"One engine rule" - farcical?

[Sodemo]

Am I the only one to consider the new 1 engine rule to be a bit daft?

Whats stopping say BMW producing a qualifying engine that "blows up" having just taken pole position on its cooling down lap, then being put back 10 places on the grid, but then putting in a new powerful engine for the race, but being 10th on the grid?

Surely they would have 30-40BHP advantage during the race if they did this?

[Adam43]

Well they can if they want too. However I think the 10 place penalty is too much to seriously consider it. That is a lot of time lost in the race even if you waltz past everyone and there is hte danger of the start.

Also I don't think the power loss due to having to run longer is as much as 30-40 bhp (although I'm not sure what it is).

(BTW, good to see you got in! )

I wonder if it will limit running at other times during the weekend? Although we don't have Sunday moring warm up anymore.

[KC]

The only thing that this rule will damage are the mid-pack teams in F1. Any of the top teams and drivers can make up 10 positions in less than half the race. It might keep them from out and out winning, but it will hardly penalize a top team by making them 10th on the grid instead of on pole. The minnows are already in the back and won't make up too many spots anyway. However, the mid-pack teams will suffer the most. They will be at the back of the grid and it will take them longer and be more difficult for them to make up positions. This was a way for the FIA to be seen making changes for the betterment of F1 while they are in fact maintaining the status quo.

[ralf fan]

heres the link for the guys who havent caught up yet...

http://f1.racing-live.com/en/headlin...12172519.shtml

[ralf fan]

i think it will be very difficult.. however we said that last year about the PF rules and the reliabilty turned out to be better than ever!!

[Knowlesy]

You have to feel sorry for the people going to the races, as they'll only really see the cars running extensively on raceday.

[bumpsteer]

What is daft is the cost of F1 and the amount its going upi by. In five or six years time its going to implode because of the expense.

Knowlesy - perhaps they should be made to do a minimum number of laps on the Friday for them to qualify for Saturday without some kind of a penalty.

[gttouring]

well it may add confusion and stress to engineers and mechanics (are they being phased out? ha)
the races will go on as usual, if they really want to spice it up
they should go on one set of tyres the whole weekend.
lots of slipping and sliding and probably more overtaking, and more reliance on mechanical grip (suspension and chassis st-up) then hoping the tyres are sticky enough that would be exciting.

[KC]

My feelings exactly bumpsteer. For the money expended the show seems quit pale in comparison. Especially compared to the race action in touring cars and other "lesser" open wheel formula.

[BootsOntheSide]

One set of tyres is a fantastic idea, as long as you allow them to change if the weather changes, although it would give an advantage to teams with better long-range weather forecasts, as to whether to use more durable tyres if they expect heat.

At fast circuits the idea The Mosnter discussed might be consdiered, but a little engineering ingenuity would probably see the teams have comparable reliabiltiy to last season before long. A better apperoach would be to perfect the existing engine.

Also, what happens if the ultrafast engine survives qualifying but blows on lap 1 of the race? Isn't that a big risk for teams to take?

The changes in Parc Fermé rules didn't reduce reliability particularly, their main effect was in mixing up the grid and leading to more of a guessing game in working out what strategies people were on.

[Adam43]

Originally posted by KC
The only thing that this rule will damage are the mid-pack teams in F1. Any of the top teams and drivers can make up 10 positions in less than half the race. It might keep them from out and out winning, but it will hardly penalize a top team by making them 10th on the grid instead of on pole. The minnows are already in the back and won't make up too many spots anyway. However, the mid-pack teams will suffer the most. They will be at the back of the grid and it will take them longer and be more difficult for them to make up positions.

I'm unsure that the penalty will be worse for mid-field teams. Say Jaguar fall to the back they have to get past Minardi or Jordan? I don't see this any different from a Ferrari having to get past a Jaguar? Ten places is bad for someone who would be on pole because all the other Ferrari, Williams, McLarens adn Renaults will be ahead.

Also surely for anyone who qualifies in the eleventh or higher place they actually lose less than ten places. If Minardi change engines they probably won't lose any places!

Originally posted by KC
This was a way for the FIA to be seen making changes for the betterment of F1 while they are in fact maintaining the status quo.

(off topic) As for the FIA retaining the status quo? Well they are still allowing teams that do a better job get near the front of the grid. I do not see how this differs from any other series.

[Redblurr]

Don't like this at all - impact on track time and fans viewing [knowelsey]- do they risk engine to get that much needed setup? But as before q1 & q2 will probably be treated by the teams as part of the race

[BootsOntheSide]

Also worth remembering that the rule is a gentle introduction (for the teams) to the process of building long-life engines to last for more than 1 weekend - once that comes in, teams would be risking starting a string of races from no higher than 11th if they have unreliable engines. The long term significance could be pretty big.

