planetf1.com

It is currently Wed Sep 26, 2018 9:06 am

All times are UTC


Forum rules


Please read the forum rules



Post new topic Reply to topic
Author Message
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 3:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:16 pm
Posts: 63
https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/13456 ... ty-tactics

If this is true, then this is a real shame. 3 great teams running Renault engines with great drivers who looks like they may end up just being hindered by a stupid "road relevance" rule...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:40 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:02 am
Posts: 797
Location: India
Just imagine how Honda will manage this situation with only 1 team :uhoh: Mclaren so far have done the least amount of laps but at least RBR, Renault are doing some mileage. 3 engine is too low and with limited testing it is almost certain many guys will take penalty

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9-GK3MeLI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 4:47 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:16 pm
Posts: 63
Mercedes-Benz wrote:
Just imagine how Honda will manage this situation with only 1 team :uhoh: Mclaren so far have done the least amount of laps but at least RBR, Renault are doing some mileage. 3 engine is too low and with limited testing it is almost certain many guys will take penalty


Agreed. Although I would be very surprised if Merc have to. They have been bang on it with reliability since the start of the hybrid era.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:24 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:47 pm
Posts: 2995
Disappointing it could potentially come to this, and this is before the inevitable engine failures that result in further penalties.

Saying that, it must be a pretty significant loss of performance for a manufacturer to actually consider taking intentional grid penalties. Perhaps enough that over the course of a season, the points they might lose in the races where they take the intentional penalties are actually balanced out by gains over the rest of the season?

_________________
Pick 10 | 1st x1, 2nd x3, 3rd x7
2018: 10th | 2017: 6th | 2016: 8th | 2015: 2nd | 2014: 15th | 2013: 17th | 2012: 11th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 5:31 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2005 2:06 pm
Posts: 2542
Location: England
It's been on the cards since it was announced, and was obviously going to happen. If you're going to score no points because you've had to turn the engine down so much to keep it going, you may as well get a fresh one in there and take the rap at a race where qualifying is less important/you can actually overtake.

_________________
PF1 Pick 10 Competition 2018: {Rookie Year}
Current positon: 3rd | 2 Podiums | 1 Win


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:05 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23710
This is why I loathe the limited engine rules. It goes against the very DNA of F1. I've little doubt that Renault aren't the only manufacturer to be factoring in strategic PU usage and it makes a mockery of any kind of racing ethos


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 10:52 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4830
Flash2k11 wrote:
It's been on the cards since it was announced, and was obviously going to happen. If you're going to score no points because you've had to turn the engine down so much to keep it going, you may as well get a fresh one in there and take the rap at a race where qualifying is less important/you can actually overtake.


I'd go for it as long as you can hit your development target before Monza (Round 14) as looking at the calendar I wouldn't fancy taking the penalty at Sing,Rus or Jpn which is rounds 15-17. I was thinking USA before I checked but that's round 18 out of 21 which is too late imo.

So you'd have to be confident in getting your 3rd spec of the year ready by then and take new units at Spain (Round 5).Silverstone (Round 10) and then the penalty at Monza (Round 14).

Monza is maybe too early ideally but if you can get your 'Spec 2' ready by Spain or Silverstone and your 'Spec 3' by Monza then for the last 7 races you'd have a very healthy pool of units and you can use the higher 5 race lifespan power modes basically all year instead of restricting yourself to the less powerful 7 race lifespan modes.

(Or if Russia is better for overtaking than what I'm remembering then do it there)

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2018 11:26 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8056
TBH they would be failing in their duty if they did not take it into consideration. Aim for the target, but have a spare plan too.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:15 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2597
Perhaps all the manufacturers could agree to taking an engine penalty in the same race. That would sick two fingers up to the three-engines rule.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:20 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 1:05 pm
Posts: 7359
tootsie323 wrote:
Perhaps all the manufacturers could agree

:lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Feb 28, 2018 10:48 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Feb 29, 2012 5:47 pm
Posts: 2995
tootsie323 wrote:
Perhaps all the manufacturers could agree to taking an engine penalty in the same race. That would sick two fingers up to the three-engines rule.


