Raikkonen must get a penalty for engine change

Originally posted by kar


I agree on part one, but part 2 not so much.

Would it be fair then say Lewis Hamilton is pootling along in P1 and his engine blows up with 2 laps to go. He loses the race win thanks to the engine failure, but by freak of circumstance still classifies P7, by virtue of completing more laps than say those running in P8 and lower.

He should then have to take a 10place grid penalty at the next race? Is that fair that he loses both the race win and has to take a grid penalty all for the benefit of a paltry 2 points?

It's a nonsensical set of regulations that would allow that to happen, and so I think jcbc is completely wrong in his viewpoint.

Well, I guess it would be a choice between 2 points and a penalty or no points and no penalty. Which would be an odd state of affairs. Okay, I think having read yours and Dolph's posts I've changed my mind. And on a BB, no less. Who'd have thunk it?

I see your point too, kar. It has merits.

But the idea, and thus my question in regard to the intentions, behind the two race engine rule, was in fact to specifically made to discourage 'grenade' engines.

In your scenario it seems to be encouraged to make a grenade engine for the first race.

Raikkonen is definately not getting a penalty.

Because the lambda oxygen sensor and the temperature sensor were ripped off together with the exhaust pipe, only a limited amount of data was transferred to pits. The engineers said it was a miracle the engine kept going till the end of the race. On average the engine would have lost around 50 bhp.

Originally posted by osoul
http://www.autosport...rt.php/id/68581

It seems Kimi Raikkonen will have to change his engine for the next race. Bad luck, but penalty is deserved. Because this is NOT the first engine change for him this year. In Melbourne he scored a WDC point and was classified, but he had to change engine for the next race.

Melbourne he benefited from a loophole in the regs (was classified but retired), and didn't spend the free change.

This particular thing has zero to do with Ferrari bias.

Originally posted by osoul
penalty is deserved. Because this is NOT the first engine change for him this year. In Melbourne he scored a WDC point and was classified, but he had to change engine for the next race. [/B]

Read the rules. Oh, and Kimi would have taken more points in melbourne if he could have struggled to the chequered flag

He didnt make it -> no penalty.

Originally posted by Beyond
A lot of Hamilton-Raikkonen threads this year, and none of any interest

Originally posted by osoul


Oh, I get it.

Scoring point and changing freely engine, that's the rule for Ferrari.

You are not paying attention.

The rule was even posted so every one could see why there is no penalty, and why no one in the same situation would get a penalty.

It is so simple.

The rules cover this exact scenario, and there will be no penalty.

Yup, nothing to do with Kimi or Ferrari - purely yet another **** up on behalf on the FIA. They have a habit of it but you can't complain.

Originally posted by Dolph


It has always been so that if you retire but pass the 90% mark then you are classified. I say again, you have retired, but you are classified. This rule has been in force for ages. It does not seem silly for me nor did it seem silly for me the last 20 years following F1. A driver who retires usually before the end of the race will loose out for sure. So did Kimi. He only got one point instead of the many he would have gotten without the problem. He lost out already. Now you want him to loose out again because other drivers were so bad that they couldn't finish the race and he happened to score a point.

Good take.

I also would add, that an engine might have the need to be changed as a secondary issue. Let's say the suspension let's go, car slides into barriers, damaging the engine in the process. But the driver still might get points. Once they start to write up rules for every single possible and imaginary case like this, F1 is completely toast. In general more rules make anything event less enjoyable.

It's enough already that the rules hade to be written this way, that an engine change invokes a 10 position grid back penalty. The rule seems to me a big token of failure in itself. Teams could not agree to limit themselves to reduce the number of engines they were going to use. So the FiA 'helped' them to set a limit. And to make the rule enforceable they had to add some punishment. If there's no penalty then they'd change engines as before.

So the intent of the engine rule was to limit the number of engines getting used.

Now however it seems some fans want to abuse the rule to get even with the competition. That's abusing the rules.

Not really bothered, however, to say a kilo piece of sharp cracked inconel exhaust is not dangerous is a little silly.

