Have F1 penalties gone too far?
- Thread starter Paul Jeffrey
- Start date
The penalty system has gone way too far. Rosberg should not have been penalized beyond losing the race. Hamilton should not have been penalized for reversing a metre or two in the pit lane after the marshalls told him to do so.
I think drivers like Maldonado and early Grosjean force the FIA to implement some of these stricter on track rules, but it's definitely a wet blanket for the racing action sometimes. The cost saving penalties are really tough to swallow, especially when the current payout system is so skewed and unfair.
The best thing I've heard about F1 in a long time, was that Whiting watched Pascal throw it into reverse and creep back to his proper grid spot, and specifically waited for him to finish before beginning the start sequence - instead of just throwing the book at him.
I think drivers like Maldonado and early Grosjean force the FIA to implement some of these stricter on track rules, but it's definitely a wet blanket for the racing action sometimes. The cost saving penalties are really tough to swallow, especially when the current payout system is so skewed and unfair.
The best thing I've heard about F1 in a long time, was that Whiting watched Pascal throw it into reverse and creep back to his proper grid spot, and specifically waited for him to finish before beginning the start sequence - instead of just throwing the book at him.
Honestly didn't like the penalty. While I could agree that Rosberg pushed a bit too much in that corner, when Hamilton has played chicken with him in the past he is the one that has to back out because he doesn't seem like a crazy person. Hamilton knows this so he keeps pulling the same trick.
Now Rosberg tried to play chicken and Hamilton tried to call the bluff... well, it was more like a braking issue (be it deliberately braking late or an actual problem) than a bluff.
I only want some consistency here, as was said: if track limits is a hard limit, then make sure it's treated as such race after race, not on however they're feeling like it that day. If running people out of room at corner exit is frowned upon, make sure it's punished every time it happens. As for punishments, the current +5 and +10 seconds are awesome in that you can serve them or keep running, if only there was consistency.
Now Rosberg tried to play chicken and Hamilton tried to call the bluff... well, it was more like a braking issue (be it deliberately braking late or an actual problem) than a bluff.
I only want some consistency here, as was said: if track limits is a hard limit, then make sure it's treated as such race after race, not on however they're feeling like it that day. If running people out of room at corner exit is frowned upon, make sure it's punished every time it happens. As for punishments, the current +5 and +10 seconds are awesome in that you can serve them or keep running, if only there was consistency.
This used to be a sport of men and gentelmens...yeup! the good old times... Dady!, dady! that pilot crash my car!.... and FIA make it worse...
and FIA make it worse...
And one of the most boring seasons ever, if not the most.
Also, it's funny that you complain about harsh penalties because drivers won't try to overtake, however you want real racetracks with gravel traps were drivers can't risk like they do now, which has direct correlation with overtaking as well.
And bonus track, in that same season Montoya was penalized for "this":
But yeah it's always more popular to say how bad and disgusting is current F1, like if it was any better in the past. Nostalgia is so strong in so many fans...
Let me put it like that: I watched F1 back in the days and and watch it now, even been to races and not only in F1. It got worse constantly in many areas. I didn't mention with a single word that there were no penalties at all in the past. Everybody knows that Schumacher got disqualified in Jerez 97. That's not the point. The point is that the influence of those rules and penalties has increased significantly, technical rules like DRS have made overtaking a boring to watch excercise where you know most of the time the outcome. I rather have a Imola 2005 with no overtaking but two professionals fighting for every inch than a staged show manouver. Rules like grid penalties for mechanical issues that are totaly unbalanced: just the comparison of a grid penalty in Monaco compared to a grid penalty in Spa shows inherent issues in modern Formula 1.
It's not a secret that there were boring seasons or races in the past. But what was better was the racing itself, the overal experience for the spectator, races were far more entertaining to watch just because of the cars and the drivers themself, tracks got transformed to huge run off areas. I don't want drivers to take artificial risks. That people overtook less in the past because of the gravel traps and higher risks is pretty much nonesense aswell. Quite contrary - the overtakes were an achievement and some of them even legendary. If anything, it required more skill from the driver to do a quality overtake. And that's what we wanna see, or am I wrong.
