<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Engine rules and the F1 monopoly</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/</link>
	<description>F1 Fanatic - The Formula 1 Blog with F1 news, pictures, video, comment and analysis</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 10 Feb 2012 11:12:57 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Miss 206 Gti</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-459607</link>
		<dc:creator>Miss 206 Gti</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:52:01 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-459607</guid>
		<description>hmmm, but tell me more patrick</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>hmmm, but tell me more patrick</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171847</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 10:38:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171847</guid>
		<description>Pingguest - the problem with it, for me, is that while it is indeed unpredictable and entertaining to watch, it&#039;s an element of randomness in the result that has nothing to do with racing.  However, I do very much agree with Keith&#039;s point about the technological difference between now and then - I must admit I hadn&#039;t really thought of that.  I&#039;m still not convinced it is the answer - although, if it&#039;s the only way that the FIA would consider a ban on refuelling, then I&#039;m all for it!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pingguest &#8211; the problem with it, for me, is that while it is indeed unpredictable and entertaining to watch, it&#8217;s an element of randomness in the result that has nothing to do with racing.  However, I do very much agree with Keith&#8217;s point about the technological difference between now and then &#8211; I must admit I hadn&#8217;t really thought of that.  I&#8217;m still not convinced it is the answer &#8211; although, if it&#8217;s the only way that the FIA would consider a ban on refuelling, then I&#8217;m all for it!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Pingguest</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171748</link>
		<dc:creator>Pingguest</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 15:47:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171748</guid>
		<description>George,

I&#039;ve watched the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix again a couple of weeks ago. And I really liked it. The race was entertaining and the last laps were completely unpredictable. What&#039;s the problem with that?

We&#039;ve seen more unpredictability in the past. I&#039;ve seen Mika Hakkingen blowing up his engine the last lap of the 2001 Spanish GP and Kimi Raikkonen having a broken suspension during the 2005 European GP. Very entertaining and fun to watch. What&#039;s wrong with that?

If manufactures don&#039;t want their drivers to run out of fuel, they should make their engines more fuel efficient. If they can&#039;t to that properly, it&#039;s up to the drivers to cope with it and change their driving.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>George,</p>
<p>I&#8217;ve watched the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix again a couple of weeks ago. And I really liked it. The race was entertaining and the last laps were completely unpredictable. What&#8217;s the problem with that?</p>
<p>We&#8217;ve seen more unpredictability in the past. I&#8217;ve seen Mika Hakkingen blowing up his engine the last lap of the 2001 Spanish GP and Kimi Raikkonen having a broken suspension during the 2005 European GP. Very entertaining and fun to watch. What&#8217;s wrong with that?</p>
<p>If manufactures don&#8217;t want their drivers to run out of fuel, they should make their engines more fuel efficient. If they can&#8217;t to that properly, it&#8217;s up to the drivers to cope with it and change their driving.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert McKay</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171739</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert McKay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:52:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171739</guid>
		<description>And I&#039;ll just add to that post the following comment: it&#039;s pretty clear that trying to shoehorn the best things of both (a series where everyone builds their own chassis/engine and one where everyone runs spec machinery) is pretty difficult to do. If you let everyone build their own stuff you always run the risk someone will do it much better and be a second a lap faster than the field. But if you want the manufacturers all to be in it&#039;s hard to have a spec series.

My message is: stop the tampering, and trying to force the best of both into one. Either pick one thing or the other. Or, and I&#039;m sorry to keep banging my drum on this, do both. Have the WTCC where BMW/Chevrolet/Seat et al. build a touring car that conforms with the basic regs and let them race, and also have a spec WTCC-like series where everyone runs the same car. Do the same for F1 with a GP1-type series. Just quit trying to force the two aspects of building your own with spec-machinery together, because the sum is definitely lss than the parts when you do it that way.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>And I&#8217;ll just add to that post the following comment: it&#8217;s pretty clear that trying to shoehorn the best things of both (a series where everyone builds their own chassis/engine and one where everyone runs spec machinery) is pretty difficult to do. If you let everyone build their own stuff you always run the risk someone will do it much better and be a second a lap faster than the field. But if you want the manufacturers all to be in it&#8217;s hard to have a spec series.</p>
<p>My message is: stop the tampering, and trying to force the best of both into one. Either pick one thing or the other. Or, and I&#8217;m sorry to keep banging my drum on this, do both. Have the WTCC where BMW/Chevrolet/Seat et al. build a touring car that conforms with the basic regs and let them race, and also have a spec WTCC-like series where everyone runs the same car. Do the same for F1 with a GP1-type series. Just quit trying to force the two aspects of building your own with spec-machinery together, because the sum is definitely lss than the parts when you do it that way.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Robert McKay</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171734</link>
		<dc:creator>Robert McKay</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 11:30:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171734</guid>
		<description>A very interesting article.

