Re: Two-race engine rule

Recent blog posts:

95 mirage
I have a 95 mirage and this is the second time the injector in number 3 cylinder has gone bad. Anything…

1988 Ford F-150 Truck
I would like to remove the pollution control system from my 1988 F-150, 4.9L I6 300 4x4. Can anyone…

my 99 M chrysler has started to…
my 99 M chrysler has started to cool and then starts to give off heat in the ac vents and then cool…

dodge 2000 intrepid
bought this car right off the show room floor in Bartow fl to this date I have not had any work done on…

starting issue, 2002 dodge…
My 2002 Dodge Caravan wouldn't crank. I tested some things, replaced the battery. After installing the…

stereo pin
I put a new battery in my girl friends 94 900 and it wants a code for the radio. There is nothing in the…

Coolant temp on Saturn Sky
I just purchased a 2007 Saturn Sky Redline. As I was driving yesterday I happen to have the info set on…

Que pour la place trange
Que pour la place trange

ha ha ha... loh mlya....da…
ha ha ha... loh mlya.... da, da... imenno you!!!!

da da da.....
da da da.....

They have birthday today:

YJlady

all >>

Forums:

topic feeds

• CarGuru all topics, blogs and comments

• Driving

• Formula-1

• Indycar

• Nascar

• Other sport

• Technology

• 4 x 4

• Volkswagen

• Mercedes

• Acura

• Alfa-romeo

• Audi

• BMW

• Chrysler

• Dodge

• Ford

• General Motors

• Jeep Willys

• Honda

• Hyundai

• Mazda

• Nissan

• Peugeot

• Pontiac

• Porsche

• Saab

• Saturn

• Toyota

• Volvo

• Buy / Sell

• Open discussion

• Anonymous

Discuss:

[FAQ] Frequently asked…
$Revision: 2.70 $, $Date: 2005/03/01 13:08:08 $ The FAQ is divided into several sections…

Donington gets planning…
That's about it, really. Wonder if they still think they can get the money? The story's on the BBC…

New F1 Website
Please take a look at my F1 website It is fairly new, so i would really appreciate some visitors…

A buck?
I have a twenty in my pocket right now. Could I have gotten the team? -- - dillon I am not invalid…

[FAQ] Frequently asked…
$Revision: 2.70 $, $Date: 2005/03/01 13:08:08 $ This FAQ is posted approximately twice a month. (The…

Recent forum topics:

...96 Accord tranny issue
I have a 1996 honda accord ex automatic. on a cold start the car shits gears realitively fine. however…

i just want to find out how…
i just want to find out how much it will cost to change an ignition to a 2001 pontiac grand am and can i…

What is causing my 97 Toyota…
What is causing my 97 Toyota Camry to hesitate like it is about to stall?

94 Dodge Intrepid
How do I go about finding and unsticking or replacing the gas float on a 94 Dodge Intrepid. I ran out of…

Recent forum comments:

RE: stuck hatchback
on the rear gate that is

RE: stuck hatchback
just my latch is stuck and the door wont close on my 2000 sub outback limited

RE: 1999 Chrysler T&C - Speed…
I am reading all of this and am amazed at how bad I am getting ripped off by my Chrysler dealership....4…

RE: How to duplicate Navtech CD’s
where can i buy nav cd's for a 2003 s class mercedes also the latest version for a 2005 sl?

RE: Mitsubishi Diamante ECU faults…
how did you read the codes

RE: Re: Road test - DMV is cracked
Well, I passed on the 4th roadtest. The examiner said I should have passed it the first time. I have…

RE: turn signal problams
Try a new flasher because it's cheaper. If that doesn't work then you probably need a new turn signal…

RE: Chevy 305 Timing Chain…
Sprucing up a low mileage 305 chev. Crank sprocket has one keyway. Looking at the front end how many…

RE: 95 maxmia
my 95 Nissian Quest jerks A Lot:-? when it warms up and I push on the accelerator, I was told…

RE: 4x4 usefulness
I live in the mountains of colorado, and most of the time I am able to get by with my very powerful…

