Engine rule changes planned for 2003

[Mark F1]

FROM BBC CEEFAX

Plans to limit teams to one engine per car are being considered under radical changes for Formula One Grand Prixs.

Under the proposals, if a driver breaks his engine or was forced to use a spare car he would have to begin from further down the grid, possibly the back.

"Limiting the numbers of engines is one way of cuting down costs but not on the spectacle of Formula One" said FIA President Max Mosely.

The changes could be introduced for 2003 if the majority of teams agree.


I think that this is a very good cost cutting idea, especially at the moment with teams worrying about the future following Prost's demise and the current slowdown in the World economy. And it would spice up the racing if TGF, Montoya, Coulthard etc had to start from the back of the grid for a race!!!!

Now engine suppliers will be searching for even more reliability if this rule is introduced in 2003.

[Nicholas]

Well, at least that's something and... it could provide better racing!

[paulzinho]

Lets hope so!!!

However, teams with unreliable engines could be seriously , lets hope they won't stay in the pits until the race or that they actually get to race!!

[RWC]

This one has been going around in various forms for awhile,but i didn't think they could bring it in next year!It could only be a great thing,despite the aparently contrived way of mixing up the grid.It WOULD reduce costs!!

[Total-F1]

It would be great - and none of this qualifying engine business - one powerplant and you have to save it - would we see a bit of strategy with people trying not to use the engines in qualifying, or not testing on the track during the Friday sessions though? The spectators mightn't be too pleased.

[Gt_R]

It would reduce costs..but why would i be bothered with the finances of the teams? If a team is competitive, they would have the financial means to stay.

But from a racing perspective,I just don't like this idea. Although Ferrari might highly benefit from it as they have a reliable engine, i just think it's silly, because it is just an artificial way of mixing up the grid. So we are supposed to head down the CART way to make racing artificial and controlled? What next? A yellow flag every 10 laps? Any ideas that would directly create and affect the results by authorities are not really favoured unless absolutely neccessary (ie penalties)

From a financial viewpoint, it would only serve to make it harder for poorer teams to keep the gap close to the top guns and a harder struggle for them to survive. Toyota for example would have soooooo much cash, they can very easily exploit all the best materials AND talents AND manufacturing techniques AND R&D AND simulation of engines to make a powerful yet reliable engine, while smaller engine manufacturers like Asiatech have to ensure reliability with less HP.

There's 2 sides to every coin. Whichever authority who proposed this only saw one side. It's the same when they tried to restrict winter testings.

[Morris 1100]

The rich teams have the resources to buy reliability.
The poor teams will struggle more if they can't change an engine without going to the back of the grid!!!!
If you are up the back there is no penalty.
The ones that it does hurt are the midfield teams like Jordan and Bar.

[Gt_R]

Furthermore, it is not going to affect everybody by the same amount.

The proposed rule is to cut down F1 TEAM's expenditure, but for teams like Jordan BAR Williams and Mclaren, where engines are not in built but supplied FOC by a works partner, it does not in theory cut down the team's expenditure. It would only further heighten the expenditure of engine manufacturers who now need to develope further resources to produce a powerful YET reliable package, while penalising the team if the engine makers failed to succeed.

As for full teams like Ferrari Renault and Toyota, does Mosley really think that with the new rules, these teams would save significantly more money as they don't have to produce as much engines? They will not, simply because these teams would simply transfer the money saved from the engines (if there is any to be saved in the first place) to expand other costs ie chassis developement.

The only ideal way that such a silly plan to cut costs could practically work is if every team uses the SAME engine and same chassis, that way, there's no R&D and testing costs...but hey, we do not need another CART.

[Valve Bounce]

I don't suppose Ralf had anything to do with this engine saving rule?

[Glen]

I think they could have a rev limit to reduce engine expense. Devices are available that can listen to engines from track side and ascertain the revs - so they could enforce the reg that way. Most of the really exotic and non-real-world tuning techniques would not really apply with, say, a 15,000rpm limit (such as ultra light-weight internals, pnuematic valves) - also speeds would be reduced.

On the other hand practically any rule change would have almost no effect on the status quo - quick teams will continue to go quicker.

[Champ69]

What a **** idea.

They should introduce a top ten shoot out if they want to mix up the grid.

It they want to help teams going broke fix the concorde agreement.

[Coach44]

Originally posted by Champ69
......It they want to help teams going broke fix the concorde agreement.

I agree

[Tristan]

If things like engine costs are going to go down, do you think we'll see driver's salaries spiral?? I mean these teams are still going to have all this money and they won't be ALLOWED to spend it on their cars....

[bulldogspirit]

It would detract from the spectacle - an engine maker wouldn't be able to try anything revolutionary (like Renault last year and BMW 2 years ago) for fear of unreliability, thus it would make it harder over the course of time for midfield teams to try and catch up to the big guns.

[RWC]

Hadn't thought of that!! Yes the would be reluctant to try new designs.

[Mr V]

if this goes ahead in '03 then i seriously hope jpm goes to ferrari!! bmw may have one of the best engines, but it is so unrealiable!

[M Power]

Originally posted by Valve Bounce
I don't suppose Ralf had anything to do with this engine saving rule?

true .But now jpm might finish .lol

[DNQ]

hmm...surely there are other better ways to cut costs. Surely a complete new formula for 2005 or something would be better - something like the BTCC did to cut costs could work. I don't know. But I'm not really that keen on this idea.

[Valve Bounce]

I am just wondering what the rule will stipulate. Will repairs or rebuilds be allowed overnight after practice or quals? What engine parts can be replaced? Can engine management systems be changed? In reality, unless the engines are totally sealed, and the cars locked in parc ferme, the entire engine can be replaced during "repairs", not to mention that the specs can be alterred by changing the engine management system after quals. The rule may sound simple, but its enforcement will become a nightmare. AND I am sure that John Toad and Ross will think of a way to circumvent the rule anyway.

[RWC]

Oh dear,this is getting complicated.This is a simple idea from a simple man who doesn't think anything through.How about just forcing the big guys to share with the little guys.people like mercedes and others should have to supply at least two teams...?

[Mr V]

the way i see it, the first race where 10 cars are missing before the lights have gone out, due to a cars engine blowing up on the friday, the fia will have to drop this stupid rule! rules like this, make the manufacturers break away in '07 or '08 seem all the more possible!

[Speedworx]

Its works well in the BTCC. It would work well in F1.

[Don K]

Originally posted by mr v
the way i see it, the first race where 10 cars are missing before the lights have gone out, due to a cars engine blowing up on the friday, the fia will have to drop this stupid rule!

That's not what this rule says!

According to this rule, those 10 cars would start from position 15-24. During the last years we've seen that it's perfectly possible to get a podium finish in such a case. So it would be foolish to withdraw your car just because you're not allowed to start from one of the front rows ...

[Valve Bounce]

You guys still havn't answered my question: how much "repairs" are permitted overnight before the race? I mean these days, the mechanics could probably "rebuild" the engine overnight.

[Don K]

Another question about this rule:
In what order will the cars-that-are-using-more-than-one-engine start the race?

If they can start at the back in the order they qualified, I think the cars that have blown an engine on friday would still be using a quallifying engine on saturday.

If they can start at the back in the order they blew their engine, it would become extremely important not to blow an engine on sunday morning.
So the best way to find the correct settings would probably be by doing a lot of testing on those circuits earlyer in the season. This would lead to the richer teams having 4 or five expeienced test drivers, and 2 or 3 separate test teams ...