I am not saying F1 is disgusting because otherwise I would propably not watch it, but comparing it with the past, it has lost alot of it's flavor. Maybe we have a different taste in that regard, who knows. But the spectator numbers live and on TV speak for themself. The Race in Spielberg was quite entertaining to watch, but with gravel traps, without DRS and with proper cars, it could have been something else. And the investigation after the race including the penalties after the race was just a joke on it's own. Sometimes I wish people like Gilles Villeneuve were still alive and tell them, that they are doing ****
From my point of view relaxing the penalties won't facilitate closer racing.
Close racing is what the paying public go to see, so maybe F1 needs to go back to a more basic format with both car and track.
Go back to more mechanical grip rather than the big dollar aero kits that stop opponants from getting into a position of setting up a passing move without mass wind disturbance, which causes a loss of front grip and potentially stiffles close racing. Also dump DRS and go back to driver abilities winning races instead of technology.
Go back to gravel traps instead of these huge runoff area's that just allows drivers to go beyond the track limits, which is why penalties are now in place for such actions.
Remove the limits on engines and gearboxes per season, and put a ceiling on how much a team can spend on R&D, this could help to bring the top teams back into the pack, make it so the top teams must supply "A spec" engines and not last years "hand me downs".
There's to much team influence within the politics of F1 IMO. If Mercedes and/or Ferrari had been put into a position by the FIA/FOM and made to supply RedBull with an "A spec" engine, when they had issues with Renault we would have an awesome WDC in 2016, but due to the amount of clout the teams have in the name of dominance, it didn't happen. Now we have the scenario that RB have lost the Renault engine for 2017 and are struggleing to find a replacement, with both Merc or Ferrari refusing to supply power plants to RB, for fear of being beaten.
To make things worse for RB the FIA is threatening to sue if they pullout of F1, as their contracted till 2020. Yet the FIA & FOM seem to be doing little to help with the engine supply issue that RB are facing, although Bernie has made comments about going back to V8 engines and has also passed comments about an FIA branded engine to stop the engine development teams being selective about who can have their power plants.
Maybe F1 should take a look at V8SuperCars, the teams have no say at all in the rule making, and we've had 8 different drivers take pole with 10 different race winners from 13 races. This is due to good managment and definitive consistent rules and controls on both cars, drivers and teams, and there's been huge crowds at each event because it's so competitive.
Seems like there's to many chiefs and not enough indians in F1.
Cheers.
Close racing is what the paying public go to see, so maybe F1 needs to go back to a more basic format with both car and track.
Go back to more mechanical grip rather than the big dollar aero kits that stop opponants from getting into a position of setting up a passing move without mass wind disturbance, which causes a loss of front grip and potentially stiffles close racing. Also dump DRS and go back to driver abilities winning races instead of technology.
Go back to gravel traps instead of these huge runoff area's that just allows drivers to go beyond the track limits, which is why penalties are now in place for such actions.
Remove the limits on engines and gearboxes per season, and put a ceiling on how much a team can spend on R&D, this could help to bring the top teams back into the pack, make it so the top teams must supply "A spec" engines and not last years "hand me downs".
There's to much team influence within the politics of F1 IMO. If Mercedes and/or Ferrari had been put into a position by the FIA/FOM and made to supply RedBull with an "A spec" engine, when they had issues with Renault we would have an awesome WDC in 2016, but due to the amount of clout the teams have in the name of dominance, it didn't happen. Now we have the scenario that RB have lost the Renault engine for 2017 and are struggleing to find a replacement, with both Merc or Ferrari refusing to supply power plants to RB, for fear of being beaten.
To make things worse for RB the FIA is threatening to sue if they pullout of F1, as their contracted till 2020. Yet the FIA & FOM seem to be doing little to help with the engine supply issue that RB are facing, although Bernie has made comments about going back to V8 engines and has also passed comments about an FIA branded engine to stop the engine development teams being selective about who can have their power plants.
Maybe F1 should take a look at V8SuperCars, the teams have no say at all in the rule making, and we've had 8 different drivers take pole with 10 different race winners from 13 races. This is due to good managment and definitive consistent rules and controls on both cars, drivers and teams, and there's been huge crowds at each event because it's so competitive.
