10 places back?

pole2pole · 9 Jul 2005, 21:04 (Ref:1351315)

Do you folks think that 10 places back is too harsh for an engine change. What about a points deduction on constructors points instead

**touringlegend** · 9 Jul 2005, 21:09 (Ref:1351318)

The deduction on points is a good suggestion, because it isn't down to the driver when the engine decides it's had enough. Well you could argue it is, but let's not get that deep.

I don't think 10 places is too harsh, as it is only half of the F1 grid at the end of the day. In the case of the faster guys, I think it's less of a problem to them than it would be to the Sauber's or RBR cars.

Kicking-back · 9 Jul 2005, 21:46 (Ref:1351345)

10 places is fair.

I don't like points penalties, as that's taking away something you've already legitimately scored.

BootsOntheSide · 9 Jul 2005, 21:48 (Ref:1351347)

The rule is there as an incentive for constructors to build reliable engines, as opposed to faster, more expensive but short-life engines. If Kimi and McLaren are unhappy, their grievances should be directed at Mercedes. Purely deducting constructor's points would miss the point, as the driver is (theoretically) benefitting form the engine's speed at the expense of reliability in the other races. Effectively tinkering the results of previous races is a sure-fire way to turn the fans off, as has happened in the past.

JeremySmith · 9 Jul 2005, 22:24 (Ref:1351374)

IMHO I think the rule is a stupid one. Mercedes must be cheesed off with it as much as the drivers and many of the fans. I understand the rule is the same for all teams even so (yawn)

Logrence · 9 Jul 2005, 23:00 (Ref:1351396)

If you were to deduct points what would stop BAR changing their engines to get a win?

The ten place penalty is good enough incentive for people to make their engines a little more reliable.

Rules is rules, no-one complained about them so vociferously before France.

richard_sykes · 9 Jul 2005, 23:19 (Ref:1351412)

My only argument against is it hurts the driver when its a constructures problem.

The race requires a good driver and a good car though.

Sodemo · 10 Jul 2005, 00:18 (Ref:1351432)

Ive always thought 10 places is too harsh.
6 or 8 is a more reasonable amount.

JeremySmith · 10 Jul 2005, 00:22 (Ref:1351434)

The engines, the tyres, one giant pain in the arse...

Silk Cut Jaguar · 10 Jul 2005, 00:25 (Ref:1351436)

This is motorsport, the driver is only one half of the equation. I think the current 10 place penalty is perfectly fair.

JeremySmith · 10 Jul 2005, 02:30 (Ref:1351451)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Silk Cut Jaguar

This is motorsport, the driver is only one half of the equation. I think the current 10 place penalty is perfectly fair.

Unless your name is Kimi Raikkonen or Jenson Button that is. I have to say it again to watch the driver praying to the car to make it last is insane for the money that is spent on F1.

mabs_nsx · 10 Jul 2005, 04:00 (Ref:1351470)

10 places is too harsh!

The 1 engine for 2 races is a stupid rule

twig · 10 Jul 2005, 07:36 (Ref:1351500)

Motorracing is a sport which does not just reward or penalise driving, but also, the work of the team - be it reliability or outright speed. It will always be that way.

But why would a governing body want to exagerrate the non-driver factor I don't know. They had may as well deduct 3 points if you retire from an engine failure during the race.

Someone above claimed that it gives an "incentive for people to make their engines a little more reliable" - all the while, the FIA are trying to reduce costs. How can you reduce costs whilst adding another (huge) scope for improvement in the most expensive bit - r & d.

BootsOntheSide · 10 Jul 2005, 08:03 (Ref:1351507)

Engines which last 4 times as long as those used in 2002 don't cost 4 times as much to develop though. Replacing an engine is expensive. The Merecedes engine is much mroe powerful than the Renault or Ferrari (which are mroe reliable), and the Honda engne is probably the same, so the advantage is cancelled out. I bet if it was a runaway-championship-leading Michael having these successive failures nobody would complain.

twig · 10 Jul 2005, 08:27 (Ref:1351511)

Yeah well, no complaints doesn't make it right.

Now that i think about it, I'm not sure how much more expensive it is to develop long life engines as opposed to single race life ones. I suppose the engine manufacturers would find something else to spend money on.

But why make a race weekend even more complicated then it needs to be?

ascarmarshal · 10 Jul 2005, 09:24 (Ref:1351523)

I think that an engine change during a meeting the driver goes to the back of the grid but change the rule to one engine one meeting. Also if you change to the spare car you go to the back of the grid. It works in other series when the engines have a much longer race to complete so why not F1.

Menelaos · 10 Jul 2005, 09:41 (Ref:1351529)

It's not unfair by any means, McLaren just needs to find a serious partner to provide them with reliable engines. But that aside, I don't like it as a rule, I'd like it if there wre no penalties at all.

Pingguest · 10 Jul 2005, 10:00 (Ref:1351535)

The one engine rule is unfair to the drivers and smaller teams. The drivers will get penalised for a failure of the engine manufactor. And smaller teams had to get less powerfull engines to make the engines reliable enough.

BootsOntheSide · 10 Jul 2005, 10:20 (Ref:1351541)

Does anything think it's unfair when a team suffers due to a mistake by a driver?

ralf fan · 10 Jul 2005, 10:31 (Ref:1351545)

It is debatble if the one engine rule per two weekends is necessary or not... But IMO it does add something into the mix...

As for the punishment i think 10 places is fair.... a points deduction would be harsh... at least the 10 place penalty allows the drivers to fight through the field and get something from the weekend...

Menelaos · 10 Jul 2005, 10:55 (Ref:1351558)

I hate the two GPs per engine rule. I think it's stupid the result of one GP should affect the other. That's why I also hate the qualifyings as they are. You're leading a gp, someone's engine blows in front of you, oil on track, you crash and you don't only lose 10 points, you also have to qualify first for the next GP. It's totally crazy.

BootsOntheSide · 10 Jul 2005, 11:06 (Ref:1351562)

Can I be bothered to point out that if you're leading and someone's engine blows, they'rve clearly completed at least 1 lap less than you, adn will be running earlier in qualifying as a result? Yes I can, but I do agree about the qualifying order system being unfair. Using one of the practice sessions makes a lot more sense.

Menelaos · 10 Jul 2005, 11:33 (Ref:1351569)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Can I be bothered to point out that if you're leading and someone's engine blows, they'rve clearly completed at least 1 lap less than you, adn will be running earlier in qualifying as a result?

yeah, I was thinking of that while posting, but I thought it was not too important

Anyway, I can still fix this: someone has a problem with his engine he it might be leaking but of course they keep him out, so you step on the oil and you crash, but his engine does not blow for another two laps. Then you're surely first!

Pingguest · 10 Jul 2005, 13:48 (Ref:1351594)

Quote:

Originally Posted by BootsOntheSide

Does anything think it's unfair when a team suffers due to a mistake by a driver?

That's a natural aspect of the sport. The one engine rule isn't.

BootsOntheSide · 10 Jul 2005, 14:44 (Ref:1351805)

Two teams having different engines, one faster and the other more reliable, is though. And if Kimi is so concerned about these enigne failures, did he really turn the engien revs up on that last showboating lap? More evidence of Alonso's greater mechanical sympathy being the difference ebtween the two?

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Best places to sit for USGP?	ToddM	Formula One	6	14 Feb 2005 01:56
Places left in F3	Francesca	National & International Single Seaters	11	29 Jan 2002 15:32
More Places On The Grid?	Victor Broccoli	Formula One	12	28 Apr 2001 00:42