Engine penalty rule tweak in process
BigBird
in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this year’s rules.
http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
--
Formula England? "It's nonsense, of the most obvious bigoted sort."
CatharticF1
@news.individual.net:
> Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine change
> in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this year’s rules.
>
> http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the concern
over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
--
CatharticF1
Bob Dubery
> "BigBird" <Bigbird.Use...@gmail.com> wrote in news:xn0fleqww3dyu7a001
> @news.individual.net:
>
> > Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine change
> > in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this year's rules.
>
> >http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
>
> It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the concern
> over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
Since engines must be sealed and tagged it's easy enough to tell if
one has been changed. Presumably this wouldn't extend to the ECU,
which is separate and external. So changing the ECU would not amount
to changing the engine.
If your interests extend beyond bitching about all and anything to do
with McLaren then there's a more interesting scenario. This gives a
team a potential option in a crucial race of going balls to the wall
in qualifying and then putting in a fresh engine for the race.
It spells more confusion for the TV viewers, is what I think.
Even if it is concern about the ECU, the question arises as to whether
or not a DIFFERENT standard ECU (say from Magnetti Marelli) would have
made the situation any different. Sure it would have made Ferrri
happier - but in terms of the rules they are just another team, no
more or less important than, say, Squadra Torro Rosso.
a_Frank
wrote:
>"BigBird" <Bigbird...@gmail.com> wrote in news:xn0fleqww3dyu7a001
>@news.individual.net:
>
>> Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine change
>> in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this year’s rules.
>>
>> http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
>
>It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the concern
>over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
>
Out of interest... who used MES last year and how many of their
engines did expire ?
--
Regards, Frank
BigBird
> "BigBird" <Bigbird...@gmail.com> wrote in news:xn0fleqww3dyu7a001
> @news.individual.net:
>
> > Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine
> > change in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this
> > year’s rules.
> >
> > http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
>
> It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the
> concern over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
More or less my first thought was that this is related to the use of
the new ECU.
You have an odd way of wording things.
What exactly is "the concern" that you appear surprised is "genuine"
and would be similar for all the teams.
The standardised ECU is a significant development that has caused all
the teams to rethink and adapt their engine management systems is it
not?
Mike P
"BigBird" <Bigbird...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:xn0fleqww...@news.individual.net...
> Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine change
> in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this year's rules.
>
> http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
>
The only rule change they should make to the engine change rule is to make
remove
the 10 place grid drop, and knock off 2 manufacturer's points per engine
change.
That way only the manufacturer gets penalised for building a shite engine,
not the driver
who is the one out there risking his neck driving the car..
Mike P
AC
"Mike P" <pri...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:5vjhfbF...@mid.individual.net...
Some drivers are regarded as engine breakers. I think engine preservation is
part of being a driver. Just like tire management. Bridgestone dont get
penalised for tyre issues. So it seems sort of reasonable that the driver
and team get penalised. Why should a Williams driver get penalised for a
blown Toyota engine? Indeed, why penalise Williams? And so on.......
AC
Mike P
"AC" <xx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:QU1lj.29446$a61....@newsfe3-win.ntli.net...
Going off your logic though, there would be no penalty at all.
I fail to see how a driver can have that much effect on something that revs
to 19k rpm (limited),
has an auto gearbox and all sorts of electrickery. I can see how it used to
be so 20 years ago
but not anymore, I think that's nonsense.
Mike P
News
Mike P wrote:
This is merely the "one free bite" rule of canine law applied to F1 engines.
AC
Well, yeah, thats the problem: Separating team and driver responsibilities.
Sometimes its very clear sometimes not. Thats my point.
And its not my logic, its what is commonly said. Remember what was said
about Kimi and JPM?
AC
Mike P
"AC" <xx...@xxxx.xxx> wrote in message
they were using that Merc engine which
had a bad habit of coming to a smoky end whoever was driving it including DC
or Mika.
I've been having a lazy afternoon and been watching the highlights of the
2001 season. Smoky ends for many Merc engines that year
and no JPM or Kimi in sight. I don't see Kimi killing Ferrari V8s now, and I
don't remember JPM killing many BMW units.
