engine loophole closed...after the fact

Very interesting. Raises the question again whether MS didn't deliberately provoke an incident to have a good reason to retire. I guess we'll never know.

 

There was lots of race still to run and MS was on target to score points. I think we are analyzing things to death here.

 

Great, so now we will have team mates that will drive into each other to creat racing incidents..... This one engine-two race rule is simply stupid to began with, now FIA is making up even more dumb-ass rules to ensure that everyone follows the first stupid-ass rule.

 

The fact that this loophole was not closed before the season started raises the question of how thoroughly the FIA really thought these new rules out.

I can't believe that nobody at FIA figured out beforehand that such "retirements" were going to happen.

 

That's an optimistic estimate at best. He still had another pitstop to make, which would have thrown him way back again.

 

I for one don't think this is a stupid rule.

Also we've yet to even see the second race!!!

It's a long season and we really won't know until we're past the halfway point if this is really a bad rule or not.

Teams all exploit loopholes in the rules. Take a look at the little wing hanging down in front and below the Ferrari front wing... Loophole. Porsche 935 Moby Dick- Loophole.

 

100% agree and ...

Agree it is worrying. The lack of fore thought with rule changes in the last 5 years would be enough to get the rest of us sacked ...

Pete

 

Maybe, just maybe, that "jackass" Stoddard has a point about ambiguous rule changes?

 

The entire Porsche 935 Moby Dick car was a loophole. TYhey got away with a lot of stuff on that car.

 

I'm picturing a combination of a rules meeting and a drinking game.

 

On Pete’s note, does anyone else get the feeling that if they did such a hack job day in and day out, like the FIA does, they would get canned? I really can’t picture any boss I’ve had that would be alright with me if I constantly overlooked things.

 

From http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns14376.html:

How good is F1 circa 2005?

The criticism around the world of the latest F1 regulations has been growing quietly in recent days. Several of the Formula 1 drivers expressed their opinions in Australia with David Coulthard being particularly dismissive. He is not alone in his opinion. The Australasian Motorsport News magazine in Australia has come out strongly against the rules. In an open letter addressed to Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone the magazine said "Shame you couldn't get down here to experience the result of your latest handiwork" and went on to call the new qualifying "appalling" and "a complete farce".

The magazine asked: "Is that what it's come to - a pathetic, artificial, manipulated earner? Whatever it is, it's not Formula 1 as it should be." and went on to question "what kind of motorsport encourages a team to pull its cars in with a lap to go? In what other sport is non-performance rewarded - in this case with a fresh engine for the next race? And you made all these changes for 2005 under the guise of safety. Safety? Rubbish. The record suggests that F1 is safer now than it's ever been - safer than many, many other motor sports."

The conclusion was equally inflammatory: "You're at the top; it's your responsibility, your duty to fix it. If you can't then maybe it is time for some new blood, with some fresh ideas."

Back in Europe, there has also been some serious criticism in The Guardian.

"Aspects of the 2005 regulations threaten to confuse the audience at a time when Formula 1 should be bending all its efforts towards the reintroduction of sheer excitement. Once again this season, the word 'strategy' is likely to wear out its welcome as the teams try to make the most of the rule that, in the name of saving money, requires them to make each engine last two race weekends. On Sunday, with a dozen laps still to go, we had the ludicrous sight of the world champion driving straight into the Ferrari garage after a mild collision with another car. It was obvious that Schumacher could have opted to continue to the chequered flag. But he and his team knew that, having started at the back of the grid and made only limited progress, he was unlikely to make it to a points-scoring position. Hence the decision to bring him in and retire the car, in the knowledge that retirement would allow them, under the new regulations, to install a new engine for the next race in Sepang on Sunday week.

"Grand Prix racing has never been about equality of opportunity, but it is already too complex for its own good. As usual, the new regulations will confuse fans while inviting the competitors to exploit loopholes in a way that can only invite further disrepute."

"The next time Max Mosley and Bernie Ecclestone frame a new set of rules, perhaps they should first try them out on an intelligent 10-year-old. Then we might get some sense."

 

That pretty much sums it up.

 

The two engine rule should only apply to the top 8 finishers of each race. Anyone not in the points should be able to use a new engine for the next race. Teams still have the option to run the old engines to save costs, but I think the 2 rule hurts smaller teams.

 

I though the idea was that it should be 1 engine for 2 races. The only time an engine change should be allowed is if one blows up.

 

Actually this does make sense ... and would help the pathetic teams that have not yet worked out why they are in F1, and think it is some sort of fancy show.

Seriously though from a mixing it up point of view this would work.
Pete

 

It is a bit like reversed grid. Well not technically, but in the mixing things up sense. Agreed.

 

sorry guys, seriously WRONG!!!

you are punishing the achievers and rewarding the losers ffs

here is a simple AND workable 2 engine rule :

it lasts 2 races, if not you miss a race

now if you want to mix it up then this will really put a cat amongst the pigeons, imagine RD's team only competing for half the season oh the joy

allowing for exceptions is what all teams look for and will exploit them to the full, what would you do in their place ?

 

John, I agree ... the first half of my post was supposed to come across as sarcastic ... but I guess it didn't

BTW: Hows things? ... sorted out your intentions with the GT4?

Pete

 

Sounds like the movie "Weekend at Bernie's", literally.

 

I still think it's too early to throw out the idea. After Malaysia, we will see. Since MS will have a new engine, we will see how the fresh engines differ from the second race ones of the Renaults/BMWs (I'll go by lap times). If there is a clear advantage for a first-weekend engine, then I would say not to allow new engines for non-points positions. If the difference isn't much, why not allow it?

 

MS is not going to use a new engine in Malaysia, he will be using the old one. If he had used a new engine for this race, the F2005 will have to wait another race for its debut. As of now, my understanding is that Ferrari will use F2004M for Malaysia and give MS the F2005 in Baharin, but with RB, he may have to wait until the 5th race (Imola??) for the F2005, much like in 2002 when RB had to wait one race until he was able to use the new car.

 

I just hope MS does not score any points in Malaysia ... then I might actually start watching the rest of the races again .

The season might turn into an interesting fightback ... and heck (unlikely) but somebody else might win the WC, maybe even poor down trodden RB.

Pete