Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
Can anyone putting forth alternate penalty suggestions take a shot at explaining why this is all of the sudden a problem?
We'll as a dedicated fan it is easier for me to understand the penalties, but I also have friends who watch F1 for the racing who do not stare at photos looking at what updates were brought to a race. They don't bother with the technical side that much. They seek entertainment. Me trying to explain to them that Car A and Car B qualified in front of Car C but they start X places back because of some penalty is rather confusing to them and frankly they don't care about things like engines. They want racing but for instance in Monza where basically no-one except Hamilton started where they qualified it is not that easy to follow if you are a casual fan. F1 needs fans for new growth and not all of them will be hardcore followers as most here are. They couldn't care less about certain things but seek only entertainment and if they can't understand why certain things happen, they lose interest and move on to easier to understand sports.
This thread is aimed at discussing possible solutions that we would like to see implemented. Perhaps Mr Brawn lurks here and gets some ideas... [-o<
To be fair to newcomers they actually had an advantage I knowing what performance is required so if they develop privately for years and then enter it would be unfair to allow them more parts
Can anyone putting forth alternate penalty suggestions take a shot at explaining why this is all of the sudden a problem?
We'll as a dedicated fan it is easier for me to understand the penalties, but I also have friends who watch F1 for the racing who do not stare at photos looking at what updates were brought to a race. They don't bother with the technical side that much. They seek entertainment. Me trying to explain to them that Car A and Car B qualified in front of Car C but they start X places back because of some penalty is rather confusing to them and frankly they don't care about things like engines. They want racing but for instance in Monza where basically no-one except Hamilton started where they qualified it is not that easy to follow if you are a casual fan. F1 needs fans for new growth and not all of them will be hardcore followers as most here are. They couldn't care less about certain things but seek only entertainment and if they can't understand why certain things happen, they lose interest and move on to easier to understand sports.
This thread is aimed at discussing possible solutions that we would like to see implemented. Perhaps Mr Brawn lurks here and gets some ideas... [-o<
MAMBA
F1 in general isn't the easiest to understand for the casual fan. Why do we have these different tyres, why do people need to pit and use different compounds, what the hell is a compound, how does this qualifying format work, what is DRS, what is ERS, is ERS different from KERS...
It does feel like this is, yet again, a reaction to an outlier. Sometimes the demand for change outweighs the need for change, and you turn out with a solution which causes even more problems further down the line.
I think the restriction makes the race more boring.
you will always try and "save the engine" if you don't think you have a decent chance at gaining a points position.
If you are in a solid 4th position you just turn the engine down and wander to the finish.
I cant imagine the manufacturing cost for these parts is anywhere near the R&D costs. I don't see where the savings will be.
it all so means you can only upgrade the pu twice without taking a penalty(2018 rules). you are basically back to the token system again
I really can't see how an increase of PU-units will help prevent grid penalties. They are designed with the projected use with some margin. Lets say, the three units for next year have to work for 7 races plus 10%, when one fails after 50% of it's use, you need to take a penalty. When you have 20 PU's and they design following the same methode, 1 race plus 10%, if one fails during qualifying, they still need an extra PU.
The problem with the current system isn't the amount of PU's available, but the way the "pool" is setup. Failure before the full lifespan of the PU will give you a double penalty. First your current race and then the penalty the next one, or later in the season to replace this unit.
With the current level of reliability of the front runners (Hamilton 100% score, Vettel just one DNF) it's safe to say that reliably wins you a championship (and last year's in also a perfect example).
I said it before, but a system like for the gearbox is perfect, especially with the no-token system.
- A PU has to last 7 races.
- When you fail to finish a race, you can replace your PU.
- If your PU fails before the race during the weekend, you can replace it with a new one and take a 10 place grid penalty.
This way, Mercedes and Ferrari are still challenged to produce a 3 PU per season engine and gives Renault and Honda the chance, without tons of grid penalties, to introduce new elements and designs (because they don't finish that often, when you do get reliability, you can extend that until you do do 7 races per PU)
Also, this rule doesn't make any difference if it's 1 PU per weekend or 7 weekends per PU. If you break one during the event, you get a penalty, when you break it during the race, nothing happens.
"why has driver x a 10 place penalty? well... he blew his engine yesterday" instead of "why had driver x a 35 place grid penalty? well... at the beginning of the season, about 6 months ago, he blow a engine"
punishments only really work when they are direct and fair. The only downside is that you can't finetune the different tracks with your PU's, like have a fresh one for monza and reuse an old one when power isn't important. Small price to pay for innovation and clarity.
