May the best man win
Title Showdown 2014
Abu Dhabi Grand Prix
FIA World Council: Eco engine confirmed for F1 in 2013, team orders ban lifted
News
FIA World Council: Eco engine confirmed for F1 in 2013, team orders ban lifted
Posted By: James Allen  |  10 Dec 2010   |  4:12 pm GMT  |  260 comments

The FIA World Motor Sport Council met in Monaco today and two significant things came out of it. First the WMSC approved the small capacity turbo engine which has been under discussion for some months and second it dropped the controversial rule banning team orders from F1 with effect from 2011 onwards. This follows the unsatisfactory outcome of the hearing into the Ferrari team orders incident in Germany this season.


The FIA statement on the engines said, “The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry. Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

“The engines will deliver a 35% reduction in fuel consumption and will feature extensive energy management and energy recovery systems, while maintaining current levels of performance. In 2013, five engines will be permitted per driver, but each year after that the limit will be four.”

So from 2014 onwards engines will have to last a minimum of five Grands Prix, as opposed to the two/three race engines now.

As for team orders, the WMSC said, “The article forbidding team orders (39.1) is deleted. Teams will be reminded that any actions liable to bring the sport into disrepute are dealt with under Article 151c of the International Sporting Code and any other relevant provisions.”

There were also some other changes to the regulations including gearbox life, which is extended to five races, rather than four.

A full analysis of the significance of these changes will follow later.

Featured News
MORE FROM JA ON F1...
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
260 Comments
  1. Mao Xiaogang says:

    This drama has show us part of the real picture in this sport.
    e
    I still have to learn to accept it.

  2. craigdaly77 says:

    Curious as to how the “team orders” now being dropped will effect betting on the races. There will be some people who just like to bet on particular drivers for race wins, but now might not bother as their bet could be wasted because of this ruling. Personally,I understand its a team sport, but don’t see this any different to any other type of “match fixing”

    1. Yes , but anyone who is good at betting will know not to bet on massa as they know he will be asked to move over ( as an example )

      also bookies should change the odds knowing about no 2 drivers etc.

      Matt

      1. Tommy K. says:

        Exactly! There will be no difference at all. I really couldn’t understand people who placed bets in Massa or any other No.2 driver….coplete waste of money…

      2. malcolm.strachan says:

        Not totally a waste of money, just different odds! What if Alonso were to DNF? Then Massa might be a good bet if the Ferraris were strong that day.

        If you bet on a number-two driver, you’re implicitly betting against the odds that the number-one will have a bad day!

    2. jonas says:

      I never understood why there is such a big deal about how certain rules will affect people who bet. Is that what this sport is for?

      1. James Punt says:

        F1 is not a big sport in terms of gambling turnover, compared to soccer, horse racing etc, but around the world many tens of thousands of people do have on a race to make things more interesting and try and make some money from their favourite sport. When they see a race reult being manipulated they do not like it and it gives F1 a very poor image. Sport in general is all about ‘may the best man win’ and when you get a driver being told to lose it reflects very badly on F1 as a ‘sport’. It loses fans and becomes a laughing stock in the eyes of the wider sporting public.
        Yes people should be fully aware of the rules and nature of any sport before they bet on it, but sadly very few are.
        Incidently betting turnover on F1 hit a record high this season, even with the Ferrari fiasco which as good sign for the sport, but if teams start using team orders on a regular basis then it will continue to come in for critisim. Fortunately these events are relatively rare and as a rule you only have to assume that Ferrari will operate on clear number 1&2 system, it is just a great shame that they do not do so explicitly, then everyone would be in the know before betting. Sadly they will carry on saying that there is no 1&2 in their contracts etc. etc, and in that case they should be jumped on from a great hieght for bringing the sport into disrepute, but we all know that they never will be.

    3. Jo Torrent says:

      F1 or any other sport isn’t there for betting. If you want to bet, bet bearing in mind whatever the rules are. I don’t understand how people put betting forward to justify anything. Moreover there are a thousand of events to bet for instead of F1.

      1. Murray says:

        If a punter bets on Massa to win and Ferrari orders him to move over for Alonso, rather than Alonso having to overtake him, the result is determined by the team, not the competition. It hasn’t determined that Alonso is the faster, or the better driver, and it has profited Alonso’s backers at the expense of Massa’s. This year, the rules stated that team orders that could affect the race in this way were not permitted.

      2. jonas says:

        But still, that’s missing the point – should we really take into consideration the people who want to bet on races when the rules are being discussed?

        Personally, I would say 100% no.

      3. Murray says:

        Team orders micromanage competitive outcomes. To use another word, subvert.

      4. Bob says:

        Sure, betting is not the purpose of F1 but from now on how can we be certain that a team principal telling a driver to pull over is about a sporting outcome (LOL) and not part of a plan to score on some exotic bet. Anyone who’s aware of recent betting scandals in international cricket will know what I mean.

  3. Jason says:

    If we see a repeat of Austria 2002, will the FIA consider this a violation of Article 151c?

    1. Andy W says:

      Who knows, they will probably let the team off with a 100,000 dollar fine….

      Sorry but this is a farce, if they want team orders back (and I think they should) they should have allowed them and then setup some regulations to govern them….

      All team orders should (must) be done publicly, the drivers and teams should have the provisions contractually agreed, and I would say for the sake of the sport it should never be the drivers engineer giving the order, it should have to come from the team principle.

      Then just let us fans decide who we want to support and see if it makes any difference to the sponsors…

      1. DC says:

        I have never liked team orders but if we have to have them then your suggestions seem to be the best way forward. Everything open and up front. As long as the fan base is informed then we can make up our own minds.

      2. Andy W says:

        That is my reasoning, banning them is next to impossible.. because there are a million and one different ways to circumvent any rules banning them, and because the idea of 1 car per team is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

        So lets just allow them and allow them in a sensible manner that will reduce the risk of controversy as much as possible. Instead we have more wishy washy commitments and regulations that will do nothing to quell the ire of the fans the next time team orders are used in a manner the fans don’t like.

  4. Kedar says:

    James,
    I finally got your signed copy of the 2010 review really gripping to relive the whole season :-)

    BTW your heading says “FIA World Council: Eco engine confirmed for F1 in 2013, team orders banned” and the body contradicts it “second it dropped the controversial rule banning team orders from F1 with effect from 2011 onwards”

  5. Alex says:

    James, will these engines still be loud? What kind of a sound can we expect from them. For me at least, that’s the most important element of F1. As long as the cars are screaming past blisteringly fast at ear piercing volumes, I don’t care what’s under the body work.

    1. James Allen says:

      My fear is they will drone..

      1. monktonnik says:

        Did they used to?

        Rally cars sound good, so I hope that they won’t drone away.

      2. Richard Bell says:

        I’m hoping at least the turbo wastegate chirps a big whistle, the engine sound must match the cars dramatic looks and speed.

      3. PaulL says:

        Typically for me, I disagree with the majority – I love the sound of the 80s turbos!

      4. Martin Collyer says:

        Yes, me too. The sound was different from what we have now but it was a hell of a good sound, 4-cylinder engines as well as V6s.

        But we did have 1,000 bhp engines then, more in qualifying, much more in BMW’s case, and at around 12,000 rpm to, if I remember correctly.

        Why can we not have that sort of power back?

        The engines, (should I refer to them as powertrains?), could still be used to develop energy management and energy recovery systems.

      5. Bec says:

        Well if they are quieter that’ll be good news for Spa, as one of the major complaints from the ecomentalists is the noise.

        Funny how the ecomentalists never complain about the 24 hour race though.

      6. malcolm.strachan says:

        The difference is that an F1 car runs at about twice the RPM as a GT car!

      7. Steve JR says:

        Maybe they can carry high quality samples of the current engine notes and play them back through big speakers as they drone past :)

      8. Bevan says:

        Jame’s,what truth in my previous post motivated you to omit my opinion.If the powers that be rewound to 1999 all of their reg & circuit changes we’d have a huge improvement to the show overnight.The ever emptying grandstand seats are proof enough for most.Why must there be spin offs to road cars from F1 technology,surely car manufacturers would be just bludging free technology,or is that the plan,kick backs.Regulation flip flops just kill the continuity,one never know what the guts is till mid season.Qualifying is far more exciting than the race,is that a good thing ?,because this is what these fools have created & you don’t help by omitting the opinions of genuine F1 fans who are angered by one illogical reg change after another to a sport I & many others have watched for half of our lives,kinda like a menu change at your favourite restaurant,unwelcome.Play around with GP 2 F2 GP3 but for gawds sake leave F1 alone,its stood on its own 2 feet for 50 years+ without the meddling seemingly based on white collar egotism.

