F1 considering success ballast

[Juzh]

Briatore to head up F1's popularity working group



I really can't wait so see what kind of BS they dig up this time.

Is that real?

As real as it gets.

[Traction]

What would be the point of R&D and trying to improve your car if the only result after winning is a penalty in the form of extra ballast. It would only serve to negate all the improvements developed over a period of time.

I can't see a team like Mercedes or RB agreeing to this. IMO it's counter productive to developing and improving a car.

[Jersey Tom]

Frankly enough, this is one of the better ideas they have come up with.

It levels the playing field and gives others the ability to win

It's not their job to level the field or give others a chance to win.
It's up to the teams to pull themselves up to level and fight to win.

Mixed feelings on that comment. Is the onus on the teams to win? Of course. But we see how that's working out currently.

I do believe in teams being given a realistic opportunity to pull themselves up to the winning level - be that more cost control or what have you - but a victory tax doesn't seem like a good answer. With some irony it would be very simple and very effective, but is just a fundamentally silly concept.

[Moxie]

This is Rod Sterling. Imagine a world where top ranked drivers compete with each other to avoid winning; where second place is the most coveted position on the podium. A world where disgraced cheaters are advisors for the development of the sporting regulations. Suddenly you realize you are in.......

The Twilight Zone

to be fair, second place (through tenth) would probably be ballasted as well, in a descending fashion. It would be unlikely a driver/team would sacrifice sure points to reduce ballast slightly for the next race.

It is still an awful, awful idea, though.


It also occurs to me that this would reduce amazing drives through the field like Hamilton's in Germany last week. We are treated to these multiple times every season with a top driver falling out of position at one point or another. This ballast plan would make it even more difficult for them to to make their way through, so it does have drawbacks even beyond being artificial.

Of course my twilight zone is an over-simplified scenario, but think about the logic here. The top teams will necessarily be punished more than the lower teams. First place must necessarily be punished more than second place which in turn must be punished more than third place, and so on. Therefore teams will be obligated to spend much time and money analyzing their ability to gain maximum reward for minimum penalty. They must engineer into the car ahead of the season to deal, with the ballast they expect to receive.

As some races have more value because of double points, or sponsorship attention (Monaco and Silverstone), teams will wish to time ballast penalties in a manor which maximizes reward vs the penalty.

Teams will not race to win every race. They will determine an optimal result, and drive to achieve that position.

As teams may not have the same theories about their own optimum position, let alone their opinions about the optimum position of their competitors, teams will be less likely to race on track. Racing will occur when two teams desire the same outright position, or the same position relative to each other. Racing for a lower position does become a possibility under these circumstances. The likelihood of this really depends upon the formula they use for the ballast penalty.

This may not be the ought right sandbagging I described in the "Twilight Zone" post, but you can be certain that it will no longer be racing as we know it.

[strad]

oops...gave JT a vote for that by accident.
JT.. If the teams are low on the totem pole because of funding then it's up to them to go out and promote themselves and get sponsors with deeper pockets and work harder. imo.

[i70q7m7ghw]

The only thing I've seen like this in recent years that I feel actually worked without making things too artificial was the third car on Fridays. It used to be teams who finished below 4th or 5th in the previous years championship were allowed to run 3 cars on a Friday. This allowed them to do a little bit more development and I feel it was a good way of helping those teams keep up.

The third car has since been banned due to "cost saving" which is farcical because minimal costs are saved from the ban. All teams bring enough components to every race to build a third car, they just don't assemble them any more.

The other thing to take a look at is the prize money. It's all a little secretive, but it's very clear there are big gains in prize many for every championship position gained, which could be considered an unfair handicap for under performing teams. If the prize money was distributed a bit more evenly, we might not see teams like Caterham struggling as much.

Success ballast though? Not in F1.

[gray41]

The race wouldn't have played out the way it did today with success ballast.

100% does not belong in F1.

[Waywardism]

Bernie's sprinkler idea was better than this.

[xpensive]

oops...gave JT a vote for that by accident.
JT.. If the teams are low on the totem pole because of funding then it's up to them to go out and promote themselves and get sponsors with deeper pockets and work harder. imo.

In all honesty strad, I never perceived yourself as such a lilywhite idealist?

For once I have to agree with JT, you cannot be entirely darwinistic here, that's what killed CanAm and Cart.

[Jersey Tom]

oops...gave JT a vote for that by accident.
JT.. If the teams are low on the totem pole because of funding then it's up to them to go out and promote themselves and get sponsors with deeper pockets and work harder. imo.

Ideally maybe, but that's easier said than done. I just think we have to be realists and look at the current state of the sport and recent history, and whether or not that's working for creating competition and interesting racing.

There are definitely other racing series where while it's not totally level for a playing field, the level of competition is a bit closer and there are more potential winners on any given race weekend. After seeing that I honestly don't find F1 all that interesting to watch anymore, though I'm thrilled that friends of mine in England have a pile of wins!

Like I say.. I can appreciate the fact that a victory tax of ballast would be a simple and effective measure.. but fundamentally it just doesn't seem right. I'd rather teams be given a more realistic opportunity to better themselves, than be literally handed competitiveness by weighing down the front runners.

Degrading tires, DRS, victory tax ballast.. F1 becomes crutch upon crutch upon crutch.

[Hail22]

[strad]

After seeing that I honestly don't find F1 all that interesting to watch anymore, though I'm thrilled that friends of mine in England have a pile of wins

I assume you meant "saying that" and as usual we sometimes agree.

[thedutchguy]

I seriously think F1 is losing it. If this idea gets through, then I'm gone. Won't watch it anymore, won't pay for my Sport 1 package anymore.

Want to equalize the teams? How about sending some money from the top teams to the back markers? The distribution of money between the teams is crazy, with the front running teams getting loads of cash and the 11th team nothing at all. Fix that before you start adding slabs of metal to winning cars!

F1 needs to get rid of the fuel flow limit (keep the max of 100kg for the race for all i care) so teams can choose when to run at max power and when to conserve fuel. Also get rid of the rule to mandate the use of two different tyre compounds during the race, let the teams choose for themselves. Also get rid of DRS of at least shorten the DRS zones so it will only help during initial acceleration, instead as an option to simply breeze past a competitor.

And did we mention double point? I hope the whole things explodes in the face of the FIA at the end of this year with a huge controversy when it becomes the deciding factor in the championship.

Oh and F1 people: If you want to attract a younger audience, get rid of the ridiculous 'Bernie says think before you drive' (digital) track side signage . No one in their teens or twenties cares about that an 84 sports dictator (who's on charge for bribery) has to say. It makes F1 look stupid.

[MOWOG]

I agree with each and every one of your points. And it starts with the wildly unequal distribution of money between the teams. What could Marussia or Sauber or Force India or Caterham do if they were not strangled for cash by the absurd rules Formula One plays by?

It reminds me of the story of the early Christian who is forced to fight the gladiator, but first, he is buried up to his neck in sand. When the gladiator enters the arena, the Christian strains his neck as far as he can and manages to bite the gladiator in the gonads. The gladiator is outraged and screams "Hey! Fight fair, dammit!"

Formula One is definitely a parallel universe with its own alternate reality. And I find myself wondering more and more why I even bother to watch it.

[Steven]

I agree that it's an absolutely silly idea, the wrong solution for an incredibly obvious problem.

For as long as I can remember I have been a supporter of a budget cap, combined more more freedom in the regulations. It is becoming more and more obvious that this may well be the only real solution that is acceptable for the fans. As long as there is no consensus on even a high-budget cost cap, we'll keep getting numerous silly ideas like these, attempting to improve the show while not taking on the source of the problem.