I just think the engine penalty is unfair on the driver. A racing engine is
meant to be able to be thrashed.
If the driver had a lot of control over it - manual clutch, having to blip
on changing down to match revs, shifts with a
real gear linkage and lever like it used to be, I would agree with you.
However, with so much of that taken out the drivers
hands, I think it's a bit unfair. Hence if it fails, he should not be
penalised. If there has to be a penalty, there must be something else
they can do..
Cheers
Mike
AC
Hold up, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, about this rule or any other. I
just have a problem separating driver and team. Sometimes its clear,
sometimes not. Thats all.
As for the rule, Im not sure I really care either way.
AC
CatharticF1
@news.individual.net:
Nothing sinister for you (or Bob) to worry about Bird. :)
I don't know what the specific issue is, my remark was simply concerning
how difficult it is to get the teams to agree to _anything_. I'm not
saying it's necessarily due to the specific ECU chosen, so what is it we
don't know. I mean is there anything we don't know! :)
--
CatharticF1
CatharticF1
news:29g8p31kj24pjkgsv...@4ax.com:
The answer to both is 0 isn't it?
--
CatharticF1
a_Frank
wrote:
I'd say they all had to reconfigure the engines to suit the new ECU
and asked to have a bit of leniency in the rules, just in case they've
screwed up soemthing and somehow missed it in testing.
Whooptidoo, one whole let off.
I hear that drivers, whose Dads will be shown on TV more times than
their team boss, will also get a 5 place grid penalty. That screws
Lewis right up. Of all the bloody Ferrari scams...
--
Regards, Frank
a_Frank
wrote:
I don't know. I thought it was said that there were a number of teams
using MES. At least McLaren and seem to recall Renault as well ?
Where the hell is Brian ? :)
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
news:huiap3de9g3lncfli...@4ax.com:
Unless there's a feed coming from Ron's arse - surely that's not
possible :)
--
CatharticF1
CatharticF1
news:8bjap3l219iuo4b8a...@4ax.com:
Oh - I thought you were alluding to it being the same one.
--
CatharticF1
a_Frank
wrote:
>a_Frank <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
>news:8bjap3l219iuo4b8a...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:56:30 GMT, CatharticF1 <efer...@heaven.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>a_Frank <fa...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
>>>news:29g8p31kj24pjkgsv...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:55:42 GMT, CatharticF1 <efer...@heaven.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"BigBird" <Bigbird...@gmail.com> wrote in news:xn0fleqww3dyu7a001
>>>>>@news.individual.net:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine
>>>>>> change in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this
>>>>>> year’s rules.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
>>>>>
>>>>>It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the
>>>>>concern over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
>>>>>
>>>> Out of interest... who used MES last year and how many of their
>>>> engines did expire ?
>>>
>>>The answer to both is 0 isn't it?
>>>
>> I don't know. I thought it was said that there were a number of teams
>> using MES. At least McLaren and seem to recall Renault as well ?
>> Where the hell is Brian ? :)
>
>Oh - I thought you were alluding to it being the same one.
>
Of course not. :) What i was alluding to is, that if they can make one
that is sprinkled full of traction control and 'ABS' code, i'm kinda
sure they can figure out a standard unit.
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
news:qjqap3p9h9c9efmm4...@4ax.com:
My current "Best Guess" (TM)(C) is that with the hardware / firmware /
software that performed more sophisticated engine management there may be
something missing from the suite of options possible with the vanilla
version.
--
CatharticF1
a_Frank
wrote:
Not sure what you mean there. It is a spec ECU. Presumably that means
that they were given clear guidelines on what has to be and what can
not be in the software. The hardware is the engine, so that is the
engine builders work to make whatever changes the pec ECU commands.
Also keep in mind, Option 13 is an exclusive trademark belonging to
Flavio and Schumacher. ;-)
--
Regards, Frank
CatharticF1
news:0svap3hj30726crad...@4ax.com:
> Not sure what you mean there. It is a spec ECU. Presumably that means
> that they were given clear guidelines on what has to be and what can
> not be in the software. The hardware is the engine, so that is the
> engine builders work to make whatever changes the pec ECU commands.
