F1 - 2016 Belgian Grand Prix

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
Apr 30, 2013
Messages
2,151
Location
Tinton Falls NJ
F1 - 2016 Belgian Grand Prix

US TV Times
Practice 1, Friday August 26th, 4:00AM EST , NBC Sports Live Extra
Practice 2, Friday August 26th, 8:00AM EST , NBCSN
Practice 3, Saturday August 27th, 5:00AM EST , NBC Sports Live Extra
Qualifying, Saturday August 27th, 8:00AM EST , CNBC
Race, Sunday August 28th, 7:00AM EST , NBCSN


Current Standings
Drivers
1. Lewis Hamilton, 217
2. Nico Rosberg, 198
3. Daniel Ricciardo, 133
Constructors
1. Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 Team, 415
2. Red Bull Racing, 256
3. Scuderia Ferrari, 242

For more, including stats., video, and more please check out my full post on TOV Motorsports!

11_Belgium_E_300DPI-886x498.jpg
 
It will be sad if the grid penalty system decides the championship. It is so easy to manipulate that the outcome becomes a joke.
 
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
It will be sad if the grid penalty system decides the championship. It is so easy to manipulate that the outcome becomes a joke.


I have a feeling that is what's going to happen. And I agree, it's a total joke punishing the driver for mechanical breakdowns that he has zero control over. If they're going to "punish", (which the FIA seems very big on in Formula 1), then punish the constructor by removing points from them. After all, they engineered and built the thing. The driver is out there busting his butt every race, and taking all the physical risk too boot. He is at the total mercy of what the engineers and mechanics give him. Why should he be the one to have to pay the price on the starting line every time something breaks? It's ridiculous.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
I have a feeling that is what's going to happen. And I agree, it's a total joke punishing the driver for mechanical breakdowns that he has zero control over.

The manufacturers asked for this system. It's what the engine manufacturers wanted, including Mercedes and Ferrari. They all wanted to get away from the runaway costs of going through two or three engines each weekend. They wanted to decrease costs and improve reliability.

Removing constructor points would be a big stick, but would it really be big enough? Everyone, including the sponsors, remembers things like who was on pole and who was standing on the podium at the end of the race. I remember Riccardio being on the podium in Australia in 2014 at the start of the hybrid era. I know he was disqualified after the telecast, but I have no idea who jumped up from fourth to third, without looking it up.
 
I would be happy if they went back to the one engine a race weekend rule. I remember when that rule came into effect and everyone ran around like the sky was falling. Frankly I was not opposed to Q engines. If anything the penalty should go against the constructor's points since that is the only one that matters financially.
 
I wouldn't care either way. However, Mercedes, Ferrari, Renault, and probably even Honda would revolt, and Ferrari does have a veto.
wink.gif
They wanted complex engines with longer term reliability to reduce costs, and they wanted that enforced. That's what they got.
 
I'm still not understanding the "punishment"? And why would they agree to anything that would cost the team a World Driving Championship? That's like hitting yourself on the head with a hammer, because it feels good when you stop. Besides, all this nonsense to "reduce cost" is just that, nonsense. That's what the IRL was supposed to do when it was created, and broke away from Champ Cars. It didn't. Within a few years they cost just as much, if not more. Same with this whole idea of, "bringing more American drivers into Indy Car Racing". You can't raise competition and performance, and reduce cost at the same time by adding more rules and regulation. Complexity in engineering costs money. Formula 1 will never be cheap.... Or even cheaper. And you for certain cannot create driving skill with "rules". This is what these socialist countries in Europe have never figured out. They try to regulate success in racing, just like they do in government. Both fail miserably.
 
That's the rationale that the teams gave, whether or not we believe it. Obviously, they're spending a pile of money on R&D, all the while wishing to save money on a few actual engine replacements over the year. It might make more sense for the customer teams then the factory teams, and perhaps make more sense to them as engine manufacturers, rather than on the team side of things.

They were the ones pushing the hybrids, and it took a lot of arguing to get an agreement for an extra power unit this year (or last year, or whatever it was when it changed). In the end, given penalties, and heck, even without them, reliability can be a performance matter. If Mercedes knows they can make a more reliable engine than anyone else, grid penalties benefit them. Of course, they get a benefit if a competitor's engine blows up during a race.

