I think the engine change rule and grid penalties at B. S. !!!!!!

[SoCalPVguy]

Example: Officials also announced 10 grid spot penalties for the following cars for this weekend's event at the raceway at Sonoma: #15 Sato (will be using sixth engine at Sonoma); #17 Saavedra (unapproved engine change at Indianapolis); #18 Wilson (unapproved engine change between Mid-Ohio and Sonoma); #78 De Silvestro (using seventh engine at Sonoma).

It's RACING !!!! Nobody is going to pay see their favorite drivers get penalized by some stupid rule about how many engines are allowable. No wonder no one's interested in Indycar anymore.

[bugeyedgomer]

Especially since everything is new this season. What were they thinking? Everything would be perfect?

[FIAT1]

Imagine last race to decide championship and everything comes down to the penalties. I don't think they did much thinking when these rules were implemented.

[nigelred5]

This is another F1 style-rule aimed at cost control that I think everyone agrees sucks. Give each team their engine alotment and let the season run it's course. The manufacturers were given a durability requirments. If the engines fail let the teams change as necessary. Honda and Chevy should be on the hook for the rebuild, not the team and drivers. if a race engine is a write off- well then better hope you have a race engine you didn't get too many miles on that you can make last, even if it may be a little soft.

I'd rather see a designated testing engine that doesnt' factor into the mix. They should be able to mix the engine weekend cycles as they see fit.

[zako85]

In my opinion, the criticism is misguided. Would you rather see the team or the engine maker with the deepest pockets usually win? This rule also helps to keep everyone's costs down.

A lesson from F1 history is in order. In the 80s it was common for the top Formula 1 teams to use and destroy up to five engines per race weekend. One was for each of the two cars for the qualification. This engine would get effectively destroyed over the course of one hour qualifying session. The car's second engine would be used for the race (and likely never again), and the fifth engine was there as an insurance. Of course, not everyone could afford this. This is an extreme example, but I think it makes a point.

With such high engine consumption, an engine maker had to supply many dozens of engines to its team(s) every year. This was really expensive, and so typically one engine maker could afford to supply one or two teams. Sometimes teams were almost willing to KILL to get their hands on say a Honda or Renault engine, yet this was pretty much impossible. Benetton bought the whole Ligier team so that they could put Ligier's Renault engine in their car in 1995. Such practices obviously were not sustainable. The financial crisis of 2007-now brought an engine development freeze as well as the engine longevity rules. With the engines now lasting longer, a manufacturer is able to supply a LOT of teams. It's marvelous that 10 out of 12 F1 teams can get their hands on race as well as championship winning engines. The situation is similar in Indycar as well. I like this type of rules. They help to level the play ground for all.

[bugeyedgomer]

F1 wasn't a spec series with only two suppliers. Penalizing 10 teams for a faulty spec engine is sillyassed at best

[anthonyvop]

In my opinion, the criticism is misguided. Would you rather see the team or the engine maker with the deepest pockets usually win? This rule also helps to keep everyone's costs down.


The teams with the deepest pockets usually do win. Over the last few years you can count on one hand those who have won a race that didn't drive for Penske, Ganassi, Andretti or KV racing. And today only 1 driver in the top 10 in points.

If a team has the money they will spend it to win. Can't spend it on engines? They will spend it on Testing. Restrict testing? They will spend it on the wind tunnel. Restrict that....Shocks, Springs........They will spend it on anything if they think it will give them an edge.