Javascript Disabled Detected

You currently have javascript disabled. Several functions may not work. Please re-enable javascript to access full functionality.

Engine Rule update

Started by jokuvaan , Mar 15 2005 22:03

Please log in to reply

56 replies to this topic

#1 jokuvaan

Member

4,091 posts
Joined: February 05

Posted 15 March 2005 - 22:03

According to Turun Sanomat, Charlie send a correction letter to all teams about engines.

No more BAR style action allowed!

What this means? Yes, self-destruction buttons.... Then we wait that Charlie will deny those, then Charlie will deny high engine reving, and then.... :rotfl:

#2 eoin

Member

5,015 posts
Joined: April 01

Posted 15 March 2005 - 22:18

A step in the right direction.

If a team blows an engine it will have negative PR, and cost the teams more money to rebuild the engine.

#3 milliepuppy

Member

166 posts
Joined: April 03

Posted 16 March 2005 - 00:24

.. so will they have to prove engine faliure .. are the electronics etc. considered part of the engine ??? ... i still think the rule is very badly worded.

#4 Pioneer

Member

1,627 posts
Joined: January 01

Posted 16 March 2005 - 00:27

Should be trivial to blow an engine on purpose.... just push a button that removes the rev limiter, then stomp on it till the magic smoke comes out.

#5 Bluesmoke

Member

880 posts
Joined: July 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 00:37

If Max Mosely played Poker, he'd go "all in" with a 7-2 hand. :rolleyes:

How he's still running the FIA is beyond me.

#6 Mox

Member

3,234 posts
Joined: February 03

Posted 16 March 2005 - 00:54

Originally posted by Bluesmoke
If Max Mosely played Poker, he'd go "all in" with a 7-2 hand.

How he's still running the FIA is beyond me.

Still ... he has managed to make everybody else at the table fold so far.

#7 Ricardo F1

Member

61,032 posts
Joined: August 99

Posted 16 March 2005 - 00:54

I'm surprised at this ; I figured they'd at least wait until this weekend is over to see if it gives them any material advantage. BAR still have to run the Malaysia engine again in two weeks so they'll be at a disadvantage (if there is any) at that point.

#8 Ricardo F1

Member

61,032 posts
Joined: August 99

Posted 16 March 2005 - 00:55

Originally posted by Mox

Still ... he has managed to make everybody else at the table fold so far.

Well he's in Bernie's back pocket. . .

#9 blkirk

Member

319 posts
Joined: March 00

Posted 16 March 2005 - 00:58

You know, this whole can of worms was originally opened to keep teams from using special qualifying engines. So why not make it apply to just that.

Let the teams practice with whatever engines they want. Blow up as many engines as you want during practice. Use the engine from the last race. Use a special practice only engine that has been specially aged to mirror the expected race performance. Hell, let them run a quad-turbo v-16 in practice.

Just as long as the driver races with the same engine he used in qualifying. Then we might at least see some teams putting in some laps during practice.

#10 mark f1

Member

4,385 posts
Joined: February 00

Posted 16 March 2005 - 01:13

Don't need to blow the engines, just add the button that ejects white smoke out the back, ala James Bond. :lol:

#11 TailHappy

Member

2,744 posts
Joined: November 00

Posted 16 March 2005 - 02:51

Originally posted by jokuvaan
What this means? Yes, self-destruction buttoms....

Do you mean buttons? Or Bottoms? Or is a buttom some sort of button that self destructs your bottom? After living with my mrs for so long I can tell you that self destructing bottoms aren't all ther're cracked up to be.

#12 boyRacer

Member

650 posts
Joined: September 03

Posted 16 March 2005 - 02:55

Do they even have to blow engines? I thought that as long as they don't finish the race then it's ok to change engines the next race?

#13 TailHappy

Member

2,744 posts
Joined: November 00

Posted 16 March 2005 - 02:59

Originally posted by boyRacer
Do they even have to blow engines? I thought that as long as they don't finish the race then it's ok to change engines the next race?

