Honda on the move
- Thread starter askia47
- 14 comments
- 543 views
- 10,081
- WFG9
During the preview of the race (I haven't watched the race yet or all of the preview) on Speed Channel the commentators mentioned some one engine rule proposal.
Ok, so the lower entries often have weak and unreliable engines, a limited budget, and drivers chosen for financial reasons as much as anything else. Maybe I'm missing something, but whatever costs might be saved, I guess depending on how the organizing body assists teams by giving them whatever, confusing crap, there are now a host of new issues. This seems like a very good way to make future Prost "successes." Sponsors see that again Minardi, Arrows, et al, have had engine blow ups and even though it is a pre qualifying practice session in which this happened, the sponsors yank their support.
The ratings might improve if the focus can be spent solely on top teams, but this would be such a turn off. Some are big fans of the underdog, I'm not one of them.
The positive is that reducing the "back markers" should reduce traffic and allow for more Ferrari and BMW Williams battles, but what this also means is that people interested in entering a new car in F1 will have to have way more than the current investment needed.
Am I wrong?
Ok, so the lower entries often have weak and unreliable engines, a limited budget, and drivers chosen for financial reasons as much as anything else. Maybe I'm missing something, but whatever costs might be saved, I guess depending on how the organizing body assists teams by giving them whatever, confusing crap, there are now a host of new issues. This seems like a very good way to make future Prost "successes." Sponsors see that again Minardi, Arrows, et al, have had engine blow ups and even though it is a pre qualifying practice session in which this happened, the sponsors yank their support.
The ratings might improve if the focus can be spent solely on top teams, but this would be such a turn off. Some are big fans of the underdog, I'm not one of them.
The positive is that reducing the "back markers" should reduce traffic and allow for more Ferrari and BMW Williams battles, but what this also means is that people interested in entering a new car in F1 will have to have way more than the current investment needed.
Am I wrong?
They've been trying to reduce costs in F1 since I've been following it - and that would be over 15 years. Sadly F1's golden era in this regard was the early 70's, where anyone could go to Cosworth, pick up a couple of DFV's, put them in a decent chassis and be reasonably competitive.
Since then, we've seen agreements to cut back testing (failed), a reduction in the number of available tyres (big deal), no more qualifying engines (that only the top teams were running anyway) - the list goes on and on.
Unfortunately, you can make the costs as low as you want, but ultimately the top teams are going to have more money to spend, and they'll spend it on anything they can to get an advantage.
Manufacturers are unlikely to agree to giving their engines to other teams, particularly teams like Renault and Toyota which have combined programs. Even Ferrari only give year old engines - and the teams that have taken them have been compromised in their voting in the F1 representative body - an example being the late introduction of traction and launch control last year.
At the end of the day, F1 isn't Champcar.
Since then, we've seen agreements to cut back testing (failed), a reduction in the number of available tyres (big deal), no more qualifying engines (that only the top teams were running anyway) - the list goes on and on.
Unfortunately, you can make the costs as low as you want, but ultimately the top teams are going to have more money to spend, and they'll spend it on anything they can to get an advantage.
Manufacturers are unlikely to agree to giving their engines to other teams, particularly teams like Renault and Toyota which have combined programs. Even Ferrari only give year old engines - and the teams that have taken them have been compromised in their voting in the F1 representative body - an example being the late introduction of traction and launch control last year.
At the end of the day, F1 isn't Champcar.
- 10,081
- WFG9
So we agree that it is a bad idea?
GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
There is compelling evidence to suggest that reducing the number of engines available during a weekend will in fact increase costs, since it will require a complete policy shift in engine design. And this is pure common sense anyway, since all the costs in engine development are in the development, and not the serialised production of x units, where x is a number between 17 and 120.
In addition, it will mean that teams run less on Fridays and Saturdays as they attempt to preserve their engine for the race - look at the rate of engine attrition in Hockenheim last year to see the realities of this (and Montoya only did 3 laps in Sunday warm-up!!).
It's another cretinous plan that makes no sense at all...
In addition, it will mean that teams run less on Fridays and Saturdays as they attempt to preserve their engine for the race - look at the rate of engine attrition in Hockenheim last year to see the realities of this (and Montoya only did 3 laps in Sunday warm-up!!).
It's another cretinous plan that makes no sense at all...
- 10,081
- WFG9
We should gang up on them, knock some sense in their hollow craniums.
Good that we all understand how stupid the idea is.
Good that we all understand how stupid the idea is.
GilesGuthrie
Staff Emeritus
- 11,038
- Edinburgh, UK
- CMDRTheDarkLord
And it's now been ratified for 2004 by the World Council. See www.autosport.com. 
- 10,081
- WFG9
i read some of it. what is wrong with them. geez, i hope the same minds that device the treaties other places have wanted america to follow aren't a part of the group that deviced this one engine rule.
- 10,081
- WFG9
what would they do to minardi, add f3 cars and make them stay behind the f3 cars for the first race lap?
Actually, it does - once you realise it's not actually about saving costs - it's about improving the racing by ensuring that some of the fast cars will be further back up the grid, and have to race through the pack to get to the front.
Remember Malaysia and how good it was to see Schumacher fight through the field after the Montoya incident?
Similar threads
