I quite like the idea of WCC points being deducted (for new engines , gearboxes, turbos etc). Instead of grid penalties which also effect the WDC. It seems appropriate.
Can you image the hole this would create for a team like McLaren if in effect this year? They would have a negative WCC point total.
I've always said that the failure of some engineer a year earlier in the design stage should not effect the driver's points on some weekend. Take drivers points away for what the drivers do wrong. Take manufacturer's point for what they do wrong. Grid penalties unfairly hurt the drivers and the fans who came a long way to see them.
Absolutely. In this age of high technology and IT, I think the ban on testing is dumb. It is so stupid to have a high tech sport that doesn't allow technological competition and scientific trial and error. Treating the whole season like a locked down RFP (Request for proposal) is not sporting at all.
And while they're at it, they should only sanction teams who actually design and produce their cars in the country they purport to represent. Ferrari do it, why can't Mercedes ? Merc are currently like the German football team training in Wembley with an English squad !
But the delta in performance for those extra 1,000 engineers would be greatly reduced. It means more smaller teams could afford to compete and be closer in relative terms. I really miss the Dallara's (of old, not today) EuroBrun's, Coloni's, Osella's, Larrousse's etc. of old. Wouldn't you rather see 30 cars shooting for 26 spots on the grid than 20?
Yes, I liked the diversity and plenty of teams trying to pre-qualify in the old days. I think it was great that more drivers had a chance to at least practice and try to qualify and more small outfits allowed to "put a toe in the water" to taste F1. I wouldn't mind if the F1 model allowed that to come back, just like customers cars, wildcard entries, etc... But I don't think that F1 will ever be a playing field with all the teams with the same chance. Whatever budget cap and cost reduction the FIA try to introduce, the best funded teams will come to the forefront. So to me, budget restrictions, limits on engines and gearboxes, the token system, the maximum of wind tunnel hours, the ban on testing, and the enforced summer layoff are completely pointless exercises. That's just interfering with the natural order.
Cost containment is not about trying to equalize things - you keep conflating the two. Cost containment is meant to allow exactly what you "think is great" - i.e., having a large number of manufacturers and teams willing and able to compete. F1 has lost that to the point where they're on the edge of not having enough teams to field 20 cars and not having enough manufacturers to provide engines. It needs to cost less - not so that everyone's on some sort of level playing field, but just to get anyone on the field.
Brawn plans FIA talks to discuss grid penalty system Formula 1 chief Ross Brawn says he plans to discuss with the FIA ways to change the sport's under-fire grid penalty system, following the chaos at the Italian Grand Prix. "We've got some ideas about how to change it and we need to discuss it in detail with the FIA to see how to improve the situation." Brawn is not the only one in F1 unhappy with what happened at Monza. McLaren racing director Eric Boullier has urged a rethink of the situation, and suggested that financial penalties could be a better solution. https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/brawn-grid-penalties-talks-fia-949839/
I believe the penalty should be eliminated. Each team should only get a certain number of engines like they do now anyways for the season, and let them switch them, change them etc.. whenever they want. Let each team manage the use of their engines anyway they like it.
Err, no. The lower funded teams are already the ones more likely to eat penalties. This would simply make a bad situation worse. Rich teams could use financial penalties as a line item to buy speed.
That's basically the way it works now. They can switch among the four whenever they want. But think through your idea a little further...what happens when a team blows up four engines, then what? Game over for the season?
That's how it is now. However, everytime they switch an engine they get grid penalties. It shouldn't be like that.
How about this idea guys. When a team changes the current 6 components plus gearbox, each component cost the manufacturer (not the driver) 15pts towards the constructor points. So what if Mercedes wanted to put a complete PU in one race to give their drivers an advantage...thats 90pts against them in the constructors. What about the midfield teams? Force India seem to be doing pretty well with their current component allocation allotment. Williams I believe also. Honda have deep pockets so they can afford it and so can RedBull. The backmarkers....I'm still trying to tackle that one.
True, If the costs can be brought down and the revenues pushed up, hopefully then more manufacturers will be tempted to enter into F1.
So if you have a team as dominant as Mercedes have been in recent years, where they finished the 2014 season ahead by 296pts, finished the 2015 season ahead by 275 pts, and the 2016 season where they finished ahead by 297 pts, then they can go into the last couple of races of the Championship and happily buy themselves fresh engines and gearboxes for the cost of some easily affordable WCC championship points, where their rivals trailing well behind can't afford to! And what about the likes of Ferrari who care far less about the WCC than they do the WDC, because they know it's the WDC that gets all the acclaim: What would prevent them from sacrificing WCC points and team Championship position in order to fit new engines and gearboxes? - The loss of prize money? They wouldn't even notice it! In fact, I suspect Ferrari would happily finish the season with minus points in the WCC if it meant they won the WDC. Sorry, but your thinking is seriously flawed!
SEPTEMBER 6, 2017 F1 should increase engine allocation says Horner Christian Horner says he will propose that F1 scraps plans to further ramp up the controversial long-life engine rules next year. Already on new F1 chief Ross Brawn's table is an idea to reform the often farcical imposition of grid penalties for engine component changes. But Horner, the Red Bull boss, told Salzburger Nachrichten newspaper that the real problem is that drivers are not allocated enough engines per season under the current and ultra-complex 'power unit' regulations. For instance, with some drivers already well into their allocation of four engines after 13 races in 2017, the regulations are set to reduce that limit to three engines in 2018. "This problem should be the number one issue at the next strategy (group) meeting," said Horner. The Austrian newspaper said Horner proposes that F1 ups the per-driver engine allocation to five per season. Horner added: "It would be a pity if the world championship was decided by something like the number of engines."
