Idiotic Component penalties

P1

Race Winner
Contributor
I'm with Webber on this. These component penalties are ruining the show. I'm not even going to bother watching tomorrow's race. It would have been nice to see a race between Hamilton and Vettel. But that's not going to happen. It wouldn't even surprise me if this gearbox issue was caused by the rear-ending that Vettel did in the last race. It certainly can damage a street cars gearbox.

Webber wants end to Formula 1 grid penalties for component changes

Webber wants end to Formula 1 grid penalties for component changes

Former Formula 1 driver Mark Webber says he would prefer to see teams docked constructors' championship points rather than handing drivers grid penalties for mechanical problems outside of their control.

Each driver has a strict limit on the number of engine components and gearboxes they can use over the course of a season and are demoted from their qualifying positions every time they take another component over the limit.

"There's too much policing," Webber said at the FIA Sport Conference in Geneva.

"I don't want any penalties for a driver that's had nothing to do with it.

"[For example] if a mechanic has put a brake disc in the wrong way, and a driver is at the back of the grid.

"A lot of people don't watch qualifying, they turn on [the TV] and are like, 'why is my favourite driver at the back of the grid?' and so we lose people for that.

"It's hard enough to get the quality at the front of the grid as it is, let alone having guys diluted down the back through no reason of their own, so we don't need all that junk in there."

When asked how squads could be punished more suitably, nine-time grand prix winner Webber expressed his preference for a points penalty for the teams involved.

"Constructors' points, whatever," he said, "Find a way that you don't hurt the driver.

"There have been so many ridiculous penalties over the last five years that the driver has had nothing to do with, and it's had a big impact on how the weekend would have been in terms of entertainment."

One team that has been on the receiving end of a high number of grid penalties in recent years is McLaren, due to issues with its Honda power units.

Fernando Alonso was awarded a 40-place penalty on the Azerbaijan Grand Prix grid as a result of component changes, while team-mate Stoffel Vandoorne dropped 30 places after taking a new MGU-H and turbocharger.

Webber described his disappointment at McLaren's performance situation, but said it was helping to highlight Alonso's talent.

He said: "It's a total waste and an absolute travesty that he's at the back of the grid, driving a car that's uncompetitive.

"But he's still in a situation where he's driving phenomenally.

"I think his value has never been higher, what he's done at the Indy 500, and then what he's done sometimes with that McLaren."
 
Vettel is likely to have caused the damage to Hamiltons gearbox... ROFL

No. Simply no. Driving over curbs and bumps on the surface at 200+ kph does more damage as this is done over an extended period of time.
 
Whether that was the cause or not is irrelevant.

The point here is that these grid penalties ruin the racing.
 
Whether that was the cause or not is irrelevant.

The point here is that these grid penalties ruin the racing.
No, they usually make it more exciting as the driver in the faster car has to pass drivers in slower cars who try to defend their position to the best of their abilities. This so far has created some interesting battles.
Additionally, most drivers suffer a reliability related grid penalty over the course of the season so that it is balanced out at the end. However, this also depends on the track, of course it's more difficult to overtake in Monaco than in Austria.
Thus, I wouldn't necessarily agree that it ruins a race, but it does ruin the championship battle as a whole in a way.

If I were you, I wouldn't miss the race, it shouldn't be too difficult for Hamilton to pass the cars in Austria. ;)
 
the problem is that, this is absolutely necessary because yes if we could trust the teams to stick to the 4 engines a season & gearbox every 6 races we would get rid of the penalties, but we cant just like the resource restriction agreement, which was an unmitigated disaster where red bull spent 2 yr budget in 1yr because it was voluntary not enforced. we all know that if penalties are gone then they will be a new powerunit & gearbox every grand prix. pushing already unsustainable costs even higher
 
And, since the driver would undeniably be the beneficiary of the team putting in an engine that produces vastly more power but can only survive two race meetings, exempting the driver from the penalty would be to impose a de facto penalty on all of those drivers that DID abide by the rules.

