Alexander Albon, Kevin Magnussen, Jeddah Corniche Circuit, 2024

Is the FIA right to make ten seconds the new standard for penalties?

Debates and Polls

Posted on

| Written by

Penalties in Formula 1 have been a contentious area ever since stewards began to become much more active in grands prix around the infamous 2008 season.

Thirty years ago, penalties were a rarity. When a driver was penalised for an infraction, it was often with a full ten-second stop-and-go penalty.

In recent times, time penalties have become the standard punishment for infractions. During races, stewards will issue a time penalty that a driver must serve at their next pit stop before any work can be performed on the car, or it will be added to their finishing time at the end of the race if they do not make another pit stop.

The most popular penalty for racing related infractions – such as causing a collision or for leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage – has been five seconds. But there have been times when this punishment has not appeared to fit the crime.

When Sergio Perez shoved Alexander Albon out of tenth place late in last year’s Singapore Grand Prix, he was handed a five second penalty for being “predominantly to blame” for the move. Despite that, he finished the race in eighth, just over ten seconds ahead of Liam Lawson, while Albon missed the points in 11th. That meant that Perez gained more from his move on Albon than he lost from his eventual penalty.

The FIA seems to have taken heed of incidents like this. Last weekend, Kevin Magnussen was penalised twice in the race in Jeddah – first for causing a collision with Albon into turn four, the second for leaving the track and gaining an advantage when passing Yuki Tsunoda at the same corner.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

But what was most interesting was that Magnussen received a ten second time penalty for both – not five. That left him with a total of 20 seconds of penalties, which effectively ended his race and made Haas sacrifice his race to benefit team mate Kevin Magnussen.

Sergio Perez, Kevin Magnussen, Suzuka, 2023
Perez got five seconds for this clash in 2023
This may have seemed extraordinary, but across Formula 2 and F3’s opening rounds in recent weeks, there have been several ten second penalties for drivers such as Amaury Cordeel, Gabriel Bortoleto and Joshua Duerksen for either causing collisions or making off-track passes, with Cian Shields also getting ten seconds for clasing with Josh Dufek at turn one in Bahrain.

In their decision document for Magnussen’s penalty for clashing with Albon, the stewards stated that their ten second penalty was “in keeping with the revisions made to the 2024 penalty guidelines.” The governing body has listened to feedback from drivers and teams from last season and agreed to increase the standard penalty for these incidents from five to ten seconds in order to create a stronger deterrant for drivers.

But is a harsher standard penalty the right approach for the sport to be taking?


Over the length of a grand prix, which often lasts for around 90 minutes and sees cars regularly separated by 20 or so seconds, a penalty of just five seconds is extremely minor.

Increasing the standards penalty to ten seconds will help to reduce instances of drivers committing ‘fouls’ on track but ending up with a net benefit from it.

When it is in drivers’ strategic interests to break the rules as the penalty will not disadvantage them, something needs to change.


All drivers, teams and fans have been calling for over many years when it comes to stewarding in Formula 1 is consistency.

By changing the standard penalty, drivers this season will be treated twice as harshly for incidents that take place during a race than they were last season.

Not only is that inconsistent, is it really fair? Especially in the age where red flags are used much more liberally than previous eras, a late penalty could easily drop a driver from a podium to outside the points.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

I say

This is an encouraging move by the FIA for two main reasons. The first is that we have seen far too many incidents in recent seasons where drivers have opted to make illegal overtakes and not hand the positions back knowing that they will actually lose more time letting a rival by and trying to pass them again than if they just take the penalty.

Niels Wittich, Spa-Francorchamps, 2022
It is good race control is listening to drivers
For the supposed ‘pinnacle of motorsport’, it is absolutely wrong that any driver would be incentivised to overtake a rival outside of track limits because it would be better to do so than to attempt a legal pass in the first place. Even worse, Perez’s measly penalty for knocking Albon out of the points in Singapore should have left all fans of the sport with a bad taste in their mouths.

The FIA’s change in approach, making the penalty for such infringements harsher by default – but decided on a case-by-case basis – should go some way to removing that element from the racing.

The second reason this is a positive development is that this is an example of the FIA listening to drivers and taking action based on direct feedback from the competitors themselves. While the FIA are there to make rules to ensure safe and fair racing and not to give the drivers what they want, this is clearly a case of constructive dialogue between the rule makers and the rule breakers. Hopefully this kind of feedback loop will continue into the future.

