Are F1 penalties still adequate?

[hairy_scotsman]

The problem, imho, is that the stewards focus on time, which is not ultimately what drivers are trying to gain. Only final classification positions matter. This isn't a time trial, so the significance of time penalties is a variable which depends on too many circumstances to be fair or effective.

The penalties should have teeth and leave marks. Drop them x number of positions in the final classification and be done with it. Positions are what the drivers are striving for after all. Not time. Time is merely a means of gaining positions which can be compensated for once a position has been gained, as we see all the time.

Final classification position penalties:
- take much of the time pressure off the stewards re: making a quick decision
- preclude working your way out of the penalty
- are a strong deterrent that will alter driver behavior

Position penalties also have flaws. Someone who is racing for the lead will lose points, while someone racing for 10th won't lose much.

You could go with point penalties, but then run the risk of dropping some people into the negative....


Every method has a weakness.

Sure, there's no perfect system, but the current system typically has no teeth. The idea of the penalties is supposed to be that they're a deterrent to the undesirable behavior. They currently are not. What we have now is drivers doing things they know might get them a penalty, but doing them anyway because they know there's a good chance they can overcome the penalty after gaining the position. The position is the most important thing, of course, and they're willing to risk a measly 5s penalty to get it, and then make up the penalty on the track.

[TFSA]

I disagree there that other drivers and teams aren't benefitted. If car 1 from team A pushes car 2 from team A off the track or causes a collision, and if by your saying they dont really deserve a penalty, then your looking at 10seconds of penalties that havent been correctly applied if say car 1 from team A pushed car 1/2 of team B off the track. If there is no penalty, say 10seconds for causing a collision (both cars still racing) then surely the cars behind them, within 10seconds would be losing out due to a penalty that wasnt equally applied across the grid. Thats a potential position on track depending on the gaps. So absolutely others can 'benefit' from a penalty not equally applied.

I never said they didn't or couldn't benefit. I said they weren't entitled to benefit.

If a car from team A pushes a car from team B off the track, and a car from team C happens to be close enough to benefit from the ensuing penalty, then that's lucky for team C. But they're not entitled to benefit, and since nothing happened to them, they can't complain. The only one who can complain over lack of penalty in that scenario is team B. But if instead of team B, you have 2 x team A, then there's no-one to complain. Team C isn't entitled to complain.

Nothing stopping team battles, as long as its fair racing. If you can race fairly between other teams, then the same standard should be applied for a intra-team battle/tussle.

From the top of my head:
Ferrari telling their drivers "no risk" at Monza.
Fernando not racing Stroll at Spain (although it was his own decision).
Checo being told "no fighting" at Baku 22 - as in, to let Max past.
McLaren scolding Norris/Piastri for touching at Monza, saying that two McLarebs should never touch on track.
George being ordered to let Lewis by at Suzuka.

There's a massive difference in risk between a team racing other teams and racing amongst themselves. It's twice the risk compared to racing another team (both your cars risking damage), and with no gain (your drivers overtaking each other gains you 0 points and slows your race pace because it punished tyres).

You now argue that we should increase that risk with added penalties, and then expect it not to affect how teams instruct their drivers to race each other? Pardon me for being direct here, but I consider that a very naive assertion.

What is fan of driver A going to think when driver B of the same team forces them off the track, or moves under braking when its 'between teams?'

In my opinion, the fan will be less angered than seeing team orders prevent team battles, or seeing teams favor one driver over another.

If we use Red Bull as a rather prominent example, i think Checo fans would rather see a battle where Max pushes Checo off, than seeing Red Bull repeat Baku 22 and ask him to get out of the way. The first might cause some fans to accuse Max of being a dirty driver. The latter will cause accusations of No. 1 driver, Red Bull racism etc. which is a massively bigger sh*tstorm.

[chrisc90]

But if both cars from team A are involved - and it’s a stone dead penalty - but because it’s between team mates it’s looked over - then the team C car is losing out because the rules weren’t equally applied.

[TFSA]

But if both cars from team A are involved - and it’s a stone dead penalty - but because it’s between team mates it’s looked over - then the team C car is losing out because the rules weren’t equally applied.

I get that. But you have yet to explain why they should be entitled to benefit from that. It doesn't involve them. That they might be lucky to be around to benefit in some situations doesn't change that they aren't entitled to.

