While it is obvious that a drive-through can be a bit harsh, especially when racing is close, like this season, and on certain tracks like Monaco and earlier in the race, when you fall back further back or close to a safety car what would be the alternative?
If they would add a certain flat time penalty according to the crime it would create a terribly virtual racing environment where track position does not correspond to reality and I can't see how this would help the racing for the fans or the drivers.
They could also add time after the race, but also feels wrong sue to the previous reason.
Then there is the grid peanlty for next race, but that has the same issues as the current drive-through, on some tracks grid position is much more important.
Finally, there could also be a points based penalty system, but that could create negative points, some of the back-markers could end a season on, like -20 HOWEVER, that would segregate the current 0 pointers more clearly and bring a whole new level to rejectdom - who ahs the largest negative score...
They should use Cynon's Active Time Penalty because it gives weighted penalties to the people who deserve them and if the team disagrees they can appeal without having lost so much time. My only problem with the drive-throughs is that there really isn't any chance of appeal, and those who disagree with the penalty by not serving it get DSQ'd.
Mistakes in potatoes will ALWAYS happen Trulli bad puns... IN JAIL NO ONE CAN HEAR YOU SCREAM
JeremyMcClean wrote:They should use Cynon's Active Time Penalty because it gives weighted penalties to the people who deserve them and if the team disagrees they can appeal without having lost so much time.
Can you elaborate on that system? Is it just a time penalty depending on track position and crime or do you somehow have to take the penalty on-tarck at point (Slowing dow or letting a certain number of cars pass) ?
On thing I have against virtual time penalties is the fact that track position does not change. Say the P1 driver gets a peanalty of some time and P2 guy is following close but can't pass. He is virtually P1 but cannot do full speed and P3 catches up and passe both of them. So he gains while P2 loses. It is also terribly confusing for both the drivers and spectators, especially at a race where there are many penalties.
JeremyMcClean wrote:They should use Cynon's Active Time Penalty because it gives weighted penalties to the people who deserve them and if the team disagrees they can appeal without having lost so much time.
Can you elaborate on that system? Is it just a time penalty depending on track position and crime or do you somehow have to take the penalty on-tarck at point (Slowing dow or letting a certain number of cars pass) ?
It's something Cynon uses in his fictional stock car league.Say some chap by the name of Deletraz is leading the race when another guy by the name of Hill tries to pass him.Instead,Deletraz weaves and knocks Hill off the road.Deletraz will then be given a time penalty,maybe 15-30 seconds long that will be immediately applied without him having to stop or go into the pits.The team can also appeal the penalty right away or immediately after the race.This could create interesting situations where one driver will try to set some very quick hot laps to try and overcome the penalty.
My friend's USB drive spoiled, spilled tea on her laptop and had a bird poo in her hand.
JeremyMcClean wrote:They should use Cynon's Active Time Penalty because it gives weighted penalties to the people who deserve them and if the team disagrees they can appeal without having lost so much time.
Can you elaborate on that system? Is it just a time penalty depending on track position and crime or do you somehow have to take the penalty on-tarck at point (Slowing dow or letting a certain number of cars pass) ?
On thing I have against virtual time penalties is the fact that track position does not change. Say the P1 driver gets a peanalty of some time and P2 guy is following close but can't pass. He is virtually P1 but cannot do full speed and P3 catches up and passe both of them. So he gains while P2 loses. It is also terribly confusing for both the drivers and spectators, especially at a race where there are many penalties.
Another thing I was thinking. Just a few laps to go, driver on P7 overtakes P6 under yellow flag. Just behind them on the track is race leader, who manages to overtake P7 (the driver who was just illegally overtaken) but doesn't overtake P6 before race ends. With so little time, stewards don't manage to give drive through during the race, so they add 20 seconds. As there are no other drivers on the same lap, the driver keeps his 6th place.
JeremyMcClean wrote:They should use Cynon's Active Time Penalty because it gives weighted penalties to the people who deserve them and if the team disagrees they can appeal without having lost so much time.
Can you elaborate on that system? Is it just a time penalty depending on track position and crime or do you somehow have to take the penalty on-tarck at point (Slowing dow or letting a certain number of cars pass) ?
On thing I have against virtual time penalties is the fact that track position does not change. Say the P1 driver gets a peanalty of some time and P2 guy is following close but can't pass. He is virtually P1 but cannot do full speed and P3 catches up and passe both of them. So he gains while P2 loses. It is also terribly confusing for both the drivers and spectators, especially at a race where there are many penalties.