>
> Also keep in mind, Option 13 is an exclusive trademark belonging to
> Flavio and Schumacher. ;-)
I didn't word it well did I?
I was suggesting that there was a lot of scope formerly to control the
engine in a way that 'protected' it that isn't available now and that this
might be the reason.
--
CatharticF1
Bob Dubery
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:56:30 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferr...@heaven.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >a_Frank <f...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
> >news:29g8p31kj24pjkgsv...@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:55:42 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferr...@heaven.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>>"BigBird" <Bigbird.Use...@gmail.com> wrote in news:xn0fleqww3dyu7a001
> >>>@news.individual.net:
>
> >>>> Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine
> >>>> change in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this
> >>>> year's rules.
>
> >>>>http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
>
> >>>It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the
> >>>concern over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
>
> >> Out of interest... who used MES last year and how many of their
> >> engines did expire ?
>
> >The answer to both is 0 isn't it?
>
> I don't know. I thought it was said that there were a number of teams
> using MES.
the MES ECU than others. If nobody in fact did use it then that
particular gripe doesn't have much validity.
> At least McLaren and seem to recall Renault as well ?
> Where the hell is Brian ? :)
Renault used Magnetti Marelli, as did Ferrari. MM were the other
bidder for the standard ECU. MM are 100% owned by FIAT.
For 2007 (team - system(s) used) as per F1technical.net unless
otherwise noted
BMW - BMW
Ferrari - MM
Honda - Honda
McLaren - MES (though I'm not sure that this is the exact same ECU
that will be used by all teams this year)
RBR - MM "Step 11" ECU, Pi elsewhere
Renault - MM "Step 11" (this is described as a co-development between
MM and Renault)
STR - Pi "VCS" with MM fuel management.
Toyota - Toyota/MM
Williams - Williams/Toyota (according to http://www.conceptcarz.com)
Details of the systems used by Super Aguri and Spyker are harder to
come by, but I think that Honda for SA and the MM ECU for Spyker would
be reasonable guesses.
Bob Dubery
> a_Frank <f...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote innews:qjqap3p9h9c9efmm4...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
> > On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 02:11:39 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferr...@heaven.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >>a_Frank <f...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
> >>news:8bjap3l219iuo4b8a...@4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Tue, 22 Jan 2008 01:56:30 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferr...@heaven.net>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>>a_Frank <f...@notthis.optushome.com.au> wrote in
> >>>>news:29g8p31kj24pjkgsv...@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>> On Mon, 21 Jan 2008 01:55:42 GMT, CatharticF1 <eferr...@heaven.net>
> >>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>"BigBird" <Bigbird.Use...@gmail.com> wrote in
>
> news:xn0fleqww3dyu7a001
>
>
>
> >>>>>>@news.individual.net:
>
> >>>>>>> Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine
> >>>>>>> change in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this
> >>>>>>> year's rules.
>
> >>>>>>>http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
>
> >>>>>>It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the
> >>>>>>concern over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
>
> >>>>> Out of interest... who used MES last year and how many of their
> >>>>> engines did expire ?
>
> >>>>The answer to both is 0 isn't it?
>
> >>> I don't know. I thought it was said that there were a number of teams
> >>> using MES. At least McLaren and seem to recall Renault as well ?
> >>> Where the hell is Brian ? :)
>
> >>Oh - I thought you were alluding to it being the same one.
>
> > Of course not. :) What i was alluding to is, that if they can make one
> > that is sprinkled full of traction control and 'ABS' code, i'm kinda
> > sure they can figure out a standard unit.
>
> My current "Best Guess" (TM)(C) is that with the hardware / firmware /
> software that performed more sophisticated engine management there may be
> something missing from the suite of options possible with the vanilla
> version.
Well of course there are. That's what FIA wants. Electronic systems
are impossible for them to police, and thus they cannot control the
features implemented by those systems. Specifically they will have
difficulty (again) monitoring the use of systems that allow some kind
of traction control.
Most of the useful stuff (or stuff that the FIA doesn't want) comes
about from being able to use the engine management system in
conjunction with other systems.
If there's a standard ECU with standard software and a standard set of
inputs and outputs, then the FIA can reduce the possible set of
features that can be implemented with electronics.
