Opinions on the engine-replacement penalty?
Discussion
Just curious about PHers' opinions:
Now that we're about halfway through the F1 season, what do people think about the results of Heil Mosley's diktat that an engine replacement within the two-race closed period shall cost car and driver ten places on the starting grid?
On the one hand, for the last two races it precluded any chance for Raikkonen to compete directly against Alonso. That was a pity, as they've dominated the season so far.
On the other hand, in both cases we got to see Raik. make his way through the field, overtaking eleven cars and then nine, and that was fairly interesting (relative to the typical F1 snooze-fest).
It has recently been suggested that an engine replacement penalty should not affect the driver's position because an engine failure is outside of his control. Rather, so this thinking seems to go, the penalty should be applied to the constructor, perhaps by docking points in the Constructors' Championship.
That might make for better racing, although it isn't consistent with the rest of the sport - regardless of the rule, one's starting position and indeed one's finishing position will always be massively influenced by the state of one's car.
I think that most of us would agree that the two-race-engine rule itself is another perverse attempt by Mosley to bring the teams to heel, but, if we're forced to have the rule, what should the penalty be?
Now that we're about halfway through the F1 season, what do people think about the results of Heil Mosley's diktat that an engine replacement within the two-race closed period shall cost car and driver ten places on the starting grid?
On the one hand, for the last two races it precluded any chance for Raikkonen to compete directly against Alonso. That was a pity, as they've dominated the season so far.
On the other hand, in both cases we got to see Raik. make his way through the field, overtaking eleven cars and then nine, and that was fairly interesting (relative to the typical F1 snooze-fest).
It has recently been suggested that an engine replacement penalty should not affect the driver's position because an engine failure is outside of his control. Rather, so this thinking seems to go, the penalty should be applied to the constructor, perhaps by docking points in the Constructors' Championship.
That might make for better racing, although it isn't consistent with the rest of the sport - regardless of the rule, one's starting position and indeed one's finishing position will always be massively influenced by the state of one's car.
I think that most of us would agree that the two-race-engine rule itself is another perverse attempt by Mosley to bring the teams to heel, but, if we're forced to have the rule, what should the penalty be?
Like all of these rules, the rationale for it was to save costs. Has it been successful in this area? No engine manufacturer has gone public to say that it has saved them costs, but I think it was Toyota who admitted that this approach had allowed them the spare capacity to supply another team.
The move to V8s is to reduce power, I believe, but again, how long before the power levels are up to those of V10s?....and the cost of developing these new engines must be more than that involved in keeping the existing engines but capping their power via ECUs and/or air intake restrictors.
So on one hand Max wants to save costs with long life engines, but on the other he forces through a major change in engine specification which in my view should have been postponed until the new Concorde Agreement is agreed.
For some teams (eg Williams) the Constructor's Championship is more important than the Driver's. If the team were penalised for an engine failure but not the driver, what's the betting that a mid grid team with a works engine deal might go all out on one driver to win by supplying him with a grenade spec engine? The FIA could impose a maximum acceptable number of engine failures I guess, but would that be per driver?
So in short I cannot see a better way of dealing with an engine failure than that which the FIA currently imposes.
The move to V8s is to reduce power, I believe, but again, how long before the power levels are up to those of V10s?....and the cost of developing these new engines must be more than that involved in keeping the existing engines but capping their power via ECUs and/or air intake restrictors.
So on one hand Max wants to save costs with long life engines, but on the other he forces through a major change in engine specification which in my view should have been postponed until the new Concorde Agreement is agreed.
For some teams (eg Williams) the Constructor's Championship is more important than the Driver's. If the team were penalised for an engine failure but not the driver, what's the betting that a mid grid team with a works engine deal might go all out on one driver to win by supplying him with a grenade spec engine? The FIA could impose a maximum acceptable number of engine failures I guess, but would that be per driver?
So in short I cannot see a better way of dealing with an engine failure than that which the FIA currently imposes.
Trouble is that if you introduce a two race engine rule then you have to have a penalty for engine replacement otherwise a team just claims an engine failure and fits a fresh one.