Another thing I was thinking. Just a few laps to go, driver on P7 overtakes P6 under yellow flag. Just behind them on the track is race leader, who manages to overtake P7 (the driver who was just illegally overtaken) but doesn't overtake P6 before race ends. With so little time, stewards don't manage to give drive through during the race, so they add 20 seconds. As there are no other drivers on the same lap, the driver keeps his 6th place.
Easy. Demote him 2 places and you're done. I know what kind of gripes you might have, but I can't think of something better right now. And I love Cynon's penalty idea, BTW.
Though i'm not a fan of football, a leaf could be taken out of it's book. Driver B is judged to have taken driver A out the race or has damage to the car then Driver B gets a straight red card, (or black flag) if driver A is able to continue without damage then driver B gets a drive through, simples....
It sounds to my mind as if Warwick's suggestions may solve some problems, but open up others, in his quest for balance.
Now, it is fair to say that the consistency of the stewards decisions - or lack thereof - has long been a contentious issue, and a regular point of complaint when the regulations are very prescriptive in some senses, and very vague in others. The very fact that sections of the regulations leave the weight of certain penalties entirely at the discretion of the stewards - such as grid penalties for incidents on track - not to mention that other sections of the regulations seem to be effectively obsolete (although the regulation remains in force, when was a driver last given a 10 second stop and go penalty?) or effectively ignored (such as the post race investigations that, strictly speaking, should be settled during the race itself) leaves plenty of room for confusion. Added to that, it doesn't help that there is no consistency in terms of the stewarding panel - being appointed on a race by race basis, only Charlie Whiting takes part in every race, and even then his involvement in the penalty decision making process is quite limited.
Then again, some of the suggestions that Warwick has made are arguably no better - yes, it is true that a drive through penalty at some circuits causes a greater time loss than at other venues, but equally one could point out that, since the overall length of a lap at every circuit is different, a standard time penalty of, say, 25s during the race could also have a disproportionally large effect.
Overall, I think that there are other, better options to obtain greater consistency, which would be to appoint a core professional body of stewards that would attend each and every race, supplemented by the same regional representative on a year by year basis (where possible), so at least there may be greater consistency in the process of making a decision. Standardise the decision making process, and I think that there will be many more who would support that rather than an attempt to standardise the penalties across every event.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning: "The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
WeirdKerr wrote:Though i'm not a fan of football, a leaf could be taken out of it's book. Driver B is judged to have taken driver A out the race or has damage to the car then Driver B gets a straight red card, (or black flag) if driver A is able to continue without damage then driver B gets a drive through, simples....
And what if a driver accidentally causes terminal damage to another driver? A DSQ wouldn't be fair. On the other end, we could have a repeat of Michael Schumacher at Jerez in 1997 and he would have walked away, assuming he had been able to continue, with a time penalty when his intention was clearly malicious and, hence, worthy of a DSQ.
I think drive-through penalties are OK as they are, they just need to concede a little more room because I personally feel many genuine racing incidents that are not worthy of a penalty are being punished.
JeremyMcClean wrote:They should use Cynon's Active Time Penalty because it gives weighted penalties to the people who deserve them and if the team disagrees they can appeal without having lost so much time. My only problem with the drive-throughs is that there really isn't any chance of appeal, and those who disagree with the penalty by not serving it get DSQ'd.
I second this.
aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either
tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
WeirdKerr wrote:Though i'm not a fan of football, a leaf could be taken out of it's book. Driver B is judged to have taken driver A out the race or has damage to the car then Driver B gets a straight red card, (or black flag) if driver A is able to continue without damage then driver B gets a drive through, simples....
And what if a driver accidentally causes terminal damage to another driver? A DSQ wouldn't be fair. On the other end, we could have a repeat of Michael Schumacher at Jerez in 1997 and he would have walked away, assuming he had been able to continue, with a time penalty when his intention was clearly malicious and, hence, worthy of a DSQ.
I think drive-through penalties are OK as they are, they just need to concede a little more room because I personally feel many genuine racing incidents that are not worthy of a penalty are being punished.
I've never been entirely happy with drive-through penalties, they're inherently unfair because each pitlane is different. It usually comes out to about 20 seconds, but I'm sure we know, in F1, every last tenth of a second counts.