I imagine if you fired that piece of exhaust at a front wishbone, or into someones visor it would break something. I cannot be sure on the weightm but it was a large piece of exhaust, the majority of the tailpipe and collector.

I do not really see the odds of it happening as high at all. As naturall a loose object its most likely to come off under lateral loads (as it did cornering), or braking, cornering when its under 4g. However it could fall off into the track, cause a crash, swerve, marshall running around etc. The chances of it making it to the spectators is 0%.

I don't care about whether it was important to call him in or not

Originally posted by Clatter


Never seen a slingshot then? Thats the effect that the strap could give considering it departed company on a corner and didnt just fall off.

I have seen a sling shot and I understand what your logic here is, but it does not work that way because for the pipe to get any "additional speed" from the "sling shot effect" the pipe would have to be hanging at least a meter off the side of the car. However, it was not, in fact, it was hanging out less than the outside wheels of the car, therefore, it was traveling slower than the outside wheels of the car and it would always be incorrect to state that the pipe would be traveling faster than the car.

What Ross is trying to tell you (and he is a bit confused here as to what you are saying) is that when the pipe departs from the car it immediately starts to slow down due to wind resistance.

Originally posted by Dolph


I have seen a sling shot and I understand what your logic here is, but it does not work that way because for the pipe to get any "additional speed" from the "sling shot effect" the pipe would have to be hanging at least a meter off the side of the car. However, it was not, in fact, it was hanging out less than the outside wheels of the car, therefore, it was traveling slower than the outside wheels of the car and it would always be incorrect to state that the pipe would be traveling faster than the car.

What Ross is trying to tell you (and he is a bit confused here as to what you are saying) is that when the pipe departs from the car it immediately starts to slow down due to wind resistance.

That's fair enough. My real point is that I fail to see how it could have been considered safe to leave the car out on track with the exhaust dangling in that manner. From the moment we first saw it flapping in the wind, it wasnt a case of if, but when it would depart the car, and at that point it could have gone just about anywhere. If it had fallen off backwards any car following could have had an impact in excess of 100mph. That could have done significant damage to a car, and who knows what if it was the drivers head.

Also consider Bruno Senna hitting a 'soft' dog in Turkey. Look what that did to his suspension. I can well imagine that a car hitting that tube on track would fare even worse.

I may be banging on about it, but it was seriously bad officiating.

Originally posted by Clatter


That's fair enough. My real point is that I fail to see how it could have been considered safe to leave the car out on track with the exhaust dangling in that manner. From the moment we first saw it flapping in the wind, it wasnt a case of if, but when it would depart the car, and at that point it could have gone just about anywhere. If it had fallen off backwards any car following could have had an impact in excess of 100mph. That could have done significant damage to a car, and who knows what if it was the drivers head.

It was also right over the exhaust outlet so who knows how hot it might be with the exhaust gasses heating it, and the ambient air cooling it. It would have been so very easy to simply remove it at the pitstop but they chose not to, this is what puzzles me the most.

Originally posted by jcbc3
Also consider Bruno Senna hitting a 'soft' dog in Turkey. Look what that did to his suspension. I can well imagine that a car hitting that tube on track would fare even worse.

As I said near the start of this thread, remember Gerhard Berger hitting a onboard camera that had fallen from another car at Monza 1995? Smashed suspension to pieces and Berger reckons he'd have been dead, no question, had it hit him.

Originally posted by ClubmanGT


Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but Jeson Button's Honda blew up before the line one year in Melbourne, and he parked it before the line but was also classified. What happened there?

The 2006 Melbourne GP race Review on Atlas.

Fisichella received a face full of oil, and did well not to lose control on the suddenly treacherous surface. He cruised past to take fifth while Button pulled up short of the line. Had he actually taken the chequered flag with the engine clearly failing, he would have had to take a 10 place penalty for Imola.

Button certainly didn't get a penalty for Imola, the race after, so the rules have not changed in the intervening period.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Im sorry, but once force is reduced on an object, it's not going to increase it's energy.

It may not increase its momentum. Objects don't have energy, just like loudspeakers don't have 100 watts...................................................................