You say

Is the FIA right to increase its standard time penalty in Formula 1 from five to ten seconds? Have your say in this week’s poll.

Do you agree with the increase of the standard time penalty in F1 from five to ten seconds?

  • No opinion (0%)
  • Strongly disagree (4%)
  • Slightly disagree (6%)
  • Neither agree nor disagree (7%)
  • Slightly agree (28%)
  • Strongly agree (55%)

Total Voters: 125

Loading ... Loading ...

A RaceFans account is required in order to vote. If you do not have one, register an account here or read more about registering here. When this poll is closed the result will be displayed instead of the voting form.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

Debates and polls

Browse all debates and polls

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

57 comments on “Is the FIA right to make ten seconds the new standard for penalties?”

  1. The Against bit says that this is inconsistent. I don’t mind this inconsistency, if the changes occur between seasons.

    And I fully support this new ruling. A penalty should negate any positive effect an infringement creates plus add something extra to make it a proper deterrent. I’m not saying they should bring back the 10 second stop & go as the default penalty, but the 5 second thing has been laughable at times.

    1. Last weekend, even the 20 seconds of penalties given to Magnussen became laughable, because he backed up his rivals until they were lapped while he was not.

      If a time penalty needs to be given, I think 10 is a better default than 5; but in general, I don’t think after-the-race time penalties are necessarily the best remedy to gaining a place by going off-track.

      Giving a penalty to the offender (to be added to their time after the race) also provides no help to the driver who suffered from the broken rules: they are still slowed down just as much.

    2. For me the only thing that bothers me a bit, is if they would start handing out ONLY 10 second penalties. In some cases the 5 seconds might be ok (and we’ve seen cases where a 1 second penalty would do fine, when it was applies after a SC period) and I can imagine there would be cases where it should be even more.

      But overall, it is a good thing that the FIA reacts to the 5 seconds “standard penalty” being hardly any hindrance for far too many drivers in the recent past.

  2. These small time penalties are annoying, I liked it when penalties were rare and soul destroying. When Webber won his first race, with a drive through penalty, it was extraordinary.

    1. The problem is that this makes the stewards very hesitant to penalise even clear branches of the rules which gain a significant advantage for the perpetrator. We saw more breaking of the rules but fewer penalties.

      Another coffee if this is a greater assistance of inconsistency. If one driver is penalised for an infraction, where another driver isn’t for a similar infraction, the difference is far more extreme and unfair-looking.

  3. This whole debate was a bit silly from the very start. Just because Magnussen and Haas took advantage of the properties of a semi-street circuit doesn’t suddenly make the penalty dumb. It makes the insistent switch to street circuits look bad because the racing on them is consistently worse compared to actual circuits, but that’s an entire different statement.

    The change was made because five seconds was too easy to make up for a driver in faster car or on faster tires, and for that the change is the right one. Magnussen shenanigans have no bearing on that matter.

    1. The argument of “5 seconds is too easy to make up” tends to neglect the fact active effort is needed to make up that time. It still means using up tires, fuel and engine power that could have any number of knock on effects.
      But I do agree this is more a track related issue then a rules one.

  4. The real issue in many of these cases is that one driver has gained or kept a position by breaking the rules.

    In most cases, the best response would be for the stewards to rapidly issue instructions (within 2-3 laps) on whether rules were broken and whether the place should be given back.

    If the stewards instruct a driver to give a place back, refusing should not be an option (but would naturally incur a serious penalty).

    In cases where giving the place back isn’t sensible, eg because one driver has pitted, a 10 second penalty is a sensible default.

    1. Giving the place back removes the advantage gained but doesn’t penalise the rule-breaking – so it is no disincentive to doing it again. Worst case scenario, you get told to give the place back and you haven’t lost anything; in the best case you get away with it and you’ve gained a place.

      I would give dynamic time penalties, based on the gap between the two cars at the time the penalty is issued, plus 5 or 10 seconds – this then forces the driver to hand back the advantage they’ve gained, plus an additional “penalty” element. It’s more likely you’d then see drivers handing back places of their own volition, as the risks of not doing so would be much greater (since you can’t control how long it will take the stewards to make a decision, nor whether the car behind you will pit and greatly increase the amount of the penalty).

