Engine rule changes planned for 2003

[RT]

The "only one engine per GP or back of grid" idea will be very difficult to enforce regarding spare parts, repairs, changes in electronic mapping, etc. This is truly a lawyer's dream and a sports nightmare. It will end up building a huge administrative/monitoring organization and will drain resources that would be better spent on racing.

I say it's a really bad idea.

[Mr V]

even more races won in the FIA building in paris you mean RT??

[Nicholas]

On second thoughts, would it reduce costs? Would the teams spend more money trying to produce a reliable engine?

[Valve Bounce]

OK, just answer me this : how much repairs /replacements will be permitted overnight? These guys can rebuild an entire engine in that sort of time. Even by alterring the engine mapping would effectively change a qualifying engine to race spec.

[RT]

Originally posted by mr v
even more races won in the FIA building in paris you mean RT??

That's exactly what I mean Mr V.

Remember how long it took to have the veredict on the Jarno Trulli qualification/disqualification late last season?.

I believe that if this "one engine thing goes through", we may not know the "official" outcome of several races and possible the championship for months. There is a place and a role fot the FIA to decide a few isolated incidents but this can clog the system.

It's bad enough that the races are nowadays so heavily influenced by the traction control (software specialists) guys. This rule, I'm afraid" would mean that the championship may not be decided by who has the best drivers or even the best designers or computer blokes. This may well mean that a championship is won by the team with the best lawyers....Aaarrrghhh!!!

[Valve Bounce]

......and it could be worse. Several cars relegated to the back of the grid may appeal such a decision as unfair, that they did not change the engine but only parts. The only outcome of such an appeal would be to declare that race invalid. Then the winner would countr appeal, and so on. I think this rule is going to be unenforceable.

[Ray Bell]

For those who mention spending more money making the engines more reliable...

Be serious, they are already trying to make an engine that goes the race distance, and they can't win if they don't succeed at that!

[Tristan]

Didn't Colin Chapman say the perfect F1 car is one that falls apart JUST as it crosses the finishing line (winning obviously)??

I actually quite like this rule idea. But then I'm part of the party who want ALL batteries and dynamo's banned.

In a small minority, methinks...

[Red]

Originally posted by Tristan
Didn't Colin Chapman say the perfect F1 car is one that falls apart JUST as it crosses the finishing line (winning obviously)??

Errrr... no. It was Ferdinand Porsche

[paulzinho]

I think its down to the FIA to be strong willed for once. They could have policed the TC problem if they'd been more firm.

They should have left it to the teams to prove that they weren't using it otherwise disqualify any suspects. Harsh but would have prevented the queries and return to robot cars.

[Mr V]

Originally posted by paulzinho
I think its down to the FIA to be strong willed for once. They could have policed the TC problem if they'd been more firm.

just like they said that both benetton and mclaren, POSSIBLY COULD be running tc in '94 or that they were SURE that 3 teams were cheating in 2000, but didn't have the proof.


the computer wiz-kids from each team, nowadays, are far too clever to be caught cheating! i'm not saying that it doesn't go on, i'm sure it does, but it's got to be proved.

i don't agree with traction control and launch control, but at least it creates a more level playing field!

[Valve Bounce]

All this will fizzle out to nothing. I just re-read the article on Max Folies' pronouncements, and one of hte conditions is that the majority of the teams will have to agree to the rule change. I suppose the first question the teams will ask him is how he is going to police that rule.
If the FIA want to cut down on costs, they could start by banning on board computers and batteries. This would save more than any one engine per race rule, and it can be easily enforced.
Just think: no more TC, no more automatic gears, launch control, running team tactics and giving team orders ("move Over") from the pits, electronic control of the diff, brakes, etc, etc. The drivers will have to manage all that , all by himself .How sad Too bad Heavens forbid - he would have to change gears on a racing car !!

[paulzinho]

Originally posted by mr v



just like they said that both benetton and mclaren, POSSIBLY COULD be running tc in '94 or that they were SURE that 3 teams were cheating in 2000, but didn't have the proof.

Thats what I'm saying. The FIA should have made these teams prove they weren't using them and if they couldn't then take action. The teams would then think twice about pushing and breaking the rules.

[Coach44]

Originally posted by Valve Bounce
....Just think: no more TC, no more automatic gears, launch control, running team tactics and giving team orders ("move Over") from the pits, electronic control of the diff, brakes, etc, etc. The drivers will have to manage all that , all by himself .How sad Too bad Heavens forbid - he would have to change gears on a racing car !!

One can only dream!!!

[Tristan]

Ban all batteries and dynamos. Simple.

[Valve Bounce]

Originally posted by Tristan
Ban all batteries and dynamos. Simple.

In all seriousness Tristan, we need those dynamos to run that red warning light at the rear of the cars in wet weather.

[Gt_R]

"Thats what I'm saying. The FIA should have made these teams prove they weren't using them and if they couldn't then take action. The teams would then think twice about pushing and breaking the rules."

??? Kidding right? Idealistic world, this may work...but in realistic world...it's like condemning every human born in this world as a murderer unless they can prove otherwise...

[Red]

Errr.... actually I do believe that those teams were indeed able to prove they're innocent. Anyway, good point. I launch an accusation and it's YOUR job to prove me wrong? Sheese....



PS: Hmm, strange thought.... maybe they really were innocent............. never thought about it... hmmmmm interesting....

[paulzinho]

Well put it this way the FIA found illegal software (launch control) on 94 Bennetton. Bennetton got away with it because FIA couldn't prove they used it.

FIA should have said, you've got illegal software prove to us that you didn't use it. Why have it if you weren't using it?

Sounds harsh but would have helped eradicate cheating and manipulation of the rules and maybe the return to robot cars.

[Red]

Originally posted by paulzinho
Well put it this way the FIA found illegal software (launch control) on 94 Bennetton. Bennetton got away with it because FIA couldn't prove they used it.

FIA should have said, you've got illegal software prove to us that you didn't use it. Why have it if you weren't using it?

Sounds harsh but would have helped eradicate cheating and manipulation of the rules and maybe the return to robot cars.

Do not agree with that. Speaking of Benetton, they were able to prove that they didn'y use it! (As a matter of facts, they argued that they "have it if they were'nt using it" because it was cheaper for them to disable some parts of their software (read the main menu: displaying only 10 options and the launch control was 13 or something like that) than to rewrite it. Remember, back there in 94 the whole team (including the cafeteria girsl and drivers) were about 60 people and did not have exactly the biggest budget.)

As for "eradicating cheating"... well, Paul, maybe the situation is not that catastrophic. (yeah, I agree, it makes a good headline in a magazine though)

[drexel]

Why do they assume there would be a way to cut costs? If a team has money to spend, then why wouldn't they...

The only way to stop that would be to have a salary cap but in this day an age... getting around that would be easier than fooling the FIA.

[RWC]

The benetton TC in 94 WASN'T disabled-it just needed a strange set of driver inputs to activate it.They certainly should have been banned.the governing body needs a good kick up the

[Mr V]

Originally posted by RWC
The benetton TC in 94 WASN'T disabled-it just needed a strange set of driver inputs to activate it.They certainly should have been banned.the governing body needs a good kick up the

and proberbly an even easier set of driver inputs to de-activate it! i.e......just rev the nuts out of the engine then cut it off, like some drivers did in '94.

as for the "keeping it in there because it's cheaper" option.i personally don't think that is a valid excuse, this is a multi million pound sport after all!

but.if the FIA are/were weak enough to just swallow that arguement, then who are we to critise the benny boy's for giving it to them in the first place!!