FIA to reduce a cars turbo as a penalty in '14?

[-westy-]

Pit lane is crowded enough as it is

Well there is that

They are.

But the stewards prefer to sit around for the whole race and then hand out grid penalties.

Things like jump starts and speeding in the pit lane still carry an automatic drive through.

See, I'd like to see offenses handled in real time, ie drive throughs, stop-start penalties etc - the problem with handing out grid penalties for the following race means that the teams can "manage" it to a certain respect, for example last year when Massa's gearbox suddenly needed changing, allowing Alonso to start on the cleaner side of the circuit. If a driver is penalised as soon as possible, it has a greater impact on their race, and perhaps their season. It avoids the seemingly random penalties after a race and maybe some of the controversy over the steward's decisions, i.e. penalising a driver with a 3 place grid drop, as opposed to 5 for an equal offence earlier/later in the season.

I think that modifying the cars from Race Control (limiting boost for x number of laps etc) makes the FIA very open to criticism when it comes to selectivity (Not forgetting what "FIA" has been jokingly referred to as being the acronym for...) - it also opens the window for other "modifications" to be made to the cars, for example mid-season they may being in a ban on DRS or KERS etc (spit-balling here..).

It seems an overly complicated penalty system for what is a simple problem; if you break the rules or cause danger to other drivers, you are punished accordingly, and during that race (extenuating circumstances notwithstanding) - this leaves all the heresay and scandal out of it, once the race is finished, the matter is closed, move on.

 

[Skeeter]

I wonder if its now got to the stage where there is so much information available to the stewards that sometimes they simply cannot make decisions quick enough.

There does also seem to be a trend of wanting to speak to the drivers before handing out penalties, which obviously they can't do during the race.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Meh, the existing penalties, while not fantastic, are fine, the ONLY issue with the current penalties is the utterly arbitrary punishments and that they randomly decide most races to leave it till post race then brush it under the carpet as if they didn't happen.

Two cars, both Mclarens, forced cars off the track, essentially a terrible thing to do at most tracks, but because of the particular style of track there was little danger, so that kind of driving is fine? That was ignored completely, other things were screwed up, also lets not forget the 58 cases of potentially incorrect DRS usage... why, because the FIA can't get a previously working DRS telemetry system working for no apparent, nor explained reason.

So despite the current telemetry/FIA controlled method of speed control in DRS not functioning, they are considering another FIA measure which requires real time control of the cars, which is something they can't even do currently, reliably.

Joke really. The only reason I do like the idea, to a degree, is that at one track a drive through takes 15seconds, at another track its a 35 second penalty, how is that fair in any sense, you have a situation where the same mistake on track, and the same punishment, at one race a driver doesn't lose a position, where at another track he would lose 3 positions due to the extra time. So direct control of the engine, they could give a car a 10 second penalty, fixed, on any track in the world... that I do like the sound of, I just don't trust the FIA not to screw it up.

 

[Skeeter]

The DRS is using a new ECU and a new control system provider. Its a completely different system to last year.

Still no excuse.

 

[Duke]

Two cars, both Mclarens, forced cars off the track

They did nothing of the such.

 

[El_Watcher]

The only reason I do like the idea, to a degree, is that at one track a drive through takes 15seconds, at another track its a 35 second penalty, how is that fair in any sense, you have a situation where the same mistake on track, and the same punishment, at one race a driver doesn't lose a position, where at another track he would lose 3 positions due to the extra time. So direct control of the engine, they could give a car a 10 second penalty, fixed, on any track in the world... that I do like the sound of, I just don't trust the FIA not to screw it up.

I don't think it will be that simple though. Reduction of turbo boost has a different response to a car's lap time whether the track is mostly long straights and sweeping corners (like Brazil or Monza) compared to lots of stop start corners (like Monaco).

 

[Kenai]

You'll never ever get a perfect truly 'fair' race time penalty that will affect all cars equally regardless of track or weather or whatever else.

 

[drunkenmaster]

They did nothing of the such.

Yes, they absolutely did, Button had a car alongside him and proceeded to take a line that left no room for the car alongside to stay on the track, this is called forcing a car off the track, there is multiple angles and video proof. Perez then did it to Alonso.

I don't think it will be that simple though. Reduction of turbo boost has a different response to a car's lap time whether the track is mostly long straights and sweeping corners (like Brazil or Monza) compared to lots of stop start corners (like Monaco).

You'll never ever get a perfect truly 'fair' race time penalty that will affect all cars equally regardless of track or weather or whatever else.

Yes but with a pitlane you can't say "hey, this is the same time as the other track, I'll let you speed up from half way down the pitlane to be fair.

On the track you can do a few calculations to work out what slows a car down by 20 seconds on the lap, at one track that will mean two laps 3 straights a lap 7 seconds or so over each lap. Another track it will be 2 laps, 1 straight, so you lose 10 seconds a lap. But you could work it out so you lost 20 seconds each time, no matter the track.

With a drive through or stop go, at different tracks, the penalties are different, making them utterly unfair with no way to make it fair. Of course, if all penalties were just stop/go penalty then the time "stopped" can be adjusted, but even the smallest penalty is suddenly much larger than a drive through, which is already, IMO, to great for certain things.

