2 weekend rule

[pink69]

Now we've moved to 2.4l V8's, are the F1 rules still at an engine has to last 2 whole race weekends are has it changed again?

[Marbot]

It's still the same.

[Dutton]

This time, though, if they have two engine failures in one day they have to sacrifice a piston the gods.

[maltafan]

I hope that this rule is abolished asap. Something else has to be sacrificed in engine to make it that durable, apart from the savings in mileage that the teams will do during practices.

[Peter Mallett]

But they have to test more to ensure the components will last. Possibly the world's most asinine rule ever.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

This time, though, if they have two engine failures in one day they have to sacrifice a piston the gods.

I can't see that anywhere in the regs!

It's not another one of those 'Gentlemens agreements' is it.

[Dutton]

It was decreed by the Piston Gods, via a vision as described by an annonymous prophet who appeared in the dreams of all those involved.

There isn't anything in the FIA regulations, seeing as it is a spritiual decree, and the Piston Gods leave free will in the hands on the individual.

So the teams don't have to obey. Could be risky though.

To blow or not to blow.

[safc_fan89]

I don't like the '2 race weekends' engine rule at all. The punishment should be that they lose valuable setup time. Not 10 places on the grid. It's not fair on the driver at all.

[Dutton]

I still think, in place of the 10-place penalty, they should just deduct 1 or 2 pts from the team's WCC tally.

A team could not go into minus points.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Dutton

It was decreed by the Piston Gods, via a vision as described by an annonymous prophet who appeared in the dreams of all those involved.

Actually,that would be the prophet 'Moseley' who,it is said,has decreed forthwith that all V10 engines be sacrificed to the great God 'Obsolesence'.

[Nicholosophy]

Originally Posted by martyn bott

Actually,that would be the prophet 'Moseley' who,it is said,has decreed forthwith that all V10 engines be sacrificed to the great God 'Obsolesence'.

Seems that the Great God "Obsolesene" won't accept markedly out of date V10 units as an appropriate sacrifice, so Toro Roso were unable to get rid of theirs... :P

[chillibowl]

despite creating gimmicky and artificial starting grids, i rather like the rule and the races it led to in 05.

pushing the envelope without sacrificing reliabilty should be the goal of all manufacture and i think this rule just puts a premium on that reliability by penalizing those who cannot comply.

and ultimatly, engine failures are dangerous in terms of oil and smoke being dumped out onto the track, particularly for those following. remember sato at monaco in 04 (granted the track layout was a factor here). if your failure could potentially lead to someone else getting hurt you should get a penalty - thats just the way of all sports.

anyways, my point here is why should other teams and drivers be placed in jeopardy because one team wishes to sacrifice reliabilty for more speed?

[chillibowl]

actually just read this thread for the first time and it appears that my last post was more of a hijack than anything else. sorry.

please delete if necessary. thanks

[Flat12-Aircool]

I read in the draft 2008 regulations that the FIA propose using a weight penalty rather than losing -10 places on the grid in the future. In addition, engines will have to last 3 races instead of just 2.

[Marbot]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

I read in the draft 2008 regulations that the FIA propose using a weight penalty rather than losing -10 places on the grid in the future. In addition, engines will have to last 3 races instead of just 2.

You can also use the engine for 4 races and receive a 10kg weight reduction.

[Silk Cut Jaguar]

Originally Posted by Flat12-Aircool

I read in the draft 2008 regulations that the FIA propose using a weight penalty rather than losing -10 places on the grid in the future.

McLaren are already working on how to incorporate anchors into their 2008 design.

[JeremySmith]

Stupid rule...The two race rule

[Dutton]

Just wait until it expands to 6 or beyond.

[WebberForWDC]

I don't mind the rule, I think 4, 6, 8, 10 races should be within the capability of F1 engine design departments for one engine.

[Pingguest]

This rule has nothing to do with what Formula 1 is supposed to be. And it's not fair to the drivers eighter. Hopefully, the Formula 1 will get rid of that silly rule a soon as possible. But that won't happened before Mosley has left the office, I think.

The rule was introduced to reduce the costs. I'm not sure whether it has the right result. Teams have to test more, to make sure a new engine will last the enforced distance.

[Kirk]

In case anyone forgot, the original plan was to (gradually) increase that time frame. I believe as many as 5 races per engine has been mentioned by Bernie. Therefore after some time has been allotted for the V8 transition, the 2 weekend rule may increase to 3, and possibly as early as '07? Having said that, these "proposed" rule changes often never materialize.
In general I like the idea, as it should help in keeping budgets down, but I agree with most that the 10 spot penalty is not appropriate and I'd like to see that part of it reviewed immediately. I think there is some merit to taking away constructors points for premature engine failures (and possibly a 5 spot penalty, might be a good compromise for a driver penalty).

[Pingguest]

Originally Posted by Kirk

In case anyone forgot, the original plan was to (gradually) increase that time frame. I believe as many as 5 races per engine has been mentioned by Bernie. Therefore after some time has been allotted for the V8 transition, the 2 weekend rule may increase to 3, and possibly as early as '07? Having said that, these "proposed" rule changes often never materialize.
In general I like the idea, as it should help in keeping budgets down, but I agree with most that the 10 spot penalty is not appropriate and I'd like to see that part of it reviewed immediately. I think there is some merit to taking away constructors points for premature engine failures (and possibly a 5 spot penalty, might be a good compromise for a driver penalty).

Apart from the question whether the 'one-engine-two-weekends-rule' would reduce the costs, it's very debatable whether the rule is the best way to reduce the costs.

I think it would have been a better option to mandate small turbo-engines, possiblely with rev-limiter. With these engines it's a lot cheaper to increase the engine power.