New engine rule

DaveKillens · Post 19 Oct 2006, 19:53

Once upon a time, far, far away in the magic kingdon of Mad Max, they (he) decided to change the engine rule, supposedly to decrease costs. "Use less engines, you're going to have to spend less money", came the flawless logic flowing past the lips of the infallable Mad Max. Of course, this rule has been slowly implimented and expanded, where now we are expected to see one engine last through two race events without incurring penalty.
And lo and behold, in the newest development coming from the people who makes the rules, there is an alteration. Now, on practice Fridays, there is an exemption from the engine rule. Now, those carefully conserved engines can be given a day of rest, and teams can install a fresh, new powerplant to allow the drivers to stretch their muscles, and entertain the crowds. Because to be honest, lately most of the front runners' engines didn't put in too much effort on Friday, they could not risk destroying an engine and going back ten places in the grid.
So my question to Max and anyone else is; just where the heck did this logic about decreasing costs get lost? Because now that teams can trot out a fresh engine each Friday, they are going to have a lot more engines in their inventories, they will have to build a lot more engines.
Assuming they still will use about the same number of engines in testing, there will be an added engine for each car for each race. 18 races, 18 new engines per car. And if all goes well, 9 engines (per car) for the actual competition.
Once again, a graphic example of Max making a decision and not thinking it through to it's final and logical end.

bhall · Post 19 Oct 2006, 20:29

The cost of fabricating the parts and constructing a homolagated engine is low when compared to the cost of developing an engine throughout the season, which is now prohibited.

Although I'm against the engine freeze just out of the principle of open competition, the new rules for Fridays don't really do anything substantial to increase costs. In fact, I think teams could probably run with new engines every time they put a car on the track and still spend less than they do now if those engines are never developed.

DaveKillens · Post 19 Oct 2006, 20:41

Agreed, the cost of research and development, as well as castings and tooling still keeps the costs just as high. So on it's own, the new rule to make an engine last two weekends didn't make and sense.
But this new Friday exemption flies in the face of the original logic proposed by Mad Max.

bhall · Post 19 Oct 2006, 20:58

Yeah, it does contradict the original FIA logic. But that's nothing new, you know?

I just happen to think the Friday idea is a really good one. Maybe it will help some of the tracks struggling under Bernie's archaic revenue-generating scheme to sell more weekend tickets. And it can't do anything but make the competition better as teams will be able to do some real testing on all the tracks used for races.

The additional engine costs will fast become negligible as teams inevitably streamline their engine manufacturing without the burdens of development and all that goes along with it.

allan · Post 19 Oct 2006, 23:17

have a question guys
those engineers who were developing the engines throughout the season, what's gonna happen to them????
take a 2 year break????

mini696 · Post 20 Oct 2006, 00:39

Just because the teams cant change the engines during the next two years doesnt mean they wont be spending a lot of money on development for the next lot.

Rob W · Post 20 Oct 2006, 07:42

Interestingly Dave, they've also done away with 3rd car testing on race weekends... You will be able to run three drivers, but only two cars...

So now, not only have they raised costs again with the engine thing, but also negated much of the chance of teams risking a young tester in case he destroys the car of one of the actually race-drvers. So, from now on there wont be as many new people coming through learning the different tracks either - also the antithesis of what they logically should be encouraging.

Add to that, if you destroy an engine - which there will be no dissincentive to doing - more time and money will be spent changing them.... and I predict engine failures during practice will go up about 50-fold next year.

Rob W

DaveKillens · Post 20 Oct 2006, 17:51

Funny thing, what's the downside to having a young test driver have an excursion and destroy one of the planned race cars? The race engine is safe in a crate in the garage, and no doubt there will be a spare chassis and spare parts just waiting for assembly into a backup. In fact, I don't see any difference apart from the fact the mechanics will be worked to death on race weekends.
So what will be the team strategies? Bring the two primary race cars and their engines, as well as at least four spare engines, and minimum one, probably two spare chassis and even more parts. The number one driver will have his car protected from rookie driver mistakes, but the number two driver will get even less practice time, and if a rookie tester is going to damage anything, it will be that car. It's going to be even harder on the second driver, less practice time, and the risk of being forced to use a rebuilt car much more likely.

hatchet man · Post 20 Oct 2006, 19:10

I'm a little fuzzy on the details but I thought that these extended Friday practices will count towards the 30 000km testing limit. They don't race with an engine directly from testing (mid week) so I don't see any additional cost incurred. Plus the teams will actually be testing at the venue itself as opposed to adapting data from another track to simulate the one to be raced on. Benifit to the fans as well as the teams, albeit they will not be able to "develop" parts for the particular race, only asses them. In terms of development I mean make modifications at the factory or lay-up new carbon fibre pieces.

That said, I do see the potential downside for the #2 drivers.