Red Bull Racing
Coulthard to Run His Engine for a Third Race
By Ian Lockwood
July 29 2008
David Coulthard will run his Renualt Engine for a third weekend at the upcoming Hungarian Grand Prix.The regulations stipulate that an engine must be used for two consecutive events, but with DC already having used the unit at Silverstone and Hockenheim, using it again for Hungary takes it into uncharted territory.
Fabrice Lom, the man responsible for the technical coordination of Renault's V8s at Red Bull Racing said "Webber will have a new V8 in Hungary. For Coulthard, he will use his engine for a third consecutive weekend - this is the first time we have taken this decision."
This is a less risky strategy than it sounds for Coulthard, and is designed to deliver logistical and operational benefits later in the season. Lom explains "First of all his V8 has not done too much running and we are not especially worried about its reliability. Plus, having our two drivers out of synch on the engine cycle means that we won't be putting all our eggs in the same basket. This decision will also help us in the second half of the season in terms of the logistical challenge. And finally, it means that David will not have to use the same engine in Spa and Monza, which are two of the toughest challenges on the calendar."
Digg
Delicious
Facebook
Reddit
StumbleuponCoulthard to Run His Engine for a Third Race
Discussion started by Racing Bulls , 29/07/2008 12:46
Interesting decision. Let's hope that he doesn't do something amazing like get into the top 5 and then retire with engine failure 
Obviously he only did 1 race lap in Silverstone, and he didn't even get much running in on the Saturday morning before quali, then didn't get through to Q3 - so a very light weekend for the engine there. Hungary is tight and twisty, with not much in terms of long periods at full throttle - so hopefully we'll be OK.
www.racingbulls.net
www.racingbulls.net
I am sure they have the data to back up the decision. Pretty low risk I would say, they would not risk such a dramatic move unless the odds were stacked heavily in favour of the dealer.
Williams and proud of it.
Williams and proud of it.
This doesn't make sense, unless it's been driven by financial considerations.
Quote:This doesn't make sense,
Did you read the article Jez?? The reasoning is clearly articulated - and makes sense.
1) having our two drivers out of synch on the engine cycle means that we won't be putting all our eggs in the same basket.
2) This decision will also help us in the second half of the season in terms of the logistical challenge.
3) And finally, it means that David will not have to use the same engine in Spa and Monza, which are two of the toughest challenges on the calendar.
Point 1 in particular indicates that Renault/Red Bull may have some updates coming on line soon.
www.racingbulls.net
Quote:growlerQuote:This doesn't make sense,
Did you read the article Jez?? The reasoning is clearly articulated - and makes sense.
1) having our two drivers out of synch on the engine cycle means that we won't be putting all our eggs in the same basket.
2) This decision will also help us in the second half of the season in terms of the logistical challenge.
3) And finally, it means that David will not have to use the same engine in Spa and Monza, which are two of the toughest challenges on the calendar.
Point 1 in particular indicates that Renault/Red Bull may have some updates coming on line soon.
Seconded.
How many race laps has DC completed this year? Is it possible RB could have him still on his Melbourne engine without any risk of a failure?
Ducks for cover.
Ducks for cover.
Probably not considering how many knocks his car has taken, must take a toll on the engine.
http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.
http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.
Quote:growler
Did you read the article Jez?? The reasoning is clearly articulated - and makes sense.
Yes.
Whether it makes sense or not depends on your viewpoint.
Quote:growler
1) having our two drivers out of synch on the engine cycle means that we won't be putting all our eggs in the same basket.
Do Renault have THAT much of a lack of faith in their engines?
Quote:growler
2) This decision will also help us in the second half of the season in terms of the logistical challenge.
Sorry but you can't predict the future. Trying to plan what will happen in the next race is futile.
What happens if DC is involved in an accident again? Then you have unnecessarily disadvantaged him in Qualifying by giving him a three-race engine.
Quote:growler
3) And finally, it means that David will not have to use the same engine in Spa and Monza, which are two of the toughest challenges on the calendar.
