[Rules] Future Rule Changes

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Sadly it's all about someone's warped view of fairness. Or to use a legal term, Complete ********.

Just use a new power unit every race, the unit cost will be peanuts compared to the R and D cost.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Maybe F1 should look at how IndyCar issues penalties, starting with the penalty for a new engine. IndyCar teams have four engines allocated for the season, along with a threshold of 2,500 miles. A fifth can be used and its eligibility determines whether it can earn Engine Manufacturer points or not.

From 2012-13, drivers received a 10 place grid penalty, if an engine required changing before its threshold, which was originally 2000 miles. 10 place penalties were also issued, when drivers used more than the five allotted engines per season.

With the arrival of new IndyCar competition president Derrick Walker, the rules were changed as: “Fans didn’t like seeing drivers receive the 10-grid-spot penalty for engine changes, especially when it was out of the team’s control.”, he said.

The rules were changed, so that unapproved engine changes, called for by the manufacturer, will now come with a 10-point loss in the Manufacturer’s Championship. While unapproved changes called for by the team, will come with a heavy price, with 10 driver and 10 entrant points being forfeited, along with starting from the back of the grid at the next race.

[Peter Mallett]

But...... why? What on earth has that got to do with racing?

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But...... why? What on earth has that got to do with racing?

It's got everything to do with racing because the current system dictates F1 grids.

F1 has to have meaningful engine penalties because it's got a rule which says you can only use 4 engines. If the penalty is £10k per engine, then Mercedes and Ferrari will use 20 engines a year and design them to last only one race. Costs will rise further, and privateers won't be able to run with such engines. So the penalty has to mean something, and the best they've come up with so far is driver penalties.

Might as well face it - as long as we have the current hyper-expensive engine format, there will have to be engine limits and grid penalties to accompany them.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

But...... why? What on earth has that got to do with racing?

A lot. To paraphrase Derrick Walker, fans don’t like seeing drivers receiving 10 place grid penalties, for something that's out of the their control.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It's got everything to do with racing because the current system dictates F1 grids.

F1 has to have meaningful engine penalties because it's got a rule which says you can only use 4 engines. If the penalty is £10k per engine, then Mercedes and Ferrari will use 20 engines a year and design them to last only one race. Costs will rise further, and privateers won't be able to run with such engines. So the penalty has to mean something, and the best they've come up with so far is driver penalties.

Might as well face it - as long as we have the current hyper-expensive engine format, there will have to be engine limits and grid penalties to accompany them.

Surely the rules are written, so they don't produce only 20 engines, just 4? Otherwise I'm sure Chevy and Honda would have paid a $10k penalty per engine and produced 20 each.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Surely the rules are written, so they don't produce only 20 engines, just 4? Otherwise I'm sure Chevy and Honda would have paid a $10k penalty per engine and produced 20 each.

That's my point. The penalty has to be meaningful otherwise they'll all just build as many as they want. It doesn't matter that the rules say only 4 - there has to be a penalty for going over 4, and the only meaningful penalty they've come up with is penalising the driver grid slots.

If you decide not to penalise the driver then there isn't a huge amount you could do. You could start fining the teams, but then you're crippling any team with a Honda engine.

IndyCar has a customer model for engine supplies, which keeps costs down. F1 does not. So if you start fining teams the randomly chosen £10k, then Mercedes and Ferrari will just produce the 20 engines a year that last one weekend and no more, pay the £10k fine, have incredibly fast and powerful engines that are completely useless to a private team on a budget.

It's another side effect of the hyper-expensive engine formula. If engines were simpler and cheaper then you could drop the idea of a grid slot. Engineers may not be able to unlearn things, but if the engine sales were cost capped, at let's say, £100k per unit, and you could have up to 10 engines a year, you'd see a lot fewer grid penalties at a lower cost. You'd also have a simpler engine format, meaning others may be able to break into the walled garden.

[S griffin]

The worst moment was at Monza last season, where, after an exciting wet session, only the pole man was where he qualified...

[Adam43]

Basically the second place man got a penalty. It's a really poor way to measure it. At the 2012 Spanish GP no one started from where they qualified.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It's another side effect of the hyper-expensive engine formula. If engines were simpler and cheaper then you could drop the idea of a grid slot. Engineers may not be able to unlearn things, but if the engine sales were cost capped, at let's say, £100k per unit, and you could have up to 10 engines a year, you'd see a lot fewer grid penalties at a lower cost. You'd also have a simpler engine format, meaning others may be able to break into the walled garden.

agreed.

shouldn't we also acknowledge that even a substantially cheaper/simpler engine in F1 would, for the vast majority of fans, still be a sophisticated piece of engineering?

maybe not cutting edge but certainly when combined with the overall car its still very much would be at the sharp end.

just my opinion, but i dont think i would loose any appreciation for F1 if the 'technology' level dipped in relation to what was used in the past.

i can appreciate that isnt the case for others though.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Basically the second place man got a penalty. It's a really poor way to measure it. At the 2012 Spanish GP no one started from where they qualified.

In this case it was worse than that. Most of the grid got a penalty. There were about 150 ish positions dropped, and IIRC some drivers got a penalty but actually moved up the grid due to others getting bigger penalties.

Might as well have done BTCC style lotto balls for that one.

[ASCII Man]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

agreed.

shouldn't we also acknowledge that even a substantially cheaper/simpler engine in F1 would, for the vast majority of fans, still be a sophisticated piece of engineering?

maybe not cutting edge but certainly when combined with the overall car its still very much would be at the sharp end.

just my opinion, but i dont think i would loose any appreciation for F1 if the 'technology' level dipped in relation to what was used in the past.

i can appreciate that isnt the case for others though.

That's just it, though. Technology levels have continued to drop all the time.
Someone introduces a new technology, and the FIA bans it.

CVT, ground effects, active suspension, fan car, double diffuser, blown exhausts, and those are just off the top of my head...

It's all fine and dandy, but someone suggests using a simpler and more economically responsible engine design and everyone loses their goddamn minds!

[Adam43]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

In this case it was worse than that. Most of the grid got a penalty. There were about 150 ish positions dropped, and IIRC some drivers got a penalty but actually moved up the grid due to others getting bigger penalties.

Might as well have done BTCC style lotto balls for that one.

Not disputing it wasn't silly. I am disputing that measurement as a valid way of assessing that. If we are to put forward points and measures to demonstrate it then 150 ish and x drivers is valid. All but only one person started where they qualified shows nothing.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

It's got everything to do with racing because the current system dictates F1 grids.

F1 has to have meaningful engine penalties because it's got a rule which says you can only use 4 engines. If the penalty is £10k per engine, then Mercedes and Ferrari will use 20 engines a year and design them to last only one race. Costs will rise further, and privateers won't be able to run with such engines. So the penalty has to mean something, and the best they've come up with so far is driver penalties.

Might as well face it - as long as we have the current hyper-expensive engine format, there will have to be engine limits and grid penalties to accompany them.

Um. That was my point. Nothing to do with racing. Everything to do with maintaining an expensive and ultimately irrelevant requirement.

[TrapezeArtist]

Aaaargh! As if all these crazy ideas of penalising the team not the driver aren't daft enough, now people are suggesting that "engine teams" should be penalised separate from "car teams".

Whatever happened to "Win together, lose together." Next someone will want to only penalise the driver if he crashes, and give the team some points as if the car didn't crash. (Perhaps I shouldn't have said that: someone will think it's a good idea.)

If you don't like all the grid penalties that happen these days, don't blame the rules. Blame the teams who don't make engines and gearboxes as reliable as the rules are intended to make them.

[wnut]

Originally Posted by ASCII Man

That's just it, though. Technology levels have continued to drop all the time.
Someone introduces a new technology, and the FIA bans it.

CVT, ground effects, active suspension, fan car, double diffuser, blown exhausts, and those are just off the top of my head...

It's all fine and dandy, but someone suggests using a simpler and more economically responsible engine design and everyone loses their goddamn minds!

Agreed, completely illogical, and then they spec the engine and they change the basic formula to allow the fitment of the grossly bloated PU's si they can compete in the first place! Totally artificial anyway.

Also material science is limited, engine speed is limited, and turbo speed is limited, KERS recovery is limited, an then it is promoted as cutting edge.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

That's my point. The penalty has to be meaningful otherwise they'll all just build as many as they want. It doesn't matter that the rules say only 4 - there has to be a penalty for going over 4, and the only meaningful penalty they've come up with is penalising the driver grid slots.

If you decide not to penalise the driver then there isn't a huge amount you could do. You could start fining the teams, but then you're crippling any team with a Honda engine.

IndyCar has a customer model for engine supplies, which keeps costs down. F1 does not. So if you start fining teams the randomly chosen £10k, then Mercedes and Ferrari will just produce the 20 engines a year that last one weekend and no more, pay the £10k fine, have incredibly fast and powerful engines that are completely useless to a private team on a budget.

It's another side effect of the hyper-expensive engine formula. If engines were simpler and cheaper then you could drop the idea of a grid slot. Engineers may not be able to unlearn things, but if the engine sales were cost capped, at let's say, £100k per unit, and you could have up to 10 engines a year, you'd see a lot fewer grid penalties at a lower cost. You'd also have a simpler engine format, meaning others may be able to break into the walled garden.

Just write the rules, so that only 4, 5 engines can be built. F1 always over complicates things.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Just write the rules, so that only 4, 5 engines can be built. F1 always over complicates things.