[KC]

When I say the FIA is maintaining the status quo, I mean that the limits they impose really do not change anything. Does anyone think that Ferrari, McLaren and Williams will actually spend less money this year to remain at the front? Of course not. But limiting engines for the weekend forces the lesser teams to detune their equipment, where a team say Ferrari, whose reliability borders on legend, will give up very little. I don't necessarily blame Ferrari, they have worked hard to get themslves into this position. But, I do think that the top 3 teams wield enough power in F1 to force the lesser teams to agree to rules that do not necessarily help them or improve their chances of competing. That is the fault of the FIA for allowing this to happen.

The large teams will spend whatever they can get their hands on to keep themsleves where they are. This rule will do very little to encourage them to spend less. We have all seen MS, RB and even DC come from way back the grid to get on the podium. When the minnows and the mid-majors are all forced to operate with less power to keep reliability, they will be even easier to pass.

In fact, I think the teams will end up spending even more money to produce engines that make their current power and are reliable. They will have to just to try to keep the Ferrari in sight. While it might save money on producing engines, they will certainly spend more developing new materials and methods to make their engine designs last longer. The mid and low performance teams do not have access to this level of monetary commitment and it forces them further behind. Its not just a matter of the lesser teasm getting their act together, especially when the FIA's new rules will hamstring them.

[Adam43]

Oh yes agreed, it'll make no difference to what the top teams spend.

It may enable the lesser teams have to spend less, but not significantly. Maybe it has allowed the 'cheap' engines easier to achieve because the minnow teams (in theory) will need less actual engines per season.

I can't see it making much difference though.

[Hugh Jarce]

I actually agree with the one engine rule. IMO it would be good to race cars and not ever changed hybrids.

I think the Parc Ferme rule has been a good thing and the more that weekend tampering (and don't make a smutty remark about that) is cut out the better.

No doubt some team will come up with a new defintion of 'one' engine - probably Ferrari.

[Stevespurr]

If all the top teams where to produce a engine that will blow uo after a fast lap then you would be in the position of having all the front runners at the back of the grid and all the slow cars at the front. it would make for a intresting race.

[f1truestory]

Originally posted by Stevespurr
If all the top teams where to produce a engine that will blow uo after a fast lap then you would be in the position of having all the front runners at the back of the grid and all the slow cars at the front. it would make for a intresting race.

yes, but dont think it will happen tho althought i wanna see that too

[strad]

Surely they would have 30-40BHP advantage during the race if they did this?

I don't think they ae going to wind up losing anywhere near that much...at least from what the engine people have been saying...
As for starting ten spots back...Even with 30 more horsepower do you really think that say Juan would find it that easy to get by Ralf, Kimi, Rubens David and Michael, not to mention four others who seriously won't want to let him by?
Especially with the kind of driver tactics that have become so commonplace these days?

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by The Monster
Am I the only one to consider the new 1 engine rule to be a bit daft?

Whats stopping say BMW producing a qualifying engine that "blows up" having just taken pole position on its cooling down lap, then being put back 10 places on the grid, but then putting in a new powerful engine for the race, but being 10th on the grid?

Surely they would have 30-40BHP advantage during the race if they did this?

I don't see the advantage in this when they can qualify on the front row with their regular engine. Am I missing something in your line of reasoning here?

[Schummy]

If every team arrives to the conclusion that changing engine for race is the best strategy, then the grid will become exactly as without penalty, lol!

[Adam43]

I see another agreement between the teams! Minardi could be passified by a couple of million. Job done, nice try Max

[Kicking-back]

The one-engine rule is perfectly sensible. It's meant to be car racing, after all. Why should a new engine be needed every day?

[Valve Bounce]

While I can see that most engine suppliers will have some difficulty designing and building an engine that will meet the reliability requirements of this rule while balancing the requirements of [b[more power[/b], if all manufacturers have to satisfy these requirements, there will be a substantial saving in the long term because producing qualifying engines as well as engines that will barely last one race distance is extremely expensive. Furthemore, there was nothing to be gained by this over the serious team's competitors because they would all have to pour money into this bottomless pit only to see the advantage negated by similar efforts from the other manufacturers. It was a no-win situation.
Now, we see many cars doing an incredible number of laps during testing which often exceeds the race distance. The more reliable the cars are, the better the racing and the spectators and TV vieweers are the winners here as well as the teams.

I firmly support this rule.

[Gt_R]

What is to stop teams like Jordan or Minardi using old format engines? They know they'd qualify last anyways, dropping 10 places would have no impact on their qualifying slot, and they can just use the old engines (lighter with a bit more power - in theory at least) to gain some better results during the race...

And point 2, if a car got into a huge accident in practice, smashing the whole rear of the car into pieces, they would be forced to change car, and the engine is damaged (not due to reliability)...doesn't this affect the teams quite senselessly too?