      9. Kishan says:

        Having a change of menu opens up a whole new world of possibilities. Hmmmm I think u are in a very small minority of one. I don’t mean anything against you but by having f1 tech that falls through to road cars this gives the manufacturers a reason to be in f1 to share holders in addition to being able to showcase their technology.

        Also if the same regs were left year after year the sport would become stagnant, with 24 identical car with redbull, Ferrari and mclaren atthe forefront (in no particular order). It’s a welcome change and make an attempt to bring some realisation to the real world as petrol and diesel are about to hit £1.30 at the pump! Would I like 35% more efficiency yes I would!

      10. malcolm.strachan says:

        I started off my reply to rebut Bevan’s comment, but after carefully looking over the evolution of engine rules, I must say I have to agree with him.

        Back in 1999 (the 1995-2004 era), the engines were open to design. V12, V10, V8, etc were all allowed; this made for an interesting array of engines on the grid. Since 2005, the FIA have tightened down the scope of what is allowed. In 2005, it was a 3.0L V10 with 5 valves per cylinder; no more V12s or V8s. In 2006, it was all 2.4L V8s with a maximum 98 mm circular bore, 2 intake valves, 2 exhaust valves, minimum weight limit, dictated block alloy, dictated alloy ingredients for every major metal engine component, single injector and spark-plug per cylinder… severe limits compared with just a few years prior. Suddenly, all the engines sound the same, because they are all virtually identical in spec.

        Now the FIA is continuing with this “new tradition” of spelling out how engine-builders should build their engines, to the point that there might as well be a spec engine in F1 for all the teams! There is no variation any more, and that is sad.

        Personally, I think the rules should be like Group C – you are allotted X litres of fuel (or Y kg of gaseous equivalent) for the race, therefore you must achieve Z litres per kilometre or equivalent; build whatever engine you like to achieve that.

        Twin-turbo hydrogen-fuelled rotary? Sure. Single-turbo 1.0 litre diesel V8 with battery assist? Sure. Sequential-twin-turbo 750 cc methanol-fuelled inline-3 with flywheel KERS and secondary turbo-compounding? Sure. Natural-gas turbine? Sure. Fully-electric with KERS assist and solar panels on the side-pods? Sure.

        Maybe my last paragraph goes a little too far in the suggestions, but either way, F1 should be about innovation, not gradual evolution and arduous optimization on the order of one or two horsepower on a highly-specified engine design. Personally, I am more excited to hear about the advances in KERS technology than I am about the turbos, because there is finally an avenue of design that is relatively open and hasn’t had sticky FIA fingers poking around to standardize it.

        At least in 1999, as Bevan conveyed rather confusingly, there was some diversity; now the FIA has standardized the design of every major component, except KERS. How unfortunate.

    2. kriso says:

      They will never sound anywhere near as good as the V8s or V10s :( Take a listen to the BTCC touring cars (which sounds horrible) to get some kind of idea, tho they will be rev-ing more.

      I wonder what size turbos they will be using and what kind of and boost levels they will run..maybe that will improve the sounds slightly.

      1. Peter C says:

        Kriso They will sound NOTHING like BTCC, or did you say that for a joke?

        I have been with F1 long enough to remember the 1500 four cyl. Coventry Climax engines (quick & DID they handle, well some of them!)

        The turbo era was fantastic, I think the Brabhams were pushing out 1100hp in practice (qualifying), so driver skill was at a premium, sorting out the ‘rabbits’ from the brave ones.
        But the NOISE was great, not so high-pitched as todays V8s but certainly very loud.
        I think some people don’t like change, so will criticise anything they don’t know without giving it a chance.
        I can tell you, I’m sure it won’t be a ‘drone’
        & nothing like the tin-tops!

    3. Ben G says:

      RIP, the distinctive sound of F1…

    4. Jodum5 says:

      I’d say you’d have to say good by to the high pitched wail come 2013. 12000 RPMs sounds like loud but not ear splitting. I actually look forward to a change.

      1. Julian F says:

        Folks,
        I went to the Adelaide GP in 85 and 86 when they were running turbos. They were really loud. A very different noise, but still very exciting. Most of them were V6s, but they were all 1.5l engines and the Benettons and Brabhams were 4 cylinder engines. I don’t remember them being too boring .
        It’ll be different noise, but stil fun!

        Cheers
        J

      2. Greg says:

        I don’t think you can compare BTCC for the sound. An F1 car has no exhaust so to speak of, just a couple of foot of beautiful molded pipe. if the same length pipe was on a road car you would see flames, but as F1 engines are so efficient at burning, there is no fuel left to to burn in the exhaust.

        I did start writing something else about the noise, but then had a thought about the cooling side to these engines, the turbo will run hot, but the rest of the engine is going to be a lot cooler, so how does this work towards the bodywork?

        I’m not sure how they will sound, but now we have sequential gearboxes, how will the gearing change? Will there be 10+ speed gearboxes or will the extra room with the 4 cylinder’s allow dual gearboxes planting the KERS in between like an overdrive? we’re getting the same power but not the revs and don’t forget gear changing is instant.

        This is going to be interesting for the designers and viewers. I’m looking forward to it!

      3. SteveH says:

        Sorry Mate, only seven speed by regulation. It’s frustrating to see the regulations totally govern the cars, as they do now. Front/rear weight is now controlled, aero is controlled, gearboxes are controlled, engines are going to be less powerful, there is no tire competition, weight is raised, soon we will have common brakes, etc. This is getting boring. There is no real innovation anymore.

      4. Bill Johnson says:

        >F1 engines are so efficient at burning, there is no fuel left to to burn in the exhaust.

        Darn. Wonder wot that ‘blue flame’ that Matchett only sees in night races could possibly be? I’ve seen it meself onna telly…

      5. Greg says:

        Bill, Not sure what Matchett is, but your right, blue flame is efficiently burnt fuel, if it was a yellow flame then it would be excess fuel which isn’t burnt within the combustion chamber and pre-ignites due to heat and excess oxygen. (eg.like when Jos Verstappen Benetton caught fire off the exhaust when fuel was spilt, big yellow flame).

        I was just saying, the efficiency of burning fuel in a F1 engine is hugely different to BTCC.

    5. Jo Torrent says:

      12000 rpm that’s LEMANS reving not F1. The cars sound will be rubbish I guess

      1. Frenchie says:

        Not sure if this is LeMans territory in terms of sound but petrol LMP1 and LMP2 cars sound pretty awesome.

        I guess we can always moan about how ‘it was better in the past’. I loved the sound of the V10s, even limited to 19000rpm in 2006.

        The sound of the V8s aren’t as good traditional circuits as it is in city tracks, with engine noise bouncing off the buildings – one of the many reasons I go to Singapore.

    6. Frenchie says:

      The sound of the cars was my fear exactly.

      Whilst attending the Tasman Revival a couple of weeks ago, I noticed that Lotus and Brabham F1 cars of the 60′s really did not sound loud at all.
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kCFnRiIG-M

      I was too young in the early 80′s to have any idea what the BMW 1.5 four cylinder turbo engines of the Brabhams sounded like (TV footage from that period is not going to cut it I am afraid).

    7. Tommy K. says:

      Actually, we shouldn’t care about that so much. As long as the lap times remain blisteringly fast, it should be OK.

      1. Dave C says:

        I don’t think it’s as simple as just going by the lap times, I’m sure the laptimes will be fine because if it was slower than GP2, LMP1, or even Moto GP then it’s over for F1!
        Worrying thing is that these cars are becoming easier and easier to drive due to less and less power whilst engineers perfect the aero from what they can do with the regulations, I remember back in 2006 testing when the V8′s were first introduced one driver (can’t remember who) maybe Trulli said that ‘my grandmother can drive these cars’, F1 needs more power not less, we want at least 1000bhp and see cars top 230mph at monza, we want drivers nervous about going through corners like eau rouge and 130R flat out, the amount of times moto gp fans/commentators milk the fact that those poxy little bikes are faster in a straight line than an F1 car doesn’t bode well for the pinnacle of motor racing, if we stay at 700bhp for the next 10 years then it’s over for F1

      2. malcolm.strachan says:

        Agreed. 1000 bhp should be the target. 700 should come from the engine, and 300 from KERS.