Ummm the whole point of the first post (ie this thread) was to announce that this is exactly what would not be allowed in the future. So, if that is true, blowing your engine (or appearing to have done so) would be the next easiest way get around the rule.

#14 J2NH

Member

1,938 posts
Joined: March 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 03:41

Stupid man makes stupid rules.

This is absurd. The two engine rule was ill conceived and poorly implemented. Fans will be cheated on Friday when very few venture onto the track while testing on deserted tracks rolls on. Please tell me again why this is happening? To save money? To curb runaway F1 populartiy? To increase fan frustration and drive them to F1 BB's?

#15 Melbourne Park

Member

22,921 posts
Joined: October 00

Posted 16 March 2005 - 04:10

Oh well, it makes sence. As a Toyota engine guy said:

"We fully accept the spirit and intention of the 2005 engine regulation and we believe that if we are to challenge for points regularly, we must finish the race and that means having an engine to last two races."

They've just clarified the regulation, so now I guess one has to prove your engine has suffered some damage to change it ... maybe running onto the dirt on the last lap?? Still, if teams do this sort of thing often, it will be pretty obvious, and they'll suffer penalties.

#16 random

Member

4,890 posts
Joined: December 00

Posted 16 March 2005 - 04:11

Originally posted by mark f1
Don't need to blow the engines, just add the button that ejects white smoke out the back, ala James Bond.

The teams won't even need to blow an engine. They can follow the exact procedure BAR used in Australia, with one minor caveat. They'll have to show the FIA a tiny bit of damage inside the engine. A bit of scarring on the cylinder walls or a chipped piston would certainly be enough to justify a new motor. And minor damage like that would be simple for the teams to cause.

The engine manufacturer wouldn't even need to suffer any embarrassment. As a team could claim the transmission or some other component caused the engine damage.

Under the current rules, this loophole cannot be plugged. But that's ok, because the FIA isn't making this change to plug the loophole. The only purpose of this change is to alter a public perception that the teams pulling a fast one on the FIA. Obvious loopholes like this make the FIA look silly, and Mad Max hates to be made the fool.

So the FIA is forcing the teams slightly disguise their abuse of this poorly thought out rule. A charade designed to give the FIA a bit of plausible deniability.

#17 SB

Member

2,438 posts
Joined: August 99

Posted 16 March 2005 - 09:02

Originally posted by jokuvaan
According to Turun Sanomat, Charlie send a correction letter to all teams about engines.

No more BAR style action allowed!

What this means? Yes, self-destruction buttoms.... Then we wait that Charlie will deny those, then Charlie will deny high engine reving, and then....

So what action / activities is now banned exactly? Any further explaination (or web sourse) please ?

#18 Gilles4Ever

RC Forum Admin

24,873 posts
Joined: June 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 09:22

Originally posted by SB

So what action / activities is now banned exactly? Any further explaination (or web sourse) please ?

http://www.f1racing....hp?newsID=79839

"As the clarification came post-Melbourne, it is not believed Jenson Button or Takuma Sato would be penalised for running a fresh engine in Malaysia."

http://www.planet-f1...ory_18881.shtml

"Jenson Button and Takuma Sato could be docked ten places on the Malaysian GP grid if BAR goes ahead with its plans to race with new Honda engines in round two of the Championship."

Edit: "“A distinction will now be made between failing to finish and choosing not to finish,” an FIA statement said."

Edit again: http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/15582/.html

#19 indian

Member

1,194 posts
Joined: June 03

Posted 16 March 2005 - 09:48

The rule still doesn't ban "choosing not to finish".

Teams that are out of points can still choose to retire their cars, in order to conserve them for the next race weekend. Even if they can't change the engine.

#20 Gilles4Ever

RC Forum Admin

24,873 posts
Joined: June 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 09:49

Originally posted by indian
The rule still doesn't ban "choosing not to finish".

Teams that are out of points can still choose to retire their cars, in order to conserve them for the next race weekend. Even if they can't change the engine.

