2004 one engine ruling

[Jukebox]

So much hype about this earlier this season and now it might not materialize.

Ecclestone admitted that he was not opposed to the move.

He said: "I suppose in the end it's probably a good idea because the public don't really know how many engines somebody uses - whether they use four or three or two or one and they probably don't care either."


This move was supposed to help the smaller budgeted teams that depend on customer engines from the manufacturers. Macs and Willies were the one who objected strongly

[McLarenfan]

I think this was a stupid decision: "the one engine per weekend". I don't see the what it is good for.Many engines that blows during free practice,qualifying or the race are not the fault of the driver.Hope it won't come in F1.
By the way, not only McLaren and Williams were against it, Ferrari didn't find it was a good idea too.

[Jukebox]

Engines are built separately for qualifying and raceday. Qualifying engines usually can last for about 250miles while on raceday for about 400miles. With the new ruling, manufacturers have to develop engines that can at least run as far as 800miles.

While it'll help smaller teams, in my opinion speed achieved will be lower as manufacturers have to compensate this to a more reliable engine.

I agree that FIA should scrap this ruling.

[ernos5]

lol engines could last 4 races this year, thats over 3000miles.

[timbo]

lol engines could last 4 races this year, thats over 3000miles.

Hehe)))
another contender for "best archaeologist of the month" award!

[ackzsel]

Hehe)))
another contender for "best archaeologist of the month" award!

Yes, they're really trying lately. Maybe the "Similar Topics" feature needs to filter out messages older than [insert value] months. I also went down those catacombs a few times by accident.

[Conceptual]

Why is it bad to bring up past posts?

Everyone (well, certain ones) complain bitterly when people ask new questions without searching the board first. And then others complain about bringing up old posts.

It seems that the double standard of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" holds true with the members here too...

[ackzsel]

Why is it bad to bring up past posts?

Everyone (well, certain ones) complain bitterly when people ask new questions without searching the board first. And then others complain about bringing up old posts.

It seems that the double standard of "damned if you do, damned if you don't" holds true with the members here too...

Well, ofcourse there is nothing wrong with looking into older threads. But when digging up an old thread about the 2004 engine rule it might be worth concidering it's relevance before bumping it to the top of tbe page (no offence.)

[modbaraban]

If only manchild was here to draw a "prize shovel" with [dig][/dig] writetn on it

[tk421]

But when digging up an old thread about the 2004 engine rule it might be worth concidering it's relevance before bumping it to the top of tbe page

I think it's relevant, and I think it's important to gain some perspective every once in a while. People were complaining about one engine for one weekend then, and now they are going to last 4 weekends. I think it's relevant to the technology, the engineering, and most of all the cost saving measures. Back then teams were spending money like crazy, now they're doing all they can to bring in money and save money, including low-cost, long-lasting engines and gearboxes.

To say what ernos said in the '2009 engine life regulations' thread would be utterly useless, but to say it in this context in this thread is pretty meaningful.

BTW, not taking a shot at you, ackzsel, just sharing my thoughts.

[ackzsel]

BTW, not taking a shot at you, ackzsel, just sharing my thoughts.

Ofcourse, that's what a forum is about! Thanks for your reply.