        These are supposedly the best drivers in the world… why not challenge them with more difficult cars to drive?

  6. Peter says:

    And so team orders should be banned. On the day of any race you should be giving 100%, not letting your team mate passed. Also if I were a betting man and just backed webber for the win and he let vettel passed I would lose out.
    Racing is racing!!!!!!

    1. Michael says:

      Exactly. Drivers are there to race, not to support their team mate. What is the point of Felipe Massa now? He may as well not exist. He will never be allowed to win another race with Ferrari. He’s just a mobile advertising hoarding.

      I hope McLaren and Red Bull hold their nerve and resist team orders. Some teams will, some won’t. This resolves nothing.

      1. Irish con says:

        Obviously you were not watching f1 in 2007 because if your were you would have seen massa let kimi win in brazil to win the championship. Yet the next year the team fully backed fellow for the championship from early on with new pieces first on his car. And people are acting as if Ferrari were the only team to use team orders this year. They were not and the reason they were not hit further by the fia was because it would have been a joke to hit Ferrari yet let mclaren away with the obvious team orders in turkey. Not picking on mclaren just it was most obvious choice

  7. Nathan says:

    “This follows the unsatisfactory outcome of the hearing into the Ferrari team orders incident in Germany this season.”

    - It’s STILL unsatisfactory. Even if pro-team orders people like yourself are happy there is still the threat of “bringing the sport into disrepute”!!

  8. Gustavo says:

    Team orders banned? You mixed up that title…
    1.6 turbo, 12.000rpm and four engines per season/driver? Are those people insane? This is F1, not a junior formula. Hope they took the same approach regarding ticket’s costs, they should costs $5 each then.

    1. jonrob says:

      For god’s sake it said team orders ban LIFTED
      Meaning team orders are allowed again.

      1. F430-FOX says:

        Yes, it says it now, but not when the article was first posted, which is why you see so many people comment on it.

  9. Stuart says:

    I know there are many people against the idea of the engine changes but I for one welcome them. Working in the car trade/retail most of our product range is now available with smaller capacity turbo petrol engines and it makes perfect sense for F1 to stay in touch with the market place to race what the industry offers/sells.

    Does anyone know or has the final spec been agreed? Are the engines to be inline 4′s or are the rules open to V4′s??? I for one like the change and can not wait to see what the manufacturers come up with. I know the sound will never be the same again but at least we have all lived and witnessed the current engines and can always go to goodwood to see them in years to come!

    My only wish would be that the teams were allowed more engines so that the drivers can push that bit more rather than be conservative. I love going to Le Mans to see drivers balance their driving style between thrashing and nursing their cars but this is not what F1 is about.

    1. Chris says:

      Are there not plenty of lower formulas to do that already?

      F1 should be about pushing the limits of each aspect of motor racing. 4 cylinder 1.6 turbos? I just can’t get my head around it.

      1. PaulL says:

        F1 already ceased to be cutting edge when they dumbed down the cars’ aero in 2009.

      2. malcolm.strachan says:

        No, they ceased to be cutting-edge in 2005 when they limited all engines to be a specific layout, and in 2006, when they had severely-limiting regulations for every major part of the engine. There were spec engines then… they were just built by different people. 2013 will be more of the same, albeit with a non-standardized KERS being the only open bit of tech to look forward to.

    2. Jo Torrent says:

      the annoying thing about engine size isn’t actually the engine size but their influence on racing.

      When we had V10s, these engines were heavier than the current V10s and produced more power. Not only that but they required more cooling, more oil, etc.. The whole package was much heavier than which resulted in the cars having to take corners with lower speeds if you have the same aero downforce. Not only that but the extra-power of the engines make it even harder to take corners full throttle. Maybe with the V10s Eau Rouge won’t be flat out and easy as it is now.

      This is where the 4L turbo engine bother me. The engine won’t weight near as much as the current V8s even with their Turbo package. It will make many of the corners less challenging as a consequence. I hope I’m wrong but I doubt it.

      1. malcolm.strachan says:

        I get what you are saying, but you’ve got a few facts mixed up.

        The current V8s have a weight limit, so they are actually heavier than the V10s that were phased out in the mid-2000s.

        Still, it doesn’t take away from what you are saying about a lighter engine making the cars easier to handle. Hopefully the KERS will offset this and allow for some un-optimized cars that will make racing interesting!

  10. Terry Shepherd says:

    The FIA statement, quoted above: “Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.”

    Please let the omission of the phrase Turbo-charged be an oversight!

    1. S.J.M says:

      Yes, im worried that this isnt the return of the Turbo’s but looks more like the 1.5litre formula of 61-65 formula that wasnt exactly popular. Hopefully its an oversight, but i fear it isnt.

    2. Alex says:

      The Turbo-charged title comes from the knowledge that KERS will still be in place and a major part of the car by then. Which I think is a bit lame. Turbo’s were at their most exciting when they were violently unpredictable.

    3. Stuart says:

      High pressure gasoline injection means turbo charged and by high pressure they mean 500 bar!! That is huge boost considering many road cars use 20 bar boost pressure.

      1. Terry Shepherd says:

        Stuart, I’m afraid you wrong: High-pressure gasoline injection means just that, fuel injection at a pressure of 500 bar. F1 engines are currently limited to 100 bar and road cars fall a long way below your figure of 20 bar, 3-5 being more like it.

        Incidentally, a turbo-charged road car generally has a boost pressure from around 0.7 – 1.5 bar and the turbo F1 cars of the ’80s were originally allowed 6 bar, subsequently reduced to about 2.5 because of the scary figures they were getting in qualifying, a rumoured 1500hp from the 1.5 litre 4 cyl BMW, for example.

        It will be interesting, when the rest of the regs are published, to see what max boost pressure the FIA are allowing this time. I have also heard rumours of fuelling limits so there’s a few details to come yet.

  11. Mosq says:

    turbo-era returns!!! ))

  12. chris says:

    i think you mean team orders unbanned?

  13. Ender says:

    12 000 RPM?
    Why god why!? They’re going to sound like riced out Honda Civics or motorbikes!

  14. type056 says:

    Hi James.
    Any idea about 2013 aerodynamics regulation,some said there will be ground effect in 2013.

  15. Stu says:

    This is great news. Well done to Ferrari for making this happen.

    1. Tim. says:

      …huh…???

    2. Damian J says:

      Not sure I understand your logic. Blatantly breaking FIA rules out of naked self interest should not be condoned but punished more than an F1 catering bill….but then again Ferrari are so special to F1 that they deserve special treatment with only a ticking off but had that been nasty McLaren…well throw the book at them!

  16. AaronB says:

    Personally I cannot wait for the new engine formula… Mainly because the cars should sound amazing again, and the speed difference from today should be negligible :D who cares if the numbers are smaller? Not me.

    There was an engine used in the past with similar specs (if anything less powerful), it was called the BMW M12. You can find a video of a Formula 2 car using it on a rolling road, and it sounds incredible. If this is the future sound of Formula 1, I won’t be complaining!!

    Combine this with the ground effect also due to arrive, and I think that we may just have a return to the classic cars that many people have yearned to see again!

    1. Nick F says:

      OK I just went to find it. I was wearing headphones and now I’m deafened! I blame you ;-) . Yeah it sounded OK. Obviously there is a change in the noise, but I’m not that bothered. It’s just different, not worse. It’s going to sound like a racing car. A lower pitch than the current cars, but I think that will make them sound more beefy.

      1. Toby Bushby says:

        Just saw it too. Apparently it was only revving to 9500 rpm. So 12000 must be pretty awesome. If I hear something similar to that in Melbourne 2013, I’ll be happy! Thanks for the heads-up, AaronB! :D

        Link to the clip:

        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PIo-aRFg6XE

    2. er,go says:

      If you like racing cars, listen to this blown BRM 16 cylinder. (with your permission, James).

      I beleive it’s an original test run.

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZMPDCNyQxE&feature=related

      I liked it so much i used it for the ringtone on my phone!

  17. Rich C says:

    And, with that silly-A little girlie-engine… I just don’t know what to say.

  18. Andy C says:

    I’m really glad to see the formula moving towards 1.6 litre turbos, as the potential applications of smaller turbo engines are being seen in the auto world already.

    What I don’t like is that they engines are moving more and more towards “long life”, so the performance is bound to be lower.

    I suspect we’ll see an end to any degree of pushing the boundaries on engines (when was the last time you saw a Merc engine let go…)

    While the fuel saved in F1 wont go very far towards the reducing fossil fuel reserves, it does set a good message and allows engine manufacturers to test their new tech at a high level.

    I’d still like to see harder tyres and lower downforce in favour of mechanical grip.

    I’d be amazed if VW don’t come in, as they are already pushing their TSi range to the general public successfully.

    1. DB says:

      Harder tyres? Don’t you mean softer? The softer, the better non-aero the grip. Am I wrong?

      1. Irish con says:

        Softer tyres in slower corners equals much faster. Harder tyres offer less grip. I agree with the guy above

      2. Andy C says:

        Google or find the article James did on Frank dernies view on improving overtaking. He’s got some good ideas that he put forward earlier this year After the borain gp.

      3. James Allen says:

        Just click on March in the archive section and you’ll find it

      4. Andy C says:

        Nope. I agree with Frank dernie who suggested harder tyres would improve racing.

        Less marbles created, smaller grip difference between the racing line and the offline.

      5. malcolm.strachan says:

        But as several drivers have said, the less grip a car has, the easier it is to drive. You risk making the car overly easy to drive if it has hard tires. This is an area where drivers would have a better understanding than aerodynamicists.

      6. Andy C says:

        Malcolm,
        I guess I was thinking of the comments of David coulthard when redbull let him drive the latest rb. He said it was so well sorted and had so much downforce it was easier to drive,

        What I’m sure about is there will be more than 1 possible solution.

        Seeing some of the corners redbull were flat in this year removed any challenge, but thats to redbulls credit for creating such a good car.

    2. L. Evans says:

      Turbo 4′s are only applicable to markets where people are stupidly taxed on engine displacement.

      I for one weep for F1.
      If I had my way, I’d say 1.5L V16, N/A, no rev cap.

      1. charltjr says:

        Not so, in consumer cars fewer cylinders means lower frictional losses within the engine and lower weight, stick a turbo on it and you get the power of a larger engine with lower CO2 outputs. The entire european car market has been moving this way for years and now it’s commonplace for what would have been a 2 litre NA engine to be a 1.4 or 1.6 with a turbo.

        That said, this is all just marketing fluff. The real fuel costs in F1 are the enormous amounts burnt getting the cars and teams around the world to the races. What the cars actually use on track is insignificant by comparison.

      2. malcolm.strachan says:

        But… that marketing “fluff” will influence the purchasing decisions of millions and millions of fans that may suddenly realize that a hybrid can be a fun car to drive. This will in turn promote the addition of several turbo-hybrids to the market, which can help reduce global fuel consumption of those F1 fans that are influenced by the trends of the sport.

        In the 80′s, every manufacturer started coming out with small-displacement turbo cars. Why? Because F1 made them cool. Hopefully that trend will come back, with the addition of hybrids to the “cool” list.

      3. charltjr says:

        I have to disagree, taxation policy is forcing the pace on emissions reduction and hybrid tech. F1 is merely following the lead set by many governments for the last decade.

        I don’t think you can place the rise of the turbo powered hot hatch at F1′s door. These were relatively small cars with limited room for large engines. A power race developed among hot hatch makers and to increase power the turbo was a logical and practical decision. F1 may have been a factor in making turbo power “cool” but nothing more than that.

        As for hybrid tech becoming cool, they need to develop a hybrid which is good to drive. Thus far that hasn’t happened, when it does then the tech might be seen as cool.

        This move is all about pulling in marketing money from brands who want to align themselves with F1. Having a 1.6 turbo engine which the “man in the street” who actually doesn’t know anything about it thinks might in some way be related to what he can buy in the showroom will be a big benefit from that point of view.

  19. Nicolas says:

    Well,

    next step is to race F1 during the 24h du Mans…
    This 4 only engines per season restriction is really silly.
    Sure it will lower the costs but F1 isn’t about racing in a safe mode engine…

    1. Tim. says:

      It will not lower the cost over the next four years F1 will spend billions to develop these and more to keep them alive…it will actually cost more.

  20. Steven says:

    I dont like the limit on RPMs, whats idea behind it?

    I also dont like the fact that the engines will have to last 5 races, I understand that it helps with developing engines for road cars that will last and saves the teams money , but I dont want the championship decided on who has what engines left. They should limit this to 2 races per powertrain package.

    I do like, however, that this comes from FOTA, from the teams agreeing to something, instead of having it shoved down their throats by the FIA.

  21. Jay B says:

    James what is this “re-introduction of intermidiate tyres” all about?

  22. jonrob says:

    It’s a timewarp!
    I can very clearly remember the previous turbo era and team orders were prevalent then too. Our Noige was up front, and the mobile chicanes were painted red and emitted very impressive “Roosters” (© Murray Walker) of white smoke when they blew up on a regular basis. There was a gap of several seconds from the front to the rear of the grid.
    However the big difference was that overtaking was easy if you had a better top speed and the track was wide enough.

  23. Paul Elliott says:

    They almost got it right, such a shame the engines and gearboxes have to have a multi race life span, dynamite engines was much better and exciting. conserving engines has done nothing for F1 I would like to know if it truly has cut costs?
    A engine budget cap would maybe better with a larger first engine development budget.

  24. David Andrews says:

    Err… may want to double check your title: Team Orders Banned?

    1. Jodum5 says:

      I guess he meant to say “Team Orders Ban Banned” ;)

  25. Matt says:

    I think it must be a sign of approaching middle age but my interest in F1 has been waning for a little while now. 1.6l, 4 cylinders and 12,000 revs – someone said on twitter that even the safety car will sound better! Don’t think Vettel’s blubbing after winning the WC helped – but it is coming across as a boy’s sport.

    I’ll probably still watch it – but I don’t think it will stop me going out on a Sunday afternoon. No longer a weekly autosport purchase but a monthly ‘Motor Sport’ – at least i’ll be able to reminisce when the sport was for men.

    1. Rich C says:

      “even the safety car will sound better”

      Absolutely!

      made me LOL

      1. Phil Bishop says:

        the SLS AMG F1 does sound rather good doesn’t it

  26. henry says:

    I think the use of “Eco” in the title is more than a little unnecessary: we are all more than aware that the main reason for doing this is so that the tehnology used is at least vaguely relevant to the road car industry, rather than ‘green’ or ‘eco’.

    1. James Allen says:

      Well it’s eco compared to what there has been in the past, that’s for sure. A 35% fuel saving is pretty significant.

      1. Ender says:

        Not when you consider the amount of fuel it takes to run all the generators, motorhomes and the fuel used by the aircraft transporting them around the world. THAT is where the money should be being saved, not by dumbing down the engines to junior formulae standards.

      2. Tim. says:

        Great point

      3. malcolm.strachan says:

        Not a great point. You fail to appreciate the effect F1 has on the car market.

        When you consider the millions and millions of F1 fans that realize that small-displacement turbo hybrids are cool and fun to drive, the collective reduction in global fuel usage will grossly outweigh any fuel usage for travelling around the world.

        It is not about saving money, it is about making sure that sponsors concerned about their environmental image aren’t pushed away from the sport because the cars are seen to burn through hundreds of litres of fuel in a short sprint race.

        PS. Show me that junior formula with 750 bhp and less kg of weight than bhp of power; I’d love to see it! ;)

      4. L. Evans says:

        Except they’re not cool and fun to drive.
        They are heavy and usually not very torquey, this does not matter in F1 when they don’t have much weight being lugged around, but in a normal saloon car with all modern amenities, a small turbo 4 + hybrid technology essentially dooms you to being slow and peaky.

        Case in point, the CR-Z (while not a turbo car, I admit) scored so dismally that Consumer Reports will not recommend it- a first for a modern Honda.

        Also, I didn’t mean that the entire formula was a Junior Formula spec, I meant just the engine.

        A far more attractive prospect is to limit the amount of fuel allowed per car per session, and then let it sort itself out that way.

      5. Terry Shepherd says:

        I doubt if there’ll be a 35% fuel saving – we’ll only know when we hear what power they develop – 35% less fuel implies a reduction in power to around 500bhp, is that what we are offered? A droning 4-cyl turbo engine flashing past at a leisurely 170mph? A 600cc bike will top that, let alone a MotoGP bike. At least, it’ll make the job of driving them so much easier, there’ll be a paddock full of WDCs.

        Incidentally, I wish people would stop banging on about electric cars. Unless they’ve got a wind-turbine on top of them (FIA mandate in 2018), where do people imagine the electricity comes from? Out of the plug on the wall?

      6. Terry Shepherd says:

        I should add that the spectator’s cars use far more fuel than the racecars anyway. People go to football matches in their cars, as well.

      7. grand prix says:

        just wondering if it makes much difference, since the engine size has been reduced by 33%, so a 35% reduction in efficiency isnt much really, however they should get 375hp per litre if they produce the stated 600hp without the integrated energy recovery systems as opposed to the 312hp from the current ones

      8. Frenchie says:

        What I’d like to see is a carbon neutral F1. Being the pinnacle of motorsport, F1 must lead by example.

        I’m sure the amount of CO2 generated by all those planes transporting our little circus from one corner of the planet to the other must be staggering.
        Whilst I believe is a moral responsibility to be seen as ecological as possible by changing the engine formula, it would be ethically correct to strive for a much greener ‘show’.

        We can all take little steps towards this. Carbon offset flights to GPs, change to greener electricity (that powers are TV sets) and so forth.

        I wouldn’t want to be judgmental yet on the 2013 engines (although I wonder how this is going to benefit brands such as Ferrari) before I hear them screaming past (hopefully).

        I’m happy to see some change happening in the right direction, however, I feel the FIA really doesn’t go far enough when given the opportunity to do so.

  27. Sven says:

    They should have retained the V8 engines with KERS powering electric motors at the front wheels. It would have saved loads of money that will be spent on developing the 4 cylinder turbo units, it would keep the high reeving racing engines synonymous with F1 racing in the sport. Electric motors in the front wheels would be relevant to the new technology in electric road cars that will flood the market in the coming years. But most of all, with KERS activated 4 wheel drive the extra power from the KERS unit could be used for overtaking in many more racing situations than simply on the long straits where everyone will be using the system at the same time anyway.

    1. Greg says:

      I can’t remember if I posted something like that last week or not, because my thought then turned to not just 4 wheel drive, but traction control in the direction of how active suspension once worked.

      My thinking was if they put in crude terms +- motors on each wheel so they could charge and discharge, but it would be traction control, ABS and whatever the engineers pleased.

  28. Steve Simes says:

    12,000 rpm? The scream of the beloved V10′s is just a memory now. F-1 is slowly and surely being brought down to carting; What next; all electric cars? Who wants to listen to the slight humm of 26 cars going by?

    1. Brent McMaster says:

      V10′s were just a blip on the F1 screen; the start of F1 spec racing.I much prefered the scream of the turbo era. In general the V10′s were my least favorite of the F1 historical orchestra.

    2. Alan Dove says:

      Not sure what karting you mean. My engine revs to 21,000rpm. Safe to say it’s absolutely incredible!

    3. Curro says:

      The scream of the V12 went before, THAT was a tragedy. There was a time when you would sit at a corner hearing a car approaching and know whether it was a McLaren, a Williams or a Ferrari by the sound of it… We’ll survive with Turbo 4′s :)

      1. Damian J says:

        Well, there sure was a distinctive McLaren sound in 2010! Hopefully too in 2012 and 2013!

  29. Brent McMaster says:

    James, online metric converters say 500 bar = 7200psi; their fuel injection system will run at that kind of pressure? Can the engines be four cylinder in any configuration? Are they not turbocharged?

    1. jonrob says:

      2010 regs say 100 bar.
      To have injection at 500 bar would be injecting a very large amount of energy. the engine could run with no ignition like a steam engine. This equates to a pressure of around 20,000 kg on the piston (assuming at tdc the cylinder volume is nil) Also sounds dangerous at that pressure for the pipework, joints, seals etc.
      Since the previous indication was of limiting the fuel flow it would make sense if it were a misprint and should be 50 bar not 500.

      1. malcolm.strachan says:

        Fuel pressure is not the same as turbo boost pressure. Also, that is the pressure in the fuel-line, NOT the pressure that it will fill the cylinder to. You could have a million bar of pressure inside a given line, but if you have a tiny hole to let it out, then the pressure on the other side will still be small.

        Expect to see somewhere between 3-5 bar of boost pressure (the pressure of the intake air generated by the compressor of the turbo).

      2. jonrob says:

        Yes I am well aware that the turbo itself has not been mentioned, let alone the air boost pressure. Purely from the fuel, the pressure in the cylinder will Of course be dependant on the volume it is injected into, the flow coefficient of the injector aperture the fuel temperature and the colour of the driver’s socks. I neglected to take the mass of fuel into account. It is of course atomised upon injection and behaves as a gas.
        I did qualify my ridiculous statement with the cylinder volume being zero at TDC.
        However remembering P1.V1/T1=P2.V2/T2 for given mass of gas. (Temp in Kelvin) If fuel is injected at 500 bar becoming instant gas then it must freeze the heck out of the air in that cylinder. (that’s how a fridge works!) Still it’s many years since my college days and I’ve gone quite mad in between.

      3. malcolm.strachan says:

        Ahh, ok.

        Still, making an assumption like zero volume will lead to massively skewed results. Anyone can do math, but it’s the assumptions you make that’ll dictate whether your calculation is right or wrong. ;-)

        That being said, no matter what the fuel line pressure is, the engine builders will play with the injector orifice, actuation timing (duration of spray, essentially), and whatever else they can think of. The sudden drop in pressure will definitely cause a cooling effect, and I am sure that it a major benefit for the engine, as it will assist the intercooler in cooling the intake air, thus increasing air density, thus enabling more air to be squeezed in by the turbo, thus allowing more fuel to be added, resulting in a bigger bang. ;-) But I don’t need to tell you that… the point I am making is that they will definitely use all of the positives to their advantage, and mitigate the negatives.

        Aside from that, if they find 500 bar to be unworkable, there’s nothing that says they can’t use 350 bar. 500 is only a maximum, not a specific target.

        Anyway, they’ve got millions to throw at it… they’ll get it well sorted before the 2012 season starts, and tweak until 2013.

        I wonder if they’ll throw the engines in other cars and do some on-track testing. Who says they can’t get an old F3000/GP2/A1GP chassis or even an old LMP675/LMP2 chassis (similar weight… 640 kg plus fuel versus 675 kg plus fuel), or even an old F1 car, throw in the engine, and off they go! If it’s not in a current F1 chassis, then who will stop them?

      4. jonrob says:

        You are quite right of course!
        But regarding testing engines in other chassis, it seems the logical thing to do. But some sneaky journalista will be snooping around the test tracks and a long lensed paparazzo will sell. The chassis are normally built to fit the engine so it may be difficult to find a suitable fit; rather like taking a Daihstsu 3 cylinder 800cc engine and fitting it to a Jag Mk3. Then do you try and fit the KERS on your illegal test bed? That may well be impossible.

  30. Abhi says:

    Team orders banned? You mean team orders ban lifted, don’t you?

  31. chetz says:

    somewhere… felipe massa will be spending sleepless nights! hah!

    1. RH says:

      I’m sure all the drivers considered number 2 will be having sleepless nights…

      Massa, Button, Webber… the list goes on.

  32. Its suprising me that they are limited to 5 engines in the first season of running brand new engines ? i can understand it if the engines have been built and tested for years , but for a brand new design of engine seems like a big ask to me ?

    Matt

  33. Steven says:

    As somebody else mentioned on an earlier post.
    BMW M12/13 Look at the power figures O_O

    http://www.gurneyflap.com/bmwturbof1engine.html

    1. L. Evans says:

      It still sounds terrible. I could care less about the power figures, engineers could make a pencil sharpener get that much power these days, and if it is down on power then aero will make up for it.

  34. Peter says:

    It was only right they lifted the team orders rule. It was simply unworkable.

    p.s – are you returning to the commentary mic next season James?

  35. monktonnik says:

    I think that the new engine regs are brilliant, particularly with the energy recovery.

    I think that the reinstatement of team orders is bad. I didn’t like them before, and I will never agree with the idea. Winning a Grand Prix should be about the pace of the driver and the car. Winning a Championship should follow on from that.

    One of the reasons that I post on this board less often is actually because I became very disillusioned with JA’s point of view on team orders. It is his opinion and I respect that, but I feel the fans have showed that they didn’t want this and it will damage the reputation of the sport.

    I find it interesting that many of the people in the paddock who state that team orders are an unavoidable part of F1 still criticised Schumacher’s career based on the fact that his team mates moved over for him.

    1. James Allen says:

      What was it about my view on team orders that you don’t like?

      1. monktonnik says:

        During the aftermath of the incident in Germany I felt that you dismissed the depth of feeling of the anti-team orders fans by suggesting that they put things in perspective.

        I am not suggesting that you levelled that at all the fans, but I personally felt disillusioned by that.

        Whilst I respect your opinion entirely, I don’t feel that you showed respect for the spirit of those fans argument. I felt that by suggesting that our view lacked perspective you were also suggesting that it lacked insight. I would argue that the strength of the fans reaction should have indicated that this is unacceptable to a large proportion of fans, irrespective of historical imperative or the amount of money spent by the teams and sponsors.

        I feel that this decision by the FIA represents a failure to listen to the fans on what kind of spectacle they want to see. I also feel that some of the commentators in the paddock are relying too heavily on the argument that this has always happened, and is part of the sport. It is only part of the sport if the governing body allows it within the regulations.

      2. James Allen says:

        OK, fair enough. I wasn’t saying that being unhappy with the use of team orders lacked perspective, rather that the intensity of the negativity was extreme.

      3. monktonnik says:

        Understood.

      4. monktonnik says:

        …and thanks.

    2. unoc says:

      My feeling on team orders is that in taking away the rule because it was too vague, they have actually made it worse. They clearly don’t mind team orders as long as its not germany 2010 or 2002 style blatant unnecessary rubish. I’m also getting teh feeling that the FIA are just playing to what ferrari mostly want here. But how can they define bringing the sport into disripute?

      If a team clearly manipulate the race and every gets angry is that disripute?, what if they did it and if only some people are anoyed?

      THe only difference between a team order to let someone a teammate pass and ordering piquet to crash is that piquets crash was much more effect and manipulated the other cars and not just those in the team. So if a team order helps themsleves over someone else (say in the WDC standings), how is that different to piquets crash at all? was it because piquet could have hurt himself (probably not because it is F1 and drivers can hurt themselves in other ways), or was it more similiar to germany?

      My point is, who judges weather it is a simple team order or ‘bringing the sport into disripute’? There is only a fine line between the two. And surely that is even more blurred by weather we hear a ‘fernando is faster than you’ on all our tv sets or weather we get told that off screen a one ferrari has just passed the other and a cheeky commentator says ‘that might even be from the wall…’

      On a side note, it would be great to have more radio on the TV, or maybe putting it up on f1.com. Anyone else think this could be a good idea, especially given that then any and every team order will be out there to be listened to by anyone and so anything stupid could be held against them? (‘keeping the bastards honest’ style?) I’m sure wikileaks could help ;)

      1. monktonnik says:

        I agree; this has only served to confuse the issue. If team orders are allowed there can be no suggestion that any team who moves aside a driver at any stage of the season are breaking the rules, that much is clear. If they haven’t broken a rule, I don’t see how they can be bringing the sport into disrepute.

        Asking someone to crash is clearly outside the rules, but telling a driver to consistently favour his team mate in 50/50 situations or races will, over time, damage the perception of the number 2 drivers worth.

      2. unoc says:

        true. The thing is that it used to be McLarenv s Ferrari and when i say that I mean one ferrari of schumacher vs one mclaren of hakkinen and then one ferrari of schumacher vs one mclaren of raikkonen.

        If the FIA is going to all the trouble of mucking up the rules to help new teams get a grip and be competitive with smaller budgets, the why are they cutting the field in half? I can’t see RBR being even handed in 4 years time when it is vettel and someone who isn’t as fast. Ferrari doesn’t do it, McLaren wont as soon as they no longer have two WDC’s there.

        THe only things stopping it from being a 1 ferrari vs 1 mclaren vs 1 1 red bull this year was that mclaren can’t kicking a defending WDC while he is still in proximity to another and RBR can’t knock down webber to 2 as webber is about as fast as vettel and has the cahonas to yell about it :)

    3. Curro says:

      Regarding team orders, you should come to terms with the history of the sport.

      The problem with Schumacher’s career was not team orders, it was the lack of worthy opposition. Whenever there was a fast driver around he usually beat MS.

      1. monktonnik says:

        Unless Schumacher beat him!

        I admit that the historical argument is a valid one, but I don’t agree that it means that F1 should always have them. I have never agreed with team orders because they always ruin the spectacle of the race and almost always impede a driver who would not normally be in a position to win a race for whatever reason.

        I saw the ban on team orders as a positive evolution for the sport. I am sad that we have taken a step backwards.

      2. Irish con says:

        Hold on here a minute. Do u really believe that Germany 2010 was the first time since 2002 Austria that team orders have been given. Very very silly person if you do. It doesn’t matter what the rule says when ever there is a team spending millions and millions on a 2 car race team team orders will always happen. I for one accept that because I’ve grew up watching the sport and i know the history of it. Personally I think it happens probably every other week just not as obvious as when 2 red cars swap the lead of a gp. Ultimately if you think otherwise your in the wrong sport.

      3. monktonnik says:

        Actually I didn’t think that this was the first time it happened. I have never liked team orders and since I have also been an F1 fan for a long time it is something I am well aware of from an historical point of view. To be honest I didn’t like seeing it when it was legal, and I always expected a stewards enquiry when I saw it after the ban, even in the last race of the season. Silliness or not, I want F1 to be more about who is the best driver, not who has the best contract or most compliant team mate. I want race wins to be decided on the track, on the day, not pre-arranged.

        Again, I understand the point that it has historically been an accepted part of the sport. However, it was banned and therefore it was illegal. Saying that just because a team spends millions of pounds means that they can break the rules sets a dangerous precedent. Does that mean that a team who can find a technical way to do it can re-introduce traction control?

        I love F1, and even this controversy won’t stop me from watching every session. I would just like to avoid team orders becoming prevalent and ending up with a tactical battle similar to the Tour de France.

  36. Born 1950 says:

    Seems to me the first change is excellent news!

    One of the great things about F1 has always been that it pushes technology to new levels and then the new ideas developed find their way into other areas. With a turbo engine any power output is possible, limited only by the ability of the materials from which the engine is constructed to withstand the stresses generated. I am convinced that we will not see any reduction in power output. Sure the noise the cars make will change, but we’ll soon get used to the new sound of a 2010 F1 car on full song.

    The second change concerns me. F1 continues to become more and more ruthless every year. If team orders are to be permitted then it is logical for any team that is serious about winning to run No.1 and No.2 drivers. What’s more it’s then logical to make one of the roles of the No.2 driver partly that of spoiling the race for the competition; in order that his No.1 driver can pull out the maximum points lead. I think the spectators will become frustrated again, as they did before team orders were banned before.

    1. mvi says:

      That last scenario will have a short life. No.2 driver will have a harder time spoiling the race for the competition as he will be overtaken thanks to KERS and the adjustable back wing.

      1. Steven says:

        People forget that if car A has KERS so does car B, KERS cancels itsefl out.

      2. mvi says:

        Agreed, but the moveable back wing is for the overtaker’s benefit and how big is the advantage when that is employed at the same time as KERS?

      3. Curro says:

        I think the most important aspect about 2010 was Red Bull showing you can run a team with no team orders and still win being relatively fair to both drivers. I would not have done it the same way, but it worked.

    2. Phil Bishop says:

      I think that’s the point of the disrepute rule i.e. it is perfectly allowable for Massa to let Alonso past but he can’t deliberately hold up / crash into other drivers

      1. Born 1950 says:

        Seems to me that only the driver can know for sure whether his action was deliberate. If his role is written in his contract as ‘No.2 driver’ he knows that anything he can get away with will be helping his No.1 driver — he doesn’t need specific team orders to action a ‘spoiling’ incident. Just think back to incidents that we’ve seen where everyone wondered whether an ‘accident’ was deliberate: MSC taking Damon Hill out to ensure he didn’t take the world championship; and the same again on Villeneuve.

        Of course then there’s the topical ‘crashgate’ incident which everyone accepted as an accident until the truth came out. How can anyone but the drivers concerned know that that was deliberate, whereas — for instance — the punt in the side that Vettel gave Button was an accident?

        I’ll bet a pound to a penny that the number of racing incidents goes up next year — watch those statistics!

      2. Phil Bishop says:

        you may well be right about the number of incidents. this is truly a situation of “can open, worms everywhere”!

  37. Red5 says:

    New engines and return of KERs. Will be interesting to see how teams manage to adapt to these rules within the agreed budget limits.

    Does this also pave the way for mini McLaren MP1.6Ti and Ferrari F164 sports cars with 4 cylinder turbo engines?

    1. malcolm.strachan says:

      Judging by the amount of turbo road-car models in the 1980s, I would say you’ve got the right idea!

  38. jonrob says:

    Changes to suspension uprights, interesting that springs have been disappearing from F1 cars, is the new rule a result in order to kerb the current successful advanced suspension designs.
    http://scarbsf1.wordpress.com/category/2011-rules/

    1. malcolm.strachan says:

      *Individual springs.

      There is still the “third” spring (the one that fell out of Barrichello’s Brawn and hit Massa), but in some designs it is the only spring left.

      What I felt was lacking in Craig’s article was to inform the casual fan that it effectively separates roll-stiffness and ride-stiffness, which now allows for more targeted set-up changes.

    2. malcolm.strachan says:

      Oh, and the uprights shouldn’t affect the springs or even the suspension geometry; the change is to attempt to curb the use of uprights as aerodynamic devices (or mounts for downforce-generating brake-ducts or wing-lets).

  39. Chris R says:

    Well my first reaction to the reduction in engine allocation over a season was bad, thinking of more radio calls during a race to “take care of the engine!”.

    But I guess things will be more complex than that, it will surely focus development on reliability and efficiency which is good.

    And for engine suppliers this is also good, because having to rely on 4 engines means whoever makes a stronger engine will surely give an advantage.

    As an aside, I wonder how this will affect Mclaren. I know their engine deal with Mercedes ends soonish right, so it could be make or break if they dont get their engine right? Or not, just a thought.

  40. Rich C says:

    … sigh… some of my best stuff gets killed by the mods here… so let me see if I can reproduce an earlier post without offending them:

    [adjective deleted] FIA [blah blah bla] F1… pinnacle of motorsport… pinnacle of politically correct green eco [noun deleted] silly …training wheels next.

    Yes, I am TheSarcastic(xxx) on twitter too. ;D

  41. Stone the Crows says:

    I’d be for the 4 bangers if there were no restrictions on RPM, horsepower, nothing, just push that little thing has hard as it will go. But I see nothing helpful about all this. If anything drives the price of doing business up in F-1 is the incessant changes to the regulations. I guess it’s all a matter of perspective. That is, its better to dump hundreds of milliions into developing a new engine so that F-1 has the appearance of being conscientious, and having some vague relevance to road cars than to be the epitome of motor sport.
    How many of the manufacturers who have left in the last few years would still be here if they didn’t have to go from V10′s to V8′s to KERS, to low downforce, etc. etc. etc.
    The engine change is just a sorry bit of image management, that doesn’t give a damn about the fans or the sport.
    Who the hell is advising these people? Kevin Kalkhoven and Tony George?

    1. Alex says:

      I agree, regulation changes have become a regular fixture in the 21st century and it feels like just about ever year is a new formula. I also completely agree with you about the 4 cly engines. Teams should be allowed to thrash the little bastards to within an inch of their life just to prove how volatile f1 can be, regardless of what’s under the hood. To me, that is why it is the pinnacle of motorsport.

  42. Rob_NZ says:

    4 cyl could be a H/O flat 4 like a Subaru WRX etc?

    That might be possible for the low C.O.G, if they can make it fit. That arrangement has great balance characteristics.

    Otherwise a wide angle V4 for the COG.

    The 12k rpm limit should mean that exotic materials are not needed, and the engine can be fairly cheap to make (by comparison).
    With that change, the multi-race engine rule seems un-needed, and less spectacular from a spectator point of view.

    Whats the regs on the turbo construction materials? Will a turbo swap count as an engine swap?
    Perhaps thats the new area that development dollars will get spent.

    1. Born 1950 says:

      Seems to me that they’ll go for an in-line or ‘V’ configuration to keep it narrow low down. That makes most sense because it gives a narrow block to enable better control of under-car aerodynamics just ahead of rear suspension.

      1. Curro says:

        Interesting point, there’s no limitation in architecture! What about a boxer-4, keeping the weight close to the floor…

    2. Born 1950 says:

      Seems to me that 12,000 rpm limit does not necessarily make for ‘less exotic materials’. Assuming the 1600cc engines produce the same power as the current engines — and, with the turbo, I don’t see why not — that’s a similar amount of stress to cope with as a current engine doing 19,000rpm.

      1. Greg says:

        Agree with Born 1950, If anything its more stress as the load/power (bhp) won’t be spread over 8 cylinders, but just 4.

        I have a feeling that the power peak will be lower in comparison to now. And I think KER’s will be used/geared more for coming out of corners than on the straight to overcome the turbo lag.

      2. malcolm.strachan says:

        They’ll have anti-lag systems. We’re not in the 80s any more! ;-)

    3. Rich C says:

      No, all that would require too much thinking.

      There will be specs out the wazoo that define *everything including the color of paint.

      They will leave NO room for serious innovation as it will be for all intents and purposes a ‘spec’ girlie-engine.

      So they can spend zillions in the wind tunnel for microscopic advantages they will call “technology”.

    4. Paul Kirk says:

      And what about a East/West arangement, it would reduce the gyroscopic reaction and maybe effect the pitch effect by rotating it clockwise or anti clockwise, not to mention a shorter wheel base.
      PK.
      Come on now, FIA, 4 cylinders, bloody-hell!

  43. Anil says:

    I hope the engines don’t sound too bad…I’ve been to two races since the V8′s have been introduced and the cars have made little impression on me.

    Loud. Powerful. Sounding like they could go at any second.

    That’s what i want a car to SOUND like and that’s what I pay to see. If it sounds dreadful saving some money and watching races on the tv will defo become the norm for me.

  44. James Punt says:

    so Team orders are now ok….so long as they do not bring the sport into disrepute. Does anyone know disrepute is measured and by whom?
    Sounds like a very big can of worms to me.

    1. Steven says:

      By Ferrari

    2. Peter Hermann says:

      I guess the thing about ‘bringing the sport into disrepute’is meant to still have means of punishment for events like, e.g., Singapore 2008. You could say it was a ‘team order’ as well.

      I’m curious to see how the dropping of §39.1 will show on track next season. But at least, we will probably not hear the ‘save fuel code’ anymore.

      Actually i’m a bit disappointed, i was already thinking of some good coded messages like ‘the cow jumps over the moon’ from WW II.

      1. Rich C says:

        There will still be coded messages. Just because the fia wants “transparency” doesn’t mean team owners do.

      2. PaulL says:

        Good point

      3. Damian J says:

        But nobody was really punished from Singapore waer they? Driver immunity, a timid FIA reluctant to pin the blame on Renault as a team etc

    3. Paul Kirk says:

      Yeah, what one person might regard as “disreputable” might be seen as “beautifull” by another person! Rather than a “can of worms”, I reckon it’ll be more like a “bucket of sharks”. AND I bet they don’t ask the opinion of the fans before they decide if it’s disreputable or not!
      PK.

  45. Kieren Bloomfield says:

    James, any idea what the refueling rules are likely to be by then? I’m thinking that a 35% saving in fuel is going to really help reduce the fuel saving strategies that currently force drivers to back off during periods of the race. I never liked that about the current rules; it produces a lull in the race around the three-quarter mark mark.

    1. James Allen says:

      They will be using just over 100kg of fuel for a race distance. Not much. No need to refuel.

      1. Lonel.nzenze@btinternet.com says:

        Will that be 100KG per Driver or 200KG per Team.. If its per team does that mean the No 1 driver could be given 110KG and No 2 90KG of Fuel? What happens if a Team decides to distribute its fuel 110 to 90 and then asks for the rule regarding fuel distribution to be changed? Do you think they could get away with it?

      2. malcolm.strachan says:

        It would be per-driver, otherwise you would end up with one driver going five laps and running out of fuel, whilst the other driver has 1200 bhp for the entire race because they got 190 kg of fuel…

        …hmm, actually, I like this idea.

  46. Marc says:

    Given the restrictions/limits that’s already in the rules for this new efficent engine will they all end up at the same performance level or will there be some scope for a bit of an engine/power war?

  47. PaulL says:

    I think they should have made one of two changes regarding tyres.

    1) Require 3 types of tyres to be used during a race. This would allow drivers to push harder on any given set of tyres than they can do now, and it also allows a little more room for variant strategy.
    2) Require NO change of tyre during a race. At least then, it pushes the tyres to the limit over a race if they decide to stay out and if not then the guys who qualify on the softs might have to overtake those who do a full race on the hards. So there’s greater room for strategy variance.