And the benefit of that is . . .?

#21 indian

Member

1,194 posts
Joined: June 03

Posted 16 March 2005 - 09:56

As I said conserve the car for the next race. Less laps done on the engine than the opposition. I'm not sure if that will make a big difference, but the possibility still exists.

#22 zac510

Member

1,713 posts
Joined: January 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 10:46

Originally posted by Pioneer
Should be trivial to blow an engine on purpose.... just push a button that removes the rev limiter, then stomp on it till the magic smoke comes out.

That would be funny. I wouldn't be surprised if an F1 engine lasted for at least 5 minutes with no rev limiter. They're still pretty tough engines, especially this year. You'd have to introduce some kind of lean fuel/over advanced ignition state to turn the bearings and rings into mush which would not at all be impossible.

#23 Orin

Member

8,444 posts
Joined: October 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 10:52

True indian, though as random points out, the change is probably intended to prevent blatant manipulation of the engine rule - I doubt the FIA will be too bothered what the teams get up to, as long as they don't make the FIA look silly. I do like the idea of a smoke device fitted to the cars :lol:

#24 Group B

Member

14,507 posts
Joined: March 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 10:56

Originally posted by zac510

That would be funny. I wouldn't be surprised if an F1 engine lasted for at least 5 minutes with no rev limiter.....

That creates visions of several drivers parked up beside the road on neutral with their foot on the floor; the director will be switching around to see who blows first :rotfl:

#25 indian

Member

1,194 posts
Joined: June 03

Posted 16 March 2005 - 10:58

If a team finds a problem with the car during the race (which could maybe cause an accident) and decides to call the car in, would it be classified as "failing to finish" or "choosing not to finish"?

#26 metz

Member

15,896 posts
Joined: July 01

Posted 16 March 2005 - 11:14

My understanding is that you could just park it in the dirt.
One could have an electrical problem, transmission, etc.
The rule says if you don't finish you can have a new engine.
The patch to fix the loophole will be up to interpretation. Unenforcable.

The only way to fix the mess is "anyone that fails to complete a race, for whatever reason, gets put back 10 slots on the next grid". (I know it wouldn't make NH happy)
We would see a lot more engines last.

What a joke... :mad:

#27 benrapp

Member

1,559 posts
Joined: April 01

Posted 16 March 2005 - 11:31

Other series simply limit the number of engines used during a season, rather than making a specification of two races in a row. This limit includes blow-ups, and so is an incentive to build properly reliable powerplants. It also introduces an additional element of strategy - e.g. save up at least one new engine to use for Monaco qualifying - which I think would be interesting provided the number of engines was low enough. I guess it would be 10 engines to match the current regs (given an odd number of races, which means that everyone will in principle have a new engine for the season finale).

There are so many holes in the current F1 rule that it is entirely useless. After all, it's acceptable (or it was) to shut off an engine before catastrophic failure if the telemetry indicates a problem, so all you actually need is for the telemetry to show falling oil pressure. Even if the teams choose not to doctor the telemetry, it wouldn't be difficult to give the driver a means of reducing oil pressure -- or you could close off a radiator return pipe and show rising temperatures instead.

#28 tifosi

Member

22,870 posts
Joined: June 99

Posted 16 March 2005 - 11:39

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever

And the benefit of that is . . .?

A few less kms on the engine.

#29 Tomecek

Member

6,138 posts
Joined: June 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 11:49

FIA's clarification is clear proof that they have the situation more and more out of control...

#30 Tomecek

Member

6,138 posts
Joined: June 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 11:49

Originally posted by eoin
A step in the right direction.

If a team blows an engine it will have negative PR, and cost the teams more money to rebuild the engine.

Which is not up to FIA to handle this

#31 Tomecek

Member

6,138 posts
Joined: June 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 11:55

Originally posted by milliepuppy
.. so will they have to prove engine faliure .. are the electronics etc. considered part of the engine ??? ... i still think the rule is very badly worded.