I agree though that this has robbed the races of some potentially good battles. A drivers championship is now more dependent on hardware than ever before, be that tyres, engine, aero.
I agree though that this has robbed the races of some potentially good battles. A drivers championship is now more dependent on hardware than ever before, be that tyres, engine, aero.
I was always confused by the claim that reducing the number of engines used would significantly reduce costs, surely the vast majority of the engine cost is spent on design and development? Once the engine has been designed and the tooling for manufacture is in place then the incremental cost of producing extra engines must be negligible. The cost of developing two-race engines must have been enormous, and the cost of moving to V8's is ridiculous. However, having agreed that an engine must last two races then the penalty for failure has to be draconian otherwise teams will run multiple engines per race and accept a lesser punishment as an acceptable cost. Alternative penalties such as points deductions will not discourage some teams from running multiple engines as the increased chances of a win will be worth the price paid.
Personally, I don't much care how high the cost of F1 is. F1 should be the technological pinnacle of motorsport - Turbo's, ground effect, active suspension, all good in my book. The only problem would be developing drivers that could cope with the g-forces!
Personally, I don't much care how high the cost of F1 is. F1 should be the technological pinnacle of motorsport - Turbo's, ground effect, active suspension, all good in my book. The only problem would be developing drivers that could cope with the g-forces!
rubystone said:That was Herr Mosley's excuse, but only because according to the Concorde Agreement a unanimous agreement by the teams is required for any technical changes. The one exception to that is that the FIA may intercede and impose its own rules for the sake of safety.
I think that the main reason for having engines last 2 races was to put the brakes on bhp rather than saving production costs
Whenever Oswald Junior thinks that he is smarter than such dimwits as Frank Williams and Ron Dennis, and that only by imposing his will on those poor pitiable fools can he save the sport from itself, he declares that the FIA is requiring such-and-such in the interests of safety, and that's the end of it.
Mosley has decided that the teams are not intelligent enough to appreciate how much money they ought to be spending. A little birdie told him that they would save by using a single engine for two races, so he decreed that rule, but did so under the pretext of safety.
Has the two race rule actually saved the teams significant money? I wonder at how much extra R&D costs are now being spent developing engines that will last two whole weekends?
As for the impact on the racing, well it's just another one of those "it doesn't make much sense" rules which seem to occupy the F1 rulebook these days, added to stuff like :
- Grooved tyres (aren't they still so crap?)
- Banning tyre changes, except when the tyre has basically exploded, and assuming the driver isn't put in hospital by the accidents which result
- Mandatory refuelling (wwhich was banned back in the dumb ol' 1980s because they caused fires... oh sorry - pit fires are good for ratings in 2005!)
- Nothing other than V10 engines allowed (I used to love the mix of 4s, V6s, V8s & V12s at races in the past)
- Allowing the silly barge boards and "mini wings" which keep sprouting up and look completely crap.
- The persistant allowing of driver aids (auto gearboxes, traction control, active telemetry)
Indeed I would go as far as to say that the current F1 rules have created a unique formula within motorsport where the actual racing of cars, including (whisper it) overtaking seems not to be the primary objective of the event. It's all run by bloody lawyers and accountants these days, not sports people. Along with Boxing, F1 is a shining example of how too much money ruins sport.
If you want to cut costs in F1, ban the advertising on the cars (but continue to allow it on the circuits)... now *that* would be an innovative way to reduce everyone's budgets wouldn't it??? Everyone could just be paid a set figure out of the pot...
2p spent... ker-plinck!
John
>> Edited by corozin on Thursday 14th July 00:24
As for the impact on the racing, well it's just another one of those "it doesn't make much sense" rules which seem to occupy the F1 rulebook these days, added to stuff like :
- Grooved tyres (aren't they still so crap?)
- Banning tyre changes, except when the tyre has basically exploded, and assuming the driver isn't put in hospital by the accidents which result
- Mandatory refuelling (wwhich was banned back in the dumb ol' 1980s because they caused fires... oh sorry - pit fires are good for ratings in 2005!)
