Gearbox/engine/similar failures so drivers aren't penalized?

[NowyszRacing6]

I thought i'd see what everyone thought about this idea I had: Since drivers have very little to do with gearbox or engine failures, it seems a bit unfair for the drivers to be penalized with grid penalties when it's more down to how well the team has built/set up those parts. My first thought was they could just change the penalty to be a certain # of constructor points taken away, but maybe there's some other good options too. Do you guys think something like this, or maybe another penalty that doesnt hurt drivers would work?

[mx_tifoso]

This is first and foremost a team sport, you win and lose together. A gearbox failure is akin to a driver binning it on track, so under your system how is this counteracted from the teams perspective? Well you can't, so if there is a mechanical failure everyone gets hit equally just as if a driver bins it.

[Red Schneider]

What if they just fine them $50K?

[Slife]

Who is to say it is not the driver's fault ? What if one driver chose a team that was slower but more reliable and another chose a team that is faster but less reliable ? The less reliable team's driver will have to deal with the risk of component failure.

[Richard]

For exactly the same reason that any other technical infringement results in penalties.

[raymondu999]

Because reliability is part of the sport. I don't like it either - but there is no fair way of only penalising the team. You can't have a gearbox change in qualifying with a team-only penalty, and then have a driver penalty for a gearbox failure (drivers whose gearboxes fail aren't penalised by the FIA, but the nonfinish penalises them anyways)

[Richard]

Technical infringements have to be penalised. Otherwise a driver with a single race engine and single race gearbox would gain an advantage over those who comply with the rules. It's just the same as drivers getting disqualified if their car has illegal aero devices or if the engine ran at 20k rpm.

[lebesset]

why isn't the rule the same as for engines ...so many for the season
so if button wants another gearbox for this race , he has it ...means the life of the gearbox has to be stretched which is a penalty in itself

but if the teams knew that , in the event of a failure , they could avoid a penalty by using the other boxes for more races , they would probably make them a bit sturdier just in case

the teams can use engines in any order they like , estimating the stress caused by a particular race ; why not for gearboxes ?

or do I misunderstand the rules ?

[mzivtins]

I think the rule is needless. If there are a finite number of gearboxes available during the season then what does it bring to the sport having a driver penalty due to component wear? especially when that component is limited in numbers anyway!

In my mind it is a stupid rule, and needs to be changed i just don't understand why allowing teams X amount of gearboxes a season isn't enough anyway... if they want to waste gearboxes then by the end of the season they will not be able to race. It is an issue that will govern itself without that aid of a stupid rule.

Also with reliability, how do the FIA expect these gearboxes never to fail given the materials restriction on engine/gearbox components? I know that is there to stop the costs of development etc but i really dont understand what an advantage of having a brand new gearbox is? in my opinion a gearbox either works or it doesn't?

[turbof1]

The rule also leads to bad incentives: A driver that normally performs well and has a bad weekend and ends up outside the points, could just as well stop aside, claim a "hydraulic" problem, and get a new gearbox next race. I'd imagine that a driver can "mishandle" a gearbox on purpose so that something does break.

The rule is just wrong. Give every team 4-5 gearboxes for a whole year and let them to decide how to allocate those. That way they can fit stronger gearboxes for races where the gearbox has alot to endure, like Singapore or Monaco.

Also with reliability, how do the FIA expect these gearboxes never to fail given the materials restriction on engine/gearbox components? I know that is there to stop the costs of development etc but i really dont understand what an advantage of having a brand new gearbox is? in my opinion a gearbox either works or it doesn't?

I think you are excegerating there; yes the engine development is restricted (gearboxes hardly are, except for the material used), but materials really aren't the only method te strengthen a gearbox/engine. Furthermore, the FIA will allow a manufacturer to make changes on their engines given they can put down some good reasons.
We should btw also look at the teams instead of everything putting down on the FIA. The last few years teams are just constantly shrinking the gearboxes to get a slimmer back. Gearboxes failing is a direct consequence of ever trying to make gearboxes take less volume.

[marcush.]

I´d think the gearbox penalty rule is not a good idea and it should be aligend with the engines rules .The moment a supplier would integrate the powertrain more than todays it would be impossible to police-sa Renault integrates the gearbox within the engine mainblock there is no way to change the engine without also changing the box..

[NowyszRacing6]

This is first and foremost a team sport, you win and lose together. A gearbox failure is akin to a driver binning it on track, so under your system how is this counteracted from the teams perspective? Well you can't, so if there is a mechanical failure everyone gets hit equally just as if a driver bins it.

A gearbox failure= a driver binning it on track? I think i'd have to disagree there, because the driver doesn't (effectively) control the wear on the gearbox, but the driver is definitely responsible for not crashing the car. I guess my idea would make it feel a little less like a team sport, but there are 2 separate championships going on, so it's already fairly separate

Technical infringements have to be penalised. Otherwise a driver with a single race engine and single race gearbox would gain an advantage over those who comply with the rules. It's just the same as drivers getting disqualified if their car has illegal aero devices or if the engine ran at 20k rpm.

True, but what about the fact that no team would want to lose constructor points? They earn money at the end of the season based on that, so I'd see no reason for them to try to race illegally or with a new gearbox at every race. I could maybe see a team (probably a front running team) stop worrying about the constructor championship if they were at the end of the season and were in a close fight for the drivers championship. Maybe that'd be worth it though. We'd just end up with a few rare times where that happened, and it'd probably make the driver's championship better too. If we were in that situation the drivers would have a fair fight in qualifying vs having one drop back automatically because of the gearbox

[Gerhard Berger]

while we're at it, let's make them all drive the same car in qualifying, all in the interest of fairness.

[mzivtins]

Also with reliability, how do the FIA expect these gearboxes never to fail given the materials restriction on engine/gearbox components? I know that is there to stop the costs of development etc but i really dont understand what an advantage of having a brand new gearbox is? in my opinion a gearbox either works or it doesn't?

I think you are excegerating there; yes the engine development is restricted (gearboxes hardly are, except for the material used), but materials really aren't the only method te strengthen a gearbox/engine. Furthermore, the FIA will allow a manufacturer to make changes on their engines given they can put down some good reasons.
We should btw also look at the teams instead of everything putting down on the FIA. The last few years teams are just constantly shrinking the gearboxes to get a slimmer back. Gearboxes failing is a direct consequence of ever trying to make gearboxes take less volume.

Good point, i neglected to take into account that the intended design changes would make the gearbox reliability very 'knife edge'

Still they are amazing, i wish they weren't so secret so we could see inside.

Watching a video over in the 'other motorsports' thread about the Porsche 962, and Norbert Singer mentions that the gearbox was always the weakest part of the Le Mans cars he designed... so should we just take gearbox failure as part of high-end motorsport?

[browney]

What doesn't make sense is why they have a different and seemingly superior model for cutting down engine costs.

I can't see why a limit on total number of gearboxes per season isn't used instead of the 5 consecutive races. Same cost benefits without an over the top penalty for have a gearbox go in practice.