Conserving Engines

[Sureboss]

Now we all know that the teams turn down their engines to conserve it's life for the next races and I think yesterday and a call in to a radio station (TalkSport) this morning told me that F1 is really messing up with it. The British GP is the most expensive one (iirc) and people spending £150 should be able to watch 22 cars going all out to win the race, but yet due to the 2 race rule for the engines teams try to conserve the engines life. I think the fans are really missing out and F1 is making a big mistake in doing so. If you pay £150 to watch a race you expect drivers to have fully powered cars.

Thoughts?

 

[prisonermonkeys]

It should be at a driver's discretion - based on the advice from his pit crew - whether or not to conserve the engine. There are no guarantees in Formula One, so while engines are designed to last for two races, that doesn't mean they will last the distance. As was proved back countless times when we were still under the rules that allowed teams to freely change engines, a car's powerplant won't always last even one race. Naturally, the drivers don't want to overcook their engines. They will naturally conserve engines anyway because they're so expensive. Now, while you might want the drivers to go flat out at Silverstone, they'll probably have to nurse it a little bit at the 'Ring. And then, of course, there will be complaints that drivers didn't want to go flat out there.

Maximum speed is only one part of what a driver's job is. They also need to know when to quit while they're still ahead, so to speak, and cruise to the Finish Line rather than go all out and risk blowing the engine before the race is over. Besides, I highly doubt fans are going to be able to tell when drivers are playing it safe and when they are going for it.

 

[Slick Rick]

Well even though they turn down revs to conserve the engine, it still makes exciting races. I think the teams only turn the revs down when you have no hope catching anyone or if no one is behind like in Alonso's case yesterday. What would be the point of him pushing the engine? It would be the same situation if we didnt have the 2 race rule, the team would say 'ease up and bring it home'
If your chasing someone or under pressure Im sure the engine will not be held back even if its on its second race. Like I said, I think the revs are only turned down when you have no hope catching anyone or if no one is behind catching you up.

I think the two race rule has improved the technology in F1, We dont see as many blow ups now even though they go double the distance.

 

[Pupik]

I think the two-race rule is an abomination to the sport. Driver's have almost no control over the reliability of the motor, since there's rev-limiters and semi-automatic transmissions already built into the reliability of the engine. A driver can't accidentally over-rev the motor by downshifting into the wrong gear, and the traction controls prevent the frying of the transaxle components (which might hurt the motor). Long ago, drivers could purposely destroy a motor if it were down on power or a "bad lump", but this is well and truly not the case anymore.

Sure, the reliability of the motor is in the best interest of the engine manufacturer, but the overall performance of the engine is key, and those in charge of the motorsports division of the brand should decide whether they will sacrifice durability for power, not the governing body of the sport.

The drivers are meant to race, and the automobile is the means in which to do so. Faulting the driver for a bad engine might make for a good show, but it is certainly not what I'd call "sporting". I think the FIA should read their own Sporting Regulations before making such nonsensical rules towards he technical aspect of Grand Prix racing.

 

[<_Spike_>]

I'm all for cost cutting in the sport, but they won't be able to stop the fact that this is a very expensive sport regardless of what they do. I'm with Pupik, I've never liked the rule because it can take a lot away from the racing.

For example, what if Hamilton could've won at the weekend but they had to conserve the engine and in doing so, took his winning chance away? It means that off go the other drivers to race to their hearts content, and young Lewis is left sitting there falling behind because he has to conserve his engine...something that wouldn't be as big a priority if it was one engine one race again. Surely that's not right to bring in a rule that disadvantages drivers because constructors are forced to bring in engines that have to last for two races in a sport where engines are pushed to their limits.

 

[Dougboy]

and young Lewis is left sitting there falling behind because he has to conserve his engine...something that wouldn't be as big a priority if it was one engine one race again.

So lets say that young Lewis does not have to conserve his engine so he can go all out... Wouldnt Kimi and Alonso also go all out making it impossible for Hamilton to chase them? All Im saying is that you have to take the whole grid into consideration. Lewis was not the only one trying to conserve the engine.

 

[Alfaholic]

So lets say that young Lewis does not have to conserve his engine so he can go all out... Wouldnt Kimi and Alonso also go all out making it impossible for Hamilton to chase them? All Im saying is that you have to take the whole grid into consideration. Lewis was not the only one trying to conserve the engine.

I agree. Why would they turn Lewis's engine down if he was fast enough to gain a place? If he's running in 3rd, is losing ground to 2nd and is simply not going to catch them, and is also in no danger of losing 3rd, why not turn the engine down to make sure he reaches the end of the race? They were doing that kind of thing long before the two race per engine rule. A lot of drivers have used the old "win at the slowest possible speed" approach. Fangio was a famous advocate of this. Niki Lauda and Alain Prost were also good at it. They know when they're beaten, and concentrate on getting maximum return for the day, rather than breaking the car chasing a lost cause and coming away with nothing, like Senna was more inclined to do. It works, too. Most fans know that the fight between Senna and Prost at McLaren ended as a draw with 1 title each, but how many remember that Prost scored more points than Senna in both of those seasons? In the first season, only the top 11 finishes counted, which favoured Senna. Now, all finishes count, which favours the Prost approach. If anything, Hamilton is now actually more likely to push hard at the Nurb if he smells a chance of gaining a position, because of the two race rule..

I haven't yet seen an example of a driver conserving their engine at the expense of potential track position.

I'm not actually an advocate of this rule, as I don't think it serves any practical purpose. It almost certainly also doesn't keep costs down. The teams with the big budgets just spend the money somewhere else in order to win. But I don't think it takes racing excitement away from the viewer.

 

[GilesGuthrie]

I haven't yet seen an example of a driver conserving their engine at the expense of potential track position.

Agreed. The engines are built to do two Grands Prix, but if there is no hope of gaining a place, and no risk of losing a place, the team/driver turn the engine down to ensure that it carries the maximum life forward to the next race.

I did think that the 2-race rule was an abomination until they changed the Friday Practice rules. Now that Fridays are an unofficial test day, and do not count to engine mileage, it means that the Friday track visitors do actually get to see the cars doing more than mere installation laps.