So when they are not as reliable as they hoped and they have problems teams just drop out of the series during the season, fold up and die? What if everyone has problems and the series grinds to a halt? Or more likely, if they see their allocation will not last if the engines are pushed, they just ease around the track at low speed to ensure they finish. More draconian rules are not the answer. Draconian rules is the problem.

Reduce complexity to meet current longevity goals, or keep complexity and reduce longevity requirements. That is the answer.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Just write the rules, so that only 4, 5 engines can be built. F1 always over complicates things.

So when 4 are blown up you park the car for a season and the team dissolves due to broken contracts and court battles. Not sure that's a good thing.

And the rules do currently only allow 4 to be built. After that you get a penalty.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by Peter Mallett

Um. That was my point. Nothing to do with racing. Everything to do with maintaining an expensive and ultimately irrelevant requirement.

It's everything to do with racing because it has quite a dramatic effect on it. This is a rules thread after all...

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

So when they are not as reliable as they hoped and they have problems teams just drop out of the series during the season, fold up and die? What if everyone has problems and the series grinds to a halt? Or more likely, if they see their allocation will not last if the engines are pushed, they just ease around the track at low speed to ensure they finish. More draconian rules are not the answer. Draconian rules is the problem.

Reduce complexity to meet current longevity goals, or keep complexity and reduce longevity requirements. That is the answer.

Richard

Well the rules that have been adopted by IndyCar since 2014 work, while the rules currently employed by F1 constantly come in for criticism.

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by Akrapovic

So when 4 are blown up you park the car for a season and the team dissolves due to broken contracts and court battles. Not sure that's a good thing.

And the rules do currently only allow 4 to be built. After that you get a penalty.

The problem though is with the penalty. Change that and there will be a lot more happier fans and drivers.

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

The problem though is with the penalty. Change that and there will be a lot more happier fans and drivers.

Right, but we talked about that.

So what penalty do you give? Well you don't penalise the driver, because nobody likes that. So do you take away team points? That seems pretty unfair on STR. They're a team buying a product, and if that product sucks not only do they lose positions, they lose points, and therefore massive amounts of income that's tied to the constructor's championship.

Do you make it a big fine? Also seems a bit unfair. Honda make a bad engine, so STR have to pay lots of fines.

Do you make it a small fine? Seems more reasonable, but if the fine is small enough that it doesn't harm the smaller teams, then the big teams will just abuse that. If the fine is small then the big teams will swallow the fine to allow them to build an engine that has significantly more power, but needs replaced often. They won't care about the fine - that's pennies to them. So then the gap grows, and the small teams buying the engines get less reliable units.

So what exactly is the answer? I agree that the grid drop sucks. However, if we're to keep the PU limit to 4, then I'm not sure how that can be policed in any meaningful way than penalising the teams via competition methods like grid drops, or pit lane starts. Anything else that's powerful enough to be meaningful has the potential to cripple smaller teams on the basis of a badly made customer component. Anything that's less powerful will just be abused and become a different issue.

The problem isn't just the penalty, it's the entire regulation surrounding the PU limit, the cost per unit, and the inaccessibility to new engine manufacturers.

[chillibowl]

i believe the allotment is actually 3 this year. 3 engines, 3 MGU-H, 3 turbos, and 2 MGU-K.

the engine manus (i believe Ferrari in particular) made it harder this year, presumably because Ferrari thought they had a reliability advantage going into the season.

doesnt make a difference to any points made here other than to suggest the manus have their own agenda and its not to ensure a competitive field....rightly so for them i suppose. less good for the fans (unless you are a Ferrari or Merc supporter).

it does raise an interesting paradox however....less units presumably means less units needed and thus less costs for the customers (which is good although i suspect less units produced is justification for the manus to charge more per unit so thats the first paradox). second, is the customers have to conserve those units more so to make them last i would imagine their solution has been to run slower.

i would suggest that some of the gap we are seeing between the top runners and midfield is a function of this misguided conservation....rather if we expect smaller teams to spend more money then we should reasonably expect to see them go faster. reality is that they seem to be relatively going slower compared to the works teams who, by and by, advocated these units in the first place.

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

Reduce complexity to meet current longevity goals, or keep complexity and reduce longevity requirements. That is the answer.

certainly an advocate of the first part. reduced complexity is cheaper and probably a lot easier to ensure longevity with.

maintaining the complexity, however, is imo just a synonym for 'more expensive'...which is what we have now so i dont like option b.

either the problem is with costs/level of competition or with the penalties...either way i think we all agree this is an untenable position to be in.

[Peter Mallett]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

it does raise an interesting paradox however....less units presumably means less units needed and thus less costs for the customers (which is good although i suspect less units produced is justification for the manus to charge more per unit so thats the first paradox). second, is the customers have to conserve those units more so to make them last i would imagine their solution has been to run slower.

Less units means more expenditure on R&D to improve longevity. Hence three units will no doubt cost more per season than four.

As someone once said "It is all complete ******** and has nothing to do with racing".