BTW, who determines if a part failure was the result of something "beyond the control of the driver"?Perhaps the driver's style (corner cutting, treating the throttle as an on/off switch etc) contributed to the failure.
 
Last edited:
the problem is that, this is absolutely necessary because yes if we could trust the teams to stick to the 4 engines a season & gearbox every 6 races we would get rid of the penalties, but we cant just like the resource restriction agreement, which was an unmitigated disaster where red bull spent 2 yr budget in 1yr because it was voluntary not enforced. we all know that if penalties are gone then they will be a new powerunit & gearbox every grand prix. pushing already unsustainable costs even higher

No there wouldn't be because the FIA pegged the price of the engine supply contracts in the deal where the engine OEMs fended off the threat of the reintroduction of a low cost restricted V8 engine.

So if Mercedes made an engine which only lasted 2 races, it would drive up costs for Mercedes, because the revenue they get on those engines would be pegged. The faster less reliable engines is cost neutral to everyone except engine OEMs.
 
but we all know Mercedes & other teams Batman wouldn't build stuff for strength they do it for speed & reliability, the less miles on all compotions. so if they could they would change because whats another 20/30m when your already spending 250m
 
I think any component changes (beyond the permitted number) should have a penalty. A grid penalty is not the answer, it is nothing to do with the driver. The solution is to deduct constructors points and impose fines.
 
I think any component changes (beyond the permitted number) should have a penalty. A grid penalty is not the answer, it is nothing to do with the driver. The solution is to deduct constructors points and impose fines.

I agree. I guess one question is what to do when teams run out of constructor points. (McLaren) Go into negative points?

If people insist on having penalties that effect the driver, (to avoid teams ignoring WCC for the WDC, and I'm not convinced they would) take points from both driver and constructor. It would at least leave individual races unharmed.
 
I wasn't going to get drawn on this but I shall.

The reason for the rules on how long components last is about controlling costs. If there was a free for all with the rich teams simply throwing engines and gearboxes in to cars willy nilly whilst the rest of the grid struggled round with older units which don't perform as well costs would rise astronomically as the smaller teams would have to follow suit simply to stand still.

The only people who benefit from having new components fitted to the cars are the drivers, hence it is reasonable and rational that any sanction hits them. You could fine the teams as well but with no punishment for the driver I suspect the teams who want to win most would take a fine on the chin and add it to their budget.

I shall also address the elephant in the room. I can't help but feel that if this penalty had been applied to Vettel for the Austrian race that this post would never have seen the light of day.
 
Will it work the other way though? What if we have a really close fight for the WCC and then a driver throws it off the road and busts the gear box? Why should the team be penalised? Wasn't the part they built that failed.
 
If there were only a way to institute and police an effective budget cap - teams could replace as many components as they liked without penalty...until the budget ran out!
This was/is never likely to happen in F1 though, so instead they have the component lifetime rules & penalties. It's the only system they could get to work.

I agree with FB too - if this had been anyone other than #blessed, there probably wouldn't be this level of internet grumpitude.
 
I don't think it's specifically about Lewis I think the interest is because this is affecting the championship leader battle. Thats not how I personally want a championship decided regardless of the driver.
 
I can't think of any season in the Bernie era where there haven't been accustations of the championship being rigged behind the scenes (anything to ensure it isn't decided until the last race - or two at worst). It's probably why many who like kicking balls struggle to understand F1 as a sport.
 
Quote from this week's autosport

It's a fact that fans have not taken to the quiet, numbingly complex, hybrid engines, and nor - ever alert to anything bogus - did they relish the contrivance of 'high degradation' tyres, now mercifully back in the bin from which they should never have emerged.

As well as that, they tired of a burgeoning rulebook, of a preoccupation with health and safety, and also endless penalties, many of them not the responsibility of the driver.

"I'm not interested," a McLaren supporter said to me at Goodwood, "in how many MGU-Ks or whatever Honda have used this season - in fact, I don't know or care what an MGU-K is! What I do care about is McLaren getting grid penalties all the time - talk about kicking a team when it's down."
 
Back
Top Bottom