Engine Penalty Rules

I don't personally like what exists now since it cost my driver a championship last year but no one was crying too loudly then. It's become a very fashionable topic lately though.

I think it's fair, it's and across the board rule and we know what we're getting, that's all you can ask for in a penalty situation, consistency. We may not like it but the massive grid penalties given are pointless once you're at the back of the grid. The click bait articles and some announcers specifically go out of their way to make a big deal of them but it's a moot point once you're at the back whether you have 10, 20, 40 or 65 grid spots.

It's a far better system than the inconsistent race to race penalties given IMO, they're barking up the wrong tree. The real problem in the sport is a driver getting a 10 second stop and go penalty for throwing his car at a competitor. But that's a much pricklier topic to discuss and Liberty Media seems to be okay not turning over that rock.

The thing that annoys me is that to some degree, this is another case of "rose coloured glasses" with respect to people saying it's a new problem. There has been a penalty of some sort going back decades. The only thing that varied was the penalty according to when you did it. Change if after FP3 but before Qualifying then it was back of the grid, change it after Qualifying then it was a pit lane start.

People have very short memories, hence why we see moaning over tyre saving and fuel saving, both of which have been a part of the sport at LEAST as far back as I can remember in the 80's. Team orders have been a part of F1 going back even further! Hell, the #2 driver used to have to give up his car so the #1 could continue if you go back far enough!

But yes, the main issue is that people focus on the number. McLaren had a total of 445 grid drops JUST due to engine penalties in the 2015 & 2016 seasons. The reality of that however is quite interesting. Of the 40 races (80 entries) in 2015 & 2016, a McLaren started last just 6 times. The little breakdown bellow is VERY quick, I haven't looked into if a drop was gearbox, engine, or steward related. It does however show that while "445 places dropped" is very dramatic, it doesn't show the full story.

2015-2016 (20 Cars in 2015, 22 Cars in 2016)
3 - 1
7 - 1
8 - 1
9 - 7
10 - 3
11 - 4
12 - 15
13 - 6
14 - 7
15 - 5
16 - 5
17 - 6
18 - 4
19 - 5
20 - 5
21 -
22 - 3

Reason for penalties is on a couple of fronts: To prevent teams from changing engine parts ad hoc to get better results. To reduce costs over the season by encouraging manufacturers to create more reliable engines.

The cost reduction is a fine goal, but a penalty wont stop a team having to change a blown engine. This is where I think they need to look at rewarding teams who end the season with less parts rather than punishing teams who use more. Perhaps in the next concord agreement they could look at a "reliability" bonus payment.

The trying to prevent teams changing ad hoc is another fine goal, and I feel an important one for the midfield teams. But rather than XX places dropped per component, just make it a flat "back of the grid" each time they use the first component in a new range (5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, etc.) It's all well and good saying "don't punish the driver", but the driver is the one getting the benefit of fresh parts so why allow them to start at the front and disadvantage those around them?

Or maybe they should just take the gearbox route; an engine must complete 5 races in a row or take a 5 place drop, unless you fail to finish the previous race. This, coupled with a reliability bonus payment, covers the issues trying to be addressed. A driver isn't the one facing the penalty if the engine blows the race before (already takes a hit on WDC and WCC points), costs are aided by bonus payment, and if a team want's to change the engine because the new one is better then they take the hit for one race and move on.

This has worked for transmissions, but the transmission is a pretty bulletproof piece of componentry.  Like I said before, I'd have to give this a thorough think through, I just haven't done that yet.

Even tougher 2018 engine grid penalty rules confirmed

Like it or not, the FiA has gone ahead with it's original plan of further reducing the level of components allowed for a season before the grid penalties hit.

CE, ES and MGU-K. I'm not opposed to the grid penalties as they are currently, because they proved a point, that a PU can be made powerful, efficient and long lasting. There's major bragging rights with that and real world relevance.

With 21 races on the calendar next year and the components further reduced, there's no way that the WDC battle will not be affected.

There's also no way the WCC will be won by a team without a Mercedes PU in the back.

I don't know why they have to make things so damn difficult. Maybe they WANT grid penalties to happen? It makes no sense, why not just STICK to what we have now....do they have to keep outdoing the current year in regards to cost savings? This is only going to add R&D costs for teams now finding out stronger materials and enhanced fittings/mechanisms to last out the year.

Australian GP 2018 - Lap 1
New Sauber driver Leclerc gets an amazing start from 17th on the grid, but tangles with fellow rookie Gasly at turn 1. 4 cars taken out, all suffering severe damage to their ICE's.

Those 4 cars are now expected to do 20 races on just 2 ICE's? And remain competitive? What if there's another crash in China due to rain, and they are onto unit #3 by Sochi?

I really think they need to look at something other than penalties if there is an accident, and I mean real accident not just a Ferrari mechanic sticking a screwdriver through a seal on the #2 car so the #1 driver can get bumped up a spot.