    2. notagrumpyfan
      17th March 2024, 20:40

      If the stewards instruct a driver to give a place back, refusing should not be an option (but would naturally incur a serious penalty).

      That ‘serious penalty’ should be a drive through. It might cost a bit more than 10s, but so be it.

      I dislike time penalties at the end of a race. Those should only happen if there’s no option to serve another penalty during the race.

  5. 10 seconds should definitely be a minimum, we see situations where the benefit outweighs the penalty.

    Let’s for example say you use this to pass a slow car in Monaco by not fully complying with the first corner or the chicane. 10 second penalty? you can earn it back in 5-6 laps if you’re a fast car stuck behind a slow one. The penalty should act as a deterrent, 5 clearly wasn’t enough.

    I’d even say there are circumstances where it should be a drive through, for example if you pass a car off-track or prevent an overtake by going off-track. If it’s just you, just gaining time, then 10 seconds is fair.

    1. Rugby increases the size of penalties if they are ‘cynical’. I would like to see that in F1.

      So if someone (rationally and deliberately) cut the chicane at Monaco to overtake a car, that should be penalised more than someone who was forced off the road attempting an overtake but happened to wind up ahead.

      (or – in both cases, instruct them to give the place back, which stops the chicane cut being ‘rational’.)

  6. Strongly agree and if anything, I would use more the drive-though and 10sec stop&go penalty that are rarely used nowadays.
    The 5sec penalty should only be used for minor things, such as leaving the track and gaining a small advantage or for technicalities such as crossing the white line at the pit exit… it’s against the rules sure, but it barely counts as an advantage and the 10sec for minor collisions only.
    For everything else that’s significant, such as proper collisions with a driver being mostly at fault, or overtaking someone illegally (out of the track or what Perez did to Albon) I would give a 5-lap warning to hand the place back and then if they don’t, then I’d use drive-through at least.
    When a driver is mostly/totally at fault, the penalty should hurt them, not say “oh well…” as the drive into the horizon…

    1. 100%: well said

    2. Exactly, again I’ll point at silverstone 2021, I read people say “hamilton served his penalty”, yes, a penalty that as a fan you could immediately tell that 90% of the times wouldn’t cost him a single position, even if it cost him a position considering he took his main opponent out it would be considered a minor penalty!

      1. Silverstone 2021 – Drive through at the very least in my opinion, not because “oh it’s Hamilton and he has a dominant car so we need to make it harder” but because it was a serious incident that Hamilton was mostly at fault and 10sec penalty was a joke

        Also random incident that I just remembered, Mexico 2016 – Verstappen cuts the track and he’s ordered to give his place back to Vettel within the last 5 laps, but the team instructs him to do it ‘strategically’… by slowing down so that Ricciardo catches Vettel and overtake him. If the stewards order you to give the place back, you do so without causing any shenanigans like this (he was in a position he shouldn’t have been by staying ahead, he doesn’t get to interfere with the parties directly involved as if he’s racing them normally).. In that case I’d give Verstappen drive through or 10sec stop&go.

  7. The main problem isn’t and wasn’t the size of the time penalty. It’s that you don’t have to serve it right away. 10 seconds won’t change that, only going away from time penalties and back to drive throughs and stop and goes will.

    That will make them harsher, but I’m not really sure that I have a problem with that.

    1. Thats the real issue is that teams and drivers are playing a system. Make penalties that are served within 3 laps as standard (as it used to be) and only time added on when the lap count is below 3.
      Then no one can abuse the system. Hass did nothing wrong at all and if the shoe was on the other foot the other teams would have behaved the same way.

  8. Penalties are supposed to be a deterrent, therefore they should greatly outweigh any potential benefit that could be gained.

    I’m not going to blame any team or driver for exploiting a weak penalty system — exploiting every advantage is what teams and drivers have always done.

  9. There shouldn’t be such a thing as a standard for penalties. There should be penalties that fit the crime.
    Overtaking (or staying in front by going) off track should result in either giving the position back immediately or in a drive through.
    This is a no-brainer imho, but it has been that way for almost a decade now and I cant see a logical reason why.

  10. Didn’t they give 5 seconds to Perez in the same race? So what are they doing exactly? Do they know? If they do, why don’t we know? I’d like to know the rules, as a fan. I’m sure drivers would like to know them even more.