Absolutely, BAR can easily say 'from safety reasons we decided to retire both drivers' - proof they are wrong.

#32 Tomecek

Member

6,138 posts
Joined: June 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 11:56

Originally posted by boyRacer
Do they even have to blow engines? I thought that as long as they don't finish the race then it's ok to change engines the next race?

Correct, one kerb hit a la Montoya is enough!;)

#33 djellison

Member

1,726 posts
Joined: September 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 12:04

You know the old gag about Windows XP (Updated for WinXP 64)

64 Bit Patch for 32 bit extensions on a 16 bit graphical shell for an 8 bit operating system written in 4 bit code by a 2 bit company that wont stand 1 bit of competition.

Well this - is a half-arsed fix for a half-arsed rule by a half-arsed man in a half arsed attempt to save money in a misplaced, half-arsed way.

Doug

#34 parkiw

Member

96 posts
Joined: July 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 12:23

Well this - is a half-arsed fix for a half-arsed rule by a half-arsed man in a half arsed attempt to save money in a misplaced, half-arsed way.

Yet Max is making a complete arse of himself, no half-arses needed

#35 Gabbiano

Member

645 posts
Joined: February 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 13:11

Originally posted by mark f1
Don't need to blow the engines, just add the button that ejects white smoke out the back, ala James Bond.

I bet that is exactly what they do too...

#36 logic

Member

3,636 posts
Joined: May 01

Posted 16 March 2005 - 13:12

I think everyone out of points should be allowed new engine.

#37 logic

Member

3,636 posts
Joined: May 01

Posted 16 March 2005 - 13:14

I think winner should always use same engine in the next race too. Or podium finishers should not be allowed to change engine. This would lead to some very interesting tictacs :lol:

#38 jj2728

Member

2,966 posts
Joined: January 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 13:51

Originally posted by Bluesmoke
If Max Mosely played Poker, he'd go "all in" with a 7-2 hand.

How he's still running the FIA is beyond me.

quite simple actually...you have a village idiot running the insane asylum..

#39 Al.

Member

1,449 posts
Joined: June 01

Posted 16 March 2005 - 14:10

I just can't wait to see them try to enforce this across 6 race weekends :rotfl:

which I believe is the long term goal of Max

#40 Amir_S

Member

1,566 posts
Joined: February 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 17:05

Originally posted by Bluesmoke
If Max Mosely played Poker, he'd go "all in" with a 7-2 hand.

How he's still running the FIA is beyond me.

very well said :lol:

#41 UStifosi

Member

70 posts
Joined: December 00

Posted 16 March 2005 - 17:36

Each car should have two lights on the side of the car, like ALMS. Only in this case the number of lights lit would indicate the number of races the engine has on it. One light for Race 1 and Two lights for Race Two. You know, to make it all more fan friendly. I'm surprised Max hasn't thought of it yet.

#42 Timstr11

Member

11,162 posts
Joined: May 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 17:49

Originally posted by Gilles4Ever

http://www.f1racing....hp?newsID=79839

"As the clarification came post-Melbourne, it is not believed Jenson Button or Takuma Sato would be penalised for running a fresh engine in Malaysia."

http://www.planet-f1...ory_18881.shtml

"Jenson Button and Takuma Sato could be docked ten places on the Malaysian GP grid if BAR goes ahead with its plans to race with new Honda engines in round two of the Championship."

Edit: "“A distinction will now be made between failing to finish and choosing not to finish,” an FIA statement said."

Edit again: http://www.atlasf1.c.../id/15582/.html

That BAR will be penalised at Sepang is a fabrication of the journos I think. The clarification was issued AFTER BAR chose to retire there cars based on the rule before the clarification.

#43 J2NH

Member

1,938 posts
Joined: March 02

Posted 16 March 2005 - 17:57

I want an intense practice session(s) on Friday.
I want an all out qualifying session on Saturday where the fastest man in the fastest car is on the pole.
I want a flag to flag race on Sunday where no one is concerned about conserving anything.

I need to find a new sport to watch.