Again though, ultimately getting penalties applied fairly is more important than the penalty itself. Neither Mclaren got a penalty last week, while others have got a penalty for forcing people off the track. Rosberg kinda got away with it last year a couple times, and Schumi got away with a blatant one on Hamilton while I think Vettel did get a penalty for doing the same thing to Alonso.

I'd prefer for them to all get a penalty for breaking the same rule, than some get it, others not.

 

[Duke]

Yes, they absolutely did, Button had a car alongside him and proceeded to take a line that left no room for the car alongside to stay on the track, this is called forcing a car off the track, there is multiple angles and video proof. Perez then did it to Alonso.

They knew the road was running out and should have backed out.

 

[Skeeter]

Yep.

The problem here is Perezs penalty in China skews things. He shouldn't have got one.

You aren't forcing a driver off the track if your taking the racing line.

 

[MissChief]

Indeed. There's forcing a car off track' and 'giving the opposing driver a chance to back out but they then choose not to and end up off the track'

 

[muon]

What if you are stuck behind this car with 10% less power? Punishing them also punishes everyone behind.

Terrible proposal.

 

[~Mike~]

Yes, they absolutely did, Button had a car alongside him and proceeded to take a line that left no room for the car alongside to stay on the track, this is called forcing a car off the track, there is multiple angles and video proof. Perez then did it to Alonso.

You do talk some rubbish.

 

[Glaucus]

What if you are stuck behind this car with 10% less power? Punishing them also punishes everyone behind.

Terrible proposal.

Then you are a crap racer and don't deserve the place.
Far from a terrible idea.

 

[El_Watcher]

Indeed. There's forcing a car off track' and 'giving the opposing driver a chance to back out but they then choose not to and end up off the track'

You do talk some rubbish.

But AFAIK according to the current rules, if there is a car with at least part of it's body level with part of your car, you must leave at least a car's width to the edge of the track. In these cases, this was not done.
It is only because this track is built with 100acre tarmac run-offs (maybe hyperbole ), that there wasn't an almighty accident.

 

[Skeeter]

Then you are a crap racer and don't deserve the place.
Far from a terrible idea.

Indeed. If you have 10% more power and DRS and still can't get past, then you were never going to anyway.

But AFAIK according to the current rules, if there is a car with at least part of it's body level with part of your car, you must leave at least a car's width to the edge of the track. In these cases, this was not done.

That rule applies to when you move off the racing line to defend your position. When you move off the racing line you can't force a driver off track (brought in after Rosberg barged a couple of people off the track in Bahrain a couple of years ago), and if you then move back onto the racing line you need to leave a cars width if they are alongside.

It does not apply to a driver taking the normal racing line making no defensive moves off of it.

 

[El_Watcher]

It does not apply to a driver taking the normal racing line making no defensive moves off of it.

Rule 20.4 and 20.5 covers it.

20.4 Any driver defending his position on a straight, and before any braking area, may use the full width of the track during his first move, provided no significant portion of the car attempting to pass is alongside his. Whilst defending in this way the driver may not leave the track without justifiable reason.
For the avoidance of doubt, if any part of the front wing of the car attempting to pass is alongside the rear wheel of the car in front this will be deemed to be a 'significant portion'.

Therefore, the defending driver CAN NOT use the full width of the track if another car is alongside.
I am yet to find what the FIA defines as being a "straight" seeing as most are slightly curved at some point (e.g. main straight at Monaco), so I hope this is not the reason no action was taken.

20.5 Manoeuvres liable to hinder other drivers, such as deliberate crowding of a car beyond the edge of the track or any other abnormal change of direction, are not permitted.

Any move to push someone off is also prohibited.

 

[Skeeter]

You've posted the reasoning why the rules don't apply to these cases right there.

Note the key use of the words 'defending', and 'abnormal change of direction'. Following the racing line constitutes neither of these, so the rules don't apply when a driver is just following the racing line.

Why are people wanting more penalties handed out anyway? Surely we should be happy that we got to see some good racing without every pass being referred to the stewards?

 

[El_Watcher]

Note the key use of the words 'defending', and 'abnormal change of direction'. Following the racing line constitutes neither of these

WHAT?!?

How can you possibly say that with two cars next to each other, the one slightly ahead is not "defending"?

Also, you can read English can't you? it says "deliberate crowding...OR...abnormal change of direction". I consider what they did as deliberate crowding, just like what happened at Monza in 2011 and 2012 between Vettel and Alonso.

 

[Skeeter]

It says "or any other", which to me means deliberate crowding is considered one of a number of things categorised as 'abnormal change of direction'.

And it seems the FIA deem defending as changing direction or moving off the racing line.

20.3 More than one change of direction to defend a position is not permitted. Any driver moving back towards the racing line, having earlier defended his position off-line, should leave at least one car width between his own car and the edge of the track on the approach to the corner.

Are you trying to say that if a driver gets even slightly alongside, under whatever circumstance, the driver ahead is no longer allowed to take the racing line?