Monday 5 September 2016 09:04, UK
One question whirled round social media with increasing incredulity during the Belgian GP weekend - how can Lewis Hamilton collect a 55-place penalty when there are only 22 cars on the grid?
"The fans I spoke to at Spa on Saturday night just couldn't get their heads around it - how can you go back 55 places on the grid?" said Sky F1's Marc Priestley on this week's F1 Report.
"The number we publicise to the world is that Lewis has gone back 55 places, it's just bonkers isn't it?"
Few would disagree that the situation regarding engine penalties is farcical. So how did it come to this - and is there a less confusing alternative to the current system?
Why are engine penalties in place?
Engine penalties have been around in F1 since 2004, yet it's the complexity of the current regulations which continues to routinely befuddle those both in and out of the sport.
In 2014, when the expensive hybrid engines were first introduced, a penalty system was put in place to restrict the number of power units teams went through each season.
"We have these penalties to save on costs and prevent teams from using a fresh engine at every race - which would send costs out of control," explains Ted Kravitz.
How can penalties amount to more than 22 places?
The current regulations split the complex power units into six different areas, or elements, with penalties applied when drivers exceed the prescribed limit of parts, which for 2015 is five.
The first time a sixth element is used the penalty is a 10-place grid drop, with five places added when one of the remaining areas is breached. This is repeated for seventh, eighth elements and so on.
There is no upper-limit on penalties, hence why Hamilton and Fernando Alonso could accrue 55 and 60 place drops for multiple changes at Spa respectively.
Why are teams able to make 'tactical' engine changes?
Mercedes only strictly needed to make one change of engine on Hamilton's car for Spa yet became the latest team to exploit a loophole present in the regulations since mid-2015 which means a penalty cannot amount to any more than a back-of-the-grid start, irrespective of its size.
Initially, there was no such loophole. In 2014, grid penalties had to be carried over to the next race if they couldn't all be applied in the first instance.
But after that rule proved unpopular, a revision for 2015 meant that outstanding penalty places were converted into in-race penalties, such as a drive-through. But that was soon canned too. So now teams are free to 'stockpile' power unit parts for later use.
Mercedes boss Toto Wolff explains: "Last year we had a race where Jenson [Button] took 50 places, it was so ridiculous, so we brought forward a regulation [proposal] saying you cannot stockpile engines, so if you use more than one engine on a given race weekend that shouldn't be happening. That regulation proposal wasn't accepted by the other teams, so this time around we did the same thing and decided to take more engines on board and put them on stock.
"This system is far from perfect and sounds a bit ridiculous. You should probably close that loophole."
What should happen next?
Last weekend's Belgian race was actually the first time this season that drivers had exceeded engine restrictions for 2016. But, with other teams approaching the same penalty-free limits, more races are set to be afflicted by the same confusing issues before the season is out.
"Now rich teams can just pile up the penalties and get them all out of the way in one weekend," wrote Martin Brundle in his latest Sky Sports column. "If nothing else, the terminology needs changing to 'back of the grid' to be more understandable and not open to ridicule."
Jenson Button, who holds the record for the largest engine penalty when he picked up a 70-place drop at last year's Mexican GP, agrees F1 does itself no favours with the huge penalties, but insists engine usage must still be controlled.
"The number just shouldn't be there," said Button. "The figures are pointless and I don't think we should bother talking about them anymore, because that is ridiculous.
"But if we go over the amount of engines that we're supposed to use we should get penalised."
What are the alternative penalties?
Were teams limited to one power unit change per weekend as Wolff suggests, one potential downside is that drivers would likely accrue penalties at subsequent races too if they are up against their allocation. And, with grid drops already an unpopular aspect of modern-F1 for many fans, a proliferation of smaller penalties is unlikely to be anymore welcome.
There is also the lingering question of whether the driver should take the hit for his team's unreliability. That's long been the case for gearbox penalties too, but does it make it right?
"One solution would be to fine teams ??% of constructor points for extra engines, not penalise drivers," tweeted Brundle. "Would hurt/dissuade big teams more."
Planned further reductions in engine usage for 2017 and 2018 mean that, unless there is a big improvement in reliability, the debate is likely to be ignited intermittently until a more elegant, fool-proof solution is found.
