1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
Dismiss Notice
Like RaceDepartment on Facebook.

Why does F1 hardly ever use penalties harsher than the drive-through?

Discussion in 'Formula 1' started by Mohameddo-san, Aug 8, 2011.

  1. Mohameddo-san

    Mohameddo-san
    F1 Sim Racer & #1 St. Bernard Lover on RD Premium Member

    When a driver makes a rash manoeuvre, we usually see a grid penalty, regardless of the harshness of that particular manoeuvre.

    Growing up, it used to be when drivers sped in the pit lane, they would be hit with a stop-go penalty, something I wish they used more often, because today, I have seen some incidents worthy of a stop-go.

    Could it be that racing is less harsh compared to 10-15 years ago? Man, I still watch F1, but I have a feeling among other cons, that the stewards don't even punish drivers responsible for incidents accordingly.

    The general idea is:

    Drive-through penalty for the most minor infringements
    Stop-go penalty for moderate to significant infringements
    Disqualification, grid penalties, and race bans for severe to the highest extreme infringements.

    Your thoughts?
     
  2. Chris Jenkins

    Chris Jenkins
    Driving til the wheels fall off

    There's usually standard criteria that determines the severity of the penalty.
     
  3. well it would be ok if they stopped giving drive throughs for breathing.

    So i completely disagree with you.
     
  4. Ye i agree with luke, just ask poor lewis this season :)
     
  5. Don't forget that this year was the first year you could notice, they based the drive-throughs and stop'n'gos on how the pitlane is constructed. Drive-throughs were invented like 10 years ago to have something other then stop'n'gos (due to stalling and everything). So it makes sense they use DTs. Moreover nowadays there is also a pro in the jury as advisor, so the driver's point of view is strengthend. The way they punish today is adequat, I'd say.
     
  6. Chris Jenkins

    Chris Jenkins
    Driving til the wheels fall off

    I'm a Hamilton/McLaren fan, but every penalty Lewis has received this year has been justified.
     
  7. It's actually good that they only get drive through instead of Stop and Go penalties. Also, disqualifying a driver would be ridiculous. If they do something so badly, and let's say he won or is in the top 5 just give him a 30 second or something penalty or 5 places down at the next race. But seriously, there are no big issues nowadays to give a driver a Stop and Go.
     
  8. Schumacher got a stop&go at Silverstone, and someone else too I believe.
     
  9. Chris Jenkins

    Chris Jenkins
    Driving til the wheels fall off

    Kobayashi.
    The new Silverstone pit lane cuts 3 or 4 corners, so it doesn't work out to be much slower than staying on the race track if you were to do a drive-through.
     
  10. My thoughts:

    1) Before 1994, a Stop and go(SG) didn't take as much time as nowadays, because there was no pitlane speed limit. And, IIRC, they were sometimes shorter than 10 seconds.

    2) In 80s/90s, an SG probably had less influence on a race than a Drive Through nowadays, because the field is much tighter now.

    3) With the current point system, a DT will still represent a big hit points wise in most case, or will simply ruin your chances for points if you are a mid-field driver. So, it is probably harsh enough as it is. Furthermore, there is no real driver behaviour problems in F1, comparing to feeder series(ever had a look at GP3?) or other international single seaters series(ever had a look at IndyCar?).

    4) Now I could understand the usage of a SGs if the driver creating the incident made a blatant mistake, caused the retirement of the car he took off, without making any damage on his own car(example:
    . Schumacher did get a SG for that, as there was no DT back then.) Now this kind of situations are quite rare, and quite frankly F1 probably has other priorities than revising its penalty set.