Seems like there's to many chiefs and not enough indians in F1.
Cheers.
Last edited:
So, that's the issue? That Hamilton might be at an disadvantage this year because of it? He couldn't have won the last years without Mercedes, you win together, and you lose together, it's just how it is.
If the drivers wouldn't get penalties, there is no big reasons for the teams to actually have parts that lasts, they could just make engines etc. that's built more towards performance and less towards endurance. It's not like there are an extreme difference between 1st and 10th in the payout in the Constructor-Championship, at least not if the flipside is that you win the drivers title.
But that costs money, much more money.
I think it's absolutely no issues with the rules being as they are.
Yup, then I misunderstood ^^, However, I believe that it's down to the tracks as well, the tracks are wider, have tarmac runoff are forgiving etc. There are easier to avoid a collision by going off track
But ye, I misunderstood you I think you must be watching something else then, rules havent made overtaking worse, there you have Maldonado with countless penalties every season and yet he was trying stupid moves again and again.
And DRS gives you what you lose on corners, so it's quite balanced. If dirt air didn't affect the cars behind then we wouldn't need it, but it's not the case. At first I didn't like the DRS idea either, but honestly it has improved racing action (not just overtakes) a lot, and Imola 2005 was considered by Alonso as an easy win, he said he knew he couldn't be passed, so he wasn't really worried. And that was in a race were he had tyre and engine problems, so... in that missed era it was almost impossible to have fights between cars of similar performance and fuel levels. It was all about to wait for the pitstops and see if something was going to happen. Nothing really exciting.
Regarding penalties for mechanical issues I totally agree as I said, they make nosense.
The "spectator" also complained during those years, like they do now, because track action was minimal and it was boring. Now that there is much more track action (not always, but in general), the "spectator" wants the old races.
95% of overtakes in past years were simply because car behind was >2s faster or because there were big fuel differences. Nothing really legendary. Again, tons of nostalgia.
And no, drivers weren't any better either.
What's the issue? Never, ever have any team been forced to give engines to another team in F1 (well, technically, they are today, as they have to be willing to sell engines to a certain number of teams). Just think about 1988, Williams being constructor champions in 1987, 1-2 in the drivers champ. Loosing the Honda engines, they had to settle for a Naturally Aspirated Judd engine, picking up 2 podiums and ending 7th in the Constructor championship. That's worse.
And where do you have the idea from that RB are struggling to find a replacement? Both RB and TR have signed Renault engines for 2017 and 2018. That was done in May!
And I think it's great, they have a contract for how many seasons they are going to be there, honor it. Anyway, it's not a big issue now that both Red Bull owned teams have engines for the next 2 seasons!
The penalty system, the rules, the team/driver communications...it's become totally farcical. We are close to a situation where rule#1.4 can only be applied wherein rule#4.202, sub-rule to rule#4 has been previously applied thus negating rule#6.9 which displaces rule#7, but only when the original ruling overrules the rule previously applied within the boundaries of rule#15.4 which in itself, rules that drivers may indeed drive a car in between rulings. So long as they stick to the original ruling about not being able to talk about it to anyone ruled to be a technician or engineer. These are the rules.
What has happened to F1. We used to have drivers with hangovers racing the next day, pit lane fuel pipe fires, oil & dirt, fisticuffs in garages, aggression, cars stampeding around circuits shoulder to shoulder like pissed off wildebeest, blood & phlegm everywhere. Now there's a raindrop & everyone's hiding in case the PR machine notices their hairstyles are a bit out of place...its F1 PLC & it's chocking on corporate politics.
What has happened to F1. We used to have drivers with hangovers racing the next day, pit lane fuel pipe fires, oil & dirt, fisticuffs in garages, aggression, cars stampeding around circuits shoulder to shoulder like pissed off wildebeest, blood & phlegm everywhere. Now there's a raindrop & everyone's hiding in case the PR machine notices their hairstyles are a bit out of place...its F1 PLC & it's chocking on corporate politics.
