DesertPenguin09
(Banned)
- 7,398
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin09
An engine supplier to an Audi or VW team permayhaps?
2017 F1 Constructor technical info/developmentFormula 1
- Thread starter LMSCorvetteGT2
- 2,124 comments
- 135,094 views
- 2,906
- Columbus, Ohio
It's still some 4-5 years away, so it's equally possible that this all comes to nothing by that time due to any number of possibilities. I can't really see Porsche splashing out for a full F1 operation unless one of the top 3 becomes unseated in the next couple years though, or if they do phenomenally well in Formula E maybe and get really confident.
- 1,561
- United States
I don't think VW will be getting into F1 anytime soon, as they're still probably reeling from the budget impact of the diesel losses in NA. I think producing an engine or motor (given the scant choices in F1 currently) is probably a good idea.
This also lets them test an engine and get used to building one for 2-3 years before they actually enter themselves (i.e. test w/ other teams). Once the engine is finalized and working well - then slap it in a proper VAG car.
This also lets them test an engine and get used to building one for 2-3 years before they actually enter themselves (i.e. test w/ other teams). Once the engine is finalized and working well - then slap it in a proper VAG car.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
No VW/Audi said they don't like F1, it's expensive to go full hog, provides no overall benefit to them due to lack of sponsors and will not be joining any time soon. Remember they also went to the 2021 meetings along with other manufactures not in the sport. The difference is, Porsche gets to be a snowflake in the VAG system and can do things on their own that others would need approval from VAG before doing.
https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/volkswagen-dangerous-path-over-costs-943475/
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Porsche is still "independent" within the VW structure, as you point out. Their move to Formula E makes a return to Formula 1 (think TAG glory rather than Footwork shennanigans) seem a logical step. That's what the deputy chairman implies, at least.
I agree that I can't see them building their own car, they're much more likely (imo) to be interested in engine development as the 2020s see a merge between the direction that F1 engines are taking and the legal requirements that will be placed on high-performance road engines.
If only there was a team really struggling with their engine supplier right now who had some Porsche history (plays dream-merge music ~~~~~~)...
Last edited by a moderator:
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
It would be, but if it went south, than it be engine debacle part 2. Though I don't see how FE sets up the ground work for F1. I feel P1 did that, as well as the chance that the cars from 2020/21 on are going to be V6tt or six cylinder tt. If so that has more openings for Porsche than any other engine setup. And of course the world renowned PR that comes from F1, that FE wont have for some time if ever.
Last edited by a moderator:
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
Brundle is putting together suggestions for ways to alter the grid penalty system, his intention is to take them to M. Todt.
Vote at the Sky votey thingy if you like. http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12...ould-formula-1-change-its-grid-penalty-system
Vote at the Sky votey thingy if you like. http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12...ould-formula-1-change-its-grid-penalty-system
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Webber system is all we need.
- 13,269
- GTPlanet
- Street-King-07
- Quattro Saltire
Points deductions would be the most sensible option for both the fans and the teams.
- 36,638
- Scotland
- GTP_daan
But they don't make sense when someone can start higher up after taking their penalty just because others have more of a penalty.
I've just thought of this so it's probably a bit silly but here goes.
Everyone qualifies and those without a penalty start from their grid slot.
Those with a penalty get their penalty converted to seconds. They are then held at the exit of the pit lane and are released in turn whenever their 5/10/30/75/Alonso penalty has expired. If 2 drivers have the same penalty, the one who qualified higher starts ahead.
It also means that those who are knocked out in Q1 will remain 16th and can't start in 9th.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
I reckon you'd have ended up with a half-empty grid at Monza and the "disadvantage" of starting in the same grid slot would be negated by the time they'd all braked into the first chicane. I don't have a better solution but I don't see that working.
The only thing that might work is to increase the engine/component allowance. The idea of the limit is to save money for smaller teams but in fact it continues to compromise and penalise them ahead of the large teams with their naturally larger budgets.
EDIT: Christian Horner agrees with me, or vice versa.
Last edited:
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,220
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
It doesn't make sense to me to convert it to constructor's penalties, because the drivers could get an advantage from using more components. One comment on that article mentions time penalties like additional time on the pit stops., which seems to be a better idea. That way the grid doesn't get affected until after the race starts. I think that combined with an increase in component allowance would make things a bit more reasonable.
DesertPenguin09
(Banned)
- 7,398
- Long Island, New York
- DesertPenguin09
How about making it so instead of a crew for each tire, reduce it to a crew for the Front Left/Rear Left and Front Right/Rear Right. It would take longer and be more like other series in the world too.
- 12,960
- United Kingdom
Say Verstappen does a 1:25.762. The penalty would change it to 1:26.762. That way, at the end of each Q session, the penalties have been given and the grid is already made. Anything after that and you are penalised the same. It is done in each Q from Q1 onwards. So say Stroll made it into Q3 and then took a new MGU-H, the penalty is first applied in Q1, where he got through by 0.2 seconds. This translates 7th on the grid into 18th.
- 1,561
- United States
I still like my idea (one which could be implemented immediately).
You take penalties as current - however once you reach the back of the grid (22 or 24?) you start from the pit lane. Each additional spot provides you a penalty of X seconds (0.5 of a second, or 1 second). If you take 60 damn spots you're going to drop to the back of the grid - then into the pit lane, and you'll be starting with a 40-45 second penalty.
However, this would over-heat most F1 cars, and it'd be unfair for them to sit in a pit lane with tire warmers on...but I think the idea has merit. No team, no matter how poor they are, wants to start a race 20-30-40 seconds behind the field. It does give the current regulations actual teeth without needing to change up anything.
Then change the rules completely next year, moving forward.
You take penalties as current - however once you reach the back of the grid (22 or 24?) you start from the pit lane. Each additional spot provides you a penalty of X seconds (0.5 of a second, or 1 second). If you take 60 damn spots you're going to drop to the back of the grid - then into the pit lane, and you'll be starting with a 40-45 second penalty.
However, this would over-heat most F1 cars, and it'd be unfair for them to sit in a pit lane with tire warmers on...but I think the idea has merit. No team, no matter how poor they are, wants to start a race 20-30-40 seconds behind the field. It does give the current regulations actual teeth without needing to change up anything.
Then change the rules completely next year, moving forward.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Okay that doesn't change any thing other than starting spot and is just a fancy way to circumvent the term grid penalty. In no way have you actually changed the fundamental issue. If you actually punish the team by deducting points they risk losing millions and millions of dollars. Once again parts failures that result in necessary changes, shouldn't be something that hampers a driver outside of the race or quali, that's the only place that it should really matter for the driver. If it fails between Q1 and Q2, it should be replaced. If the FIA wants to limits how many replacements happen then fine but do so at the cost to the team side.
What do you mean other series, I know of no other series in the world that takes crew members away from the team due to penalties. If it did it would be potentially dangerous series have a certain number of members for one reason or another. Now if you mean that taking crew members away would get F1 in line with other races series who use less then F1, okay. However, that's a different argument in general and one that shouldn't really be tacked on to grid penalties.
How would they get an advantage from it? If the car qualifies first and then has an mgu-k break before the race for whatever reason, that's not on the driver. They did their part, it's on the team of engineers, builders, and machinist to create a quality functioning part. If they don't they should suffer via penalties to them, which is the WCC. A car that goes through this scenario right now, would still most likely finish top 5 if starting from back of the grid and net a good chunk of points for their team which wouldn't deter the team. It could create a tumultuous situation between them and Driver like say with Verstappen and RBR right now. However, RBR still gets to be 3rd in points with no real threat of losing it. Same could be said for McLaren.
Additional time on pit stops teaches the team what? That their driver isn't going to be happy even more so about something out of his hands?
I think the amount of components available and expected to last a full season isn't reasonable anyways. I think the teams who build these components know how high the demand and stresses are even in a single race on such parts, and to ask them to do multiple races is fine with in a correct threshold, but not the current.
ROAD_DOGG33J
Premium
- 14,220
- IL, USA
- holyc0w1
- holyc0w
In theory if there is less reliability then there is more performance to be gained. If something breaks during practice and they get a fresh component then they should be better off in the race. It's not that simple, but that's my reasoning.
My focus wasn't about teaching the team. It was about converting the mess created from juggling penalties and orders, into something a bit more logical where penalty order shouldn't matter.
- 22,551
- Arizona
- HamiltonMP427
Okay but that doesn't mean a driver should be punished, two the FIA could actually make a rule set that covers all bases rather than leave ambiguity for a group of people that are probably the most innovative with rule interpretation in the first place.