- Nothing other than V10 engines allowed (I used to love the mix of 4s, V6s, V8s & V12s at races in the past)
- Allowing the silly barge boards and "mini wings" which keep sprouting up and look completely crap.
- The persistant allowing of driver aids (auto gearboxes, traction control, active telemetry)
Indeed I would go as far as to say that the current F1 rules have created a unique formula within motorsport where the actual racing of cars, including (whisper it) overtaking seems not to be the primary objective of the event. It's all run by bloody lawyers and accountants these days, not sports people. Along with Boxing, F1 is a shining example of how too much money ruins sport.
If you want to cut costs in F1, ban the advertising on the cars (but continue to allow it on the circuits)... now *that* would be an innovative way to reduce everyone's budgets wouldn't it??? Everyone could just be paid a set figure out of the pot...
2p spent... ker-plinck!
John
>> Edited by corozin on Thursday 14th July 00:24
I must say, I liked the idea (posited elsewhere on here, I believe) where the car had to fit in a box of such-and-such size and had to weigh no more than N kilograms, had no driver aids, and ran on full slicks with steel brakes.
And that was about it, for the technical regs. Naturally, you'd want to say something about the bit the driver sits in, for safety's sake, but beyond that, if someone wants to run an 8-wheeled V20 moon-buggy, as long as it fits in the box, it should be allowed.
The current regs positively discourage racing by positively encouraging teams to pursue the goal of aero grip (because it's effectively unregulatable) to the exclusion of engine power, mechanical grip and driver skill.
Result? Races are won and lost in the pit lane, by and large, with a healthy random factor introduced by "one mistake and you're stuffed, and that includes the weather" qualifying.
F1 bores me silly, these days.
And that was about it, for the technical regs. Naturally, you'd want to say something about the bit the driver sits in, for safety's sake, but beyond that, if someone wants to run an 8-wheeled V20 moon-buggy, as long as it fits in the box, it should be allowed.
The current regs positively discourage racing by positively encouraging teams to pursue the goal of aero grip (because it's effectively unregulatable) to the exclusion of engine power, mechanical grip and driver skill.
Result? Races are won and lost in the pit lane, by and large, with a healthy random factor introduced by "one mistake and you're stuffed, and that includes the weather" qualifying.
F1 bores me silly, these days.
Doh. In my enthusiasm, I forgot to mention that the reason I said all that was because I heartily disagree with the level of technical regulation (in the name of sport, AKA making Ferrari win) that Mosely and Co currently indulge in.
The engine-replacement rule is quite simply nonsensical. It would make more sense to me that if you are going to penalise engine replacements, do it by docking points later, rather than by penalising the driver on the day. Nothing is foolproof, and it's just another way of artificially randomising the grid in the hope of moving the excitement deckchairs around on the deck of SS F1 Titanic.
The engine-replacement rule is quite simply nonsensical. It would make more sense to me that if you are going to penalise engine replacements, do it by docking points later, rather than by penalising the driver on the day. Nothing is foolproof, and it's just another way of artificially randomising the grid in the hope of moving the excitement deckchairs around on the deck of SS F1 Titanic.
Doh. In my enthusiasm, I forgot to mention that the reason I said all that was because I heartily disagree with the level of technical regulation (in the name of sport, AKA making Ferrari win) that Mosely and Co currently indulge in.
The engine-replacement rule is quite simply nonsensical. It would make more sense to me that if you are going to penalise engine replacements, do it by docking points later, rather than by penalising the driver on the day. Nothing is foolproof, and it's just another way of artificially randomising the grid in the hope of moving the excitement deckchairs around on the deck of SS F1 Titanic.
The engine-replacement rule is quite simply nonsensical. It would make more sense to me that if you are going to penalise engine replacements, do it by docking points later, rather than by penalising the driver on the day. Nothing is foolproof, and it's just another way of artificially randomising the grid in the hope of moving the excitement deckchairs around on the deck of SS F1 Titanic.
Gassing Station | General Motorsport | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff