Penalties in Formula 1

[JimClarkFan]

I get that F1 needs to have one eye on costs, and I agree that there should be some kind of mechanism of cost reduction. I also agree that if a gearbox, or engine, or any kind of mechanical fault requires that a new part is to be fitted to the car that there should be a penalty in line with cost reductions.

But why does the DRIVER take a 5, or 10 place grid drop.

A guy (name I can't remember) on the BBC was talking about this earlier, and I completely agree. Much of the mechanical damage these days is not due to the drivers so why should their chances at the championship be damaged from a faulty piece of equipment.

Much better would be to penalize the team in the constructors championship, a deduction of points depending on the part replaced and the importance of that part.

Surely this makes most sense?

[Websta]

Wouldn't that allow teams to sacrifice their constructor position to boost their chance of a WDC? For example, I could see Ferrari sacrificing their uncompetitive position in the constructors championship to give Alonso a new engine at some rounds - both this season and in 2010. At the end of the day, the drivers are employees - the teams don't exist for the drivers to score points, it is the other way around. That is why I can understand the logic in penalising the drivers. I do think that 5 places is a pretty harsh penalty for a gearbox though, 3 places would be more suitable

[dave34m]

I like what they were saying on Sky F1 about having a number of gearboxes for the season and you can use them as you wish, same as engines. It would be fairer and we wouldn't have these annoying grid penalties when a gearbox doesnt last 5 straight races.

[JayeOFarrell]

I really liked the idea Anthony came up with this morning with 8 or 6 (I can't remember) gearboxes however I really dislike this new train of thought where by the drivers are not penalized for a broken engine/gearbox. In my opinion the team and the driver win and lose together, they are one and the same. The reverse of this argument is that if the driver makes a mistake, say a driver is running in a points scoring position but then bins it, should the team still get the points they would of got for the constructors title? Unless that is going to become the case I don't think you can separate out the to because it isn't fair. Put simply, you can't have your cake and eat it in my opinion.

[ESPImperium]

Personally, i think engines should be used consecutively, so that every engine and lap counts, and also eradicate the Friday engine thing, that should be banned. The use of another engine at a weekend will see a 10 place grid drop if an engine isnt used for the 3 days that weekend.

As for gearboxes, this should be limited to 4 per season with that same box being used throughout the weekend. However the first change is a joker, and any further replacements after that would be a 5 place drop. however id allow the teams to allocate their gearboxes with 8 gears from 20 submitted before each season, but once a weekend they can change the final drive ratio if they need/want.

F1 can become so much more transparent and easier to follow with rules like this.

[Steven]

There is of course a reason for the difference between engine and gearbox regulations.

Engines are limited by an amount per season, because it is equal and fair for all teams. The only real difference with an x-races regulations as with gearboxes is that the penalties usually occur at the end of the season.

For gearboxes, the situation is quite different, because teams are allowed to make changes or actually design an entirely new gearbox halfway through the season. An x-races regulation as it is in place now is transparent. If a team has a new box ready, they can take the penalty for an immediate change or wait until each car has completed its number of races for the active gearbox. It would be kind of absurd to explain to anyone that a team ran out of gearboxes and runs the last two races with the old designs.

Anyway, as for penalising the drivers for engines or gearboxes, well it really doesn't differ from back in the days when the engines blew up. It cost the team points, but also ruined the driver's result, similar to what happens now with the penalties.

[JimClarkFan]

Anyway, as for penalising the drivers for engines or gearboxes, well it really doesn't differ from back in the days when the engines blew up. It cost the team points, but also ruined the driver's result, similar to what happens now with the penalties.

I assume you are talking about an engine blowing up during the race?
In which case you are right it still does affect the driver and the team.

However beforehand there was no penalty for the engine blowing up in practise or qualifying, they just stuck in a new one and off they went - so there is a difference between now and then.

My issue is that if an engine blows up why does the driver suffer, a hefty points penalty to the team would be better which may cause a difference in team placement in the constructors and hurt the pockets of the team for next season, this will in turn affect the driver next year.

In my opinion the team and the driver win and lose together, they are one and the same. The reverse of this argument is that if the driver makes a mistake, say a driver is running in a points scoring position but then bins it, should the team still get the points they would of got for the constructors title?

Not quite the same situation, if a gearbox or engine goes during the race its over for both parties. No WDC points, no constructor points. What we are talking about is an engine, or gear box needing replaced during the FP or Qualifiying.

[JayeOFarrell]

[quote=] Not quite the same situation, if a gearbox or engine goes during the race its over for both parties. No WDC points, no constructor points. What we are talking about is an engine, or gear box needing replaced during the FP or Qualifiying.[/quote]

Fair point

[Cam]

Whoever cheats for the first time will go three races without championship points

Ecclestone's latest project is to convince the teams to accept a US $200-250 annual spending cap.

Source

Will be great to see the arbitrage on what they consider does and doesn't fall within the rules. With penalties that harsh, teams would want crystal clear rules and compensation if the FIA get it wrong.

[mzivtins]

Hmmmm, gearboxes cost £2million a go, or around that figure anyway. You have a driver who is way over aggressive on the curbs during intense shift moments and he can do damage to the gearbox. So yes, the driver can cause these things.

Also the driver is part of the team. They only do as well as each other, so the fact to penalize them both is great otherwise we would end up with some drivers alienating themselves from their teams completely. It would be awful for the teams trying to manage what is going on.

If what these guys on the BBC etc say went ahead then you would end up almost with a F1 season where the drivers could 'hot seat' into whatever car they want for each race... yes its an extreme version of what they are saying, but have they no concept of the word TEAM?!

Also conversely, if this argument is followed so well, then why is the opposite not so keenly spoken of? Just because our driver ignored blue flags doesn't mean the team should lose out on points!?

There seems to be a lot of 'protect the driver from the teams mistakes' talk going on. These are F1 drivers, not pop-stars.

Sorry, that seems like a rant

[mzivtins]

My issue is that if an engine blows up why does the driver suffer, a hefty points penalty to the team would be better which may cause a difference in team placement in the constructors and hurt the pockets of the team for next season, this will in turn affect the driver next year.

Because he is part of the team?

You can have it the way you are saying here, but if i was a team boss i would say "You dont want to be penalised for racing for us? ok, you're on the bench for the rest of the season, here comes the reserve driver to score us WDC points whilst your score none"

It works both ways, do not bite the hand that feeds.