My issue is the FIA does this for a handful of reasons, one it is direct or indirect - depending on who you ask - measure of cost cutting. The other is a link to road safety and sustainability.
However, it's hard to actually say you care all that much if your measure of punishment is give 65 grid penalties, and the team only taking at best 20 positions worth in a single race. And the rest of those supposed remaining 45 let's say being basically a hypothetical.
- 12,960
- United Kingdom
The teams are already losing a lot of money. They are budgeting for 4 engines a season, and then have to pay for more.
Taking away constructors points is the worst idea of the lot. Teams have only ever lost points for severe breaches in rules breaking, for which a new engine is not. You don't want to see a team focus solely on the drivers title - Putting a new engine in, qualifying first and winning the race every time. Seeing a team on minus points is something that has never happened and must never happen. What's the point in having a storming drive from 18th to 5th in the rain to then score -20 points? At least with grid penalties, once the race starts - that's the end of the issue. Most viewers watch the race. So what of the grid's a bit different to qualifying, you changed your engine, you start further back. In this time of high downforce where overtaking is hard, the constructors are already losing points. Look at Red Bull in Italy. Did they lose constructors points? Yes they did. From 2nd and 3rd on the grid there is no way they'd have finished 4th and 10th.
Grid penalties are the solution and we just need to suck it up and accept that. If you notice, the only people complaining about it are the ones who are having a bad time with it. Christian Horner is slating the engine regs and grid penalties, but if Renault had the best engine on the grid there is no way he'd be saying that. He's just playing the "try to be on the side of the fans to disguise the fact that I want Red Bull to be winning again because we can't do anything about Renault's inadequacies" card.
Think of it this way. Do you want to see McLaren 9th in the Constructors Championship and starting 19th and 20th at each race, or do you want to see McLaren sat on -125 points? Do you think McLaren would even bother turning up if they hit -200 points? Because they'd never make those points back - and do you really want to see teams skipping races towards the end of the season because there's no point turning up. No. The only fix to this problem is to raise the number of engine parts back up to 5 each, not drop it to 3. That is a stupid idea.
Taking away constructors points is the worst idea of the lot. Teams have only ever lost points for severe breaches in rules breaking, for which a new engine is not. You don't want to see a team focus solely on the drivers title - Putting a new engine in, qualifying first and winning the race every time. Seeing a team on minus points is something that has never happened and must never happen. What's the point in having a storming drive from 18th to 5th in the rain to then score -20 points? At least with grid penalties, once the race starts - that's the end of the issue. Most viewers watch the race. So what of the grid's a bit different to qualifying, you changed your engine, you start further back. In this time of high downforce where overtaking is hard, the constructors are already losing points. Look at Red Bull in Italy. Did they lose constructors points? Yes they did. From 2nd and 3rd on the grid there is no way they'd have finished 4th and 10th.
Grid penalties are the solution and we just need to suck it up and accept that. If you notice, the only people complaining about it are the ones who are having a bad time with it. Christian Horner is slating the engine regs and grid penalties, but if Renault had the best engine on the grid there is no way he'd be saying that. He's just playing the "try to be on the side of the fans to disguise the fact that I want Red Bull to be winning again because we can't do anything about Renault's inadequacies" card.
Think of it this way. Do you want to see McLaren 9th in the Constructors Championship and starting 19th and 20th at each race, or do you want to see McLaren sat on -125 points? Do you think McLaren would even bother turning up if they hit -200 points? Because they'd never make those points back - and do you really want to see teams skipping races towards the end of the season because there's no point turning up. No. The only fix to this problem is to raise the number of engine parts back up to 5 each, not drop it to 3. That is a stupid idea.
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
What if each team gets a 1% penalty on their prize money at the end for each component they use over the limit at the end.
Regardless the grid penalty is unacceptable, this sport is based on the drivers and it wouldn't be a wise decision to punish them for something that not everyone will understand.
Regardless the grid penalty is unacceptable, this sport is based on the drivers and it wouldn't be a wise decision to punish them for something that not everyone will understand.
- 20,681
- TenEightyOne
- TenEightyOne
- 9,401
- Western Sydney
- mustafur
Not really, its a percentage the less you make the less actual money you lose.
But I guess you could put a loading penalty of a set amount on top that increases from every position above Last.
Last edited:
