- 02 Sep 12, 23:15#318303
Watching Formula One lately, I feel the FIA is doing too many things to keep cars running. That might seem like a weird statement, but I really think it's an issue. I think the record of having a full field of 22 cars finish the race hadn't been achieved until a few years ago. While more cars does mean opportunity for overtaking and it does reduce costs if cars do not get damaged in any way, it also means the smaller teams have issues scoring points. While smaller teams like Minardi managed to score points in some seasons a decade or so ago, current small teams don't really stand a chance. This while the field is the same size, but the amount of points-scoring positions has gone up from 6 to 8 to now 10. Even the more crazy races, with rain for instance, see the smaller teams finish around place 12 or 13 at best. I think this has happened due to a few things.
First of all, the FIA is penalizing drivers left and right for collisions to the point where I think they'd rather wait for a safe DRS zone pass with some KERS to boot than risk a collision. Sure it's no fun when your favorite gets taken out in a needless collision, but it's part of the sport and it should be allowed to happen from time to time without it always leading to grid-penalties. I think penalties should only be applied if it happens more often or seems on purpose.
Second, I think the engine and gearbox rules are bad. I know it's to reduce costs, but if your engine has to last 2 or 3 races, I think it means it's less likely to fail during a race. The teams keep checking their engines after each session and weekend and if they have doubts, they'll put in another. Instead of spectacular blow-ups, we get grid-penalties or sometimes not even that, because the team changed engines or gearboxes as a precaution. If an engine just has to work for 90 minutes and can run at the very edge of what it can handle, it might blow more often, meaning more retirements. On top of that blow-ups can be rather awesome. Just remember Fisichella's engine at Spa in 2002 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78kB7RL_6HQ). Though I will admit an engine going like Sato's did in Monaco (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vphJVgjYPI) was dangerous. Either way, mechanical failures during races has been taken out by them needing to last longer. They'll have more margin and have more opportunities to change the part before it does fail.
Third, the tracks. After Schumacher's leg-breaking crash in Silverstone, 1999, graveltraps have one by one been replaced by tarmac run-off areas. While this is safer and does allow drivers to rejoin, I feel it doesn't punish enough. Drivers don't get stuck (which, I must admit, was never a good way to retire), but also not respecting the track limits isn't punishing enough. Drivers hardly lose time going off-track, much less crash. At the Nürburgring they had water on the fake grass in the Mercedes arena last year, which punished the drivers for going over the limit, but I'm thinking a broad strip of grass or even a gravel trap before a large tarmac run-off area (for safety) would be much better, as it would punish drivers for going off-track much more, without compromising the safety, as the run-off area allowing for drivers to slow down or recover their car before hitting a wall will reduce the chance of injury because of crashing, as the run-off areas now already do. Rather than going into a corner too hot and just deciding to run wide a bit and hope you won't get a drive-through, I'd rather see the drivers having to save their car or at least lose time or even places. Now in quite a few cases it's faster to run off-track and only the white stripes and the promise the stewards will penalize you if you go over them keeps drivers from using that extra bit of unused tarmac.
So, what do you guys think?
First of all, the FIA is penalizing drivers left and right for collisions to the point where I think they'd rather wait for a safe DRS zone pass with some KERS to boot than risk a collision. Sure it's no fun when your favorite gets taken out in a needless collision, but it's part of the sport and it should be allowed to happen from time to time without it always leading to grid-penalties. I think penalties should only be applied if it happens more often or seems on purpose.
Second, I think the engine and gearbox rules are bad. I know it's to reduce costs, but if your engine has to last 2 or 3 races, I think it means it's less likely to fail during a race. The teams keep checking their engines after each session and weekend and if they have doubts, they'll put in another. Instead of spectacular blow-ups, we get grid-penalties or sometimes not even that, because the team changed engines or gearboxes as a precaution. If an engine just has to work for 90 minutes and can run at the very edge of what it can handle, it might blow more often, meaning more retirements. On top of that blow-ups can be rather awesome. Just remember Fisichella's engine at Spa in 2002 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78kB7RL_6HQ). Though I will admit an engine going like Sato's did in Monaco (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4vphJVgjYPI) was dangerous. Either way, mechanical failures during races has been taken out by them needing to last longer. They'll have more margin and have more opportunities to change the part before it does fail.
Third, the tracks. After Schumacher's leg-breaking crash in Silverstone, 1999, graveltraps have one by one been replaced by tarmac run-off areas. While this is safer and does allow drivers to rejoin, I feel it doesn't punish enough. Drivers don't get stuck (which, I must admit, was never a good way to retire), but also not respecting the track limits isn't punishing enough. Drivers hardly lose time going off-track, much less crash. At the Nürburgring they had water on the fake grass in the Mercedes arena last year, which punished the drivers for going over the limit, but I'm thinking a broad strip of grass or even a gravel trap before a large tarmac run-off area (for safety) would be much better, as it would punish drivers for going off-track much more, without compromising the safety, as the run-off area allowing for drivers to slow down or recover their car before hitting a wall will reduce the chance of injury because of crashing, as the run-off areas now already do. Rather than going into a corner too hot and just deciding to run wide a bit and hope you won't get a drive-through, I'd rather see the drivers having to save their car or at least lose time or even places. Now in quite a few cases it's faster to run off-track and only the white stripes and the promise the stewards will penalize you if you go over them keeps drivers from using that extra bit of unused tarmac.
So, what do you guys think?