That thought actually crossed my mind, swiftly followed by this one:

Black_Flag_11 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Perhaps all the manufacturers could agree

:lol:

_________________
Pick 10 | 1st x1, 2nd x3, 3rd x7
2018: 10th | 2017: 6th | 2016: 8th | 2015: 2nd | 2014: 15th | 2013: 17th | 2012: 11th


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 9:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:16 pm
Posts: 63
I vaguely remember reading last season (early on, when it was obvious that the 2017 Renault engine was not up to scratch), that they would not be releasing any major modifications to their engine until the following season.

This gave me hope that they would learn the lessons from 2017, and introduce a major overhaul for 2018. But Ed Straw's article concludes that "...the engine package in use at the start of this season is similar to the one in the car at the end of last season...".

Hmmm...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 12:51 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Apr 05, 2009 5:52 am
Posts: 2597
Black_Flag_11 wrote:
tootsie323 wrote:
Perhaps all the manufacturers could agree

:lol:

Ha! Should have realised that my idea was doomed in the first few words.

_________________
Where I'm going, I don't need roads


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 2:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
Remember the last few races of 2017? All Renault powered cars suffered horrible reliability. Much more than anything else, the complete loss of reliability is Renault's prime target, they must not suffer like they did at end of 2017. And now we come to the point in the graph where two lines cross. Reliability versus one more engine.

What a load of crap. These engine rules were supposed to make life easier for all teams and also make engines cheaper. Instead, we now have the exact opposite. Engines are fragile, complex, expensive, and established and competent engine manufacturers like Renault must scramble to find a compromise strategy? If Formula One had their act together, we should not even be discussing the engine problems.

Next weekend the Indycar season starts up. The fans are not talking about engine problems, they are all gleefully anticipating another exciting season of action. What a contrast.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Mar 01, 2018 6:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 6:31 pm
Posts: 344
Location: Chicago
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Remember the last few races of 2017? All Renault powered cars suffered horrible reliability. Much more than anything else, the complete loss of reliability is Renault's prime target, they must not suffer like they did at end of 2017. And now we come to the point in the graph where two lines cross. Reliability versus one more engine.

What a load of crap. These engine rules were supposed to make life easier for all teams and also make engines cheaper. Instead, we now have the exact opposite. Engines are fragile, complex, expensive, and established and competent engine manufacturers like Renault must scramble to find a compromise strategy? If Formula One had their act together, we should not even be discussing the engine problems .

Next weekend the Indycar season starts up. The fans are not talking about engine problems, they are all gleefully anticipating another exciting season of action. What a contrast.


Agreee. Other than Mercedes of course everyone else seems to be struggling. Maybe I should just start watching indycar instead. Not looking forward to one more year the same old same old Merc 1-2


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 1:31 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
ohwell wrote:
Blinky McSquinty wrote:
Remember the last few races of 2017? All Renault powered cars suffered horrible reliability. Much more than anything else, the complete loss of reliability is Renault's prime target, they must not suffer like they did at end of 2017. And now we come to the point in the graph where two lines cross. Reliability versus one more engine.

What a load of crap. These engine rules were supposed to make life easier for all teams and also make engines cheaper. Instead, we now have the exact opposite. Engines are fragile, complex, expensive, and established and competent engine manufacturers like Renault must scramble to find a compromise strategy? If Formula One had their act together, we should not even be discussing the engine problems .

Next weekend the Indycar season starts up. The fans are not talking about engine problems, they are all gleefully anticipating another exciting season of action. What a contrast.


Agreee. Other than Mercedes of course everyone else seems to be struggling. Maybe I should just start watching indycar instead. Not looking forward to one more year the same old same old Merc 1-2


Even for Merc reliability is a major concern. Most of the noise coming out of the team is that they are focusing on reliability.

Quote:
Reigning World Champion Lewis Hamilton says repeating his reliability record in Formula 1 this year will be tricky, but believes the achievement is within Mercedes' reach.

https://www.gpupdate.net/en/f1-news/362035/hamilton-sure-mercedes-can-repeat-reliability/

Do not forget, we are going from four in 2017 to just three engines in 2018.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:24 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:02 am
Posts: 797
Location: India
The only use of this rule I can see is for customers teams who will have to pay for 6 engines instead of 8 this year. But what if the engine dies ? They will get it for free or have to pay for using extra engines, anyways ?

