Reply With QuoteNews from Bahrain is that Lewis Hamilton has a five place grid penalty for a gearbox change.
New floor and diffuser, apparently.Originally Posted by jaytip
One of the real benefits of the MGU-H is that it can be used as an electric motor to power the turbocharger, and eliminate lag. As such, it has the potential to be useful in roadgoing applications.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
News from Bahrain is that Lewis Hamilton has a five place grid penalty for a gearbox change.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Interesting that Kimi avoided a penality for an unsafe release which was totally avoidable, but LH gets a 5 place penality for a leaking gearbox, which isn't really avoidable.
A bit odd, but one way to ensure that DWC and CC is as close as possible for as long as possible. Good news for Liberty I suppose
On the upside is we might see LH and MV actually racing together on track.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
The team got fined Andy.
Cheers..
Jase
Was just about to post the same.
Could make for an interesting race, and it also places a little more pressure on Bottas as Mercedes will be expecting him to minimise the potential points scoring damage that comes with the penalty.
It still makes no sense. Surely the driver should have been penalised for driving off before getting the all clear from the pit crew.
What makes even less sense was to fine one team for an unsafe release and not to simply fine a team for a gearbox replacement. If the FIA wants to reduce the number of components used, then surely the answer is to fine the constructors rather than penalise the drivers and the actual race and the paying public. Better still allow the constructors as many engines and gearboxes as they like - the more they use the more it costs them.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
Exactly the same thing happened in Australia with the two Haas cars. Haas were fined but the drivers didn’t receive a penalty. It’s the way it is, it’s not some vendetta against Lewis.
Completely understand what you are saying here but I think that ice engines are on their way out for road cars and I’m not convinced that MGU-H can be developed in the short term at an acceptable cost.
Last edited by JeremyO; 7th April 2018 at 14:02.
You really think that? How would that help the smaller teams?
And your earlier comment which appeared to say that Hamilton's replacement gearbox should be treated the same as an unsafe pit release, when one issue is dealt with by the FIA Stewards and the other is clearly dealt with by the regulations goes to further demonstrate that you know nothing about the sport and your blinkers don't allow you to deal with anything which you perceive as unfair to Lewis Hamilton. Give it a rest.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Well, it does make sense in that those are the rules, which the teams all signed up to, Im sure the time for the teams to debate the fairness of them was before they were put in place, your last comment would only serve to let the best funded teams break away even more from the rest.
Cheers..
Jase
Agreed. The absolute speed of the cars isn't really relevant to viewer excitement. It's all about their relative performance.
I have no idea how you'd engineer it (or rule on it) but there needs to be a limit on aero that stops cars following while allowing aero that keeps the car stuck to the track.
Not suggesting that for a minute. The rules are the rules, irrespective of how stupid they seem.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I think it would be fairly easy to regulate aero, have set sizes for wings, vanes end plates etc, the thing then though is it would detract from being the top series in motorsport. Its finding a way to increase mechanical grip over aero grip to make it easier to run in dirty air.
Cheers..
Jase
Pierre Gasly will start from fifth on the grid tomorrow in a Toro Rosso Honda.
He's looked quick all weekend, as has his team-mate Brendon Hartley, but Gasly got the job done when it mattered.
He also out-qualified both McLarens.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Less weight, fatter and sticky tyres, but to be honest F1 does not have to be about who can corner faster or go quickest in a straight line - it's about the fastest open cockpit, open wheels, single seater cars, racing wheel to wheel with overtaking. Think what the sport was like in the late 60's and 70's, but with safer cars, proper NA V8 running unleaded, 9 speed gearboxes, Ceramic brakes, etc, etc
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
McLaren need to sort themselves out quick. All those new updates and they have gone backwards. Torro Rosso doing well just rubs it in even more.
Williams not looking good.
Ground effect.
Given their awful driver choices they had it coming.
I get that grid penalties are probably the most effective way to encourage teams to use less engines and gearboxes in order to reduce costs but I still think they are draconian and nonsensical punishments for the driver. And I believe that whoever gets the punishment, be it Hamilton, Vettel or any driver on the grid.
I want to see the top drivers in the top cars fighting it out at the front not a grid where some drivers are artificially handicapped thus robbing spectators of a chance to see a true fight for the top places.
Imagine in a championship winning race situation (like Japan 89) where the 2 top drivers would have been fighting for the lead / championship but one of their gearboxes gave way in practice meaning they started 5 places down, gifting an easy win to the other driver.
Take away constructors points instead, yes it may not be as effective in all situations but it won't have an impact on races or the drivers championship which is what 99% of fans care about.
....oh and if the powers that be really want to cut costs how about stopping these stupid loyalty payments for certain teams gifting them a big budget regardless of results and forcing the smaller teams to spend more to try to keep up.