Again, they are penalising themselves for something they cannot guarantee will happen (ie. DC finishing the engine cycle)
Quote:growler
Point 1 in particular indicates that Renault/Red Bull may have some updates coming on line soon.
No it doesn't. Fabrice is referring to risk mitigation wrt engine reliability.
----------
I would probably close by asking why none of the other teams are running this strategy.
It is extremely risky with little payback in the best case scenario and downright silly in my own opinion.
There is a penalty-free engine replacement regulation in play for this season. Not sure if RBR has used this joker card for DC already (IIRC they haven't) but why not do that instead to put them on the optimal logistical plan if they want to crystal ball gaze?
Jez, that's the craziest argument I have heard from a grown up in some time... What happenes if he has an accident? Then it doesn't matter where he qualified. The result is a DNF. I hope I misunderstand your point.
Of course, they save a heap of cash with a lot of up points and almost no risk at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:30:16:59:49 by Duffer.
Of course, they save a heap of cash with a lot of up points and almost no risk at all.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008:07:30:16:59:49 by Duffer.
I'm sure they'll be running his engine at the maximum in qualifying anyways, there is a rev limit that was below what Renault like anyways...
The financial arguement doesn't make any sense either Jez. Lets say both guys finish each race from now on, they'll both use the same amount of engines so theres no cash to be saved.
The arguement about splitting up Spa/Monza seems fine to me, the option is there because of Silvy so may as well take it.
They're engine guys, they're probably always biting their nails - but I don't remember us having a Renault blow in a race on us yet (might be wrong) but the very fact they're willing to take an engine to a 3rd event tells me that they aren't that concerned about reliability not the other way round. Seems clear the 'eggs' comment isn't about the engines blowing, but rather if they kee out of sync then at each race one guy will have a fresh engine...rather than say two seconders at Monza!
http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.
The financial arguement doesn't make any sense either Jez. Lets say both guys finish each race from now on, they'll both use the same amount of engines so theres no cash to be saved.
The arguement about splitting up Spa/Monza seems fine to me, the option is there because of Silvy so may as well take it.
They're engine guys, they're probably always biting their nails - but I don't remember us having a Renault blow in a race on us yet (might be wrong) but the very fact they're willing to take an engine to a 3rd event tells me that they aren't that concerned about reliability not the other way round. Seems clear the 'eggs' comment isn't about the engines blowing, but rather if they kee out of sync then at each race one guy will have a fresh engine...rather than say two seconders at Monza!
http://www.patronisef1.com - My solution to F1's 'bore' problem.
Quote:Trying to plan what will happen in the next race is futile.
As the old saying goes - "Failing to plan is planning to fail" - so its not futile and as LH says - we've not had a race engine failure to date. The plan may not be able to be executed for a variety of reasons, but that is not an excuse not to plan.
Fabrice Loms second point about the logistical challenge goes back to a point he made at the start of the season:-
"As far as logistics are concerned, you always need to be extra careful when transporting a new engine. Instead of having to take care of this every one in two races, we now must do this for each Grand Prix"
Obviously this is quite a headache for the teamm logistically - although I confess that I don't know why it is harder to transport a new engine than a used one.
My comment "Point 1 in particular indicates that Renault/Red Bull may have some updates coming on line soon." was just a possible theory I had - the teams are allowed to do certain engine development on ancillary parts, so the comment on not having all eggs in one basket could indicate that Renault have done something / are planning something, so having DC & Mark using different units could then be counted as not having all eggs in one basket.
Finally, on the issue of using the "Joker" engine replacement - of course this is a possible option - but why bother when DC's race engine only did a total of about 22 laps at Silverstone (Sat Practice, Quali, & Race) including a number of out / in laps, 2 laps to form the grid and the actual formation lap prior to the race. If the team are confident that it is not an issue, then surely better to keep the Joker in case it is needed later?
www.racingbulls.net
