Can I sort blogs by the age of their starters?
Free Engine Change
Hello Guest
  
  • Login
• Register…
• Start blog
  • Who, Where, When
• What is interesting here?
• Duels
  • Polls
• Avatars
• Interests
  • Cities and Countries
• Random blog
• Users search
  • Search
• Games
• Tests
• GYXU
  • Ñîîáùåñòâà
• Talxy Chat
• Horoscope
• Online
 
Register!

GYXU > F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally > Free Engine Change 25 February 2005 18:44:28

  Recent blog posts: 
  Forums:   
  Discuss: 
  Recent forum topics: 
  Recent forum comments:
  Ìîäåðàòîð:

Free Engine Change

Brian Lawrence 23 February 2005 20:43:45
 I can't remember if it's been discussed before, but I think I might have
said that the rule about any driver who DNFs can have a new engine for the
next event without penalty would only be applied to drivers who retired
early enough to be not classified as a finisher. It seems that the teams
raised this with Charlie Whiting at the Feb. 3 meeting, and he confirmed
that even someone retiring on the last lap would get a free change of
engine.

He said that the FIA felt that any advantage of a new engine was outweighed
by the loss of a finish. I guess they might be wrong on that one - as they
are on lots of other things perhaps?

--

Brian Lawrence
Brian_W_Lawrence@ms­n.com
Wantage, Oxfordshire, UK


Add comment
Phil Newnham 23 February 2005 21:16:45 permanent link ]
 Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:10:35 +0000, Graham Hodgson <ttgmh@hotmail.com>­> wrote:>
Something like this could work pretty well for a midfield team fighting >>with some of the bigger boys from time to time...>
So much for the bigots' chorus of "the Formula England rules will put> the action back on the track where it belongs"...

Is anyone keen on 2-race engines, among the fans?

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.­com/photographer/313­07.html
Add comment
Harold Adrian Russell Philby 23 February 2005 21:19:02 permanent link ]
 On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:16:45 +0000, Phil Newnham
<pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:10:35 +0000, Graham Hodgson <ttgmh@hotmail.com>­>> wrote:>>
Something like this could work pretty well for a midfield team fighting >>>with some of the bigger boys from time to time...>>
So much for the bigots' chorus of "the Formula England rules will put>> the action back on the track where it belongs"...>
Is anyone keen on 2-race engines, among the fans?

No one with two connected brain cells...

Formula England: The ends justify the means.

Add comment
Geoff May 23 February 2005 21:28:38 permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham wrote:> Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:>
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:10:35 +0000, Graham Hodgson <ttgmh@hotmail.com>­>> wrote:>>
Something like this could work pretty well for a midfield team >>> fighting with some of the bigger boys from time to time...>>
So much for the bigots' chorus of "the Formula England rules will put>> the action back on the track where it belongs"...>
Is anyone keen on 2-race engines, among the fans?

I'm going to wait until I've seen a few races before making any hard and
fast judgements but I'm sceptical.

MfG

Geoff.

--
Unofficial F1 Database: http://glibs.ssmmdd­.co.uk/
Update: 5th February, 2005 - Drivers for 2005 may change
USENET Email address is a spam trap, send Emails to address in the DB
Add comment
Phil Newnham 23 February 2005 21:35:30 permanent link ]
 Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:16:45 +0000, Phil Newnham> <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:>
Is anyone keen on 2-race engines, among the fans?>
No one with two connected brain cells...

Indeed.
Formula England: The ends justify the means.

So you keep saying, with less and less evidence by the day.

--
Phil

http://www.usefilm.­com/photographer/313­07.html
Add comment
Harold Adrian Russell Philby 23 February 2005 21:56:51 permanent link ]
 On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:35:30 +0000, Phil Newnham
<pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:>> On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:16:45 +0000, Phil Newnham>> <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:>>
Is anyone keen on 2-race engines, among the fans?>>
No one with two connected brain cells...>
Indeed.>
Formula England: The ends justify the means.>
So you keep saying, with less and less evidence by the day.

McLaren at the forefront wasn't the desired end, and two-race engines
aren't an execrable means?


Add comment
Frank.... 24 February 2005 02:20:54 permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham wrote:

Is anyone keen on 2-race engines, among the fans?>

No! For the price of an F1 ticket I'd bloody well better see _new_ engines,
not some recycled worn out piece.