I'll go along with the general consensus of implementing Cynon's Active Time Penalties, those are much more fair, and allow for the chance of appeals, as has been previously stated.
Sebastian Vettel wrote:If I was good at losing, I wouldn't be in Formula 1
mario wrote:Now, it is fair to say that the consistency of the stewards decisions - or lack thereof - has long been a contentious issue, and a regular point of complaint when the regulations are very prescriptive in some senses, and very vague in others.
But is it really inconsistency? Warwick does raise a fair point when he said that differences between the circuits mean that different penalties have different effects. For example, Michael Schumacher was given a stop-go penalty for causing an avoidable accident with Kamui Kobayashi at Silverstone last year. Normally, avoidable accidents usually only get a drive-through penalty, so taken at face value, it's a pretty extreme reaction to Schumacher's offence. However, because the Silverstone pit lane is so short (it was speciically designed to be one of the fastest on the calendar), the stewards felt that a drive-through penalty would not be much of a penalty at all, and under certain circumstances, may have even been of benefit to Schumacher, so they imposed a stop-go penalty on him.
Transparency is what they need, not consistency. They hit the nail on the head when they released a statement explaining why the penalised Lewis Hamilton instead of Jenson Button at last year's Canadian Grand Prix, stating that Button had followed the same racing line all race, and it was the same racing line as used by the driver in front (Schumacher). Even the most die-hard Hamilonistas who claim that the stewards have it in for National Hero Driver were hard-pressed to argue with their justification after watching the replays from pervious laps.
mario wrote:I'm wondering what the hell has been going on in this thread [...] it's turned into a bizarre detour into mythical flying horses and the sort of search engine results that CoopsII is going to have a very hard time explaining ...
Grid drops for the next race can be frustrating if the offender is already towards the back of the grid anyway. If, say, Petrov is given a 10-place drop for a particularly dangerous race, but qualifies third from the back of the grid, he's got off pretty lightly.
Maybe grid penalties should roll over? So having lost only three positions in that race, he still has seven to lose in future races. These guys have less to lose than front-runners as it is.
WeirdKerr wrote:Though i'm not a fan of football, a leaf could be taken out of it's book. Driver B is judged to have taken driver A out the race or has damage to the car then Driver B gets a straight red card, (or black flag) if driver A is able to continue without damage then driver B gets a drive through, simples....
And what if a driver accidentally causes terminal damage to another driver? A DSQ wouldn't be fair. On the other end, we could have a repeat of Michael Schumacher at Jerez in 1997 and he would have walked away, assuming he had been able to continue, with a time penalty when his intention was clearly malicious and, hence, worthy of a DSQ.
I think drive-through penalties are OK as they are, they just need to concede a little more room because I personally feel many genuine racing incidents that are not worthy of a penalty are being punished.
I've never been entirely happy with drive-through penalties, they're inherently unfair because each pitlane is different. It usually comes out to about 20 seconds, but I'm sure we know, in F1, every last tenth of a second counts.
I'll go along with the general consensus of implementing Cynon's Active Time Penalties, those are much more fair, and allow for the chance of appeals, as has been previously stated.
Right now is the most consistent form of penalty we have. I am also in favour of implementing Cynon's penalty, but the guys over at the FIA have yet to discover what it is...
fjackdaw wrote:Grid drops for the next race can be frustrating if the offender is already towards the back of the grid anyway. If, say, Petrov is given a 10-place drop for a particularly dangerous race, but qualifies third from the back of the grid, he's got off pretty lightly.
Maybe grid penalties should roll over? So having lost only three positions in that race, he still has seven to lose in future races. These guys have less to lose than front-runners as it is.
I never liked grid penalties too much. I prefer race penalties since they are more punishing for the offender.
WeirdKerr wrote:Though i'm not a fan of football, a leaf could be taken out of it's book. Driver B is judged to have taken driver A out the race or has damage to the car then Driver B gets a straight red card, (or black flag) if driver A is able to continue without damage then driver B gets a drive through, simples....
Or a "yellow" whereby it can be dealt with after the race, although no other mishaps are allowed. Also, the "yellow" would remain and if you get another later on in the season you have to miss the next race. The team can still run the 3rd driver (Giving them a role in F1).
WeirdKerr wrote:Though i'm not a fan of football, a leaf could be taken out of it's book. Driver B is judged to have taken driver A out the race or has damage to the car then Driver B gets a straight red card, (or black flag) if driver A is able to continue without damage then driver B gets a drive through, simples....