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9-GK3MeLI


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun May 25, 2008 7:55 pm
Posts: 5328
To play Devil's advocate; maybe this rule can be seen as a sort of way to spice things up. You'll have top drivers and cars starting from the back once or twice each this year.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:55 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon May 31, 2010 10:02 am
Posts: 1317
Location: Far side of Koozebane
Do the customer teams get any compensation from their engine supplier should they suffer an engine failure that may be the suppliers fault?

I've find it amusing that Williams buy a Merc engine for a certain dollar amount in the expectation it should last a certain amount of km or hrs. If said engine fails inside that expectation, it is Williams that cops the grid penalty, potential points loss & therefore prize money loss plus the repair or replacement cost of the engine.

_________________
Question: If a compulsive liar tells you they're a compulsive liar, are they really a compulsive liar?

2017 WCC CPTTC - Jalopy Racing (Herb & Me)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:24 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:16 pm
Posts: 63
sandman1347 wrote:
To play Devil's advocate; maybe this rule can be seen as a sort of way to spice things up. You'll have top drivers and cars starting from the back once or twice each this year.


Or, you'll have top Red Bull, McLaren (and possibly even Ferrari) drivers starting from the back once or twice this year (like last year), whilst Merc continue their incredible record of reliability.

:thumbdown:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 10:38 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1993
clarkeeuk99 wrote:
sandman1347 wrote:
To play Devil's advocate; maybe this rule can be seen as a sort of way to spice things up. You'll have top drivers and cars starting from the back once or twice each this year.


Or, you'll have top Red Bull, McLaren (and possibly even Ferrari) drivers starting from the back once or twice this year (like last year), whilst Merc continue their incredible record of reliability.

:thumbdown:


Hamilton used 5 engines last year, the same as Vettel and one more than all other Ferrari and Mercedes drivers. So it's not just the Mercedes that had good reliability.

I think all teams will be struggling this year, and I expect all teams are now considering where they would take tactical engine penalties in the 2nd half of the season.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
sandman1347 wrote:
To play Devil's advocate; maybe this rule can be seen as a sort of way to spice things up. You'll have top drivers and cars starting from the back once or twice each this year.


Playing devil's advocate, your point is valid and appropriate. Yes, it is another method to "spice up" the show. But I belong to a number of fans who just want to see on-track battling. The cars and drivers should not be saddled with so many handicaps, and my personal goal is to see all the cars on the grid, representing their true potential, with the drivers allowed to go flat out for the entire race.

p.s. Indycar engine suppliers lease their engines to teams for a total cost of approximately a million dollars a year.

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 3:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2012 2:53 pm
Posts: 6548
Location: Mumbai, India
3 engines is a hideous number.

Wish they wouldn't keep a limit. That way teams wouldn't be precautious. They would try to use lesser number of engines anyway as more the engines, higher the cost. But this engine rule I feel makes sense to exist keeping the manufacturer teams in mind. Even if there was no limit, Manufacturer teams have enough money to keep using fresh engines but the customer teams would suffer as they're limited with finances. So this engine rule kind of makes it a level playing field & narrows the financial advantage tat the manufacturer teams have over customer teams.

_________________
Feel The Fourth


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 5:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8056
Another thing to keep in mind, but only the engine makers will know this, New developments.
It is always 'too soon' to state the engine is ready. There are always a handful of things in the pipeline and not quite there, but at a deadline the engine goes as it is.

A team could find a real humdinger in the first couple of days, then another, then see fruition of some more trials and decide the gain is worth the penalty. A penalty is for one race, any gain is for every race from then on.

This would of course be a continual rolling effect so would need constant consideration. This is in addition to everyone else's engine losing 10HP (or what ever) per race on the opposite side of the scales.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Fri Mar 02, 2018 9:49 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:01 pm
Posts: 592
3 engines is low. Must now be approaching the point where it is a close call to just design the engine to do 25% of the season and take a penalty at one race though as it could give a reasonable performance advantage.