All of this suggests to me that whilst McLaren will also be on a
learning curve, though probably not as steep, as some of the features
they used last year will no longer be available to them.
Brian Lawrence
>>>>It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the
>>>>concern over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
>>>>
>>> Out of interest... who used MES last year and how many of their
>>> engines did expire ?
>>
>>The answer to both is 0 isn't it?
>>
> I don't know. I thought it was said that there were a number of teams
> using MES. At least McLaren and seem to recall Renault as well ?
> Where the hell is Brian ? :)
According to the 'Formula 1 Yearbook' only McLaren used MES.
Renault - Magneti Marelli
Ferrari - Magneti Marelli
Honda - Honda
BMW - BMW
Toyota - Toyota/Magneti Marelli
Red Bull - Magneti Marelli & Pi
Williams - Williams & Toyota/Magneti Marelli
Toro Rosso - Magneti Marelli & Pi
Spyker - Magneti Marelli & Pi
Super Aguri - Honda
The book lists this as 'Electronic ignition' so the ECU might be provided
by only one of the companies listed - so Toro Rosso's might be (probably
is) Magneti Marelli, but it's possible that Pi provide it
McLaren's 2007 ECU isn't the same as the 2008 standard version, but it
shares some similarities such as packaging, connection, diagnostics,
etc. McLaren admit that they have a head start on using it, but the
other teams should have caught up by now.
I'd imagine the rest of the team principals were lobbying for some
concession because of McLaren's perceived advantage and the 'first
engine change is free' is what was agreed at their meeting.
--
Brian
Phil Newnham
I'm guessing this has more to do with the FIA's spec than who actually
got the contract to make it.
--
Phil
Bob Dubery
> > I was suggesting that there was a lot of scope formerly to control the
> > engine in a way that 'protected' it that isn't available now and that this
> > might be the reason.
>
> I'm guessing this has more to do with the FIA's spec than who actually
> got the contract to make it.
The FIA published a set of requirements and then invited tenders. So
there wouldn't have been more functionality if MM had got the
contract.
The whole point of the standardised ECU is that FIA can control the
feature set.
Bob Dubery
> On Jan 21, 3:55 am, CatharticF1 <eferr...@heaven.net> wrote:
>
> > "BigBird" <Bigbird.Use...@gmail.com> wrote in news:xn0fleqww3dyu7a001
> > @news.individual.net:
>
> > > Drivers look set to avoid grid penalties for their first engine change
> > > in 2008 after team bosses and the FIA agreed to alter this year's rules.
>
> > >http://www.itv-f1.com/News_Article.aspx?PO_ID=41633&PO=41633
>
> > It's odd - given that this is not the 1st year of the V8s. So the concern
> > over the new ECU must be both genuine and widespread.
>
> Since engines must be sealed and tagged it's easy enough to tell if
> one has been changed. Presumably this wouldn't extend to the ECU,
> which is separate and external. So changing the ECU would not amount
> to changing the engine.
I also note that so far in testing teams have got good long runs in
and there haven't been engines blowing up left, right and center.
APLer
news:e27437f7-91b3-48de...@q77g2000hsh.googlegroups.com:
Does anybody have a reference to those specs?
APLer
That might very well be "repairman's syndrome": only happens when you
don't want it to <g>. Seriously though, 16 races times ~50 laps times
say 2.5 miles per track = 2000 miles plus maybe that again for
practice/qualifying and statistically there's a big difference between
what they've done and how often we actually *do* see an engine failure
(assuming each team will have at least one a season, which seems
reasonable). I've always thought that this no engine replacement doesn't
serve any purpose. Any team that doesn't replace engines just spends
more on the labour/production side leading to more expensive engines
anyways probably increasing budgets as opposed to decreasing them.
Bob Dubery
> > The whole point of the standardised ECU is that FIA can control the
> > feature set.
>
> Does anybody have a reference to those specs?
Do you mean "are the specs in the public domain" or "do the teams have
the specs"?
Bob Dubery
The best answers I can give are "don't know" and "they will have some
kind of specs but not necessarily the source code".
chuckcar
I mean the request for tender or the requirements. Anything beyond where
code stated to be written would be confidential I imagine.
--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )