Quote Originally Posted by wyler View Post
i don't get this idea about hybrid failure reward, it's a part of the cars that can fail, like any other, and doesn't mean much that it isn't produced by the manufacturer, there's a lot of them in every rally car. it's like asking time back for a puncture, any time that a driver says "i didn't touch anything".
i think this discussion is a bit biases toward the new tech...
I don't agree. The teams have been made to use this equipment, there is no choice of supplier, the specification and design is dictated to the teams who effectively have to build their cars around it. Other than the FIA monitoring systems and TV equipment, there's nothing else like this in Rally1 cars - and those aren't performance / reliability critical parts anyway.

In the case of Tanak, it failed in a situation where it simply should not have done so. It's not like he was going 1000x harder than anyone else, even before the issue began to develop he was only 4.2 seconds up on Lappi. These hybrid units need to be able to deal with the stresses of rally drivers trying to drive fast, otherwise what is the point of them?

If it were the case that teams could either outsource or develop their own e-drive systems, we would not be having this conversation. But the fact is, they don't, and we've already seen one high-profile example of a team and a driver being let down by a part they have no choice but to use. It's fair enough to ask for a less severe consequence than having to retire the car and take 10 minute penalties for each missing stage in this case.