[chrisc90]

I never claimed they were ‘entitled’ to anything.

I said they could possibly benefit from a penalty that should have been equally applied where it wasn’t because it involved 2 drivers from the same team

Maybe o was a little premature with the Japan specific comment after people evaluated the situation but I don’t see why a racing/driving offence should be dealt with any more lenient than another team.
As I said, the consequences of a lack of penalty can affect other teams.

If there is a drive by standards issues, it should be dealt with equally, irrespective of those involved.

If you can highlight where I said the car behind/ahead etc is specifically ’entitled to benefit’ it would be appreciated.

[hairy_scotsman]

But if both cars from team A are involved - and it’s a stone dead penalty - but because it’s between team mates it’s looked over - then the team C car is losing out because the rules weren’t equally applied.

And it shouldn't matter anyway if they're teammates. The rules don't just apply to the teams. They apply to the the drivers just as much. Individual drivers should be protected by the rules even if their teammate is the one causing the problem.

[chrisc90]

But if both cars from team A are involved - and it’s a stone dead penalty - but because it’s between team mates it’s looked over - then the team C car is losing out because the rules weren’t equally applied.

And it shouldn't matter anyway if they're teammates. The rules don't just apply to the teams. They apply to the the drivers just as much. Individual drivers should be protected by the rules even if their teammate is the one causing the problem.

Which is exactly what i'm trying to say. If there is a car or cars behind that gain a position from a penalty applied then so be it. Because your team mate forces you off, and both cars continue, it doesnt mean there shouldnt be a penalty if the driving standards have been broken.

[TFSA]

I never claimed they were ‘entitled’ to anything.

I said they could possibly benefit from a penalty that should have been equally applied where it wasn’t because it involved 2 drivers from the same team

Maybe o was a little premature with the Japan specific comment after people evaluated the situation but I don’t see why a racing/driving offence should be dealt with any more lenient than another team.
As I said, the consequences of a lack of penalty can affect other teams.

If there is a drive by standards issues, it should be dealt with equally, irrespective of those involved.

If you can highlight where I said the car behind/ahead etc is specifically ’entitled to benefit’ it would be appreciated.

What you said:

But if both cars from team A are involved - and it’s a stone dead penalty - but because it’s between team mates it’s looked over - then the team C car is losing out because the rules weren’t equally applied.

When you're arguing that two drivers tussling ahead, who happens to be from the same team, shouldn't escape penalty because drivers further back could potentially benefit from it despite them not being involved in the altercation, you're making the idea that the driver behind is somehow entitled to benefit an implicit part of your argument for why intra-team altercations should be punished.


So it's implicit in the argument you're making, whether you realized it or not.

It's like arguing the two teammates coming together in football should result in a red card, because that's what would have happened if the two players had been from different teams, and now the other team is "losing out".

And it shouldn't matter anyway if they're teammates. The rules don't just apply to the teams. They apply to the the drivers just as much. Individual drivers should be protected by the rules even if their teammate is the one causing the problem.

Most sports don't work that way. I refer to my football comparison from the earlier. Things that happens between teammates aren't dealt with the same way as if they happen between competitors. That's how most sports work.

F1 is a constructors championship first and foremost.

[chrisc90]

I never claimed they were ‘entitled’ to anything.

I said they could possibly benefit from a penalty that should have been equally applied where it wasn’t because it involved 2 drivers from the same team

Maybe o was a little premature with the Japan specific comment after people evaluated the situation but I don’t see why a racing/driving offence should be dealt with any more lenient than another team.
As I said, the consequences of a lack of penalty can affect other teams.

If there is a drive by standards issues, it should be dealt with equally, irrespective of those involved.

If you can highlight where I said the car behind/ahead etc is specifically ’entitled to benefit’ it would be appreciated.

When you're arguing that two drivers tussling ahead, who happens to be from the same team, shouldn't escape penalty because drivers further back could potentially benefit from it despite them not being involved in the altercation, you're making the idea that the driver behind is somehow entitled to benefit an implicit part of your argument for why intra-team altercations should be punished.


So it's implicit in the argument you're making, whether you realized it or not.

And it shouldn't matter anyway if they're teammates. The rules don't just apply to the teams. They apply to the the drivers just as much. Individual drivers should be protected by the rules even if their teammate is the one causing the problem.