I know Liberty have proposed to cut these payments but by no where near enough in my opinion.
This really sums it up. They need to stop messing with the racing and find another way to enforce longevity in mechanical parts.
This is race 2 in the season, so they could have just allowed the use of one from his allocation for the year if they are dead set on penalising drivers for this sort of thing
Easy to do by having the separate constructors and drivers points - that way one team may not win the constructors championship, but could have the winning driver.
It's just a matter of time...
Very true - many options open to them to stop ruining the racing
I think I disagree.
The WCC has always been the total of both drivers WDC points. It is important to lesser teams because they need the money.
The rule was set to promote lesser costs by reducing the number of engines used in a season.
If you penalise differentially CC and DC you allow richer teams to cross out CC rewards as they know that the return they get in recognition and publicity are greater with a WDC than the one they get from Formula One as WCC.
The whole thing would also turn into a farce when a constructor finishes one-two in the WDC yet misses out on the WCC because of exchanged parts.
There is no doubt that forcing the teams to manage reliability stifles the racing. The expected benefits are lower costs, thus increasing the number of teams on the grid. That is the theory. It seems to work but teams are not banging on the F1 door to get in yet...
By all means make passing possible by designing proper circuits, by designing cars that can get close to the car in front without risking losing control but either scrap reliability altogether or leave the rules as they are.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
I'm surprised they don't allow active aerodynamics, the benefit for a chasing car would probabaly be greater than the one in front in clean air. Then again it's a whole new arms-race with associated costs - not to mention the potential catastophy if it stopped working.
How about driver selectable DRS at any time? Would spice things up.
Cheers..
Jase
A sensible and well-considered post - thanks, SJ. We need more of that in this thread.
Meanwhile, for those who prefer their racing with less aerodynamic interference, the BTCC starts today. So you can watch some overtaking, albeit usually involving crashing of some sort. ITV 4, Sky channel 120.
Meanwhile, the great and the good were summoned to hear Liberty's proposals for the future of Formula 1 and outline for the next Concorde Agreement. Everybody involved has been told to keep quiet about it, thereby fuelling an inevitable explosion of speculation from the press, who weren't invited.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
I think that's been discussed before, and rejected. Although I think Pastor Maldonado was still participating in F1 at the time.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
....
Cheers..
Jase
All fair points and like I said the current grid penalties are the most effective way to enforce the regulations but they are far from optimal in that that they greatly influence the racing.
I do think the constructors is important to all manufacturers but yes more so to the lesser teams who need the money more. So maybe it needs to be discretionary that after a certain (higher?) number of engines / gearboxes are used if some teams are clearly prioritising the drivers championship then impose ever increasing % fines to next years prize money for every extra engine / gearbox used. The big teams will still take note if they start to lose a big chunk of prize money.
There's no optimal solution here but the current one is massively frustrating for fans and I hate it.
Last edited by watchcollector1; 8th April 2018 at 12:30.
Quite dangerous unfortunately.
As mentioned by another poster Ground Effects are the open goal that FOM / the teams seem unwilling to shoot at.
The Sky quali coverage yesterday mentioned a couple of points during an interview with Ross Brawn; all teams had signed an NDA and that they wanted to do their negotiation behind closed doors rather than in the media. Even Toto was relatively positive about the proposals and the process.
That just about sums up how things are with regards to WCC and DCC points. I've always said that if a car suffers a mechanical failure and a penalty is handed out that it's fair for a driver to lose grid places even if the failure wasn't self inflicted - it's a team sport, the driver is part of a team, they should win together or lose together.
Watching ITVs coverage of the BTCC and support races as I type, missed the first BTCC race however the Ginetta Juniors always put up a decent show.
The point is though if a car is unreliable in practice why should it affect the driver in the race? Do the fans care about what happened in practice or do they want to see the best drivers in the best cars fight it out at the front for the win or the championship?
And also if a car breaks an engine in the race, the driver will lose all their points in that race and then be affected by a grid penalty in the next race. So it means reliabilty can affect (and decide) the championship more than ever, isn't that the opposite of what most fans want?
I understand precisely why the current grid penalty rules have been devised like they are but the net affect is races with cars out of position on the grid as opposed to fighting those with similar performance on the track.
Surely there has to be a better way that doesn't impact the racing so much?
Last edited by watchcollector1; 8th April 2018 at 13:40.
Where do you think you’ll get the most spectacular race? With the fastest in front, or with some of the fastest further down the line? Remember LH or MV.
BTCC is mentioned, when they win they also win ballast to make sure no driver can runaway throughout the season. I don’t believe this would be an adequate solution for F1.
Likewise, there is the inverted grid but there again, it would devalue the Saturday as teams would be playing games.
