Only one Grand Prix into the 2005 season, and the new two-race engine rule has already proved controversial, if not also ineffective. Costs have not been reduced, the cars are not much slower, and above all, the racing was affected by the teams' decision to opt for a more conservative approaches and, in BAR's case, to retire their healthy cars to exploit a loophole. Roger Horton analyses the effect that the new rule had on the Australian Grand Prix weekend

The opening round of the 2005 Grand Prix season in Australia, brilliantly won by Giancarlo Fisichella in his Renault, was the first race held under new rules brought in to the liven up the show, slow the cars down, and cut costs.

Whilst it was the rain affected new qualifying format that drew the most comments from fans and media alike, the new regulation that mandates one engine be used for two events ushered in a whole new era in the sport's history.

For the first time ever a Championship round was no longer a stand alone event. For the first time ever the Australian Grand Prix was actually just the first leg of a two part race programme that also includes the Malaysian Grand Prix to be held March 20. For the first time ever (at least two) perfectly healthy racing cars were deliberately retired as a way of circumventing at least the spirit if not the letter of the new rules to later gain a perceived performance advantage.

"As we were out of the points, on the last lap we decided to stop both cars which gives us the opportunity to change engines for Malaysia without further penalty", intoned Geoff Willis, BAR-Honda's technical director in his team's post race press release. "This could be an advantage at a race where we normally encounter high temperatures."

Indeed it might. And for the record, just prior to peeling off into the pits, Jenson Button posted his fastest lap of the race, a time of 1:26.260 on lap 55. So then the young Englishman, under orders from his team parked a perfectly healthy car.

When contacted, the team were unable to confirm to Autosport-Atlas whether they would, in fact, actually go ahead and fit fresh engines for Malaysia stating that the decision rested entirely on the results of testing currently being carried out at Jerez. The spokesperson denied that there were any politics involved in the pending decision.

But politics is sure to raise its head if other teams decide to follow BAR-Honda's example. The sight of all non point scoring cars ending their races parked neatly in their garages isn't exactly the image the sport will want to show off to the world.

Earlier in Australia new BAR-Honda boss Nick Fry had stated that his team would happily risk sacrificing their position in the Championship to secure a first ever victory this season. "Our objective this year is to win a race, even if we have to compromise our Championship position somewhat, we will make the trade-off," said Fry. If his meaning was unclear then, it looked a lot clearer as his team's cars pulled prematurely out of the race come Sunday afternoon.

If the BAR-Honda team's actions were blatant and obvious other teams were also forced to play by the new two race strategy, but who watching the race could know?

"He threw a second place away and it was a matter of (engine) conservation from then on", said McLaren team boss Ron Dennis, taking a very public swipe at new signing Juan Pablo Montoya after the race, but also confirming that far from fighting to retrieve the situation as fans have every right to expect, the Colombian was under orders to cruise and collect.

So whereas drivers have been forced to nurse their cars to the finish ever since racing began, we now have the situation where in the first of each two 'Events' during the year cars are no longer being driven to their maximum potential, something which has always been the hallmark of Grand Prix racing, but their pace is being 'managed' to maximise their performance at the next race.

Point 85 of the 2005 Sporting Regulations states: "Any driver who failed to finish a race at the first of the two Events may start the second with a different engine without incurring a penalty."

So the actions of the BAR-Honda team were, under the rules that currently govern the sport, perfectly legal and above board even if they were not in the spirit of the new regulations. But given the cut throat nature of F1 competition it can hardly come as a surprise that a team would take advantage of such an open ended regulation that allows an engine change provided a car fails to cross the finish line, and even if a car retires for another reason, a fresh engine can be fitted at the discretion of the team.

The FIA has introduced engine rule limitations last season in an attempt to reign in costs, reduce engine power and thus slow the cars down. These are, of course, worthy objectives, but given all the extra redesign costs and the need to test the cars for ever longer distances to prepare two event engines, there has been little savings so far for the engine manufactures. Next season they face yet more extra costs having to build a whole new family of 2.4 litre V8 engines to suit yet another change in regulations.

So if costs have not been reduced, have the new regulations succeeded in slowing the cars down? Yes but not by much, and there are strong indications that soon the cars will be the equal of last year's models. Last year's fastest race lap was a 1:24.125 recorded by Michael Schumacher in his Ferrari. This year Fernando Alonso had the best lap and he stopped the clocks at 1:25.683, a reduction in speed of a mere 1.5 seconds; just half the original target of three seconds per lap that had been envisaged when the new rules package was put together.

In absolute raw terms the picture is even bleaker. The overall fastest lap this year was a 1:25.376 set by Pedro de la Rosa in his McLaren during Friday's second practice session. This is barely a second slower than Michael Schumacher's overall fastest lap set during last season's qualifying.

So an awful lot of money is being spent on new achieving very little in terms of speed reduction and no one is suggesting that the new cars are any more exciting to watch or that the racing is better.

The nature of Formula One racing in recent decades has always been about out and out performance, and racing legend has it that the ultimate racing car is one that crosses the line first and then self destructs as the life cycle of all its components is surpassed. Now teams, unsure of the exact circumstance and mileage that the following 'Event' may entail, are forced to err on the side of caution turning F1 into a mini endurance event, something totally out of character with its traditions.

And Australia was, remember, the first race of the season. What temptations lie ahead at the later races of the year when Championship glory is at stake?

Who's to say that a team with deep pockets and a penchant for team orders don't build a one-race 500 kilometre 'screamer' designed to propel the back up driver to the front of the field at the expense of a rival team's driver? Then, at the following race, an early engine failure and another one-race special bolted in the back and losing ten places on the grid might be a worthwhile price to pay.

Under the current regulations this would be perfectly legal and the team would, in fact, be obtaining an unpunished advantage in 50 percent of the races. Surely this is not what the FIA intended with these new regulations. And, remember, there are 19 races scheduled for this season, an odd number. What specification will the team build that last engine to?

The endless battle between the rule makers and designers in Formula One has always been one of Grand Prix racing's great strengths and one of the key reasons for its worldwide appeal. But the audience is surely entitled to have regulations that are clear, transparent, relatively easy to understand, and are in line with the requirements of the sport.

The newly revised one engine for two Events rule is none of these things.

Contact the Author Contact the Editor