--
Frank....H
Add comment
Bob Dubery 25 February 2005 11:06:15 permanent link ]
 
Brian Lawrence wrote:> I can't remember if it's been discussed before, but I think I might
have> said that the rule about any driver who DNFs can have a new engine
for the> next event without penalty would only be applied to drivers who
retired> early enough to be not classified as a finisher. It seems that the
teams> raised this with Charlie Whiting at the Feb. 3 meeting, and he
confirmed> that even someone retiring on the last lap would get a free change of> engine.>
He said that the FIA felt that any advantage of a new engine was
outweighed> by the loss of a finish. I guess they might be wrong on that one - as
they> are on lots of other things perhaps?

I wonder how long this is going to last?

The problem must surely be in the policing.

Say Schumie gets a DNF in a race. Now the next GP he's got a new
engine, Rubens is on his second race.

Now... suppose, as has happened in the past, Schumie for whatever
reason decides he wants to use the chassis originally prepared for
Rubens. Now what happens to the engines, who ivigilates the changes and
all other such changes to ensure that some team or another isn't
pulling a fast one?

We've seen this before. The ban on traction control was well intended
but ultimately impossible to police and so the authorities just decided
to allow it again. How are they going to police this regulation?

Or is the idea to prove the regulation unworkable so that something
else can be considered?

Or is the idea to prove the regulation unworkable so that everybody can
say "well we tried that and it was unworkable"?

Add comment
Peter 25 February 2005 13:13:09 permanent link ]
 Phil Newnham <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> writes>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:>> McLaren at the forefront wasn't the desired end, and two-race engines>> aren't an execrable means?>
Ah, so if Ferrari are at the front in Melbourne, it will be because they>made the best efforts over the winter, but if McLaren are at the front,>it will be because it's easier for them to turn an unreliable 1 race>engine into a powerful, reliable 2 race engine? As opposed to Ferrari>turning their already bulletproof 1 race engine into a similarly>bulletpro­of 2 race engine? Yes, I can see exactly how the rule clearly>and unfairly favours McLaren.>
It should be recalled that both Williams and McLaren both strongly
objected to the original 1 race per race weekend rule and tried to take
the FIA to arbitration to have the rule change revoked.
Ferrari OTOH...
--
Peter


Add comment
Graham Hodgson 25 February 2005 15:12:02 permanent link ]
 peter wrote:> Phil Newnham <pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> writes>
Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:>>
McLaren at the forefront wasn't the desired end, and two-race engines>>> aren't an execrable means?>>
Ah, so if Ferrari are at the front in Melbourne, it will be because they>> made the best efforts over the winter, but if McLaren are at the front,>> it will be because it's easier for them to turn an unreliable 1 race>> engine into a powerful, reliable 2 race engine? As opposed to Ferrari>> turning their already bulletproof 1 race engine into a similarly>> bulletproof 2 race engine? Yes, I can see exactly how the rule clearly>> and unfairly favours McLaren.>>
It should be recalled that both Williams and McLaren both strongly > objected to the original 1 race per race weekend rule and tried to take > the FIA to arbitration to have the rule change revoked.> Ferrari OTOH...

Aren't those arbitration proceedings still taking place? I thought it
was just that the process took a long time...

Cheers
Graham
Add comment
F2004: 15 of 17* 25 February 2005 18:44:28 permanent link ]
 On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 09:44:01 +0000, Phil Newnham
<pnewnhamat@yahoodo­t.com> wrote:>Harold Adrian Russell Philby wrote:>> McLaren at the forefront wasn't the desired end, and two-race engines>> aren't an execrable means?>
Ah, so if Ferrari are at the front in Melbourne, it will be because they >made the best efforts over the winter, but if McLaren are at the front, >it will be because it's easier for them to turn an unreliable 1 race >engine into a powerful, reliable 2 race engine? As opposed to Ferrari >turning their already bulletproof 1 race engine into a similarly >bulletproof 2 race engine? Yes, I can see exactly how the rule clearly >and unfairly favours McLaren.

...You're babbling, lady.

Add comment
 

Add new comment

As:
Login:  Password:  
 
 
  
 
respect your talk pals, avoid using obscene language, typing entire messages in CAPS, posting buy/sell ads or violating netiquette or the RF Criminal Code..


GYXU > F1, Indy, Nascar, Rally > Free Engine Change 25 February 2005 18:44:28

see also:
Re: Big 3. 9.
pass tests:
see also:
:-)
...
Sri Lanka Vs West Indies

  Copyright © 2001—2009 GYXU
Idea: Miñhael Monashev
See Help and FAQ in the community support.gyxu.com.
Write in the community about the bugs you have noticedbugs.gyxu.com.
Write your offers and comments in the communities suggest.gyxu.com.
Information for parents.
Write us at:
If you would like to report an abuse of our service, such as a spam message, please .