BAR Honda face penalty on engine rule

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
I thought they were being a little bit cheeky when they decided to pull the cars in at the end of the race, rather than finish. Button certainly looked bemused if not a little embarrassed when he was asked about it afterwards.

Stupid rule though...

Rinky dink link
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
kettle said:
The Shu chose to "retire" after his collision although had he been "in the points" he would have managed to get his "damaged vehicle" home. safety or stupidity? ....or a free engine?
He's not using a new engine though.
 

Chappers

macrumors 68020
Aug 12, 2003
2,247
1
At home
kettle said:
The Shu chose to "retire" after his collision although had he been "in the points" he would have managed to get his "damaged vehicle" home. safety or stupidity? ....or a free engine?
And he was stuck in gravel
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
kettle said:
Is that because of Ferrari reliability or because of other regulations?
It will interfere with the launch of the new car because the engines are not interchangable between the F2004M and the F2005, which means that Ferrari would have to have a staggered launch for the F2005 e.g. Rubens recieves the F2005 at Bahrain and Schumacher not until the race after. This would cause substantial logistical problems of supporting 2 different cars at the races.

Ferrari like Williams would have a vaild claim to be able to change their engine, because both cars were in an accident. Damage could've been caused to the engine in that accident, remember F1 engines/gearboxes are structural and are load bearing (unlike most road cars) and such accidents can cause damage to the engine.

Also Schumacher (not sure about Nick) was stationary in the gravel for a good minute before he was returned to track, damage could have been caused to the engine in that time, either through excessive heat build up or debris.

Ferrari will have obviously inspected the engine and decided that it is okay to continue to run it for another race, unlike BAR however whose actions in Australian have arguably gone against the spirit of the rules by deciding to retire 2 perfectly good cars because they were not in the points positions at that time in an effort to gain an unfair advantage for the next race.
 

kettle

macrumors 65816
Chappers - yeah very good point. He had help didn't he.

JFreak - that makes sense too.

iGav - I'm overwhelmed by your analysis, in comparison I appreciate only the longest skids and the best crashes. :D I really need to research more.

oh and I only liked Schumacher when he drove a benneton with shark teeth. It seemed to make his aggressive/suicidal starts all the more impressive.
 
Concerning all the rule changes this year: What a waste of time!
Aero Reductions: non-event
Full race tires: non-event
Two race engines: jury's still out- most likely non-event
Cost to teams: Gross domestic product of Nepal

All I would like to say is that after the amount of cash the FIA cost the teams this year, the least the FIA could do is let them have their loopholes.
 

Don't panic

macrumors 603
Jan 30, 2004
5,541
696
having a drink at Milliways
It's good that they closed the loophole, but I don't think BAR should be penalized this time.
They did follow the rules and it was the rule that it was poorly designed/written.
besides, the new formulations will introduce additional "gray areas" and make it discretionary to the stewards to judge the conditions of an engine, when they are not in the position to do so.
The BAR behaviour was an obvious prediction, but at least they were honest in their position. What if button had a spin, or a minor contact early on. would the retirement become justified then? Should he have caused a spin and retire on the grass?
Two additional scenarios come to mind:
1. we will see additional "accidents" towards the end of the races, leading to "legitimate" car retirements
2. we will see teams screwed up for the next race because they managed to get through to the end of the race with an engine damaged by external causes, but decided to keep going.
So either they implement an objective way to assess the condition of an engine after the race (likely impossible) or they get rid of the stupid rule.
 

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,697
2,724
Sod off
Maybe this rule will encourage drivers outside the points positions to drive very agressively, since a crash would mean an engine change...stranger things have happened.

BAR was trying to pull a fast one, but apparently somebody thought they could get away with it, so perhaps the language of the rule is sufficiently vague that they have a case.
 

iGav

macrumors G3
Original poster
Mar 9, 2002
9,025
1
Don't panic said:
but I don't think BAR should be penalized this time.
I agree... even though it's against the spirit of the rules, when they decided to pull both cars the loophole still existed and even though it's since been closed it should not be back dated to cover that race.


Don't panic said:
What if button had a spin, or a minor contact early on. would the retirement become justified then?
Spin no... if he made contact with either a wall/tyre barrier or another competitor then they'd have a valid case one would presume.


Don't panic said:
we will see teams screwed up for the next race because they managed to get through to the end of the race with an engine damaged by external causes, but decided to keep going.
This is what worries me... we could see races spoilt because of this crap rule.


Lord Blackadder said:
Maybe this rule will encourage drivers outside the points positions to drive very agressively, since a crash would mean an engine change...
They probably would during the 2nd race of an engines life, but I imagine most would do like what Ron Dennis said McLaren did at Oz, and rather than try and pick up a position that probably isn't on, preserve the car for the next race. :rolleyes:


Lord Blackadder said:
BAR was trying to pull a fast one, but apparently somebody thought they could get away with it, so perhaps the language of the rule is sufficiently vague that they have a case.
Not sure if you had the Button post race interview broadcast over there, but when he was asked if he had a problem, and did they retire the car to gain and engine advantage he really did looked bemused and embarrassed and refused to directly answer it but the BAR-Honda head honcho confirmed in his interview a couple of minutes later that they did indeed retire both cars to implement the new engine clause, and that that was their understanding of the rules.

Either way... it's not how we want to go racing really is it. :rolleyes: :(
 

Lord Blackadder

macrumors G5
May 7, 2004
13,697
2,724
Sod off
Hmmm, I guess it was an honest misunderstanding then... :rolleyes:

I don't remember them interviewing Button, the live coverage in the US pretty much ends after the podium finishers are interviewed. :(

The Malaysia GP starts at 1:30am for me. Woohoo! I'll probably be coming home from the bar by then, if I don't drink too much and forget...

I've heard that Sauber is talking about getting rid of Villeneuve already...
 

Similar threads

  • stylinexpat
2
Replies
2
Views
2K
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.