Модератор:

Administrator


Re: Two-race engine rule
Dave Baker 28 February 2005 08:53:51
	Bob Dubery <megapode@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1109563030.295474.100460@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...> Brian Lawrence wrote:> 1. Opportunities to retire - since retiring on the last lap qualifies> as a> > retirement (rule clarified by Charlie Whiting), it is possible to> deliberately> > retire to get a "free" engine change. It is unlikely that anyone will> do so> > if it means losing a place, the numbers above show occasions when> drivers> > could have retired without losing places - in simple terms they were> the last> > classified car on a specific lap (leader's lap, leader -1, leader-2,> etc.)> > when retiring wouldn't allow the following car to catch them.> I thought about this. It might mean that a team might be less inclined> to send a driver back out after, say, a late race nose-cone replacement> in the hope that he might pick up a point.> But I'm not sure how much advantage accrues as the "new" engine will> also have to last two races and nobody's going to deliberately build an> engine that lasts two races but is down on performance for the second.> There might be an avenue to explore towards the end of the season by a> team that has a problem with engines lasting two races - but such a> team isn't likely to be in the running for anything other than having a> shot at 4th in the championship as opposed to 5th. I can see the possibility of a top team exploiting this unfairly without too much thought. Assume that in the penultimate race a driver is out of the points but still in a position to win the championship in the final race. The tactical thing to do is retire before crossing the line and get a new engine for the last race. In fact I wonder if teams are already investigating ways of 'creating' an engine failure to make a tactical retirement look genuine. I suppose one way would be to just leave the car in a low gear and rev it until it breaks but it would be more subtle to have a steering wheel button combination that created an electrical or pneumatic fault.
		Add comment


Dillon Pyron 28 February 2005 06:49:07 [ permanent link ]
	Thus spake "Brian Lawrence" <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> : Teams may change engines whenever a car fails to finish a race, defined as>failing to take the flag. These were the number of times that happened to>each team last year.> GPs NFs OtR [1]>=======================>Ferrari 36 2 2>Sauber 36 5 7>Renault 36 8 2>BAR 36 8 4>Williams 36 9 5 [2]>Toyota 36 11 14>McLaren 36 12 5>Jaguar 36 12 7>Jordan 36 15 18>Minardi 36 16 20 [3]>-----------------------> 360 99 84> 1. Opportunities to retire - since retiring on the last lap qualifies as a>retirement (rule clarified by Charlie Whiting), it is possible to deliberately>retire to get a "free" engine change. It is unlikely that anyone will do so>if it means losing a place, the numbers above show occasions when drivers>could have retired without losing places - in simple terms they were the last>classified car on a specific lap (leader's lap, leader -1, leader-2, etc.)>when retiring wouldn't allow the following car to catch them. So if I'm in 9th place, down a lap to 8th, it's a no brainer. Free engine change. Now, my question is this. If an engine blows, that's obviously a DNF. Do they get the free change? 2. Williams NFs include three disqualifications which might be open to different>interpretation.> 3. Minardi's NFs include one "not classified" finish - Bruni was running but too>far behind to be classified as a finisher. This might not be interpreted as a>failure to finish.> Minardi could theoretically have changed engines at every race, Jordan could>have done so at every race except for three.> These are hypothetical and in reality engines might be due for change anyway. -- dillon "When the French are against it, you know we can't be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman
		Add comment


Kaarlo Vapaaoksa 2 March 2005 11:29:56 [ permanent link ]
	Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> wrote: So if I'm in 9th place, down a lap to 8th, it's a no brainer. Free> engine change. Now, my question is this. If an engine blows, that's obviously a DNF.> Do they get the free change? If this is possible, it is definetely a loophole. Though if you complete 90% of the winner's laps, it's not a DNF and you get a result. So it would sound sensible, that if you get a finish that way, you must use the same engine or face the penalty in the next race, thus making it extremely bad to blow your engine in the final laps. I predict we'll see a lot of interesting tactical moves involving the two race engine rule. The tactical retirement is not the only option. When there's still another race to run with the same engine, there will be decisions to be made in the later half of the race whether to push you engine or not. carlos
		Add comment


Brian Lawrence 2 March 2005 12:25:10 [ permanent link ]
	"Kaarlo Vapaaoksa" <carlos@iki.fi> wrote in message news:d02p9j$6q6$2@epityr.hut.fi...> Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> wrote:> So if I'm in 9th place, down a lap to 8th, it's a no brainer. Free>> engine change.> Now, my question is this. If an engine blows, that's obviously a DNF.>> Do they get the free change?> If this is possible, it is definetely a loophole. Though if you> complete 90% of the winner's laps, it's not a DNF and you get a> result. So it would sound sensible, that if you get a finish that way,> you must use the same engine or face the penalty in the next race,> thus making it extremely bad to blow your engine in the final laps.> I predict we'll see a lot of interesting tactical moves involving the> two race engine rule. The tactical retirement is not the only> option. When there's still another race to run with the same engine,> there will be decisions to be made in the later half of the race> whether to push you engine or not. The teams asked for clarification from the FIA and Charlie Whiting explained that a non-finish simply means not taking the chequered flag - for whatever reason. A non-finish = a free change. -- Brian
		Add comment


Brian Lawrence 2 March 2005 14:07:05 [ permanent link ]
	"Ian Dalziel" <iandalziel@lineone.net> wrote: On 27 Feb 2005 16:07:07 GMT, "Brian Lawrence"> <Brian_W_LawrenceREMTHIS@msn.com> wrote:> Teams may change engines whenever a car fails to finish a race, defined as>>failing to take the flag. These were the number of times that happened to>>each team last year.> So the rule is that an engine has to last two races... Unless it> fails? Pretty draconian, what? Don't forget if it fails on Friday, Saturday or Sunday qualifying they are penalised 10 places on the grid. The "free" change only happens after a NF at the first of each pair of events of course. Unless I have misread the rules (highly likely) it seems that if someone has an engine failure on the Friday of Event-1 and changes engines, the replacement HAS TO last for the rest of that Event and all of Event-2. If there is a second failure that car is out of the event - in fact two engine failures say on Friday & Saturday of Event-1 will mean missing both events. -- Brian Lawrence Brian_W_Lawrence@msn.com Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK
		Add comment


Markku 2 March 2005 18:04:10 [ permanent link ]
	Brian Lawrence wrote:> "Kaarlo Vapaaoksa" <carlos@iki.fi> wrote in message news:d02p9j$6q6$2@epityr.hut.fi...> Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> wrote:>> So if I'm in 9th place, down a lap to 8th, it's a no brainer. Free>>>engine change.>> Now, my question is this. If an engine blows, that's obviously a DNF.>>>Do they get the free change?>> If this is possible, it is definetely a loophole. Though if you>>complete 90% of the winner's laps, it's not a DNF and you get a>>result. So it would sound sensible, that if you get a finish that way,>>you must use the same engine or face the penalty in the next race,>>thus making it extremely bad to blow your engine in the final laps.>> I predict we'll see a lot of interesting tactical moves involving the>>two race engine rule. The tactical retirement is not the only>>option. When there's still another race to run with the same engine,>>there will be decisions to be made in the later half of the race>>whether to push you engine or not.> The teams asked for clarification from the FIA and Charlie Whiting> explained that a non-finish simply means not taking the chequered flag -> for whatever reason. A non-finish = a free change.> Anybody else foreseeing a strangest thing happening in the Australian GP, with an FIA emergency meeting closely following? All non-points finishers are suddenly forced to come into the pits and retire during the last lap. FIA will then try to close the loophole with quick fixes that will cause chaos in the next GP. In reality, with these kinds of interpretations, are we going to see one non-points finish the whole year (that does not involve close racing to the flag)? Br, Markku
		Add comment


Mark Jackson 3 March 2005 03:13:05 [ permanent link ]
	What I don't understand is why the FIA has made the exceptions that folks are talking about gaming. Replace an engine after qualifying: back of grid. Replace an engine any other time before the start of the second weekend: 10 places down. Get through two race weekends in a row without replacing an engine: free replacement.
		Add comment


Dillon Pyron 3 March 2005 04:43:07 [ permanent link ]
	Thus spake Markku <b@out.of.hel.invalid> : Brian Lawrence wrote:>> "Kaarlo Vapaaoksa" <carlos@iki.fi> wrote in message news:d02p9j$6q6$2@epityr.hut.fi...>> Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> wrote:>>> So if I'm in 9th place, down a lap to 8th, it's a no brainer. Free>>>>engine change.>>> Now, my question is this. If an engine blows, that's obviously a DNF.>>>>Do they get the free change?>>> If this is possible, it is definetely a loophole. Though if you>>>complete 90% of the winner's laps, it's not a DNF and you get a>>>result. So it would sound sensible, that if you get a finish that way,>>>you must use the same engine or face the penalty in the next race,>>>thus making it extremely bad to blow your engine in the final laps.>>> I predict we'll see a lot of interesting tactical moves involving the>>>two race engine rule. The tactical retirement is not the only>>>option. When there's still another race to run with the same engine,>>>there will be decisions to be made in the later half of the race>>>whether to push you engine or not.>> The teams asked for clarification from the FIA and Charlie Whiting>> explained that a non-finish simply means not taking the chequered flag ->> for whatever reason. A non-finish = a free change.>> Anybody else foreseeing a strangest thing happening in the Australian>GP, with an FIA emergency meeting closely following?> All non-points finishers are suddenly forced to come into the pits and>retire during the last lap. FIA will then try to close the loophole>with quick fixes that will cause chaos in the next GP.> In reality, with these kinds of interpretations, are we going to see>one non-points finish the whole year (that does not involve close racing>to the flag)? You're a half lap out of 8th, hopeless, so you pull in at the start of the last lap. Then 8th blows an engine just as the leader crosses the line. Talk about kicking some walls! Br,>Markku -- dillon "When the French are against it, you know we can't be far wrong." - Adm. Bobbie Ray Inman
		Add comment


James Hart 3 March 2005 11:32:55 [ permanent link ]
	Markku wrote:> Brian Lawrence wrote:>> "Kaarlo Vapaaoksa" <carlos@iki.fi> wrote in message>> news:d02p9j$6q6$2@epityr.hut.fi...>>> Dillon Pyron <dmpyronINVALID@austin.rr.com> wrote:>>> So if I'm in 9th place, down a lap to 8th, it's a no brainer. Free>>>> engine change.>>> Now, my question is this. If an engine blows, that's obviously a>>>> DNF. Do they get the free change?>>> If this is possible, it is definetely a loophole. Though if you>>> complete 90% of the winner's laps, it's not a DNF and you get a>>> result. So it would sound sensible, that if you get a finish that>>> way, you must use the same engine or face the penalty in the next>>> race, thus making it extremely bad to blow your engine in the final>>> laps. I predict we'll see a lot of interesting tactical moves involving>>> the two race engine rule. The tactical retirement is not the only>>> option. When there's still another race to run with the same engine,>>> there will be decisions to be made in the later half of the race>>> whether to push you engine or not.>> The teams asked for clarification from the FIA and Charlie Whiting>> explained that a non-finish simply means not taking the chequered>> flag - for whatever reason. A non-finish = a free change.>> Anybody else foreseeing a strangest thing happening in the Australian> GP, with an FIA emergency meeting closely following?> All non-points finishers are suddenly forced to come into the pits and> retire during the last lap. FIA will then try to close the loophole> with quick fixes that will cause chaos in the next GP.> In reality, with these kinds of interpretations, are we going to see> one non-points finish the whole year (that does not involve close> racing to the flag)? When P1 takes the chequered flag at the end of L58 consider the following:- P2 is a lap up on P3. P2 stops during what should be its final lap before taking the chequered. It still finishes in P2 as P3 was a lap down. Does that then mean P2 gets a free engine change but P1 and P3 don't? -- James... www.jameshart.co.uk
		Add comment


