Maybe they anticipated and resolved any issues before they occured. Nowadays you don't actually wait for your engine to go kaboom before implementing 'fixes'...What do you think they have data loggers for?

Obviously Renault, Toyota, likely Honda too, took the rules as being the rules. Whereas the others typically seak ways around them. How farcical is it that Costa can say but you are allowed to change components for reliability reasons and also, if you demonstrate that you are implementing a more economic, a cheaper component, you can also ask permission. That is down right cheating - because if you spend R&D on finding parts that make you faster that are cheaper to manufacture, you are cheating. The cost of the R&D needs to be included to realise the actual cost of a componant.

The FIA should remove the lower cost parts that have been introduced, and test the engines with the more expensive parts. If the more expensive parts provide a less powerful engine, then those parts should not be allowed. And the team that cheated should face penalties for false publication about cost and what were in fact gains made to increase power.

Did you read this?



What does that mean to you? I know what it means to me. To me, it means you are whining about BS.

I think that fundamentally, MP is right.. it goes against the original spirit of the rule to have significant r&d on engine parts if the purpose is to get a new cheaper part in order to 'unfreeze' your engine for a moment...

If thats whats happening, I'd like an explanation on how much money is being saved, since thats the basis for 'unfreezing' the engine... (and the basis for getting it frozen in the first place)

If you combine the quotes from Vasselon and Ramph it makes for an iffy situation.. classic FIA thin ice.. yes the process is transparent, but what does it tell us? lol..

there is no reason engine specification delivered in 2006 are prone to unreliabillity...
and what is wrong if engine goes boom from time to time...actually this is what I miss in F1 atm



and I doubt FIA has resource or staff and knowledge to decide what is for reliabillity and what for
performance...and I do not know how one team could evaluate performance of the other team engine updates...

I mean how this whole procedure looks like?



now for the first time I hear You can have R&D trying to find out cheaper component

basically as mp stated,You invest money to save money ..and let see how much we are talking about?

Theissen on engine gains: ''Since we've been developing fuels and lubricants for ten years the scope to improve is very small.''

Since the engines have been homologated BMW Sauber hasn only found ''less than 10 bhp'', work on the exhaust pipes excluded.

''All the engines in the field would lay apart by 20 bhp or less.''

The BMW Sauber teamboss thinks it's nonsense Ferrari would have found more than 25 bhp at once: ''That's impossible. If one would try to find an extra three to five bhp it would cost a major effort without having the certainty of actually obtaining the aim. The margin to play is so small that you better invest your money elsewhere.''

In 2007 the regulations on the homologation were less severe than this year. ''In the first year you were allowed to do more than now. So you can no longer make up in case you've missed out on that opportunity.''

Well it wouldn't be the first time Briatore has been guilty of talking off the top of his head...

oh, I think you aiming about 3 feet too high

You have a point!

some of the teams have commented that they do not know if the parts were for more reliability reasons or not. Sinc ethey did not know, they said OK.

As to Ferrari, were their changes much more reliable? Massa might not think so.

There should not be engine development anymore - but its going on. And the excuse is for more reliability or to reduce costs. The reducing costs excuse is ridiculous. Having multi-million dollar R&D programs to lower the production cost of low production rate hand made job shop F1 engine program is bullshit.

The only way to ensure the teams are not cheating, is to lock the engine power in. So dyno them and compare them to the homologated engines. If the revised engine has improved its power, then the changes allowed should be changed again, to bring the motor back to its homologated performance. Development is not OK with a homologated motor. Its cheating to to improve power or torque characteristics by changing the homologated engine parts.

An over simplification. What engine map? what airbox? What temp? What humidity? what radiator set up?....just some of the variables that change from race to race/track to track and none of them related to any part change on the engine. There is simply no way to do what you want done. The engineers could mask anything they want with the maps with or without the ECU as that just detects traction control feedback. Besides, the rules don't say that no performance advantage can be had from reliability changes.

