Gearbox Penalties

All that has to do with the power train, gearbox, clutch, fuels and lubricants, etc. Generally the mechanical side of Formula One.
rdbozz99
rdbozz99
-1
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:37 pm

Gearbox Penalties

Post

The regs are clear, and I realize that a car will be penalized 5 grid spots for gearbox violations. Too many? Since the ratios are set pre-season and cannot be changed - I am a bit unclear as to why a driver is penalized. Do some drivers gain some advantage by “using the gearbox too aggressively”? I can see that a new unworn box might be preferred - but just not clear on this. :)

rdbozz99
rdbozz99
-1
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:37 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I just cannot believe 179 persons look - but can not respond. It's either no knowledge OR
arrogance. What a stupid question?

Nickel
Nickel
18
Joined: Thu Jun 02, 2011 5:10 pm
Location: London Mountain, BC

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

The rules state a gearbox must last 6 consecutive races. This rule is meant to be a cost reduction method. Without an associated penalty, there would be no reason to design a box to last 6 race weekends, you'd just swap it every race at minimum.

sosic2121
sosic2121
19
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

It seems that gearbox penalties are harsher then engine penalties.
Last year Ferrari had unreliable gearbox and Vettel (i belive) lost more points then Hamilton for his MGU-H problems.

This year it's vice versa.
Maybe teams rule is flawed and gearbox should be treated as other engine parts. You get 4 for the season and do what you want with them...

rdbozz99
rdbozz99
-1
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:37 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

Thanks for the replies. However, in most sports, a player is penalized for something he or she did to gain an advantage. Clearly an F1 driver might prefer a NEW gbox rather than a worn one. My question remains - and it may be obvious to some - What is the "infraction" by a driver - which requires a new gbox? I appreciate that overuse of the box, especially for slowing, will result in more wear on the box. But is that not a part of good race driving? It's a simple question. Why penalize the driver for his driving style? OR, am I just simply missing something obvious? Cost? If a team is not happy with one of their driver's "abuse" of equipment - is that not an internal matter? Somehow I am feeling very stupid here - and it would not be the first time. :) When I drive a TRUE manual T car, I use the transmission aggressively. Hard on it? Absolutely. But in racing, it is a matter of driving "style". So I get punished? Sorry. I don't mean to be an AH here. I just don't understand it. Nor am I being argumentative about it. Love the sport and most connected with it. But I like to know the REASONS behind actions. Thanks again. :)

User avatar
SiLo
85
Joined: Sun Jul 25, 2010 6:09 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I don't mind the penalty, but I think it should be the same as the engines where they can swap them out if they want as long as they don't break the seal. If they think they have an issue, swap it out to be examined as best they can and then if they need to, they can bring in a new one.
Felipe Baby!

rdbozz99
rdbozz99
-1
Joined: Sat Jul 15, 2017 4:37 pm

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I believe I must be writing in some unknown language. I get it - that if the regs say A and one does B - there is a violation of the regs. What I’m desperately trying to get at here I presume is why the regulation? It implies that there has been wrongdoing by the driver, the team, or both. OR, perhaps I simply don’t understand the reasoning with the regulation. If a new gbox exactly like the old one gives an advantage AND that is the only reason to replace - then the penalty takes on some meaning. And I promise not to beat this horse any further. :)

joshuagore
joshuagore
1
Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2010 3:01 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I'm certain this has been proposed 1000 times but could all reliability related penalties be handed out in methods that only effected the constructors championship?

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

rdbozz99 wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 4:06 am
I believe I must be writing in some unknown language. I get it - that if the regs say A and one does B - there is a violation of the regs. What I’m desperately trying to get at here I presume is why the regulation? It implies that there has been wrongdoing by the driver, the team, or both. OR, perhaps I simply don’t understand the reasoning with the regulation. If a new gbox exactly like the old one gives an advantage AND that is the only reason to replace - then the penalty takes on some meaning. And I promise not to beat this horse any further. :)
If a driver commits a driving offence and is penalised should the team have to pay too?

Mercedes have been using, apparently, a very aggressive shift strategy, which has damaged the gears. That is why Hamilton's box was changed in Austria and Bottas' in Britain.

They run the aggressive shift strategy to gain performance. The driver benefits from that performance, so it is fair that he also suffers the consequences of having to change the gearbox.

That said, it would not be horrible to change to a system where 4 gearboxes can be used per year, and they can be rotated. There is a complicating factor this year in that one ratio change through the year has been allowed.

sosic2121
sosic2121
19
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I get what you mean, but I don't agree.
In the end it's driver who drives the car, and in most cases he did the damage.

For example Bottas in Baku.
He crashed into Kimi and damaged the gearbox. Now he pays the price(which is IMO too harsh).

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

sosic2121 wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:42 am
I get what you mean, but I don't agree.
In the end it's driver who drives the car, and in most cases he did the damage.

For example Bottas in Baku.
He crashed into Kimi and damaged the gearbox. Now he pays the price(which is IMO too harsh).
Bottas did not damage his gearbox by running into Kimi at Baku.

If that were the case, how's a 5 place grid penalty too harsh when he essentially ruined another driver's race?

Just think if he used the gearbox he was supposed to do he would most likely have retired. 2nd is a lot better than retirement, so that was a big gain that Bottas had by changing the gearbox.

You could penalize the team by taking off WCC points, but the driver has gained a performance advantage (well, negated a performance disadvantage) which is unfair to the other competitors.

You could argue that if the gearbox that was replaced was about to fail that 5 spots was too lenient.

sosic2121
sosic2121
19
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2016 11:14 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

wuzak wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:29 am
sosic2121 wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 7:42 am
I get what you mean, but I don't agree.
In the end it's driver who drives the car, and in most cases he did the damage.

For example Bottas in Baku.
He crashed into Kimi and damaged the gearbox. Now he pays the price(which is IMO too harsh).
Bottas did not damage his gearbox by running into Kimi at Baku.

If that were the case, how's a 5 place grid penalty too harsh when he essentially ruined another driver's race?

Just think if he used the gearbox he was supposed to do he would most likely have retired. 2nd is a lot better than retirement, so that was a big gain that Bottas had by changing the gearbox.

You could penalize the team by taking off WCC points, but the driver has gained a performance advantage (well, negated a performance disadvantage) which is unfair to the other competitors.

You could argue that if the gearbox that was replaced was about to fail that 5 spots was too lenient.
I read somewhere he did damage it then, but I could be wrong.
I agree with you about Bottas Raikkonen crash, but that's not the point.
Why couldn't they just use another gearbox just like engine components? You get 4, do what you want with them. After that, penalties...

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

sosic2121 wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:52 am
I read somewhere he did damage it then, but I could be wrong.
It was damaged at Baku, but not from the crash with Kimi.

They said they nursed it through Austria. Presumably they didn't want to have 2 penalties at Austria and Allow Ferrari an easy shot at the win.

wuzak
wuzak
356
Joined: Tue Aug 30, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

sosic2121 wrote:
Mon Jul 17, 2017 9:52 am
Why couldn't they just use another gearbox just like engine components? You get 4, do what you want with them. After that, penalties...
I suggested that earlier, but that's not what is written in the rules now.

3jawchuck
3jawchuck
45
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:57 am

Re: Gearbox Penalties

Post

I think that, with all the negative press these penalties bring, we will see a similar system of gearbox pooling as is used with PU elements. It is clearly a better way and it is just being delayed in being introduced because gearboxes don't get as much attention as PU elements do.