There was a cumulative drop of 150 places on the grid at last week’s Italian Grand Prix, and unsurprisingly in the wake of Monza, there are calls for a reform of the grid penalty system.
Most of the proposed solutions involved a deduction in championship points for those teams who cannot keep their cars going reliably.
What these ideas ignore is the fact that the grid penalty system is one of the fairest forms of punishment ever used in Formula 1. An engine change will result in the same grid drop for the championship leader as it does for a lowly Sauber.
Think back to the 2012 Belgian Grand Prix, where Romain Grosjean launched his Lotus into the path of his rivals at the first corner and received a one race ban and a hefty fine. The FIA’s wording on that incident was that Grosjean had “eliminated leading championship contenders from the race.”, an offence that has not been committed since.
But if the grid penalty system was to be replaced, then it’s replacement should aim for a similar level of fairness.
As teams often depend on others for engines and gearboxes, any new penalty system should also try to avoid punishing customers more than manufacturer teams.
This is made especially difficult by the fact that some teams give inferior equipment to their customers. Sauber has been running the 2016 Ferrari engine this season, but in July signed a deal that would give them the ‘latest power unit specification’ for 2018.
Force India is also believed to have such an arrangement with Mercedes for next year, although it usually receives its latest spec engine a few races behind the factory Mercedes team.
A penalty system that utilises the relationship between team and supplier could change the order of the grid in a non-artificial way, and lead to scenarios where manufacturers are putting the latest upgrades into customer cars.
In 2018 teams will be restricted to three of each component of the power unit, down from this year’s four. Red Bull has been especially vocal against this change as they have suffered from numerous reliability issues with its Renault powertrain this season.
There is a possibility that Red Bull could be sharing a Renault supply with Mclaren next season, as well as the factory Renault team.
The factory team will be prioritised for any upgrades, with the TAG Heuer-branded Red Bull next and Mclaren last.
If a new penalty system freezes the spec of a component once the permitted number has been used, then this order could change.
Imagine a scenario where Renault and Red Bull power through their supply of engines by the Italian Grand Prix and Renault have no choice but to test all their latest upgrades on Mclaren from Singapore onwards.
Mclaren could potentially climb up the grid, while its Renault stablemates would drop down. They would be punished for their failure to stick to the component limit, but it would not seem forced and a clever team may be able to overcome a deficient engine in other performance departments.
If Mclaren too uses all of its allocation, then no more upgrades would be permitted, and the manufacturer can put more of their resources into the next year’s engine.
If an engine supplier decides not to use one of its customer teams to test its latest engine then they will not reap the rewards of R&D, and potential customers will have no understanding of what its product is capable of for the coming year.
Removing the benefits of progress in the engine department, which arguably impacts performance more than anything else, may seem a little draconian when enforced, but the FIA do have the ability to make special changes for engine suppliers that are particularly struggling.
They gave Honda extra tokens to improve its package when they returned in 2015, and in 2008, when engine spec was frozen throughout the year, Renault was allowed to update their equipment.
The token system only applied to performance related updates, but the grid penalty system does not distinguish between if a component has been changed for performance or reliability purposes.
Whether a new penalty system chooses to distinguish between performance and reliability only time will tell, but Liberty has a chance to work with the FIA to greatly improve the state of Formula 1 as we know it.
