L31 using Tapatalk