I gather that Ferrari, Honda, Mercedes, and Renault have no problem spending a fair bit of money on R&D on engines. That's why they get so worked up when an outside supplier of an equivalent engine is mentioned. The R&D can be justified up the line. Shipping a bunch of engines all over the place might be a little harder to justify, and there could be a desire to minimize that. The engine builders also claim they're losing money on engine sales. So, it would make sense to enhance reliability and minimize the number of engines they have to supply.

Of course, these cost cutting measures never work out as intended. I'd be hard pressed to believe that today's system is cheaper than engines from 25 years ago, even allowing three engines a weekend, or something outrageous like that. But, when we get to that, again, the engine builders already said they'd leave the sport if it were to turn back the clock to obsolete engines. Besides, Ferrari still has a veto.
 
I just don't understand a lot of the "thinking" that goes on in and around Formula 1. It has become so political over the years. I sometimes think these manufacturers are gluttons for punishment. The way they seem to dish it out to themselves with all of this nonsense.
 
I'm sure that the thinking that goes on in F1 would be a great topic for a doctoral thesis in psychology.

Part of the problem is that there are a lot of very clever people involved who will take advantage of whatever they can. Last year, everyone complained when grid penalties greater than to the back of the grid would be carried over to the next race. The fans and media roasted them how stupid it was. So, they abandoned that, and said no matter how many places you're knocked back, penalties apply only to one weekend, and obviously you cannot be further back than the back. Ron Dennis then opened up a whack of engines one weekend, and I believe it was at Spa as well, to carry things until the end of the season without further penalties. He demonstrated very quickly why the rule was in place.

Mercedes is doing the same thing this weekend, too, for Hamilton. They may take a 75 place grid penalty, which won't carry on, of course. They've discussed opening up as many engines as they feasibly can to carry him on to the end of the season, without ruining things for possible upgrades later in the season, or annoying everyone so much that the penalties get spread out again.
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: Whitewolf
It will be sad if the grid penalty system decides the championship. It is so easy to manipulate that the outcome becomes a joke.


I have a feeling that is what's going to happen. And I agree, it's a total joke punishing the driver for mechanical breakdowns that he has zero control over. If they're going to "punish", (which the FIA seems very big on in Formula 1), then punish the constructor by removing points from them. After all, they engineered and built the thing. The driver is out there busting his butt every race, and taking all the physical risk too boot. He is at the total mercy of what the engineers and mechanics give him. Why should he be the one to have to pay the price on the starting line every time something breaks? It's ridiculous.

Should the same thing apply when a driver messes up and gets a penalty? The team keeps their points, and only the driver loses?
 
Originally Posted By: whip
Should the same thing apply when a driver messes up and gets a penalty? The team keeps their points, and only the driver loses?


Why not? He's the one who messed up, not the team or the engineers. There is nothing wrong with punishment. Just as long as the right people get punished. That is becoming more rare in Formula 1 every season.
 
Well, it's a team sport like many others, doubtless with a large individual component. Separating driver and team penalties would also lead to some pitfalls. There are always those unintended consequences. Could team instructions lead a driver to take a risk and incur a penalty that won't affect the team? Would a driver take more risks with a problematic car, knowing that any subsequent penalties for a failed engine won't affect him in the least?
 
Originally Posted By: billt460
Originally Posted By: whip
Should the same thing apply when a driver messes up and gets a penalty? The team keeps their points, and only the driver loses?


Why not? He's the one who messed up, not the team or the engineers. There is nothing wrong with punishment. Just as long as the right people get punished. That is becoming more rare in Formula 1 every season.

In football, when a lineman is off sides, does the whole team get punished, or just the individual? It's a team sport, so treat them like a team.

To the race, It looks like Vettel is feeling the pressure of being a #1 Ferrari driver that's losing to his "inferior" team mate. Lewis made the most of a bad situation, and was aided by Vettel's brain dead mistake.
 
Originally Posted By: whip
It's a team sport, so treat them like a team.


I get sick of hearing that in Formula 1. It's only a "team sport" when it's convenient for the team. There is one guy in the car. How many guys line up on the line of scrimmage during a play in football? Lousy analogy.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top