2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post here all non technical related topics about Formula One. This includes race results, discussions, testing analysis etc. TV coverage and other personal questions should be in Off topic chat.
marmer
9
Joined: Fri Apr 21, 2017 5:48 am

2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by marmer » Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:48 pm

currently nobody apart from Mercedes likes the system in place. I have two solutions that i think would help solve the issue in a fair manor without upsetting the fans 1 could be in place as just a rule change while the other might require a change of engine regulations.

1. each engine must do 5 races without swapping out for another motor. like the gear box rule.
teams could use any motor they like in practice sessions on Friday so that number of laps are not reduced. p3 must use race engine. if the team has to use a new unit before race five they must take a 5 place grid drop per component. keeping the engine in the car until the end of the original 5 races. At the end of the 5 races it would be retired from racing keeping teams on the same plane. this would stop teams piling up grid pens by swapping them out before failure all for them to be used at the end of the season and fail. this is better than the current system which basically means a bad start ruins your whole year. while you would still be punished for poor reliability it would be early and steady unlike the current system that means once you have used your engines you get pens every new part afterwards destroying the end of season for some teams.

option 2 would be to have 1 engine per season. free use of different units for Friday practice but race unit from p3 on wards teams would get a grid pen equal to the amount of cars on grid (ensuring they start last apart from cars that qualified behind them and also used a new unit) for any new unit used but the whole unit must be changed upgrades would be seen as a new unit and would be punished just the same as a failed unit

Zynerji
12
Joined: Wed Jan 27, 2016 3:14 pm

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by Zynerji » Fri Jan 12, 2018 11:47 pm

Or, just move the 50 units from the dyno blow up room to the track, and give them 10/yr and save money on total manufactured units.

dans79
116
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by dans79 » Sat Jan 13, 2018 12:08 am

Most of the reliability rules are a joke. Manufactures are probably spending more to engineer and build components to last 5 races, than they would if we went back to the age of qualifying and race motors for every event.

flynfrog
Moderator
User avatar
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 9:31 pm

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by flynfrog » Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:16 pm

One engine/gearbox per weekend. If you blow it up in qualy start from the back. Even my local dirt track with cars built in sheds pull the engine between races.

strad
221
User avatar
Joined: Sat Jan 02, 2010 12:57 am

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by strad » Sat Jan 13, 2018 8:19 pm

When I was drag racing I freshened the engine before every meet.
Top classes rebuild between runs for heavens sake.
The idea they are saving money is a load of crap.
Any money saved on one end is shoveled into the other end.
It's downright silly. but then so many of the FIA rules are. . imo
Motorsport without danger is like cooking without salt
Sir Stirling Moss

AJI
11
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by AJI » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:21 pm

flynfrog wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:16 pm
One engine/gearbox per weekend. If you blow it up in qualy start from the back.
I'm with you 100%. When did F1 forget that it's supposed to be a hedonistic extravaganza?

dave kumar
2
User avatar
Joined: Tue Feb 26, 2008 1:16 pm
Location: UK

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by dave kumar » Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:51 pm

marmer wrote:
Fri Jan 12, 2018 4:48 pm
1. each engine must do 5 races without swapping out for another motor. like the gear box rule.
teams could use any motor they like in practice sessions on Friday so that number of laps are not reduced. p3 must use race engine. if the team has to use a new unit before race five they must take a 5 place grid drop per component. keeping the engine in the car until the end of the original 5 races. At the end of the 5 races it would be retired from racing keeping teams on the same plane. this would stop teams piling up grid pens by swapping them out before failure all for them to be used at the end of the season and fail. this is better than the current system which basically means a bad start ruins your whole year. while you would still be punished for poor reliability it would be early and steady unlike the current system that means once you have used your engines you get pens every new part afterwards destroying the end of season for some teams...
Well if nobody else is going to address the OP... I think that if we accept that there is going to be some form of engine reliability penalty system in F1, that Marmer's suggestion that an engine must be used for n consecutive races (like gearboxes) rather than allowing teams to defer a penalty is to be commended for both the reasons he states above. Certainly any proposal that stops the 'gaming' of engine penalties and stock piling of components is worth considering.

This is a bit OT but what benefits to the sport do we get from requiring that an engine or gearbox can complete multiple races? It's hard to find anyone who believes it is a cost saving measure as the components are tested to destruction on the rigs, many times over to collect data on failure rates. Did the governing body present any other justification for this reliability drive?

I recently read the World Engine proposal would require a durable power unit to allow it to be used in different racing series from WEC to F1, as racing formats vary greatly on the length and duration of the race. However I would think that you could achieve this by turning the engine down for endurance events. Then we could allow F1 to run the engine much harder as it would only have to last one race distance (plus qualification). This doesn't make reliability any less important as the engine still has to complete the race under a more stressful regime. Everyone's happy!
Formerly known as senna-toleman

netoperek
9
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2010 10:06 pm

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by netoperek » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:27 pm

AJI wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 9:21 pm
flynfrog wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:16 pm
One engine/gearbox per weekend. If you blow it up in qualy start from the back.
I'm with you 100%. When did F1 forget that it's supposed to be a hedonistic extravaganza?
I would go even further. Why limit to one per weekend? That would be some show, teams having 2 engine setups - qually and race optimised. It could show really how much raw power can be extracted from those engines.

F1 can really become what it trully should be (in my ideal world) only without any artificial limitations.

Jolle
68
Joined: Wed Jan 29, 2014 9:58 pm
Location: Dordrecht

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by Jolle » Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:47 pm

Of course it’s a cost saving.
The costs of engineering an engine that lasts 600 km or 10.000 km are the same and the same amount of dyno ICEs are tested/destroyed.
Then it’s over to manufacture the PU’s, although there are small cost saving for the scaling up from 40 race units per manufacturer to 200, but not much.

For a works team the costs wouldn’t be important but... for all the customers it’s a big deal, leasing 6 units for the team vs 40....

AJI
11
Joined: Tue Dec 22, 2015 8:08 am

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by AJI » Sun Jan 14, 2018 9:16 am

Jolle wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 11:47 pm
Of course it’s a cost saving.
The costs of engineering an engine that lasts 600 km or 10.000 km are the same and the same amount of dyno ICEs are tested/destroyed.
Is it the same though? Of course there's a tipping point, but I'd say 600 vs 10,000kms is miles apart (or literally 9,400kms apart...)

My hedonistic extravaganza point was really about my personal wish to see teams run on the ragged edge every race weekend rather than take a calculated reliability risk once every 7 races.

Vyssion
73
User avatar
Joined: Sun Jun 10, 2012 1:40 pm

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by Vyssion » Tue Jan 16, 2018 1:36 pm

flynfrog wrote:
Sat Jan 13, 2018 4:16 pm
One engine/gearbox per weekend. If you blow it up in qualy start from the back. Even my local dirt track with cars built in sheds pull the engine between races.
In an ideal world, I would tend to agree with you here... However, one team's PU in 2016 was priced at £6,000,000 each... (before discount based on any "deals" in place) - Engines are basically stripped and rebuilt between races as they are... Perhaps instead, there is room for "free" NDT and replacement of individual parts on an "as needed" basis?
If you can't explain it simply, then you don't understand it well enough.
- Albert Einstein


The great thing about facts is that they are true, whether or not you believe them.
- Neil deGrasse Tyson


Vyssion Scribd - Aerodynamics Papers
G&K

dans79
116
Joined: Sun Mar 03, 2013 6:33 pm
Location: USA

Re: 2 solutions to engine gird pen system

Post by dans79 » Tue Jan 16, 2018 5:47 pm

This is a good read, and shows why the current rules are complete crap. It's just the FIA posturing like useless politicians.

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns38032.html
"We will build at least 80-100 engines and then test them on the bench and take the three or four that have the best reliability and power characteristics," said Cowell.

"That's a huge cost that the manufacturers will not be able to recover."
Alain Prost, the advisor for Renault, agrees that there is no great need for the FIA to keep trying to reduce engine costs in the current era.

"My (Prost GP) engine cost EUR 23 million in 2001 and we would have paid 25.5 million the following year if we had survived," he told France's Auto Plus.

"Today we are at engine prices between 12 and 14 million. Each manufacturer has therefore brought down prices with significantly more complex engines," Prost added.