So tying grid penalties to race, or pre-race events is both clear cut and fair whilst increasing the possibilities of an interesting race, through passing if the track allows it, or tactics if it doesn’t.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
That is so unfair (Kevin & Perry mode).
On the other hand........
http://www.enterf1.com/blog/deserved...crash-incident
Which is more memorable the race where one driver went from 10th to 5th or the one where the fastest drivers battled for the the lead and podium places?
For me the grid penalties may add some mild excitement in an otherwise boring race but it's artificial and predictable, it's merely a case of how many slower cars they will overtake to ultimately pick up a few points in a minor place finish.
In F1 we need as many drivers fighting at the sharp end as possible not some artificial grid penalties which leave one or two of the top drivers / cars with no hope of winning.
Ballast in btcc is different, the aim is to equalise the performance not put 1 or 2 cars out of position. Reverse grids are also aimed at putting all the top cars out of position not just one or two. Anyway whilst I love BTCC I certainly wouldn't want either rule in F1 (because as you mention it would devalue the sport).
Last edited by watchcollector1; 8th April 2018 at 15:26.
Half way through and I’m thinking we could be looking at a Mercedes 1-2.
Could be, Vettel can’t afford to pit, but will his tyres hold out, I think Merc have played a great strategy.
Cheers..
Jase
Wow! That was tense! Nice job Seb!
Cheers..
Jase
First race I've watched in a while and quite enjoyed it.
I see Hamilton hasn't changed!
Of course we don't know how it would have played out in terms of strategy but for me the race was a good example of how the grid penalty for Hamilton spoilt a potential 2 or 3 way battle for the lead.
Yes it was tense at the end but Bottas just got to Vettel too late for it to be a real fight. Hamilton would have got to him earlier.
Equally you could say the Red Bulls going out spoiled an even better fight. So it’s all just racing .... based on the current rules.
Great race, but I cannot help thinking that VB blew it by trying to OT to early, but fair play to SV, as he kept it all on the back stuff and even managed to actually OT Lewis on track - a very very rare thing indeed.
As for Ferrari and yet another early release (this time causing what looked like a horrible injury), perhaps it's clear that a fine is simply not enough and that grid penalties or deduction of points are required. A Gear box change is hardly going to cause injury or death - unlike an early release or a failure to put a wheel on correctly.
As for the pit guy, I think it's really bad - shattered wrist and or busted shoulder, hopefully I am mistaken, but the lack of replays suggest I am not.
Driver of the day - Gasly
Team of the day - Toro Rosso and Honda.
Whoever does not know how to hit the nail on the head should be asked not to hit it at all.
Friedrich Nietzsche
I agree; I think Hamilton would have taken it had he been in Bottas’ position but a great drive ftom Vettel.
I hope the Ferrari pit guy’s ok though. 🤞
Broken lower leg for the mechanic and now at hospital according to CH4.
Oh good, another Andyg. You should listen to Toto Wolf. He blames Mercedes' (lack of) performance on Saturday, not the rules, and gave an insight into Seb's tactics to increase his chances. And we had one of the most exciting races of the last few years.
Gasly was 4th at 50-ish seconds so the advantage the top 3 teams have is significant. MV/LH incident was just a race incident, but it could have occurred if the top 3 teams had filled the first 6 spots on the grid. Unfortunate incident for the Ferrari mechanic and KR. Mercedes 2/3 is an excellent result for the WCC.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Well there was no lack of interest there. There's something about Bahrain which seems to suit Ferrari, and Mercedes seemed to be just slightly off the pace all weekend. Which hopefully means that we'll see some circuits which favour one of the Championship contenders, and some which favour the other.
The only update on the Ferrari pit crew member from Sky is that he has a broken leg. It looked nasty, though, so I hope that he's going to be ok. The left rear wheel hadn't been removed, but the "green light" system registered that there was a wheel in place, so the light came on and the car was released. I'm not sure what the answer is, because the "lollipop" system was fallible as well.
A great drive from Vettel, though, making a set of Softs last for 39 laps, and spoiling Mercedes' strategy. The performance of the weekend was, however, the Toro Rosso team and Pierre Gasly. I wonder what McLaren thought? Qualifying sixth was a fantastic performance, but then to finish fourth was unbelievable, even with both Red Bulls retiring. A huge result for Honda.
Although no trees were harmed during the creation of this post, a large number of electrons were greatly inconvenienced.
Honda must be really pleased (not sure they'll be as excited as PG, though).
But McLaren should be pleased too. 2 Grand Prix and 4 points finishes. Yes it is partially down to retirements but nevertheless it is a significant improvement over last year's results and I am sure that although they realise they're nowhere near what their name demands in terms of results and competitiveness they are in a happier place than last year.
'Against stupidity, the gods themselves struggle in vain' - Schiller.
Posting Permissions