Brian Lawrence 3 March 2005 11:43:05 [ permanent link ]
	"James Hart" <news1@jameshart.co.uk> wrote: When P1 takes the chequered flag at the end of L58 consider the following:-> P2 is a lap up on P3.> P2 stops during what should be its final lap before taking the chequered. It still finishes in P2 > as P3 was a lap down.> Does that then mean P2 gets a free engine change but P1 and P3 don't? That's exactly what it means as discussed and agreed with Charlie Whiting at a recent teams/FIA meeting and explained in last week's Autosport. -- Brian
		Add comment


Geoff May 3 March 2005 11:43:08 [ permanent link ]
	James Hart wrote:> [snipped]> When P1 takes the chequered flag at the end of L58 consider the following:-> P2 is a lap up on P3.> P2 stops during what should be its final lap before taking the chequered. It > still finishes in P2 as P3 was a lap down.> Does that then mean P2 gets a free engine change but P1 and P3 don't? Yes. At least, that is what I understand. MfG Geoff. -- Unofficial F1 Database: http://glibs.ssmmdd.co.uk/ Update: 26th February, 2005 - Drivers for 2005 may change USENET Email address is a spam trap, send Emails to address in the DB
		Add comment


Risto Lankinen 3 March 2005 11:55:08 [ permanent link ]
	"James Hart" <news1@jameshart.co.uk> wrote in message news:38mpl7F5n4d9qU1@individual.net...> When P1 takes the chequered flag at the end of L58 consider the following:-> P2 is a lap up on P3.> P2 stops during what should be its final lap before taking the chequered. still finishes in P2 as P3 was a lap down.> Does that then mean P2 gets a free engine change but P1 and P3 don't? Indeed, it looks like any driver having the last car on any given lap (e.g. the last car 1-lap down, the last car 2-laps down, etc.) as well as every non-point-finisher could safely quit the race on their last lap. And were there not the "prisoner's dilemma" type of threat by the 9th and later, also the 8th position could do the same. Here's my bet: The 2-race engine change rule will be gone by the time the Malaysian GP starts. - Risto -
		Add comment


Vile Merchant 4 March 2005 11:47:10 [ permanent link ]
	"Risto Lankinen" <rlankine@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kfzVd.39343$k4.767800@news1.nokia.com...> "James Hart" <news1@jameshart.co.uk> wrote in message> news:38mpl7F5n4d9qU1@individual.net...> > When P1 takes the chequered flag at the end of L58 consider the> following:-> > P2 is a lap up on P3.> > P2 stops during what should be its final lap before taking the chequered.> It> > still finishes in P2 as P3 was a lap down.> > Does that then mean P2 gets a free engine change but P1 and P3 don't?> Indeed, it looks like any driver having the last car on any given> lap (e.g. the last car 1-lap down, the last car 2-laps down, etc.)> as well as every non-point-finisher could safely quit the race on> their last lap. And were there not the "prisoner's dilemma" type> of threat by the 9th and later, also the 8th position could do the> same.> Here's my bet: The 2-race engine change rule will be gone by> the time the Malaysian GP starts. Let us hope so.
		Add comment


Guest 5 March 2005 12:19:35 [ permanent link ]
	The obvious answer to this is to give points all the way back to last place. Still think this engine rule is a really stupid idea. Giving points all the way back to last place would encourage more reliable engines in itself. If you want to decrease speeds increase weight and frontal area or bring in fuel restrictions. I dont reckon it is possible to decrease costs in a highly competitive sport. What I really hate is the way the paying public loses out with a highly reduced turn out for practice due to teams wishing to save their engines. I am pretty sure the cost of designing long life engines is much more expensive that the cost of producing each engine. Imposing restrictions on exotic materials could reduce costs but I think is against the spirit of F1 and holds back technological advances which may help all man kind.
		Add comment