It would be easier, cheaper and more sensible for all the F1 teams to use the same engine, put their own manufacturers badge on it, and tell noone they&#039;d done it. It would make little difference to what we have now. 

The FIA (read Max) does seem to have some ploy to &quot;spec&quot; at least some areas. Which, to be honest, is not neccessarily a bad thing (I&#039;m sure people will disagree, please feel free to) but at least be obvious and come out and say it. You see, the FIA wants to have it&#039;s cake and eat it. It wants all these powerful manufacturers, but it wants them all more or less as competitive as each other, so that the slowest ones don&#039;t pull out becaus they spend a lot of money to get humped by their rival. So it freezes engine development after homologating them all to roughly the same level, so it&#039;s a spec engine formule where everyone has a different engine, which makes preciesly no sense other than the aforementioned keeping of manufacturers onboard. Stupid.

The WTCC is just the extension of this engine specifying to the whole package of the car. Unfortunately, in order to maintain the carefully preserved status quo between the teams, you have to continually adjust the rules every other weekend, which is (a) pretty blatant that you&#039;re manipulating things and (b) doesn&#039;t actually produce very even races: what it tends to do is give a Seat whitewash one weekend, so they are penalised, then a BMW whitewash next weekend, so they get penalised, and then Chevrolet are fastest...and the cycle continues. It evens out come the end of the championship, but a lot of the races don&#039;t feel like that (plus the reverse grid second race means slower cars can still easily win). It&#039;s fine to an extent, if you blatantly come out and say &quot;we&#039;re going to continually strive to even things out&quot;, as the FIA do in the WTCC.

It&#039;s the underhanded, subtle, subterfugal way F1 does the same things I find difficult to swallow.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>A very interesting article.</p>
<p>It would be easier, cheaper and more sensible for all the F1 teams to use the same engine, put their own manufacturers badge on it, and tell noone they&#8217;d done it. It would make little difference to what we have now. </p>
<p>The FIA (read Max) does seem to have some ploy to &#8220;spec&#8221; at least some areas. Which, to be honest, is not neccessarily a bad thing (I&#8217;m sure people will disagree, please feel free to) but at least be obvious and come out and say it. You see, the FIA wants to have it&#8217;s cake and eat it. It wants all these powerful manufacturers, but it wants them all more or less as competitive as each other, so that the slowest ones don&#8217;t pull out becaus they spend a lot of money to get humped by their rival. So it freezes engine development after homologating them all to roughly the same level, so it&#8217;s a spec engine formule where everyone has a different engine, which makes preciesly no sense other than the aforementioned keeping of manufacturers onboard. Stupid.</p>
<p>The WTCC is just the extension of this engine specifying to the whole package of the car. Unfortunately, in order to maintain the carefully preserved status quo between the teams, you have to continually adjust the rules every other weekend, which is (a) pretty blatant that you&#8217;re manipulating things and (b) doesn&#8217;t actually produce very even races: what it tends to do is give a Seat whitewash one weekend, so they are penalised, then a BMW whitewash next weekend, so they get penalised, and then Chevrolet are fastest&#8230;and the cycle continues. It evens out come the end of the championship, but a lot of the races don&#8217;t feel like that (plus the reverse grid second race means slower cars can still easily win). It&#8217;s fine to an extent, if you blatantly come out and say &#8220;we&#8217;re going to continually strive to even things out&#8221;, as the FIA do in the WTCC.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s the underhanded, subtle, subterfugal way F1 does the same things I find difficult to swallow.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: A Singh</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171730</link>
		<dc:creator>A Singh</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 10:54:57 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171730</guid>
		<description>The FIA are so stupid when it comes to making rules about engines.

I&#039;m really surprised the FIA hasn&#039;t scrapped that rule and just said why doesn&#039;t everyone run the same car on the grid?

But I do agree Keith&#039;s point that the engine rules should be opened up a bit. When designers had the freedom to choose between a V6, V8, V10 or even a V12, there was more competition as each engine had its merits and flaws. There was a greter discrepency in power, making it more competetive - rather than similar levels in performance.