Realistically what can they do when the current rules expire? Changing the engines will see huge development costs, another engine war and risk of greater disparity for another long period. Perhaps they should just keep the current rules, with an option to set a max power output each year until the rest get their act together and catch up with Mercedes?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 8:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 11:46 am
Posts: 93
Location: Suffolk, UK
Herb wrote:
Hamilton used 5 engines last year, the same as Vettel and one more than all other Ferrari and Mercedes drivers. So it's not just the Mercedes that had good reliability.


Remember Spa 2016? Hamilton used 3 new engines in practice - enough to get him through to the end of the year. So never mind teams taking strategic penalties for 1 extra engine... The problem is that the penalty system means drivers drop any penalties over 20 after the race. So: 3 new engines at Spa - 60 penalties - Hamilton starts at the back, finishes 3rd, and starts the next race with engines coming out of his ears and a clean sheet!

The 3 engine rule may help poorer teams to save money but those like Mercedes can just circumvent it. If the penalty was 40 grid places per engine, and/or any penalties not used had to be carried forward to the next race, it might work. I think that miraculously there would be far fewer engine problems!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 9:01 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Dec 04, 2013 4:42 pm
Posts: 1993
tim3003 wrote:
Herb wrote:
Hamilton used 5 engines last year, the same as Vettel and one more than all other Ferrari and Mercedes drivers. So it's not just the Mercedes that had good reliability.


Remember Spa 2016? Hamilton used 3 new engines in practice - enough to get him through to the end of the year. So never mind teams taking strategic penalties for 1 extra engine... The problem is that the penalty system means drivers drop any penalties over 20 after the race. So: 3 new engines at Spa - 60 penalties - Hamilton starts at the back, finishes 3rd, and starts the next race with engines coming out of his ears and a clean sheet!

The 3 engine rule may help poorer teams to save money but those like Mercedes can just circumvent it. If the penalty was 40 grid places per engine, and/or any penalties not used had to be carried forward to the next race, it might work. I think that miraculously there would be far fewer engine problems!


Spa 2016 is irrelevant to 2018. It was irrelevant to 2017 too, they changed that rule to stop that happening again.

_________________
Top Three Team Champions 2017 (With Jezza13)
Group Pick 'Em 2016 Champion


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2018 10:42 pm 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2013 3:36 pm
Posts: 4830
Didn't Lewis only really take a 5th engine last year because of Brazil Q and it not costing him anything to do so.

I don't think he needed it for reliability reasons and I think Mercedes will make the limit this year, their customers definitely. Nothing seems to worry them on the engine side at all.

_________________
"Clark came through at the end of the first lap so far ahead that we in the pits were convinced that the rest of the field must have been wiped out in an accident."
-Eddie Dennis, describing the dominance of Jim Clark in the Lotus 49 at Spa 1967


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 10:12 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:11 pm
Posts: 52
3 engine rule only benefit merc & to a lesser extent Ferrari.. because they nailed it the first time around and have the right concept to further develop and improve over the past few years... whilst others are trying to play catch up, the limited running and limited engines prevents others from catching up quickly to be on par.. I think if we know Merfc still haev the advantage, is then to allow others to have a more relaxed regime..


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 11:47 am 
Offline

Joined: Mon Mar 26, 2012 10:39 am
Posts: 23710
Lotus49 wrote:
Didn't Lewis only really take a 5th engine last year because of Brazil Q and it not costing him anything to do so.

I don't think he needed it for reliability reasons and I think Mercedes will make the limit this year, their customers definitely. Nothing seems to worry them on the engine side at all.

I don't think it really matters what actually happened in the end. Point is Merc gained an extra couple of engines for him, which allowed them the luxury of being able to plan their strategy accordingly, by eg turning up the wick in the full knowledge that they had backup in the event of issues. The fact that the PUs actually stood up to the punishment being doled out was just a bonus.