This rule is, of course, BS and there was no reason for it. Nothing will hold down costs. The more you regulate, the more is spent for smaller gains were there is wiggle room in the rules. It is always that way in spec series. In a series I ran that was supposed to have completely stock engines, the rich guys would buy 30-40 engines, and dyno the blocks, flow the carbs to see which where the best from the factory and then sell the rest at a reduced price to everyone else that did not have as much money. This ment not only did they have the best engines but that everyone else had worse ones....not really cheaper or more fair is it?

As the engine was checked, pronounced legal, why is this thread still running.

Because too many people hate LH....to an irrational level.

I much agree.

I don't agree though about "the rules don't say". The intent of homologation is to stop development. The rest is how the FIA administers that intent. The fact is that the FIA does a poor job at it, if one believes Toyota, Honda and Renault statements on this issue.

It does not help that the FIA one one hand, introduced homologated engines, which should have greatly reduced engine staff numbers, but on the other hand, they have introduced KERS which increases costs by 50 million or more Euro, and introduces all sorts of engine and control issues. And then the V8 engines are also going to be changed for another format, much sooner than originally promised. Hence the teams have the issue of having to expensively lay-off compatriots, and then re-employ the same skill sets because the FIA change their minds again. So some F1 teams have retained engine staff, its no wonder they are fiddling with the rules because they have slack time with those resources. Such resources will be needed though, with KERS an ongoing high expenditure item, as will be the change in power issues since F1 is now heading to 50% more efficiency.

I understand much of the issues - but I do not condone developing homologated parts to increase horsepower. And we know - and knew last year - that the current engines cannot run at full revs for two races. That means that reliability is directly proportional to horsepower, and more use of 19k revs means more power.

The rest - local issues, ECU etc., although real (and then the exhaust etc too) are really all excuses. If the administration was adequate, they would run the show so that no one was duped. The administration have the power to simply reject such changes. But that is not the way things are run.

The lower cost excuse is utter bullshit. And the reliability excuse should have a major case that not only proves unreliability, but proves that the engine will not run at higher revs and therefor will not improve performance. And that the changes will not improve cooling characteristics either. The onus should be 100% on the team to prove that performance is not improved, with a later discovery that performance was improved to result in total disqualification. Any improvement to performance by means of a homologated part change means the engine is not following the basic and obvious principle of homologation. Engine revs mean power - you cannot think that reliability changes do not improve performance.

If the FIA was serious, they'd insist that all engines are within 1% of eachother. That was the intent of the rule - the FIA should have put the intent of the rule into such a form, that the rule guaranteed what they wanted. The engines have a minimum weight and a CofG point - the same should be for horsepower and torque. With KERS having a power maximum and KERS measuring the power output, the same tech should be used for the total power going down.

Of course, the FIA's proclamations about controlling cost is also bulldust.

case closed? next engine to be inspected is .................

Massa's launch control???

The FIA checked 63 parameters on Hamilton his car at Hungary, further checks will be carried out during the upcoming GPs.

I assume you've pulled this from a report written by some mischeivous anti-Ham journo, they could equally have written this -


The source for this is the FIA scrutineering report, you could have re-written it for anyone.

FIA Scrutineering Report Germany (Hungary link didn't work)

Specifically Hamiltons car or each and every other car on the grid?

Coz should it be the latter then obviously something is up with Hamiltons MacLaren..

Every car gets checked, See paffett4F1's post above...
It's a bit of a scaremoungoring report...

Yes. Cars are scrutineered and checked at every race, it's completely routine.

When do we get the next "random" engine inspection?

it seems they will have to get on with it if they are going to get this out of the way before the end of the season.

Yes I know that. But why was Hamiltons car mentioned specifically especially after his back to back wins at Silverstone and in Germany on the back of rumours about some engines being more equal than others?

Alonso blackmailed him, isn't that obvious?

Ha ha ha very funny as65p