Plus, surely the proposed rule  would entail changes to some engines which would go against the, obviously sensible, rule to homogenise engines?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The FIA are so stupid when it comes to making rules about engines.</p>
<p>I&#8217;m really surprised the FIA hasn&#8217;t scrapped that rule and just said why doesn&#8217;t everyone run the same car on the grid?</p>
<p>But I do agree Keith&#8217;s point that the engine rules should be opened up a bit. When designers had the freedom to choose between a V6, V8, V10 or even a V12, there was more competition as each engine had its merits and flaws. There was a greter discrepency in power, making it more competetive &#8211; rather than similar levels in performance.</p>
<p>Plus, surely the proposed rule  would entail changes to some engines which would go against the, obviously sensible, rule to homogenise engines?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alianora La Canta</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171725</link>
		<dc:creator>Alianora La Canta</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 09:53:42 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171725</guid>
		<description>The KERS system is seriously restrictive, with a maximum power output and weight (among other things) stipulated. There is a clear limit as to how much development will be permitted, so it just becomes something that separates the rich teams from the not-so-rich teams. The rich teams will master it and still manage to cover all the bases in the increasingly-restrictive formula. The not-so-rich teams won&#039;t. This will be aggravated by the three-step process the FIA want to impose. And it&#039;s not going to develop much of anything because Toyota have already said that the KERS permitted in F1 will be primitive compared to what they already use on the roads.

This is an exercise in the FIA trying to get more power in F1 by increasing its predictability through artificial equality. It&#039;s spec engines through the back door.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The KERS system is seriously restrictive, with a maximum power output and weight (among other things) stipulated. There is a clear limit as to how much development will be permitted, so it just becomes something that separates the rich teams from the not-so-rich teams. The rich teams will master it and still manage to cover all the bases in the increasingly-restrictive formula. The not-so-rich teams won&#8217;t. This will be aggravated by the three-step process the FIA want to impose. And it&#8217;s not going to develop much of anything because Toyota have already said that the KERS permitted in F1 will be primitive compared to what they already use on the roads.</p>
<p>This is an exercise in the FIA trying to get more power in F1 by increasing its predictability through artificial equality. It&#8217;s spec engines through the back door.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Keith Collantine</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171717</link>
		<dc:creator>Keith Collantine</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 08:31:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171717</guid>
		<description>George - that&#039;s an interesting example. For those who may not know the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix was one of a couple of races in the &#039;80s where the turbo-powered cars started to run out of fuel in the closing stages. Alain Prost just made it to the finishing line but lost his win because his car was underweight because it had so little fuel left in it.

However I think the reason we saw races ending with drivers running out of fuel was not just because the fuel rules were challenging, but because the technology required to measure fuel use during a race was not sophisticated enough. The fuel use of a turbo powered car would vary massively depending on how high the boost was turned up.

By the end of the turbo era in 1988 these problems were largely sorted, at least by the leading teams. I think today even if the rules were changed to a maximum fuel allowance overnight the teams would have no problem coping.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>George &#8211; that&#8217;s an interesting example. For those who may not know the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix was one of a couple of races in the &#8217;80s where the turbo-powered cars started to run out of fuel in the closing stages. Alain Prost just made it to the finishing line but lost his win because his car was underweight because it had so little fuel left in it.</p>
<p>However I think the reason we saw races ending with drivers running out of fuel was not just because the fuel rules were challenging, but because the technology required to measure fuel use during a race was not sophisticated enough. The fuel use of a turbo powered car would vary massively depending on how high the boost was turned up.</p>
<p>By the end of the turbo era in 1988 these problems were largely sorted, at least by the leading teams. I think today even if the rules were changed to a maximum fuel allowance overnight the teams would have no problem coping.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Steven</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171696</link>
		<dc:creator>Steven</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 14 Jun 2008 05:20:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171696</guid>
		<description>Keith, I agree with you! Harmonization is the way to go.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Keith, I agree with you! Harmonization is the way to go.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: George</title>
		<link>http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/2008/06/13/engine-rules-and-the-f1-monopoly/comment-page-2/#comment-171665</link>
		<dc:creator>George</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 13 Jun 2008 22:36:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/?p=7042#comment-171665</guid>
		<description>Pingguest - I&#039;ll simply cite the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix as a prime example of what I am talking about.  A) Would we really want to watch that and B) Would major motor manufacturers really want us to see that...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Pingguest &#8211; I&#8217;ll simply cite the 1985 San Marino Grand Prix as a prime example of what I am talking about.  A) Would we really want to watch that and B) Would major motor manufacturers really want us to see that&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk: basic
Page Caching using disk: basic
Database Caching 11/24 queries in 0.017 seconds using disk: basic
Object Caching 476/480 objects using disk: basic

Served from: www.f1fanatic.co.uk @ 2012-02-10 11:13:21 -->
