Success Penalties

[ESPImperium]

Should F1 adopt Success penalties???

Im not thinking along the lines of rev limiting linked to points scored in the last 5 races. A bit diffrent to the usal success penalty in weight.

What im thinking is for every point scored in the last 5 races, you loose 100 RPM per point, so race winners would be limited to 18000, if you take it from the first race to the second.

So, this could provide a car that was slow enough to overtake in a straight line and a car that in the corners was fast enough that it wasnt a moving chicane.

Could something like this work??? Or is it a unrealistic idea???

[ISLAMATRON]

This is F1, not touring car racing. They all run from the same rules, its not like they are using production chassis or engines. Yes some teams have more money than others, but the better you perform with the money you have then the more money you will get.

No success penalties..... But I would like them to start the races in reverse drivers championship order.

[Roland Ehnström]

I would like them to start the races in reverse drivers championship order.

Now THAT would be a treat!

[Ray]

This isn't t-ball. I forget, are they adults or fragile little children. It's disgusting that anyone would even think to penalize success. This is what's wrong with the world today.

[ISLAMATRON]

I would like them to start the races in reverse drivers championship order.

Now THAT would be a treat!

I really think so, but then you get young, inexperienced drivers leading into turn 1 with hard chargers diving in behind them, certainly a recipe for disaster. I think they should test the idea out in GP2 first and see how it goes. but those guys are even younger!

The only thing that could make it safer would be a rolling start, but that would kinda suck.

[timbo]

I don't know why everybody wants to change something in F1 today. Do we have boring championship? Do we have boring races (well, Valencia was a disaster but even Hungarian GP offered something to see)?

There's things that should be addressed in F1, like survival of independent teams, but overall it's better to have some stability.

I also agree with Ray, F1 is about ultimate competition, fastest and most reliable car should win.

Everything else, performance penalty, reverse order start is b*llshit. Let's better qualify cars by SMS voting!

[axle]

For 2 seasons running it's gone down to the wire for the WDC, (the constructors was a bit different last year ). Both leading drivers have the same number of wins...yes a straight shoot out, winner takes all would be good, but then it would negate all the hard work previously done in the season. You'd possibly even get drivers giving up as they couldn't get the gold...teams could well build unique cars for the final race of the series, how expensive would that be!

Bernie idea is a bit flawed IMO. Drivers don't make enough of a difference to the cars IMO to go for his version. Consistancy should be rewarded as well as out right wins.

[DaveKillens]

No matter what scenario, quality work, and hard work should never be penalized. There are other ways to equalize the field, or to "spice" it up. But for this old purist, allow the better car and driver for that day to be rewarded appropriately.

After the conclusion of each race, it should be said the better car, driver, and strategy won.

[donskar]

Should F1 adopt Success penalties???

No. NO. NO. NO!

[Conceptual]

Should F1 adopt Success penalties???

No. NO. NO. NO!

Isn't the new Super License costs enough of a success penalty?

[The FOZ]

This isn't t-ball. I forget, are they adults or fragile little children. It's disgusting that anyone would even think to penalize success. This is what's wrong with the world today.

This isn't even close to penalizing success. This is making it possible for true excellence to show, through great challenge. In fact, I think that's a better definition of "Champion" than anything else.

F1 is a sport that's struggling for worldwide acceptance over the multitude of other things to watch on TV these days. Anything to make the race more exciting, to improve the spectacle, is a good thing for the sport.

I'm pretty sure anyone can agree with me that seeing Lewis Hamilton or Felipe Massa have to start from the back of the grid and fight their way through the pack would be far more interesting than the typical "he who wins qualifying is best able to win the race" we see today.

Granted, this would require a bit more tweaking, Monaco wouldn't work well with this system, and honestly, the tracks do need to be altered in such a way as to make overtaking on turns more possible.

World Cup Skiing has used methods like this before, flipping the top 20 or 30 starters based upon their ranking, or qualifying times. I'm not a fan of flipping based on qualifying since that just means the fastest teams slow down so as not to make the fastest time, but w/e.

[donskar]

Thanks for listing another reason why the "success penalty" is a bad idea:

Monaco wouldn't work well with this system, and honestly, the tracks do need to be altered in such a way as to make overtaking on turns more possible.

(emphasis added)

[Ciro Pabón]

I don't think the idea will fly, but I'm amazed at the opinions stating that winner's penalties are something evil. Touring cars and horse racing use them routinely. If success is not penalized you end with a few big fishes, even in something as simple as a pond. F1 grid and anti-monopoly laws are my witnesses.

[timbo]

I don't think the idea will fly, but I'm amazed at the opinions stating that winner's penalties are something evil. Touring cars and horse racing use them routinely. If success is not penalized you end with a few big fishes, even in something as simple as a pond. F1 grid and anti-monopoly laws are my witnesses.

Well, this is a tricky subject. At first there's a maxima that fastest driver in a fastest car MUST win. Secondly, every time the rules are somewhat complicated there's some "not so sporting" activity going on. Remeber fuel saving runs in Q3 past years? Also there were complaints that the WRC practice of putting fastest driver of a previous day going first on the next day (that put him in a disadvantage of gathering all debris) made drivers play cat and mouse until the final day. I don't want F1 to become a chess game. We have seen teams using jocker engines for Monza and I belive in F1 where every rule is exploited ad infinitum we may see some ridiculous things with any type of imposed handicam.
E.g. we have weight handicap (like in Touring Cars). Imagine we have three tracks in consequence (say A, B, C), now imagine track A being 0.2s slower per kg of weight (I'm tacking this numbers off my head so don't laugh ), B being 0.3s and C being 0.1. With this in mind we can probably see some teams giving away track A to have lighter car on track B and than fight on track C handicapped but it woun't metter much, as weight is not much a factor.
We can probably imagine handicaps being dependent on the nature of consequent track but why such complication?

And in F1 it is not about monopoly it is about domination which is quite differnet in my mind. If leading team could put say 15 car on the grid that would be a monopoly, because monopoly is about erasing your competitors. Budget cap would be much more brilliant "anti-monopoly" measure than imposed handicap. All-in-all, good effort must not be punished!