New Engine Rule (possible Round1 spoilers)

  • Thread starter Thread starter SouL
  • 4 comments
  • 576 views
SouL

SouL

Messages
303
The rules state that if a driver does not finish a Grand Prix, for whatever reason, they're allowed to change engines without penalty.
Already Ferrari and BAR have taken advantage of this.
Schumacher parked the car in the garage after his accident with Heidfeld. This allows him to have a fresh engine in Malaysia.
Both BAR cars were brought into the garage on the final lap. This counts as both cars not finishing the race, and therefore, allows both cars to have new engines fitted for round2.

If teams are allowed to do this... what's the point of finishing a race if you're out of the points paying position? Is this some sort of lame regulation to try and even out the playing field? By severly handicapping the runners who finished in the previous race?

It doesn't seem right.
 
It was a shortsighted rule introduced by the FIA. I'm sure it will be appropriately modified soon enough since I'm sure lots of teams will complain that BAR and Schumacher get fresh engines for Malaysia (one of the hottest races of the year; therefore very punishing to engines).
 
They´re changing a lot of the new rules already, soon they´ll change this one too.
 
Ev0
It was a shortsighted rule introduced by the FIA. I'm sure it will be appropriately modified soon enough since I'm sure lots of teams will complain that BAR and Schumacher get fresh engines for Malaysia (one of the hottest races of the year; therefore very punishing to engines).
Click to expand...

hmm, most teams stated they be using the engine more at albert park than malaysia as they spend alot more time at 100% throttle, it ads a certain strategy to it, thinkin which of the next pair of races requires more out of the engine, the rule adds this element but it is definately flawed and is in no way cutting costs (as was the goal of this rule and mayn other new ones)
 
The rule was meant to allow for people who don't finish a race through mechanical failure or damage. Personally I think that it's a bit silly.

But, as one (unnamed) team boss said: it won't be changed, because to change it would require the unanimous agreement of the teams, and no team boss would agree to close a loophole that they themselves may wish to use at some point in the future.

It's just another case of an ill-conceived rule encouraging the wrong type of behaviour.
 

Latest Posts

Back