#44 Q-8

Member

38 posts
Joined: May 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 19:03

This two race engine rule has exposed the arbitrary nature of FIA’s rulemaking system in the most blatant way. It is ironic that in a time of such great potential, F1 is saddled with incompetence and divisive politics at the hands of its two elder statesmen. Both Max and Bernie have proven that they no longer possess the safe hands F1 desperately needs yet they continue to hold all the cards. Apart from the engine rule problems evidence is emerging that the new aerodynamic rules may be influencing the handling characteristics of the cars to a much greater extent when in the slip stream. The of course makes overtaking more difficult.

#45 HONDA FANATIC

Member

577 posts
Joined: September 03

Posted 16 March 2005 - 19:34

wtf is wrong with FIA. fans want to see racing and manufacturers want to take technology to another level, but max is thinking of inventing wheel again. Max-****

#46 DEVO

Member

2,637 posts
Joined: November 99

Posted 16 March 2005 - 19:37

what's to prevent drivers from spinning out on purpose and ending up in a gravel trap? without causing damage to the car or engine? MS spunout (but keep car on road) on purpose last year during Q1 because of pending rain for Q2.

#47 Cadence

Member

19,284 posts
Joined: October 03

Posted 16 March 2005 - 19:48

Originally posted by UStifosi
Each car should have two lights on the side of the car, like ALMS. Only in this case the number of lights lit would indicate the number of races the engine has on it. One light for Race 1 and Two lights for Race Two. You know, to make it all more fan friendly. I'm surprised Max hasn't thought of it yet.

Did you work for FOX when they had the NHL TV rights?

#48 pippin

Member

741 posts
Joined: January 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 20:50

Well I personally think its all totally crackers. I mean F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport. I reckon if a group of us true F1 fans sat down together we could come up with a better set of rules than those lot in charge. Max and the rest of them have lost the plot. You couldn't make it up could you? its better than any soap opera I watch thats for sure.

What is happening is like putting a sticking plaster over a gaping wound. So many rule changes, probably lots more 'loopholes' we aren't aware of, that's what happens when rules are changed right, left and centre without being properly thought through.

#49 Tolyngee

Member

1,352 posts
Joined: April 04

Posted 16 March 2005 - 20:59

Originally posted by random

A bit of scarring on the cylinder walls or a chipped piston would certainly be enough to justify a new motor. And minor damage like that would be simple for the teams to cause.

Or maybe it would only justify a new piston?

#50 Mila

Member

8,564 posts
Joined: December 99

Posted 17 March 2005 - 01:24

Originally posted by DEVO
what's to prevent drivers from spinning out on purpose and ending up in a gravel trap? without causing damage to the car or engine? MS spunout (but keep car on road) on purpose last year during Q1 because of pending rain for Q2.

bingo. and now with the FIA "clarification," this is unwittingly encouraged.

Back to Racing Comments Archive

Quick Navigation

Engine Rule update

#1 jokuvaan

#2 eoin

#3 milliepuppy

#4 Pioneer

#5 Bluesmoke

#6 Mox

#7 Ricardo F1

#8 Ricardo F1

#9 blkirk

#10 mark f1

#11 TailHappy

#12 boyRacer

#13 TailHappy

#14 J2NH

#15 Melbourne Park

#16 random

#17 SB

#18 Gilles4Ever

#19 indian

#20 Gilles4Ever

#21 indian

#22 zac510

#23 Orin

#24 Group B

#25 indian

#26 metz

#27 benrapp

#28 tifosi

#29 Tomecek

#30 Tomecek

#31 Tomecek

#32 Tomecek

#33 djellison

#34 parkiw

#35 Gabbiano

#36 logic

#37 logic

#38 jj2728

#39 Al.

#40 Amir_S

#41 UStifosi

#42 Timstr11

#43 J2NH

#44 Q-8

#45 HONDA FANATIC

#46 DEVO

#47 Cadence

#48 pippin

#49 Tolyngee

#50 Mila

Sign In