Last edited:
Today:
Nico Rosberg has had 10 seconds added to his race time by the stewards in Great Britain after Mercedes were deemed to have given him illegal assistance over team radio during Sunday’s race at Silverstone.
The team gave instructions to the driver that were in Breach of Art. 27.1 of the Sporting Regulations, that the driver must drive the car alone and unaided.
The Stewards' verdict on the communications between Mercedes and Nico Rosberg at Silverstone
The penalty drops Rosberg from second position to third, behind Red Bull’s Max Verstappen, though Mercedes intend to appeal the decision.
Nico Rosberg has had 10 seconds added to his race time by the stewards in Great Britain after Mercedes were deemed to have given him illegal assistance over team radio during Sunday’s race at Silverstone.
The team gave instructions to the driver that were in Breach of Art. 27.1 of the Sporting Regulations, that the driver must drive the car alone and unaided.
The Stewards' verdict on the communications between Mercedes and Nico Rosberg at Silverstone
The penalty drops Rosberg from second position to third, behind Red Bull’s Max Verstappen, though Mercedes intend to appeal the decision.
That rule is the worst ever. Serves no purpose.
even from red bull, who get gifted 2nd place now: -
Horner said: "The rule is rubbish. It doesn't make a great deal of sense. But the rules are the rules.
"The cars are technicality very complex and you can understand why Mercedes would want to give that message to keep their driver running.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36760027
even from red bull, who get gifted 2nd place now: -
Horner said: "The rule is rubbish. It doesn't make a great deal of sense. But the rules are the rules.
"The cars are technicality very complex and you can understand why Mercedes would want to give that message to keep their driver running.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/36760027
Decenten
Driver of the #73 Team OGMRZ Holden V8SC
Wow I think I'm done with F1. To penalise speaking on the radio so harshly is just stupid also this virtual safety car is bullsh*t. Ricciardo took the risk and pitted early and would have jumped Verstappen and Rosberg maybe even Hamilton but they get a free pit stop because everybody is doing the virtual safety car speed limit. Ricciardo would have lost about 14 seconds there and then lost another couple of seconds behind Perez. He should have been right up at the front
The basic idea of VSC is to have a safety car without impacting race results as often happens with a regular safety car and that wasn't the case yesterday as the drivers who pitted later benefited when they shouldn't have done.
VSC is a good thing as it makes safety car periods shorter but they should stop people pitting during the VSC period as it's always going to be better to pit during VSC as the relative time lost in the pits is much less when the field is going at VSC speeds.
Had to laugh when Jolyon Palmer had that problem in the pits and they spent a lot of time dragging him back to his box. When he got going again he got a drive thru for unsafe release when he was already in last place. If someone has already lost a massive amount of time then what is the point of the penalty it benefits no-one.
VSC is a good thing as it makes safety car periods shorter but they should stop people pitting during the VSC period as it's always going to be better to pit during VSC as the relative time lost in the pits is much less when the field is going at VSC speeds.
Had to laugh when Jolyon Palmer had that problem in the pits and they spent a lot of time dragging him back to his box. When he got going again he got a drive thru for unsafe release when he was already in last place. If someone has already lost a massive amount of time then what is the point of the penalty it benefits no-one.
Decenten
Driver of the #73 Team OGMRZ Holden V8SC
Well when they called the VSC it wasnt even necessary. Later on in the race when Haryanto crashed there they didnt call a VSC and the officials were in more danger as there were a lot of cars going off the track there then when it was full wet. Honestly starting to seem like the FIA are trying to give Hamilton the free wins.
Grand Tourist
Enjoying the beautiful world of Assetto Corsa
You mean you want to go back to this....? Hmmmm not sure the public wants this, or the drivers for that matter.
you know the reason he got them points wasnt for the crash itself but it was finish the racer with a damaged car? the 10 second penalty was for the crash, but you' ve probably already been told that
Hard racing not means contact...or no safty rules...
take a look at the Japanese Super GT500 ...fair hard racing lot of action...and almost no crashes...
take a look at the Japanese Super GT500 ...fair hard racing lot of action...and almost no crashes...