Or a "yellow" whereby it can be dealt with after the race, although no other mishaps are allowed. Also, the "yellow" would remain and if you get another later on in the season you have to miss the next race. The team can still run the 3rd driver (Giving them a role in F1).
It's too outlandish and, in 99% of the ocassions, undoubtedly too harsh. All it would do is discourage hard racing and contribute towards making the races more processional.
mario wrote:Now, it is fair to say that the consistency of the stewards decisions - or lack thereof - has long been a contentious issue, and a regular point of complaint when the regulations are very prescriptive in some senses, and very vague in others.
But is it really inconsistency? Warwick does raise a fair point when he said that differences between the circuits mean that different penalties have different effects. For example, Michael Schumacher was given a stop-go penalty for causing an avoidable accident with Kamui Kobayashi at Silverstone last year. Normally, avoidable accidents usually only get a drive-through penalty, so taken at face value, it's a pretty extreme reaction to Schumacher's offence. However, because the Silverstone pit lane is so short (it was speciically designed to be one of the fastest on the calendar), the stewards felt that a drive-through penalty would not be much of a penalty at all, and under certain circumstances, may have even been of benefit to Schumacher, so they imposed a stop-go penalty on him.
Transparency is what they need, not consistency. They hit the nail on the head when they released a statement explaining why the penalised Lewis Hamilton instead of Jenson Button at last year's Canadian Grand Prix, stating that Button had followed the same racing line all race, and it was the same racing line as used by the driver in front (Schumacher). Even the most die-hard Hamilonistas who claim that the stewards have it in for National Hero Driver were hard-pressed to argue with their justification after watching the replays from pervious laps.
The current level of transparency is already an improvement over that of the past few years, that is undeniable - although we may disagree with the stewards, it does help that we can at least develop a greater understanding of the way they have assessed the situation. Yet, at times there are problems that are caused by the stewards making decisions that go against the regulations - take the example of Rosberg's defensive moves against Alonso and Hamilton in Bahrain. The problem came with the decision over the Rosberg-Hamilton move - the problem is that most observers felt the decision was, effectively, incomplete, because it failed to address the question of whether Hamilton's passing move was illegal given that he could only complete that move by going off track.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning: "The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
For those of you who suggest an equivalent to football's yellow card, maybe you can take a look at the penultimate flag on this page. I have seen it used a fair bit at Brands Hatch for those drivers who "disrespect track limits."
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
I've known about that flag for 21 years, I've been watching F1 for 22 years, and I don't ever remember seeing it used. The black and orange flag is extremely rare as well, and it gets mentioned on the commentary, but I think I've seen it once, maybe twice, in these two decades.
Race control need to be reminded about the black and white flag's existence, I'd wager...
James Allen, on his favourite F1 engine of all time: "...the Life W12, I can't describe the noise to you, but imagine filling your dustbin with nuts and bolts, and then throwing it down the stairs, it was something akin to that!"
dinizintheoven wrote:I've known about that flag for 21 years, I've been watching F1 for 22 years, and I don't ever remember seeing it used. The black and orange flag is extremely rare as well, and it gets mentioned on the commentary, but I think I've seen it once, maybe twice, in these two decades.
Race control need to be reminded about the black and white flag's existence, I'd wager...
The only reason I know of the black and orange flag's existance is because of F1 06, i've never seen it used. Although I haven't been watching F1 as long as you. I'm not even that old.
The black-with-orange-disc flag is rarely used anywhere, thanks to pits-to-car radios I would assume. But the warning flag would be a useful one to bring back in...
watka wrote:I find it amusing that whilst you're one of the more openly Christian guys here, you are still first and foremost associated with an eye for the ladies!
dinizintheoven wrote:GOOD CHRISTIANS do not go to jail. EVERYONE ON FORMULA ONE REJECTS should be in jail.
dr-baker wrote:The black-with-orange-disc flag is rarely used anywhere, thanks to pits-to-car radios I would assume. But the warning flag would be a useful one to bring back in...
It's actually used quite often in the V8 Supercars, along with the bad sportsmanship flag. Probably because of the argy-bargy nature of the racing
Biscione wrote:"Some Turkemenistani gulag repurposed for residential use" is the best way yet I've heard to describe North / East Glasgow.
dr-baker wrote:The black-with-orange-disc flag is rarely used anywhere, thanks to pits-to-car radios I would assume. But the warning flag would be a useful one to bring back in...