Mark Jackson 17 March 2005 03:43:05 [ permanent link ]
	David Betts wrote: jAs far as any fine tuning of the rules is concerned, I don't see a> problem. If teams are obviously taking advantage they will, no doubt,> be punished and/or the rules changed. So the FIA has now issued a "clarification" which gives the stewards responsibility for making a distinction between "failing to finish" (which is what the rule says) and "choosing not to finish." I would have thought that in plain English the latter, if not exactly the same, rather overlapped with the former. But the FIA knows better. -- Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson All creativity is an extended form of a joke. - Alan Kay
		Add comment


Pete Fenelon 17 March 2005 03:55:07 [ permanent link ]
	Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:> So the FIA has now issued a "clarification" which gives the stewards > responsibility for making a distinction between "failing to finish" > (which is what the rule says) and "choosing not to finish." I would > have thought that in plain English the latter, if not exactly the same, > rather overlapped with the former. But the FIA knows better. Surreptitiously disengage rev limiter and traction control while car is in running in 9th position. Place boot to floor hard. That which is intended to work at 19000rpm just might come unstitched dramatically and expensively at 20000rpm. Magic smoke exits engine through hole in side of block. Result: Free engine change. Failure to finish or "choosing not to finish"? ;) I don't envy the stewards or Charlie Whiting and his boys this one. Given that traction control was allowed back in 'cos it couldn't be policed, how on Earth do the FIA think they can legislate against "self-destruct" ;) pete -- pete@fenelon.com "Send lawyers, guns and money...."
		Add comment


Mark Jackson 17 March 2005 06:43:07 [ permanent link ]
	Pete Fenelon wrote:> Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:> So the FIA has now issued a "clarification" which gives the stewards >>responsibility for making a distinction between "failing to finish" >>(which is what the rule says) and "choosing not to finish." I would >>have thought that in plain English the latter, if not exactly the same, >>rather overlapped with the former. But the FIA knows better.> Surreptitiously disengage rev limiter and traction control while car> is in running in 9th position. Place boot to floor hard. That which is> intended to work at 19000rpm just might come unstitched dramatically> and expensively at 20000rpm. Magic smoke exits engine through hole in> side of block. Result: Free engine change.> Failure to finish or "choosing not to finish"? ;)> I don't envy the stewards or Charlie Whiting and his boys this one.> Given that traction control was allowed back in 'cos it couldn't be> policed, how on Earth do the FIA think they can legislate against> "self-destruct" ;) And it's all completely unnecessary - there's no reason why failure to finish should exempt a team from being penalized for changing an engine before the second race is run. -- Mark Jackson - http://www.alumni.caltech.edu/~mjackson All creativity is an extended form of a joke. - Alan Kay
		Add comment


Vile Merchant 18 March 2005 01:19:05 [ permanent link ]
	"Pete Fenelon" <pete@fenelon.com> wrote in message news:3rga1d.pck.ln@fenelon.com...> Mark Jackson <mjackson@alumni.caltech.edu> wrote:> > So the FIA has now issued a "clarification" which gives the stewards> > responsibility for making a distinction between "failing to finish"> > (which is what the rule says) and "choosing not to finish." I would> > have thought that in plain English the latter, if not exactly the same,> > rather overlapped with the former. But the FIA knows better.> Surreptitiously disengage rev limiter and traction control while car> is in running in 9th position. Place boot to floor hard. That which is> intended to work at 19000rpm just might come unstitched dramatically> and expensively at 20000rpm. Magic smoke exits engine through hole in> side of block. Result: Free engine change.> Failure to finish or "choosing not to finish"? ;)> I don't envy the stewards or Charlie Whiting and his boys this one.> Given that traction control was allowed back in 'cos it couldn't be> policed, how on Earth do the FIA think they can legislate against> "self-destruct" ;) And of course we all know blowing up perfectly good engines on the last lap is a great cost-cutting measure. Max you've done it again!
		Add comment




Get comments by e-mail Add to favourites

respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..

	see also: Mon-Fayette Expressway funds may fall… Proposed I-14 highway would span from… More Tennessee News		pass tests:		see also: 98 Sebring sudden zero acceleration 1997 Dodge Neon 1997 Dodge Neon Copmuter

Re: Two-race engine rule

Add new comment