V8's and now engine freeze - why?

[Sodemo]

Does anyone else find it slightly nonsensical the way in which we have changed to V8's and will now have an engine freeze to halt development...?

Why didn't they just keep the V10's and then freeze the development on those?

[Marbot]

The teams were given the option by the WWF err.......sorry,the FIA ,of using rev-limited V10's instead of developing new V8's.Obviously the teams chose to spend lots of cash on new V8's,hoping that their nearest rivals would run out of cash first.Max didn't like the idea of F1 becoming a spending competition (rightly so),and so now we have the engine freeze.

[Knowlesy]

I find the idea non-sensical no matter what engine configuration we have!

The teams don't exactly have much time to sort this out do they? A bit daft IMO.

[pforrester]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

The teams were given the option by the WWF err.......sorry,the FIA.

Sorry not to make a serious contribution to the discussion, but that's hilarious!

[BootsOntheSide]

The engine freeze doesn't make sense to me. It will just leave teams trapped with uncompetitive engines, and their only options will be to cheat, spent copious amounts of money on chassis improvements, or pull out.

[T0MAT01]

I don't know why they couldn't have adopted a simple rev limit instead and still allowed improvements to help fuel efficiency etc.

The team that I wonder about is Prodrive, since they aren't currently using an engine there's not one to freeze, so will they be able to enter F1 with a brand new up to date one?

[Sodemo]

Though surely having a sealed engine is a form of performance restriction just the same as a V10 rev limit would have been, just in a different area.

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by knowlesy

I find the idea non-sensical no matter what engine configuration we have!

The teams don't exactly have much time to sort this out do they? A bit daft IMO.

And it has another major disadvantages: teams can only improve their performances by improving aerodynamics and having a better pit stop strategy. Both might have a negative effect on the racing.

[RT]

Leaving things with engine development as they were proceeding, would certainly have turned into a spending competition. It would also have promoted the supremacy in technology that has been a hallmark of F1.

To me, that's a lot more important.

Last but not least, engine development has always been a spending competition. Freezing development as it is now will only "sanctify" the results of the spending competition until now. It doesn't promote equality, it just rewards the recent big spenders and will hurt the image and quality of F1 racing.

It's a very dumb rule IMHO.

Cheers,

RT

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by RT

Leaving things with engine development as they were proceeding, would certainly have turned into a spending competition.

I don't really agree. Toyota has the biggest budget, but they're even struggling with scoring points. On the same time, Renault is fighting for the championship with a relatively small budget.

[RT]

Pingguest, I see your point. What I'm trying to say is that engine development requires money but development and constant improvements are necessary for excellence which is what the F1 series is all about.

I totally agree it doesn't necessarily bring results for a specific team and that's good (there has to be a role for brainpower and management skills) but the need for engine development and a cutting edge level of technology does require money and the more you have....well.......

Freezing development will not help F1

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by RT

Freezing development will not help F1

Poaching other team members will.

[N I Tram]

This is such an illogical rule. It won't cut costs overall, it'll just switch them from (mostly rich) engine manufactures to (in many cases poor) teams. Add to that the risk of being lumbered with an uncompetitive engine, and this could kill the independent teams for good.