Most sports don't work that way. I refer to my football comparison from the earlier. Things that happens between teammates aren't dealt with the same way as if they happen between competitors. That's how most sports work.

I'm really not though. You need to go back and re-read exactly what I have put and i'm trying to say, but it seems you want to believe I want a driver behind to benefit. (yet you still didnt answer my point about someone 'entitled to benefit' - I guess I never said that.

Lets try break it down - not that I can explain it any simpler than I already have.

Lets say 10 laps from the end, purely for reasonings sake, it would be the same anyhow at whatever point in the race.

Team A drivers fighting for 3rd position, the last step on the podium.
Car A from Team A sends it down the inside and manages to make the move stick by both cars going through the corner level. Car A on the inside, and car B on the outside.
Car A then runs that car out wide, pushing Car B off the track and onto the grass.

At this point, you have a car forcing another off the track, so as what we normally see, thats a 10second penalty. (Lets not argue about fine specifics that Car B is entitled to XYZ, Just the pure fact that Car A forced Car B off the track)
Both Car A and Car B are from the same team A.

Behind is Team B at 6 seconds, and it drops down to 5 seconds after Car B from Team A rejoined the track. At this point your gaps are.

Team A - Car A. 0:000 (lets presume the gap to 2nd place is totally irrelevant)
Team A - Car B + 3seconds
Team B - Car A/b +5seconds.

Stewards note the incident and investigate, however find that because it only involved 2 team A cars, there is no reason to issue a 10 second penalty - as they would do if the scenario was played out between Team A and Team B battling for 3rd spot.

So race ends and the gaps remain the same, since no penalties were retrospectively applied to the race time/gaps at the end of the race. Now Team B has 'lost out' because the penalty wasnt properly applied because it simply involved 2 team mates battling on track.

So the real result should have been
Team A, Car B 0.000
Team B, Car A/B +5seconds
Team A, Car A + 10seconds

So the 'other team' would have benefitted from the stewards rightfully awarding a 10second penalty during a battle between team mates.


I completely fail to see how you can suggest that driver behind a team battle should not have the benefit of a penalty being properly applied during a battle of team mates.

Its just simple. Its how penalties have always worked, if your penalty drops you a spot or 2 behind another team then so be it. (no different to the driver behind benefitting from a penalty).

The key here is that team battles SHOULD be penalised, IF the driving standards drop below that of what is expected.

You cant issue a penalty for something that involves 2 teams for a incident, but if the car colours were changed in a identical replay of that incident, then there should be no penalty - because fans dont want to see it and teams would issue orders. Ludicrous.

[hairy_scotsman]

But if both cars from team A are involved - and it’s a stone dead penalty - but because it’s between team mates it’s looked over - then the team C car is losing out because the rules weren’t equally applied.

And it shouldn't matter anyway if they're teammates. The rules don't just apply to the teams. They apply to the the drivers just as much. Individual drivers should be protected by the rules even if their teammate is the one causing the problem.

Which is exactly what i'm trying to say. If there is a car or cars behind that gain a position from a penalty applied then so be it. Because your team mate forces you off, and both cars continue, it doesnt mean there shouldnt be a penalty if the driving standards have been broken.

Indeed. Yep. I agree 100%.

[hairy_scotsman]

I never claimed they were ‘entitled’ to anything.

I said they could possibly benefit from a penalty that should have been equally applied where it wasn’t because it involved 2 drivers from the same team

Maybe o was a little premature with the Japan specific comment after people evaluated the situation but I don’t see why a racing/driving offence should be dealt with any more lenient than another team.
As I said, the consequences of a lack of penalty can affect other teams.

If there is a drive by standards issues, it should be dealt with equally, irrespective of those involved.

If you can highlight where I said the car behind/ahead etc is specifically ’entitled to benefit’ it would be appreciated.

What you said:

But if both cars from team A are involved - and it’s a stone dead penalty - but because it’s between team mates it’s looked over - then the team C car is losing out because the rules weren’t equally applied.

When you're arguing that two drivers tussling ahead, who happens to be from the same team, shouldn't escape penalty because drivers further back could potentially benefit from it despite them not being involved in the altercation, you're making the idea that the driver behind is somehow entitled to benefit an implicit part of your argument for why intra-team altercations should be punished.


So it's implicit in the argument you're making, whether you realized it or not.

It's like arguing the two teammates coming together in football should result in a red card, because that's what would have happened if the two players had been from different teams, and now the other team is "losing out".

And it shouldn't matter anyway if they're teammates. The rules don't just apply to the teams. They apply to the the drivers just as much. Individual drivers should be protected by the rules even if their teammate is the one causing the problem.

Most sports don't work that way. I refer to my football comparison from the earlier. Things that happens between teammates aren't dealt with the same way as if they happen between competitors. That's how most sports work.

F1 is a constructors championship first and foremost.

Teammates are competitors, competing with each other more than anyone else.

[TFSA]

I'm really not though. You need to go back and re-read exactly what I have put and i'm trying to say, but it seems you want to believe I want a driver behind to benefit. (yet you still didnt answer my point about someone 'entitled to benefit' - I guess I never said that.

Lets try break it down - not that I can explain it any simpler than I already have.

(....)

So race ends and the gaps remain the same, since no penalties were retrospectively applied to the race time/gaps at the end of the race. Now Team B has 'lost out' because the penalty wasnt properly applied because it simply involved 2 team mates battling on track.

And now we're back to what I've been pointing out all the time: "Team B' has 'lost out'". Your entire example isn't any different from what you said in your earlier posts: You are still arguing about Team B, despite them not being affected by the altercation.

The issue is that Team B isn't a complainant to the tussle. They're not 'losing out' if they're not entitled to benefit in the first place. They can't be considered a complainant.

I completely fail to see how you can suggest that driver behind a team battle should not have the benefit of a penalty being properly applied during a battle of team mates

You cant issue a penalty for something that involves 2 teams for a incident, but if the car colours were changed in a identical replay of that incident, then there should be no penalty - because fans dont want to see it and teams would issue orders. Ludicrous.

Not at all ludicrous. That they are on the same team absolutely matters, because it changes whether there's a complainant (in legal terms, a plaintiff) in the first place. That's a big difference.

For the last time: Going back to my football comparison, it also matters in football if a tackle hits an opponent or a teammate. If you tackle a teammate by accident in football, you and the team won't get penalized. You tackle a player from the opposing team, you will. All that has changed, as you point out, is the colour of the shirt. But it still makes a difference - so remind me why my stance is ludicrous again?

In your world, should F1 drivers also be penalized for, say, moving under braking or swerving when there is no cars around them? Currently they aren't, because those are also rules that require there to be a complainant - aka. an opponent (not teammate!) who is directly affected by what happened on track.

Also: Note that i still didn't rule out penalties for tussles between teammates. But then it should be for something that was really dumb or dangerous. For dangerous "crimes" (to keep the legal analogy going), you don't necessarily need a complainant - you can punish because what was done was reckless or dangerous in itself. That's perfectly reasonable. Punishing smaller tussles, that - if it was not intra-team - might lead to a penalty, is not. And will hurt the entertainment part of the sport.

And now for the scotsman....

Teammates are competitors, competing with each other more than anyone else.

And I'll refer to the last sentence of my post: F1 is a constructors championship first and foremost.

You could also argue that strikers on a football field is competitors. If a team has 3 strikers but only needs 2 on the field, then whoever scores the least goals gets to have a lower pay, sit more on the bench and might not get his contract renewed. But at the end of the day, it's still a team game. And so is F1.

[DDopey]

And I'll refer to the last sentence of my post: F1 is a constructors championship first and foremost.

You could also argue that strikers on a football field is competitors. If a team has 3 strikers but only needs 2 on the field, then whoever scores the least goals gets to have a lower pay, sit more on the bench and might not get his contract renewed. But at the end of the day, it's still a team game. And so is F1.

That is not exactly correct. You have the WDC and the WCC. Your statement applies to the WCC but definitely not to the WDC.

[chrisc90]

I give up…

[organic]

Directly analogous sports like cycling where teammates compete for the same team but against one another for individual achievements do not punish teammate-teammate incidents. So I think the broad sporting precedent is not to punish these incidents.

And teams, even when 'missing out' on benefiting from a penalty as you put it, don't seem to be too fussed about changing anything. Not to mention, it also directly benefits the viewers: if it was changed to be judged indiscriminately, strict team orders will always be enforced and racing decreases. Monza 2023 would've been less interesting, Suzuka wouldn't have had the ham-russell tussles