Now the teams have to plan their strategy around 3 PUs, which I'm willing to bet might be a little different to ones in which they were able to choose from 4 or 5.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:17 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:16 pm
Posts: 63
If you're a lower team running in 14th/15th, it may be deemed of no benefit to keep going so as to save the engine. I'd hate to see this, but I guess it depends on how Merc, Renault, Ferrari & Honda have built their engine with respect to reliability.

If you look at https://www.thisisf1.com/2017/07/28/f1-2017-engine-unit-elements-used-so-far-hungarian-gp/, this shows last years usage as of Hungary. Many drivers were on the brink at this point (and that was with 4 engines available). I think if they had kept it to 4, we still would have had some penalties, but nothing like as much as 2017.

With 3 engines though, I think we're likely to see at least the same as 2017 in 2018.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 2:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jan 17, 2010 2:53 pm
Posts: 1581
Location: Canada
Stupid rule. As the thread title implies, this creates non-racing manipulation. Grrrr...


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 3:06 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 4:07 pm
Posts: 7769
Jezza13 wrote:
Do the customer teams get any compensation from their engine supplier should they suffer an engine failure that may be the suppliers fault?

I've find it amusing that Williams buy a Merc engine for a certain dollar amount in the expectation it should last a certain amount of km or hrs. If said engine fails inside that expectation, it is Williams that cops the grid penalty, potential points loss & therefore prize money loss plus the repair or replacement cost of the engine.

We don't know what is written in contracts.

_________________
eeee


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 4:49 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Aug 09, 2008 9:22 pm
Posts: 8056
What if all grid penalties were counted from pole ? :twisted:

For example
Merc have an engine penalty from pos 2, = start in 12th.

FI have a 10 place grid penalty for engine change, qualli position 8, - 10 puts them in 10, 2 actual loss .

Haas have an engine penalty while qualifying 15 = 15th on grid.ETC.

Only those in the top 10 actually have any control over the engine, so those who do not do not get penalized (Well, once Honda get their act together)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Mar 05, 2018 6:57 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Thu Feb 08, 2018 6:34 pm
Posts: 35
Location: USA
We could just get rid of the damn engine/power unit limits altogether, since it's not like the teams are saving a red cent (or eurocent, if you prefer).

_________________
"IF is a very long word in Formula One; in fact, IF is F1 spelled backwards." - Murray Walker


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:12 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 972
Come Austria, teams will be taking penalties in each and every race for the remainder of the season.
3 engines for 21 races is absolutely ridiculous.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:29 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Nov 18, 2012 11:14 pm
Posts: 3376
This rule is just another example of the fia’s ineptitude. How can anyone think this is going to be good for the sport. Who are the people responsible for these rules?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Tue Mar 06, 2018 3:32 pm 
Offline

Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2007 11:35 am
Posts: 972
kleefton wrote:
This rule is just another example of the fia’s ineptitude. How can anyone think this is going to be good for the sport. Who are the people responsible for these rules?

Next set of big rule shake up in 2021. Or so I keep reading.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 2:36 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 12:13 pm
Posts: 1316
Jezza13 wrote:
Do the customer teams get any compensation from their engine supplier should they suffer an engine failure that may be the suppliers fault?

I've find it amusing that Williams buy a Merc engine for a certain dollar amount in the expectation it should last a certain amount of km or hrs. If said engine fails inside that expectation, it is Williams that cops the grid penalty, potential points loss & therefore prize money loss plus the repair or replacement cost of the engine.


Customer teams like Williams are in a lose-lose situation. Mercedes supply the engines and the technical specifications on the care and feeding of the engine. Williams pay a huge amount of money for the engine, but they are forbidden by contract to open up the engines. So if something goes wrong, Williams do not even have the opportunity to open up the engine and conduct any forensics on the cause of the problem. So if an engine goes bang, how can Williams prove that the fault was the manufacturer?

_________________
Only dogs, mothers, and quality undergarments give unconditional support.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Mar 07, 2018 5:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Mar 04, 2012 8:02 am
Posts: 797
Location: India
But if customers teams are anyways going to pay for 10engines instead of 6 then how is the rule good for them ? R&D required for manufacture to make these engine last 7races and get more out of the engine. I am not sure is cost saving either :?

_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YM9-GK3MeLI


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Lotus49 and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group