Lots of 10 position penalties for Mayaysia
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Lots of 10 position penalties for Mayaysia
Here are two drivers and I have to go check, but something is going on with GF because of his Renaults failure, in addition I get the weird feeling I'm missing one...
[QUOTE]MASSA, DC GET GRID PENALTIES
Last Updated: Thursday, 16, March, 2006, 12:35
Felipe Massa and David Coulthard have both incurred 10-place grid penalties as a result of engine changes in the run-up to this weekend
[QUOTE]MASSA, DC GET GRID PENALTIES
Last Updated: Thursday, 16, March, 2006, 12:35
Felipe Massa and David Coulthard have both incurred 10-place grid penalties as a result of engine changes in the run-up to this weekend
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
Oh yea, I read this but have yet to see anymore info...
McLaren's Juan Pablo Montoya is likely to use a new engine too, therefore the Colombian will also have to drop ten places down his qualifying position.
http://www.f1galaxy.com
http://www.f1galaxy.com
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
This is one I really wondered about, because it was not the engine per say that failed, but the supporting hydrolic system. Sounds like the rules allow for this and the team is allowed to take their 10-position penalty and use a new engine.
Giancarlo Fisichella will have the advantage of a new Renault V8 engine for this weekend's Malaysian Grand Prix after retiring from last week's race in Bahrain. The Italian lost 50bhp by a software problem on his engine before eventually calling it a day with a hydraulic problem.
"It is important to say the problem was not with the engine itself, rather with a peripheral component that led to a problem with how the engine was operating," he added. "As the rules allow following retirement, Giancarlo will use a fresh engine in Bahrain."
As a result, Fisichella have a brand new engine at this weekend's Malaysian Grand Prix, and with temperatures expected to be amongst the highest witnessed this season, the Italian will have a clear advantage over his rivals.
http://www.eurosport.com
"It is important to say the problem was not with the engine itself, rather with a peripheral component that led to a problem with how the engine was operating," he added. "As the rules allow following retirement, Giancarlo will use a fresh engine in Bahrain."
As a result, Fisichella have a brand new engine at this weekend's Malaysian Grand Prix, and with temperatures expected to be amongst the highest witnessed this season, the Italian will have a clear advantage over his rivals.
http://www.eurosport.com
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,306
Likes: 0
From: Toronto, ON
I hate the rule. I think it should be like the old days or at the very least, 1 engine for 1 race weekend! It's stupid to have one race impacted by another because of a mechanical failure!
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 23,749
Likes: 3
From: Erock's my boat!
in general, i don't understand the reasoning behind SO many rules in the first place....it's annoying.
they got a rule for every god damn thing you could think of.....
they should just go back to race what you brung....and be done with it.
so, MS could have the best chassis/car, the most skill, and not win, because he has the burden of running a previously raced motor....how is that sport?
or is the FIA only going for the ILLUSION of sport?
they got a rule for every god damn thing you could think of.....
they should just go back to race what you brung....and be done with it.
so, MS could have the best chassis/car, the most skill, and not win, because he has the burden of running a previously raced motor....how is that sport?
or is the FIA only going for the ILLUSION of sport?
Trending Topics
Registered User
Joined: Nov 2004
Posts: 1,105
Likes: 0
From: Monterey, CA
the penalty on dc is just wrong. 
he crossed the finish line and the engine lets go on the cool down lap. fisi droped out with an electrical fuel/throttle problem and can change engine with no penalty, same for messa, he worked his engine to hard,more bs. get rid of the rule. how much money do you think has been saved these past seasons due to this bs?
he crossed the finish line and the engine lets go on the cool down lap. fisi droped out with an electrical fuel/throttle problem and can change engine with no penalty, same for messa, he worked his engine to hard,more bs. get rid of the rule. how much money do you think has been saved these past seasons due to this bs?
Thread Starter
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2001
Posts: 58,680
Likes: 2
From: West Henrietta UPSTATE NY
I myself do not like the rule. I understand the rule came to life because it was a way to reduce costs as in the need to make fewer engines. However, I don't see much inteligent thought going into all these rules because as my 1 Billion Euro story shows, there seems to be very little sincerity behind this whole 'need to reduce costs' crap. I believe the 'need to reduce costs' is a smoke screen for some other agenda.
If one considers the wasted $1,191,038,748.47, it would seem just a small portion of that would be needed for the teams to make enough engines so the drivers could have a fresh one for each race.
As Simon always points out, the FIA has F1 in a state of self destruction and this blow an engine go back 10-places is to me just another example it.
If one considers the wasted $1,191,038,748.47, it would seem just a small portion of that would be needed for the teams to make enough engines so the drivers could have a fresh one for each race.
As Simon always points out, the FIA has F1 in a state of self destruction and this blow an engine go back 10-places is to me just another example it.
Registered User
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 23,749
Likes: 3
From: Erock's my boat!
Originally Posted by Triple-H,Mar 16 2006, 11:45 AM
I myself do not like the rule. I understand the rule came to life because it was a way to reduce costs as in the need to make fewer engines. However, I don't see much inteligent thought going into all these rules because as my 1 Billion Euro story shows, there seems to be very little sincerity behind this whole 'need to reduce costs' crap. I believe the 'need to reduce costs' is a smoke screen for some other agenda.
If one considers the wasted $1,191,038,748.47, it would seem just a small portion of that would be needed for the teams to make enough engines so the drivers could have a fresh one for each race.
As Simon always points out, the FIA has F1 in a state of self destruction and this blow an engine go back 10-places is to me just another example it.
If one considers the wasted $1,191,038,748.47, it would seem just a small portion of that would be needed for the teams to make enough engines so the drivers could have a fresh one for each race.
As Simon always points out, the FIA has F1 in a state of self destruction and this blow an engine go back 10-places is to me just another example it.
so, before the rule, they could change engines willy-nilly...fine. but it costs money to stock X number of engines...still fine.
now they implement a 2-race rule....do you think there were no major R&D dollars invested to make the engines last 2 races????
of course there were....
so again, where in the name of the baby krishna are they saving money?????