Change Engine Rules...!

Formula One related discussion.

Are regulations too severe regarding engine failure?

Yes
4
57%
No
3
43%
 
Total votes: 7

User avatar
Stephen
Site Admin
Posts: 2195
Joined: 24 Sep 05, 12:47
Favourite Driver: Kimi Raikkonen
Favourite Team: McLaren

Change Engine Rules...!

Post by Stephen »

Although I didn't realise it at the time, DCs engine actually failed after the race in Bahrain. This failure drops him down 10 places on the grid at the next race in Malaysia, the same also applies to Villeneuve who blew his BMW engine during the race.

Surely this rule is a little overkill, failing to finish one race due to engine problems is bad enough, without punishing the driver further during the next, especially given that these V8s are a new edition this season.
Last edited by Stephen on 14 Mar 06, 13:13, edited 1 time in total.
simac
Posts: 173
Joined: 24 Jan 06, 19:48
Location: Wirral (UK)

Post by simac »

I read a couple of articles about this last night after our chat :( I can see DC's point that it harms the smaller teams more as they may qually in the mid field so it's automatically sent to the back :(
Marco
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Sep 05, 20:33
Location: In The Garden

Post by Marco »

It's an absurd rule. But I would only like to see that changed for Villeneuve, as he and team have already been punished.

Can the mods call a vote on this? Say, are regulations too severe regarding engine failure?
User avatar
Stephen
Site Admin
Posts: 2195
Joined: 24 Sep 05, 12:47
Favourite Driver: Kimi Raikkonen
Favourite Team: McLaren

Post by Stephen »

Poll added as per Marcos request, see top of page.
simac
Posts: 173
Joined: 24 Jan 06, 19:48
Location: Wirral (UK)

Post by simac »

A yes from me !
Marco
Posts: 509
Joined: 30 Sep 05, 20:33
Location: In The Garden

Post by Marco »

Who voted no? Come on, own up! :evil:
simac
Posts: 173
Joined: 24 Jan 06, 19:48
Location: Wirral (UK)

Post by simac »

IMO if your engine fails when in the middle of a GP you have already suffered enough.

Who said no LOL
User avatar
Freddie
Posts: 229
Joined: 25 Jan 06, 09:52
Location: Switzerland

Post by Freddie »

I also voted no - I think the rule is OK. engines must last two full race weekends - period ! Dont make a rule and add loopholes to it and I think the rule makes sense.

Actually, they should extend the rule to the entire season. I know that no engine could possibly last an entire season but then the teams could decide when they want to change engins at the cost of being moved 10 start places down. Look at Kimi - started from the back of the grid and still managed to finish 3rd. Would cause some exciting races and would also push the development of long-life engines and this way save cost
If google made $1 everytime someone used them to find an answer to a tech support question, they would own microsoft.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.racingpickers.com
simac
Posts: 173
Joined: 24 Jan 06, 19:48
Location: Wirral (UK)

Post by simac »

WTF ? ? I've just read that Fisi is changing his engine without recieving a penalty :shock:

Apparently he can do this because he did not retire from the race with engine failure unlike JV ? Surely then, DC should be able to do the same as Fisi because his engine didn't fail during the race, it failed on the warm down lap at the end.

I'm off to look for more reports to build up a picture, IMO if Fisi needs to change his engine before completing two GP's then he should also be demoted ten places.

It's rattled me this one !!!
User avatar
Stephen
Site Admin
Posts: 2195
Joined: 24 Sep 05, 12:47
Favourite Driver: Kimi Raikkonen
Favourite Team: McLaren

Post by Stephen »

I'll be interested to hear what you find Simac
simac
Posts: 173
Joined: 24 Jan 06, 19:48
Location: Wirral (UK)

Post by simac »

Here is the article I read, i'm still looking for more info but might not be able to have a proper search about until tonight, I don't agree with being able to change the engine when it hasn't failed, so long as the car didn't retire due to engine failure - again WTF ? ?


"Giancarlo Fisichella will have a fresh engine fitted for the Malaysian grand prix, but - unlike Jacques Villeneuve and David Coulthard - he will avoid slipping ten places down the race grid.

In a Renault race preview, the luckless 33-year-old Roman confirmed that his V8 problem in Bahrain - culminating in a loss of about fifty horse power and ultimately a total hydraulics failure - had necessitated a new engine.

But Fisichella, who turned the TV airwaves blue in a fit of live in-car radio frustration during a pit stop, added: 'We know that it was not a problem with the V8 itself.'

F1's rules allow that a fresh engine be fitted for the next event after a car retires - so long as the reason for retirement was not an engine failure itself.

Renault engine boss Denis Chevrier revealed that Fisichella's errant engine had been sent back to Viry (France) for analysis, even if a 'peripheral component' caused the fault"
User avatar
Selcouth_Feline
Posts: 1809
Joined: 26 Sep 05, 18:59
Location: Deepest, darkest Essex

Post by Selcouth_Feline »

simac wrote:In a Renault race preview, the luckless 33-year-old Roman confirmed that his V8 problem in Bahrain - culminating in a loss of about fifty horse power and ultimately a total hydraulics failure - had necessitated a new engine.


What does the hydraulics failure relate to? I don't know much about engines, so I wasn't aware that there were any hydraulics in an engine?
simac
Posts: 173
Joined: 24 Jan 06, 19:48
Location: Wirral (UK)

Post by simac »

In an F1 engine all of the "top end" is hydraulic eg: all the valve gear etc. This replaces cam shafts which F1 engines don't have, if traditional cam shafts were used the high rev's wouldn't be obtainable.

HTH !
User avatar
Freddie
Posts: 229
Joined: 25 Jan 06, 09:52
Location: Switzerland

Post by Freddie »

simac wrote:F1's rules allow that a fresh engine be fitted for the next event after a car retires - so long as the reason for retirement was not an engine failure itself.


Is that so ?

Very strange rule indeed ! Has anybody verified that this rule exist in this form ? What would be the reason for such a rule ?
If google made $1 everytime someone used them to find an answer to a tech support question, they would own microsoft.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.racingpickers.com
simac
Posts: 173
Joined: 24 Jan 06, 19:48
Location: Wirral (UK)

Post by simac »

I know, it sounds odd to me but is apparently the rule which Renault have used to change Fisi' engine.

I would like to know where DC standards because if you take it word for word he did not retire from the race with an engine failure, it expired after the chequered flag. With JV, fair enough I suppose as his engine failed during the race.

It just seems a bit unfair to me.