  11. The Against argument is typical of an English view of laws and justice; but precedence is only important if people want it to be. If F1 decides that from now on, minor infractions will get a 10 second penalty, and more serious ones a drive-through, then that’s the way it is. That was then, this is now. It’s impossible to live in the past, and there’s no need to be bound by its rules; especially not in a sport where a season is the longest period of interconnected results. Nothing that happened in 2023 matters for this season, after all.

    Maybe the penalties need a more substantive review, though. Does F1 really need both a drive-through and a stop&go penalty? Is that a nuance work making? Same with the 5 and the 10 seconds, is that really useful? Why is an undetermined time penalty on the books if its never used? Perhaps something more manageable than the currently rather long list of possible penalties. That way it’d be clearer to both viewers and competitors which penalty is given and why. And if it’s predictable and consistent, there will also be less complaining. Not no complaining, but less.

    Something like in football might work:
    Small incident = 10 second time penalty + yellow card.
    Medium incident = drive through (20s) penalty + yellow card.
    Big incident or two of the previous = disqualification (i.e. red card).

    People often take a dramatic view of bigger penalties, as if half the grid is going to end up doing drive-throughs or being disqualified, but obviously that’s not the case. It’s a deterrent, and it works well enough. Just look at how good the drivers can watch the white lines when they know they have to.

  12. Coventry Climax
    17th March 2024, 15:50

    Standard ICE’s, standard turbo’s, standard energy stores, standard chassis’, standard brakes, standard rims, standard tyres, standard front wings, standard rear wings, standard strategies, standard pitstops, standard drivers, standard circuits and ofcourse .. standard penalties.
    Makes perfect sense: How else will we ever get competitiveness?

    1. Please provide your solution.

      1. Coventry Climax
        18th March 2024, 11:18

        The issue is not with which rules are available, nor with which penalties are available for infringement of any of the rules, as it’s all already there. It’s mostly with applying consistent -which is not to be confused with standard– enforcement of them. Start with that and then -and only then- you can assess the effectiveness of rules and punishments. That brings us to: What is to be the definition of consistency?

        That means the impact of the punishment should always be equal over infringements of equal severity.
        Mind you, that is not the definition, but my idea about it, since you asked, @gmp .
        Assess and publish – and before the season starts please – when certain punishments apply and have them be adapted to to each circuit. A 5 second, 10 second or drive through may separately, each and all, seem ‘standard’ and thus fair, but there’s a huge difference whether they’re applied in the first couple of laps or on the last, and an equally huge difference whether a drive through is applied on this type of circuit or another type. And there’s more reasons to think of why a standard punishment may turn out to have a very non-standard impact on the offenders race, and then I’m not even discussing the huge difference in amount of time it frequently takes the stewards to come up with a decision at all.

        But it all starts with clarifying infringements, classifying them if you will. e.g. ‘Dangerous driving’ is not very specific at all, which means a standard punishment for it is already quite ridiculous to start with. There’s quite a few degradations for ‘unsafe release’, yet they’re all punished equally, which may very well be a point of discussion.

        Once the infringements are worded such that there’s no space left for interpretation, and once they’ve been classified according to severity, determine the required and justified impact of punishement associated. On some circuits and in certain phases of the race, that may be a drive through, on some a drive through + 10 seconds, on some just + 5 sec, all as listed, documented and explained before the start of a season, and then applied consistently.

        Quite a list, and very ‘ideally’, I’m aware of that, and certainly not easy. Nonetheless, this is the direction I’d like to see the FiA take: If they still want to claim there’s fairness and no mid-season interference and meddling in the championship, then it’s the FiA’s job to look for solutions with these key concepts in place.
        Over the past 20 to maybe even 30 years, they’ve been doing absolutely nothing at all in this direction. Rather the opposite, making the rules and everything around it more and more obscure and vague, such that they can meddle yet say they don’t as the rules ‘require’ a certain interpretation and hence ‘justifies’ technical directives.

        A standard 10 second won’t help if it isn’t even exactly clear what it’s to be given for.

        Hope that’s answer enough, @gmp?