This thread is inaccurately titled. It should be:

Raikkonen must get a penalty for engine change because Ferrari-haters say so

It would be an idea if people checked the rules occasionally; no penalty is applicable because a driver may change one engine a year without penalty, starting this season - QED.

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Have you been to an F1 track? You'd be disappointed at how far you have to sit from the cars.

Don't forget about the 15' fences

Originally posted by Clatter
... and possibly faster due to the slingshot effect.

Oh, I'd like to hear an explanation on that one!

Shrapnels travel at about 1500 m/s, so it is rather the wrong word for describing the situation (unless, of course, you tried to just use a big word that scares everybody instead of making an argument).

Just to add my two cents: I can hardly imagina that such a piece could do any harm to anybody. It's not that it's a several-kilo-piece like the camera that flew off Berger's car. Even if it hit a track marshall, it would have to be the eye to really do harm, but as these are usually far away, I don't see any risks there. A car's tyre flinging a pebble into the sky could be more dangerous.

Frankly, I doubt it could have smashed the visor of a driver's helmet behind Raikkonen. Pipes like that do not like to fly in a stable way and will tumble in the air, reducing their speed. Today's visors are certainly constructed in a way to prevent things like what happened to Helmut Marko, so they would withstand a tumbling exhaust pipe.

a.

Originally posted by osj
This thread is inaccurately titled. It should be:

Raikkonen must get a penalty for engine change because Ferrari-haters say so

Perhaps it should actually be:

Nobody can ever discuss whether Raikkonen must get a penalty for engine change because opinionated thugs say so

It doesn't matter whether to you it is obvious that the rules allow this, the BB isn't just for hard-core fans it's for everyone. It's enough to politely explain why the OP is wrong, or for people to discuss whether the application of the rules has changed or to discuss whether the rules ought to be changed to something else, surely?

I think this thread should gather opinions about change or not change Kimi´s engine for silverstone, as the unit ran in France is now "suspect". Should Ferrari keep this one or replace it? Should the team replace it and waste the advantage of a non-penalty change.

Personally I think it´s too early to waste it. A five point difference is nothing compared to what was Kimi's position last year at midseason. He could easily take a penalty, start Silverstone in 11th ou 12th and still fight for a podium finish.

Still ten races to go, even Kovalainen has some chances...

From page 14:

28.4 For the purposes of this Article and Article 28.6 only, an Event will be deemed to comprise P3, the qualifying practice session and the race.

a) Each driver may use no more than one engine for two consecutive Events in which his team
competes. Other than under f) below, should a driver use a replacement engine before the end of
the qualifying practice session he will drop ten places on the starting grid at that Event and an
additional ten places each time a further engine is used.
Unless the driver fails to finish the race (see below) the engine fitted to the car at the end of the
Event must remain in it until the end of the next Event . Any driver who failed to finish the race at the
first of the two Events for reasons which the technical delegate accepts as being beyond the control
of the team or driver, may start the second with a different engine without a penalty being incurred.
An engine will be deemed to have been used once the car’s timing transponder has shown that it
has left the pit lane.

c) Should a driver use a replacement engine after the qualifying practice session, he will be required to
start the relevant race from the back of the starting grid in accordance with Article 36.2c).

f) Except during the last Event of the Championship season, each driver will be permitted to use a replacement engine without incurring a penalty the first time this becomes necessary during the season.

They can't change the engine without any penalty unless they failed to finish the event. You can only get a free engine change without penalty if you didn't finish the race. If you have finished the race, the engine must remain until the end of the next event.

Originally posted by Buttoneer


Perhaps it should actually be:

Nobody can ever discuss whether Raikkonen must get a penalty for engine change because opinionated thugs say so

It doesn't matter whether to you it is obvious that the rules allow this, the BB isn't just for hard-core fans it's for everyone. It's enough to politely explain why the OP is wrong, or for people to discuss whether the application of the rules has changed or to discuss whether the rules ought to be changed to something else, surely?

The applicable rules have already been cited, reproduced and cited in this thread. But some people either can't or won't understand.