Are F1 penalties still adequate?

[chrisc90]

This was hinted at in a few posts on the Monza race thread - so thought I’d try and get some discussion going to whether the penalties still match the ‘offence’.

The first one I’ll bring up, apologies for the highlighting one team/driver, and it is in no discredit to them, it’s just a good example.

Russell overtaking Ocon off the track and failing to give the place back. Correctly punished with a 5 second penalty.

However, does leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage not come into play aswell? Considering the car failed to give the position back and thus used the clean air to gain an advantage that he otherwise wouldn’t have been able to gain - without taking more laps to pass Ocon. In my opinion that also falls foul of gaining a lasting advantage.

We have also seen Alonso get creative at the start of a GP, Russia 2021?? Where he took to the run off area and managed to gain the advantage aswell as overtake cars, from memory. He openly admitted that was his intention - same as Russell admitted he wouldn’t give the place back.

Another hypothetical scenario would/could have been Max following Sainz for 15 laps at the start of Monza. Sainz was a few tenths slower, but the overall speed of both cars meant a overtake was ‘challenging’ at the end of the straight.
Max could have took to the run off area between turn 1 and 2, gotten ahead of Sainz and failed to give the position back. Knowing Max himself was xyz a lap faster than Sainz - the penalty of 5 seconds would have soon been squashed. Infact I’m sure Max pulled 8 seconds on Sainz before putting a handful of laps later.

Nothing untoward towards any named driver above - just very recent examples I can use for the post discussion.

With 5 second penalty covering the majority of infringements these days - is 5 seconds really enough given The gaps we typically see between drivers and through the grid?

Sometimes taking a penalty might be the best opportunity you have shortening your race time - especially if your in a bit of a dead area.

Therefore, I’d propose the following of the position must be given back before 1 lap following the offence (in case of overtaking off track). For example overtaking someone off track at turn 1, lap 10, you would have until the end of lap 11 start/finish line to give the place back. Failing doing so would mean a 10 second penalty and being ordered to drop back behind the car you overtook off track before the following lap. Teams are usually pretty good at when they know to hand positions back, and same with the FIA - so the laps ‘grace’ would be enough for any investigation to happen.

Causing a collision should also get a extra 5 seconds minimum - so in region of 10-17.5 seconds. This should be a sliding scale of the outcome of the car in contact with. If contact was made resulting in the race of the ‘innocent’ car being compromised through a pitstop or damage needing to be fixed in a live race - then the car at fault should also be greater penalised using the sliding scale.

Basically, and would probably need more thought and detail on the situations I gave, that penalties are no longer a penalty where by it doesn’t penalise the driver. If the penalties are made harsh enough it effectively nerfs your race pretty hard, then it will stop people from openly admitting it’s more worth taking the penalty that say giving a position back.

I also think the engine/ component penalties should be worse overall to stop people from taking multiple components over the allowance. For example the first new component took outside the allowance is 10 places - then further ones for the second over the allowance result in a further 10 places added meaning you start from the back of the grid.
Regrettably bringing a team into this but it’s a notable example from recent years was Mercedes taking a fresh PU every 3 races with Lewis and Valterri. A much more highly strung engine that was more than the others and only receiving a 5 place drop each time a fresh one was taken isn’t really truly being penalised.
(I’m sure there is more detail in that scenario from 2021 but probably cause for a different discussion.)
If the penalty was the rear of the grid for the second over your allowance then I’m sure it would put a lot more teams off using ‘disposable’ components as it massively puts you on the back foot - rather than a 5 place drop.

Please - ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ with my examples - they were just what come to me at a quick thought - and remember we are discussing the penalties not being adequate or off putting enough rather than a specific offence and whether the FIA decision was correct for driver A or B or team A or B.

[peewon]

This was hinted at in a few posts on the Monza race thread - so thought I’d try and get some discussion going to whether the penalties still match the ‘offence’.

The first one I’ll bring up, apologies for the highlighting one team/driver, and it is in no discredit to them, it’s just a good example.

Russell overtaking Ocon off the track and failing to give the place back. Correctly punished with a 5 second penalty.

However, does leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage not come into play aswell? Considering the car failed to give the position back and thus used the clean air to gain an advantage that he otherwise wouldn’t have been able to gain - without taking more laps to pass Ocon. In my opinion that also falls foul of gaining a lasting advantage.

We have also seen Alonso get creative at the start of a GP, Russia 2021?? Where he took to the run off area and managed to gain the advantage aswell as overtake cars, from memory. He openly admitted that was his intention - same as Russell admitted he wouldn’t give the place back.

Another hypothetical scenario would/could have been Max following Sainz for 15 laps at the start of Monza. Sainz was a few tenths slower, but the overall speed of both cars meant a overtake was ‘challenging’ at the end of the straight.
Max could have took to the run off area between turn 1 and 2, gotten ahead of Sainz and failed to give the position back. Knowing Max himself was xyz a lap faster than Sainz - the penalty of 5 seconds would have soon been squashed. Infact I’m sure Max pulled 8 seconds on Sainz before putting a handful of laps later.

Nothing untoward towards any named driver above - just very recent examples I can use for the post discussion.

With 5 second penalty covering the majority of infringements these days - is 5 seconds really enough given The gaps we typically see between drivers and through the grid?

Sometimes taking a penalty might be the best opportunity you have shortening your race time - especially if your in a bit of a dead area.

Therefore, I’d propose the following of the position must be given back before 1 lap following the offence (in case of overtaking off track). For example overtaking someone off track at turn 1, lap 10, you would have until the end of lap 11 start/finish line to give the place back. Failing doing so would mean a 10 second penalty and being ordered to drop back behind the car you overtook off track before the following lap. Teams are usually pretty good at when they know to hand positions back, and same with the FIA - so the laps ‘grace’ would be enough for any investigation to happen.

Causing a collision should also get a extra 5 seconds minimum - so in region of 10-17.5 seconds. This should be a sliding scale of the outcome of the car in contact with. If contact was made resulting in the race of the ‘innocent’ car being compromised through a pitstop or damage needing to be fixed in a live race - then the car at fault should also be greater penalised using the sliding scale.

Basically, and would probably need more thought and detail on the situations I gave, that penalties are no longer a penalty where by it doesn’t penalise the driver. If the penalties are made harsh enough it effectively nerfs your race pretty hard, then it will stop people from openly admitting it’s more worth taking the penalty that say giving a position back.

I also think the engine/ component penalties should be worse overall to stop people from taking multiple components over the allowance. For example the first new component took outside the allowance is 10 places - then further ones for the second over the allowance result in a further 10 places added meaning you start from the back of the grid.
Regrettably bringing a team into this but it’s a notable example from recent years was Mercedes taking a fresh PU every 3 races with Lewis and Valterri. A much more highly strung engine that was more than the others and only receiving a 5 place drop each time a fresh one was taken isn’t really truly being penalised.
(I’m sure there is more detail in that scenario from 2021 but probably cause for a different discussion.)
If the penalty was the rear of the grid for the second over your allowance then I’m sure it would put a lot more teams off using ‘disposable’ components as it massively puts you on the back foot - rather than a 5 place drop.

Please - ‘don’t shoot the messenger’ with my examples - they were just what come to me at a quick thought - and remember we are discussing the penalties not being adequate or off putting enough rather than a specific offence and whether the FIA decision was correct for driver A or B or team A or B.

Alonso pointed out in Austria that year that multiple people went off track and overtook him in turn 1 and did not give places back. He was told that first lap leniency meant that they didn't have to. So he did the same thing in Russia, except he didn't gain any place directly. He was just in a better shape on the following straight and avoided any pile ups at the chicane.

In general, post Charlie Whiting, stewarding has become farcical. Although I suspect it has more to do with Liberty taking over and imposing how they want the sport to be run.

[Farnborough]

Yes I feel the Alonso view was questioning and challenging these penalty, particularly if they intend to take that stance (the driver that is) in pre meditation.

Thought he was attempting to make this point, this thread now discussing, that there were some considerable holes in it that should be considered.

I may be wrong, but it's what I took from those action then.

[Farnborough]

I feel its a good assessment Chris90. Though likely to rouse the tribal views to obscure decent discussion, just the way of the Internet. But the question is valid and should be asked and answered seriously by F1 in general.

The one with GR against Ocon, could be framed the other way. Do us as spectators, all of the Alpine team and Ocon expect GR to pass them by racing. The answer I believe is yes, undoubtedly.

[chrisc90]

I feel its a good assessment Chris90. Though likely to rouse the tribal views to obscure decent discussion, just the way of the Internet. But the question is valid and should be asked and answered seriously by F1 in general.

The one with GR against Ocon, could be framed the other way. Do us as spectators, all of the Alpine team and Ocon expect GR to pass them by racing. The answer I believe is yes, undoubtedly.

Every intent on my behalf to keep it civil and sensible. So hopefully ‘my driver’ or team doesn’t stop a good discussion - as I initially noted.

See if we can use Monza as a example - given the few overtaking places and also high speed. If the car infront is running a lower downforce so higher straight line speed, but eats the tyres more in the twisty sections, thus a overall ‘slower’ lap time due to tyre deg. The car behind running higher downforce but looks after the tyres but has a marginally better lap time.
Should that car behind be allowed to pass off the track and get away reasonably Scot free? If the car behind, regardless of who it is, hasn’t got the pace to pass on the track alone - why should they get away with making a ‘mistake’ and ending up infront of the car they can’t overtake on track and near enough get away with it? If a drover does that and decides it’s not worth handing the spot back, then it’s ‘benefitting the system’.

Of course, and I’ll admit, I’ve used examples of where the advantage outweighs the penalty so then it becomes a calculated risk. But the penalty, overall, doesn’t off put a team or driver from ‘offending’

[CMSMJ1]

Agree with the assessment and would also point out that once upon a time there were actual strict penalties

i,e - A drive through. When was the last time we saw one of those?
Or a stop and go penalty?

You would know that any of the examples above would have been managed differently if the penalty was more strict. The conscious ignoring of the "return the place" edict before 1 lap has passed should lead to a drive through, or maybe even a leaf from the MotoGP book - a "long lap" penalty - add a compromised line through a corner, or a cutting where the moving car can be penalised.

[RonMexico]

5 seconds is rarely ever punitive enough and just ticks a box. We can all point to numerous examples of this. It is not enough of a deterrent

[Just_a_fan]

I don't think anyone has an objection to a review of penalties and even the idea of increasing them for particular infractions.

The issue most usually raised is that there is a terrible lack of consistency in the application of the rules/penalties.

If pushing someone off track and on to the grass is worth a time penalty then it should be applied to all drivers in all cases. If causing a collision is worth a time penalty then it should be applied to all drivers in all cases. The latter is interesting as we do see collisions between team mates that aren't penalised where between two unaffiliated drivers it would be.

Set out the infractions and the penalties that go with them in a document, circulate to everyone in the paddock and then apply it consistently to all situations.

The drivers will, like all professional sportsmen, play to the whistle. If they think they can get away with something then they'll try. If they think "that's a 5s penalty and I've got a gap ahead and pace to spare so I won't give the place back" then they'll drive accordingly. If causing a collision is worth 5s or 10s or something else, then what are the parameters that are applied to the sliding scale? Should all collisions be an automatic stop/go or is it only a stop/go if the other driver has to pit? Is a wheel rub ok or is that a 5s penalty? Should a collision with malicious intent be a DSQ?

As said, they need to set them down in writing so that everyone knows where they stand.

[Juzh]

As I pointed out in monza thread, scrap the 5s penalty and make it 15s instead. Yes, 15s, because 10s is still not enough. Problem solved in vast majority of cases. If you ruin someone's race or cut the track and gain position there should be meaningful consequences.

[Sevach]

As I pointed out in monza thread, scrap the 5s penalty and make it 15s instead. Yes, 15s, because 10s is still not enough. Problem solved in vast majority of cases. If you ruin someone's race or cut the track and gain position there should be meaningful consequences.

The 5s can remain for more mundane extending the track(Austria style).
For shunting someone and gaining a position off track and not returning it go for 15s.

[Big Tea]

in some sports small transgressions are cumulative. For instance, after a warning a yellow will be awarded, and two yellows become a red if in the same game.
The second yellow looked at by a separate official with tv kit who decides if it remains as is or if further action is needed in a later game or bolloking.
This is so the second card is awarded as required instead of the ref considering if it is worth spoiling the game, or bad enough to ban the player from the next one too.

If a penalty is needed it has to be awarded, but maybe some sort of extra hurt for persistent offenders or it adjudged to be enough as it stands.
For instance in f1 terms, once a drive through is awarded it cannot be undone, but a grid drop can be added to the next race if the offense is bad enough or persistent after warnings

Edit, in the case above, a yellow means time in the 'sin bin' which is equivalent of a team penalty as they play one man short for a set time

[Just_a_fan]

As I pointed out in monza thread, scrap the 5s penalty and make it 15s instead. Yes, 15s, because 10s is still not enough. Problem solved in vast majority of cases. If you ruin someone's race or cut the track and gain position there should be meaningful consequences.

If I hit you and take you out of the race, is 15s enough? Should I not be DSQ and thus DNF just like you?

If I hit you and you then have to pit for a new nose and lose 30s, should I also lose 30s?

Both of those might be considered "fair penalties" and are much more draconian than the "meaningful" 15s penalty.

And what about deliberately crowding someone off track? Is that ok so long as they don't "have a moment"? Or should it also be an automatic penalty? And if so, how much? 15s would seem to be a significant deterrent. Or is that excessive?

That's the thing - penalties need to based on an objective system with no team/driver bias. I have no doubt that the Monza penalties would be viewed differently by different groups of people depending on which driver was in which position. Thus the FIA needs to set down in writing what penalties apply to each infraction and then apply them consistently across all of the drivers.

[Juzh]

As I pointed out in monza thread, scrap the 5s penalty and make it 15s instead. Yes, 15s, because 10s is still not enough. Problem solved in vast majority of cases. If you ruin someone's race or cut the track and gain position there should be meaningful consequences.

If I hit you and take you out of the race, is 15s enough? Should I not be DSQ and thus DNF just like you?

If I hit you and you then have to pit for a new nose and lose 30s, should I also lose 30s?

Both of those might be considered "fair penalties" and are much more draconian than the "meaningful" 15s penalty.

And what about deliberately crowding someone off track? Is that ok so long as they don't "have a moment"? Or should it also be an automatic penalty? And if so, how much? 15s would seem to be a significant deterrent. Or is that excessive?

That's the thing - penalties need to based on an objective system with no team/driver bias. I have no doubt that the Monza penalties would be viewed differently by different groups of people depending on which driver was in which position. Thus the FIA needs to set down in writing what penalties apply to each infraction and then apply them consistently across all of the drivers.

Any penalty thats not a track limits should be 15s. Crowding is ok if there's no major penalty for crowded driver (ham-ver in melbourne, all incidents in T1-T2 in italy). So all stays as it is, except 5s is 15s.

[Just_a_fan]

As I pointed out in monza thread, scrap the 5s penalty and make it 15s instead. Yes, 15s, because 10s is still not enough. Problem solved in vast majority of cases. If you ruin someone's race or cut the track and gain position there should be meaningful consequences.

If I hit you and take you out of the race, is 15s enough? Should I not be DSQ and thus DNF just like you?

If I hit you and you then have to pit for a new nose and lose 30s, should I also lose 30s?

Both of those might be considered "fair penalties" and are much more draconian than the "meaningful" 15s penalty.

And what about deliberately crowding someone off track? Is that ok so long as they don't "have a moment"? Or should it also be an automatic penalty? And if so, how much? 15s would seem to be a significant deterrent. Or is that excessive?

That's the thing - penalties need to based on an objective system with no team/driver bias. I have no doubt that the Monza penalties would be viewed differently by different groups of people depending on which driver was in which position. Thus the FIA needs to set down in writing what penalties apply to each infraction and then apply them consistently across all of the drivers.

Any penalty thats not a track limits should be 15s. Crowding is ok if there's no major penalty for crowded driver (ham-ver in melbourne, all incidents in T1-T2 in italy). So all stays as it is, except 5s is 15s.

Crowding a driver off track is an offence mentioned in the rules. The rules don't see it as being ok.

applying 15s to every infraction other than track limits, seems a little heavy handed in some cases and insufficient in others. It's like someone doing a year in prison for stealing an apple and someone else also doing a year for murder.

[Juzh]

If I hit you and take you out of the race, is 15s enough? Should I not be DSQ and thus DNF just like you?

If I hit you and you then have to pit for a new nose and lose 30s, should I also lose 30s?

Both of those might be considered "fair penalties" and are much more draconian than the "meaningful" 15s penalty.

And what about deliberately crowding someone off track? Is that ok so long as they don't "have a moment"? Or should it also be an automatic penalty? And if so, how much? 15s would seem to be a significant deterrent. Or is that excessive?

That's the thing - penalties need to based on an objective system with no team/driver bias. I have no doubt that the Monza penalties would be viewed differently by different groups of people depending on which driver was in which position. Thus the FIA needs to set down in writing what penalties apply to each infraction and then apply them consistently across all of the drivers.

Any penalty thats not a track limits should be 15s. Crowding is ok if there's no major penalty for crowded driver (ham-ver in melbourne, all incidents in T1-T2 in italy). So all stays as it is, except 5s is 15s.

Crowding a driver off track is an offence mentioned in the rules. The rules don't see it as being ok.

applying 15s to every infraction other than track limits, seems a little heavy handed in some cases and insufficient in others. It's like someone doing a year in prison for stealing an apple and someone else also doing a year for murder.

Drive trough used to be preferred method in past, and that one was indeed heavy handed, but now we've gone completely the other way. 15s is reasonable, and completely unlike what you try to portray with that analogy. If you yeet someone's race like ham did to piastri, russell to sainz in cota, or sainz to alo in melbourne, that now get 5s, should then definitely get 15s. Blatantly cutting the corner as russell did in spain and now in italy - also 15s. dude outright admitted f**k the rules, rather take the penalty, so this has to be prevented.

At the very least 5s should be 10s, minimum, but 15s would be much higher deterrent.

It should be the same with engine and gearbox penalties. New component? Back of the grid. Then strategic penalties would be gone very quickly (verstappen stockpiling in 22, 23, hamilton new engine every race in 21).