        1. Sorry for responding so late. My job makes that I can spend time here only at certain days/times.

          Thanks for at least explaining what you want to see. And I agree with a lot of it. What is missing from you is any hint towards a solution. “The FIA should” is not a solution by itself. What would you implement to get where you want it to be?
          I don’t think a rule explanation book, with explanations for each and every possible circumstance is possible, or even a solution. You and I might agree on such a book and then when something happens in the race differ on which of all those explained rules should apply.
          As I wrote further down, for me a pool of stewards, rotating over all the races, instructed to interpret the rules on the intention of the rule, and given flexibility in the penalties they can apply, with one condition : decision and penalty with one or maximum two laps. Decision might in hindsight not be fair, but no turning back, reversing penalties. Make that pool of stewards “self learning” by after each race review what penalties were right, were fair, and which ones were not, and use that learning going forward in next races.

          Btw : with the advent of AI this could even become a lot more easy and fast and less person dependent. I would love to see experiments started to use AI for this.

  13. 10 seconds is a bigger deal if the field’s recently been bunched up by a safety car, or red flag as the article says – so I think stewards need flexibility with shorter penalties.

    I never liked drive-throughs because the TV director would usually leave the race to show us a car trundling the entire length of an empty pitlane…

    I’d like to see the MotoGP-style long lap penalties that comments on here have been suggesting. It could move the skill and timing back to the drivers (not only the penalised driver, also the following one who has to earn their place back), instead of race engineers over-engineering and gaming the rules.

    1. the long lap penalty’s are almost nothing unless they are applied early enough in the race, ie, their effect is variable, drive through’s are the best way to keep people from overtaking off the race track or pushing people off the track.

    2. I dont think that skill should matter here. Penalty is penalty, it’s not a driving test. I’m more interested in penalties being just and purposeful than being attractive. Not every aspect of a race should be fun or attractive for TV. Strategy and tactics will always be a part of it all, but having less of those holes, the better.
      If you ruin someone’s race, your race should be ruined to. Period.

    3. Coventry Climax
      17th March 2024, 18:40

      So you would rather not have some type of penalty because the TV director then makes a mess of what’s broadcasted?
      Not quite my type of logic, sorry.

  14. just bring back the drive through.

  15. They need to issue both 5 and 10 seconds where appropriate. There are penalties that are touch and go – 5 seconds last year felt harsh for these. They should remain 5 seconds now. For other things like passing off the track, going off the track multiple times and punting another car off the track, 10 seconds is much better.

  16. The “Against” argument argues that this would be inconsistent with what was done last year. I don’t call that inconsistent. Rules change each year, that does not make them inconsistent. Actually, I say this would be MORE consistent, as at present there are instances where one driver is penalized 5 seconds, while another driver with a very similar infraction might be penalized 10 seconds. I would support this change.

  17. It doesn’t matter what we think. What we write on a website.
    They do what they wish.

    1. I’m sure the author knows, but it’s a boring season and it gives us something to talk about beyond “racing”.

  18. I think there’s a massive difference between a time penalty served during a pitstop and a time penalty applied at the end of the race, and it’s all related to track position.
    Track position will always be the bigger penalty to claw back.

    1. It’s not clear cut at all, depends how the race evolves, in a race without safety car and where you’re pulling away, a post race penalty is perfect, but add a safety car towards the end and it might be dangerous.

  19. It would be better, but still not enough. Many times a position would be worth more than 10 seconds.
    When a place has to be given back, the driver should be instructed to give it back within n laps to the specific driver, whatever the position of that driver becomes, and if he doesn’t, it should be a black flag. Of course the downside is it would put a lot of time pressure on the stewards.

  20. Sadly, F1 talks more about penalties than about racing.

    1. There’s no racing this season, only thing we can talk about on this site are controversies and out of track activities.

      1. Nonsense. There is a lot of racing if you open your eyes.

        There is excellence in the extreme at the #1 spot, and a lot of racing for the #10 spot, and 2-9 and 11-20. Do ask any of the drivers.

  21. I voted neither agree nor disagree, I believe they should have way more flexibility with penalties, not less.

    Someone barely cuts the corner, in a way you can barely see it as a spectator (verstappen passing raikkonen in usa 2017 in the last lap)? 1 sec penalty.

    Someone defends a position by corner cutting? 3 sec penalty, so that he won’t be able to end ahead of the driver trying to overtake him, but not a big offense.

    A driver takes out their main opponent in the championship and ends up with no consequences and the surviving driver is the one who made the mistake? Big penalty here, stop and go minimum, there have to be consequences from silverstone 2021 incidents, not a penalty that you can immediately assume will make no difference.