It's actually used quite often in the V8 Supercars, along with the bad sportsmanship flag. Probably because of the argy-bargy nature of the racing
Almost every race there is a car with some form of bodywork hanging off so I agree with what you said.
aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either
tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
tkcom wrote:Instead of drive-through, how about using percentage for penalty? 5%/10%/15% of driver's fastest time added to the final result.
If you mean "% of the race's fastest lap time for that driver", it's easy to cheat on it deliberately doing slower fastest laps unless the penalty is only notified at the end of the race.
tkcom wrote:Instead of drive-through, how about using percentage for penalty? 5%/10%/15% of driver's fastest time added to the final result.
If you mean "% of the race's fastest lap time for that driver", it's easy to cheat on it deliberately doing slower fastest laps unless the penalty is only notified at the end of the race.
Duh! If you're doing a "slower" fastest lap, more seconds will be added to your time! (For example, if your fastest lap is 100 seconds and you get 10% penalty, 10 seconds will be added. Going slower like 105 seconds then it's 10.5 seconds.) And if you think pitting for new tyres will help reduce the penalty, you'll instead lose even more time due to that pit stop.
For me what they should do is adopt a road license style points system for the superlicense. Get a drive through and three penalty points, reach twelve penalty points in a season and you have a three race ban, come back from the ban you have a six point probation super license, reach that and you are banned for a season. That'd stamp out dangerous driving! *edit:- Anyone banned for a season also is not paid by their team for the duration of the ban!
"Hispania are a waste of talent and petrol!" Martin Brundle, Australia Qualifying 2011
sswishbone wrote:For me what they should do is adopt a road license style points system for the superlicense. Get a drive through and three penalty points, reach twelve penalty points in a season and you have a three race ban, come back from the ban you have a six point probation super license, reach that and you are banned for a season. That'd stamp out dangerous driving! *edit:- Anyone banned for a season also is not paid by their team for the duration of the ban!
It could be argued that the FIA have taken up a watered down version of that with the new rule, brought in this year, where if a driver is reprimanded three times during a season for his driving, he gets an automatic grid penalty of 10 places, with each reprimand after that earning another automatic grid penalty. It's a milder version of what you propose, but I guess that we will find out soon enough whether it works as a disincentive given that Maldonado is not far off triggering a grid penalty.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning: "The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
sswishbone wrote:For me what they should do is adopt a road license style points system for the superlicense. Get a drive through and three penalty points, reach twelve penalty points in a season and you have a three race ban, come back from the ban you have a six point probation super license, reach that and you are banned for a season. That'd stamp out dangerous driving! *edit:- Anyone banned for a season also is not paid by their team for the duration of the ban!
It could be argued that the FIA have taken up a watered down version of that with the new rule, brought in this year, where if a driver is reprimanded three times during a season for his driving, he gets an automatic grid penalty of 10 places, with each reprimand after that earning another automatic grid penalty. It's a milder version of what you propose, but I guess that we will find out soon enough whether it works as a disincentive given that Maldonado is not far off triggering a grid penalty.
Surprised Maldonado hasn't already triggered a grid penalty.
aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either
tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
sswishbone wrote:For me what they should do is adopt a road license style points system for the superlicense. Get a drive through and three penalty points, reach twelve penalty points in a season and you have a three race ban, come back from the ban you have a six point probation super license, reach that and you are banned for a season. That'd stamp out dangerous driving! *edit:- Anyone banned for a season also is not paid by their team for the duration of the ban!
So a driver whose mechanics leave grid too late, get one jump start, speeds in the pit lane once and gains advantage by cutting a corner shall be awarded three-race ban?
sswishbone wrote:For me what they should do is adopt a road license style points system for the superlicense. Get a drive through and three penalty points, reach twelve penalty points in a season and you have a three race ban, come back from the ban you have a six point probation super license, reach that and you are banned for a season. That'd stamp out dangerous driving! *edit:- Anyone banned for a season also is not paid by their team for the duration of the ban!
So a driver whose mechanics leave grid too late, get one jump start, speeds in the pit lane once and gains advantage by cutting a corner shall be awarded three-race ban?
