F1 suggests using ballast to replace engine grid penalties

Star InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar InactiveStar Inactive
 

Formula 1 bosses have suggested replacing the current engine grid penalty system by adding ballast to the cars.

Under the proposal, the figures used now to decide the number of lost grid positions would be transferred to kilos in additional weight with five kilos for a single component and 15kg for a full engine change.

This would be an alternative to the current unpopular system which sees drivers often start last for exceeding the permitted allocation of parts allowed for the entire season.

Asked if it was viable though, F1 team bosses weren't particularly receptive to the idea. 

“I think it would be even worse for the race," Alfa Romeo boss Fred Vasseur told RaceFans. 

"At least when you have the [grid] penalty you start from the back it could spice a little bit the race but if you have the ballast penalty it would be even worse.”

Also Read:

Red Bull boss Christian Horner was also not a big fan.

“We’ve seen in other categories that it doesn’t work,” he said. “It screws your whole weekend, not just the qualifying.

“The only shame about what we have at the moment is that it potentially robs the fans on a Saturday of seeing drivers going for a qualifying position. If we look at Monza, Max [Verstappen] taking part for a couple of laps in Q1, not wanting to progress past Q2.

“I think if we could find a more balanced penalty than just straight to the back of the grid we should consider it, so that you are still encouraging drivers on a Saturday to be going for a qualifying position.”

Renault boss Cyril Abiteboul then revealed the concept that he is trying to put forward.

“We are suggesting a time penalty you could serve under your pit stop or that would be added at the end of the race and that would just encourage better racing without altering the starting position, without altering also qualifying," he said.

“Frankly I don’t understand why, I don’t understand the unintended consequences, I don’t understand why it’s not more commonly supported, but there must be a good reason.”

 

         

 

 

Search