    What I take from the change is: making illegal passes will no longer be worth it now, or less than before, but also really minor infractions will be punished way too harshly, think about sainz and the 5 seconds penalty after the field had been bunched up which dropped him from the podium to outside the points, even worse with 10 sec.

    1. Coventry Climax
      18th March 2024, 15:21

      I think we’re sort of on the same track here, @esploratore1.

      “Leaving the track and gaining an advantage”, is the FiA’s wording for it.
      They might as well have called that “He did something wrong”, because that’s exactly as precise.

      Makes quite a bit of difference if that ‘advantage’ leads to winning the race and setting fastest laptime, or finishing 16th instead of 17th.
      Actually, I don’t even care if the FiA thinks it’s all the same, but then punish it all the same too, don’t take ages to even confirm the infringement and stop shifting this way and that to talk your way out of why the penalties were so different here over there.
      This ‘standard’ penalty nonsense won’t stop any controversy at all, as they’ll continue to give it to some and not others, in some situations and not others.

      They need to take a long, very thorough look at how they phrase infringements first, then determine the impact of them and then punish accordingly and consistently.
      Standardise that please.

  22. Neither agree nor disagree is my choice because rather than having a single standard penalty, I think the FIA should be more flexible between the 5 & 10-sec penalties, as well as, drive-through, stop-&-go, etc., depending on circumstances & outcome impact.

  23. Neither agree nor disagree. In my opinion this is the wrong question to ask. It absolutely baffles me that such a ridiculous thing as a “standard penalty” exists in top level motorsport. Stewards should apply the whole range of penalties from 5 secs to black flag and everything in between, in accordance with the situation at hand. And if the FIA isn’t confident enough in the competency of the panel to make the right decision in the middle of the race they should dismiss them without mercy and train new better ones.

  24. I think 10 sec for off track overtaking is fine but I don’t think it should be 10 sec for all. 5 sec seems adequate for some penalties.

  25. My view is that stewards should have a wide range of penalties to select from, based on the infraction. I also believe stewards should take the outcome of an incident into account when handing out penalties. Of of course there needs to be some consistency, but not 100%
    What it would require is a pool of stewards (10? 15?) who in “random” groups of 5? (or more) are the referees of the race. They should watch and judge. No race director who hands cases to stewards. With modern electronic tools a very fast “voting” system can be used to quickly decide, no deliberations, “majority” vote is it.

    After races the pool can review and deliberate. It could lead to changes in next races, so be it.

  26. I wouldn’t mind seeing a drive-through penalty, especially in Magnuson’s case with Tsunoda. That would get him out of the DRS train and let the others get on with their race.

  27. The FIA should also give drive through penaulties for overtaking AND not giving the place back. Like Magus overtaking Yuki and then keeping him behind.
    Every penaulty which can be used to advance deliberately the driver should also fall on this.

  28. Drive-through minimum. If possible, high and low speed drive through, otherwise just drive trough. Then stop-and-gos with different timings. I also like the long lap penalty in MotoGP.

    The penalty should be given when there’s an offence. With time-only penalties we often see that is convenient to make the offence, compared to be more careful. A drive-trough ensures that the offending driver loses their position.

  29. The 5s penalty is one of the causes for a complete collapse in driving standards, glad to see the move to the 10s penalties. The 5s penalty was fine when it was used for minor infractions but when it started becoming used for all incidents it became a joke. At fault collisions should definitely carry a harsher penalty than 5s. The problem though is the consistency argument which will mean teams will whine when their team get penalised 10s for something that previously only received a 5s penalty.

  30. This should not be about the size of a penalty but about consistency. That needs to be addressed firstly.

  31. If you make an illegal overtake you give the position back or have TRACK position taken away from you via a drive through. Time penalties for this are a nonsense because they don’t restore the track position that was lost.

  32. I voted slightly agree.

    I strongly agree that there are a lot of situations where a harsher penalty should be given, especially overtaking off track and calculating that giving a place back would be more costly than a penalty. The benefit of breaking the rules should never outweigh the penalty.

    One thing I think without of consideration is place-based penalties, so a driver can be handed a 1-place penalty to negate the gain they made off track. It may not be the best idea, and certainly shouldn’t be used every time, but it could be a useful tool to add to the stewards’ options.

    1. *worthy of consideration

  33. A simple solution to the Haas issue is to follow the football logic of 2 yellows = a red. As soon as you get to 20s of penalties total, you must do a drive-through.

Comments are closed.