In my opinio, penalising a driver for the actions of his team, that are way beyond his control (he is strapped into the car!) is out of place. Wouldn't it be better to fine the team? Anway, I feel an equalised stop-go penalty would be in place, with the time of the stop-go altered to match the pitlane length, position, etc of the track.
my post referred specifically to dangerous driving. Breaking pit lane speed limit? dangerous driving. Chopping outside white lines of the circuit? dangerous. actions the team has done on the other hand, such as not leaving grid quickly enough, is not dangerious driving, so yes, in that instance fine the team. But when a driver takes another out, ignores yellow flags, weaves dangerously, etc... Dangerous driving, ban them, you'd stamp it out in a heartbeat.
"Hispania are a waste of talent and petrol!" Martin Brundle, Australia Qualifying 2011
pasta_maldonado wrote:In my onion, penalising a driver for the actions of his team, that are way beyond his control (he is strapped into the car!) is out of place. Wouldn't it be better to fine the team?
Fines are useless and are nothing but decorative tools to give the illusion of punishment so for most team penalties you have to penalise the driver.
pasta_maldonado wrote:In my onion, penalising a driver for the actions of his team, that are way beyond his control (he is strapped into the car!) is out of place. Wouldn't it be better to fine the team?
Fines are useless and are nothing but decorative tools to give the illusion of punishment so for most team penalties you have to penalise the driver.
Wait, wut.
aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either
tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
pasta_maldonado wrote:In my onion, penalising a driver for the actions of his team, that are way beyond his control (he is strapped into the car!) is out of place. Wouldn't it be better to fine the team?
Fines are useless and are nothing but decorative tools to give the illusion of punishment so for most team penalties you have to penalise the driver.
pasta_maldonado wrote:In my onion, penalising a driver for the actions of his team, that are way beyond his control (he is strapped into the car!) is out of place. Wouldn't it be better to fine the team?
Fines are useless and are nothing but decorative tools to give the illusion of punishment so for most team penalties you have to penalise the driver.
Wait, wut.
I can see what he means in a sense, since the fines that are levied against the teams or their drivers for poor driving are in the order of a few tens of thousands of Euros (typically around €20,000). Given that your average midfield team will have a budget in excess of €100 million, a fine of €20,000 is negligible by comparison - Williams revealed that their computerised tyre warmers set them back around €10,000 per unit (so two units, required to service both cars, would come to €20,000), so by those standards, a fine of €20,000 would not be a major expense. Therefore, if the fines are going to have a limited impact due to budgets growing significantly faster than the fines, you have to look to other ways to make the team feel the effects, and that is hitting them where it hurts - their competitiveness, which means penalising the driver.
Martin Brundle, on watching a replay of Grosjean spinning: "The problem with Grosjean is that he want to take a look back at the corner he's just exited"
mario wrote:I can see what he means in a sense, since the fines that are levied against the teams or their drivers for poor driving are in the order of a few tens of thousands of Euros (typically around €20,000). Given that your average midfield team will have a budget in excess of €100 million, a fine of €20,000 is negligible by comparison - Williams revealed that their computerised tyre warmers set them back around €10,000 per unit (so two units, required to service both cars, would come to €20,000), so by those standards, a fine of €20,000 would not be a major expense. Therefore, if the fines are going to have a limited impact due to budgets growing significantly faster than the fines, you have to look to other ways to make the team feel the effects, and that is hitting them where it hurts - their competitiveness, which means penalising the driver.
I was actually referring to Pasta's spelling mistake.
aerond wrote:Yes RDD, but we always knew you never had any sort of taste either
tommykl wrote:I have a shite car and meme sponsors, but Corrado Fabi will carry me to the promised land with the power of Lionel Richie.
mario wrote:I can see what he means in a sense, since the fines that are levied against the teams or their drivers for poor driving are in the order of a few tens of thousands of Euros (typically around €20,000). Given that your average midfield team will have a budget in excess of €100 million, a fine of €20,000 is negligible by comparison - Williams revealed that their computerised tyre warmers set them back around €10,000 per unit (so two units, required to service both cars, would come to €20,000), so by those standards, a fine of €20,000 would not be a major expense. Therefore, if the fines are going to have a limited impact due to budgets growing significantly faster than the fines, you have to look to other ways to make the team feel the effects, and that is hitting them where it hurts - their competitiveness, which means penalising the driver.
I was actually referring to Pasta's spelling mistake.
Which wasn't his to begin with, I edited his actual mistake since it reminded me of a short-lived inside joke there was on another board. Still, thank you very much for elaborating my point, mario.
HOWEVER, that would segregate the current 0 pointers more clearly and bring a whole new level to rejectdom - who ahs the largest negative score...