    By not changing the current “two types of tyres for a race” we’re likely to have the same formula whereby almost everyone stops on the same lap only once because it doesn’t make sense to try anything else.
    Thus, there will be more likely continue to be races like Bahrain and Abu Dhabi from last year.

    1. Rich C says:

      As far as tires I bet sooner or later they’ll specify you can only use 3 at a time.

    2. Greg says:

      I like that idea!

    3. malcolm.strachan says:

      Number two is what I said a year ago, before Bahrain! I still think that, and hope it happens! Open up the strategies… don’t limit them!

  48. Jock Abroad says:

    Is the change to 1.6l turbo charged engines that big an issue – I hark back to the original turbo era (late 70′s thru late 80′s) when the turbo charged engines were limited to 1.5l and 13,000rpm and nominally churned out some 700+HP, albeit in 6-cylinder configuration. Having watched many GPs during that era (admittedly only on TV until 2006)I don’t recall ever thinking that the turbo cars sounded less ‘beastly’ than those running the 3litre Cozzie V8?

    Sadly I never got to see/hear the V10′s in the flesh, but the current V8′s are pretty darned scary sounding.

    As for making the spectacle more exciting; it may be that FOTA/FIA should allow increased turbo boost for qualifying only, kind of like they used to do in the old days where the cars churned out huge HPs (1000+) but always ran a significant risk of blowing up – brilliant stuff. Couple that with the revised limit on the number of engines for 2013 and beyond and we’d hopefully see some very risky and ridiculous strategies being deployed throughout the season. Instead of seeing the ‘flaps down’ I’m coming past approach that is being adopted for 2011 and beyond, surely it would be more exciting to see a “Tony’s Lotus” or HRT on pole mid-season as the big boys start mid-pack trying to save engines as they chase the WDC & WCC?

    JA on F1 is a great site, covering a great sport with the best insight and some of the most knowledgable posters I’ve ever come across – brilliant stuff, and thanks to y’all for keeping me entertained for the last few seasons.

    1. James Allen says:

      Thank you. That’s very kind.

  49. Tim says:

    Why can’t the FIA stop being so restrictive and say “you have 70 liters of fuel which must last you the race. Now go nuts with your engine.”

    Wouldnt that be more Eco?

    1. Craig says:

      And more entertaining. That’s what the overtaking committee should have come up with. Limit the amount of fuel but not the horsepower of the engine. Any time you want to overtake someone, hit the button (not you, Vettel – bad pun) and get 1000HP, but do it too many times and you won’t have the fuel to finish the race. Would make for some very interesting moments during the race, particularly towards the end.

    2. Red5 says:

      If one team manages to get an engine design advantage the FAI must be worried the championship will turn into a 2 horse race.

      Potentially 1 horse race if car is red.

  50. Bec says:

    Rumour has it the only way to get the new for 2013 engine regulations unanimously passed by all the teams, was to lift the ban on team orders that effect the race result.

    Ferrari and Mercedes were the teams that opposed the new engine regulations, but strangely did a U-turn after the team orders ban was lifted.

  51. type056 says:

    After 2010 German GP Button said if team order allowed i will leave the sport.
    It is interesting how will he react.
    I am just waiting for Buttons departure.

    1. zack says:

      not true button said if his team used team orders meaning mclaren he would leave the sport not if the ban was lifted

  52. Vic says:

    Hi James

    I wonder if you could look into these questions for your more detailed anylasis of the engines, will the engine manufacturers have free reign on development? because that would make things interesting and what kind of power levels (horse power) are the engineers expecting to start off with from these engines?

    thanks james

    Vic

  53. peter says:

    it will be interesting to compare the 2013 indycar with 2013 f1 car.

    looks like the indycars may be more exciting to watch – well in terms of engine anyway.

    sound is a major reason why i love f1.

    what is going on with motorsport…………….why do they have to change something that works.

    1. Bec says:

      Why are you and many other people assuming the 2013 engine will sound feeble?

      It’s 3 years of development away, and the last turbo engines sounded great.

      1. Paul Kirk says:

        Did they, though, Bec, I don’t remember being very impressed by the BMW 4 cylinder turbo that Nelson Piquet drove!
        PK.

  54. Vannman says:

    Eco engines in F1 just isnt right, if the sport was so worried about saving energy and the planet, then run the Singapore GP in daylight!

    1. Phil Bishop says:

      good point

    2. Bec says:

      The Singapore GP produces 320 less tons of carbon than the average football game played at night in the UK.

      And how many games of football are played at night not only in the UK but around the world?

  55. Tim says:

    Every year I attend the Melbourne GP, but I’ve a feeling 2012 may be my last. I love the raw sound of 18k RPM of a V8 (and V10s in the past) whizzing past my nose on the turn 5 fence.

    Now with new turbo engines, it will no doubt sound like a Nissan Skyline doing laps of Albert park. Where is the thrill of that??

    Sure lets promote eco and green but at what cost to the ‘traditional’ motorsport and F1 fans.

    Not convinced. Will have to wait and see what these engines sound like.

  56. Jo Torrent says:

    I’m impressed by Jean TODT. This guy really means business whenever he works on something. He imposed the turbo engines eventhough Ferrari and Mercedes the biggest manufacturers on the buisness were against it.

    Every move he made was in the right direction and his vision for WRC are even more interesting. I remember when Ron Dennis and Jackie Stewart were compaining against him heading the FIA and he made everybody shut up. He showed leadership and vision for the FIA and he wasn’t only interested in F1.

    The sad thing is to hear Max Mosley still talking about this and that. You do really feel he was pushed out against his will and that he misses the power the FIA gave him.

    1. Damian J says:

      Exactly…we saw the corrupting influence of his power within FIA and the media attention he craved as President and what that did to McLaren!

  57. Greg says:

    My 3rd post, sorry guys.

    How about the FIA stating that they have X amount of metal to construct from, but can recycle. haha!

  58. Andrew says:

    I’m dissapointed by the engine rules to be honest. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport yet we’re going to now have an average engine spec. How embarassing for F1. What’s so special about an F1 car with such a small engine? The sound while loud just won’t sound special enough. We’ll have high speed sewing machines running around out there. This sport is not an endurance event yet I fear we’re heading that way with these rules. Sad times. I read somewhere a while ago about how a whole season of races fuel use currently equaled a long distance jumbo jet trip. If that’s the case then I’m sure there would’ve been other ways of taking the moral high ground for F1 than to diminish the status of the sport. I’m dissapointed.

    1. Curro says:

      It’s a cosmetic change. There’s nothing eco in a high-revving 4-cylinder turbo engine. 12,000 is very high revs for that type of engine.

    2. Paul Kirk says:

      You’re right about the Jumbo jet, Andrew, and I don’t know how many of them the F1 circus uses to get around the world to 19 races. Maybe Burnie should reduce the number of races, but I understand he’s wanting to INCREASE them! Of course he personally won’t be concerned about the SO-CALLED green issues.
      PK.

  59. Stone the Crows says:

    I wonder what sort of changes will be made to the GP2 series in light of all this wonderfulness to come in F1? Right now the Dallara GP2 cars have a Renault 4 litre V8 that produces a reported 560 or so horsepower at 10,000 RPM. So Formula One go from a V8 producing about 800 hop to a 4 cylinder engine running 12,000 RPM producing a rumoured 650 + hp. Does that sound like a step up or a step down for one of those young lunatics in GP2?

  60. Andrew H says:

    It is interesting that the limit will be 12,000 RPM. My 1989 Honda CBR600FK revs to over 12,000 (redline 12500). Back in the 1990s there were 250cc 4-stroke road bikes that would rev to 16,000RPM! These new engines should be able to last a whole season, not just 4 or 5 races. This does not seem to be a very exciting development.

  61. leukocyte says:

    the entire team orders debate can be summarised as the tension caused by running both an individual (WDC) and a team (WCC) competition simultaneously during each race weekend.

    lifting the ban on team orders is simply recognition that, on any given day, the team outcome may be prioritised over the WDC.

    this is all legitimate, albeit most fans regard the WDC as more important. the sport does not exist to provide certainty for betting agencies and their customers, this should just add an extra variable to consider for those who bet.

  62. Dave Aston says:

    At this rate, by 2020 teams will have to make one engine and gearbox last all year, and the following years, until the regulations are changed again.

  63. unoc says:

    An engine for every 5 GP’s? How about practice? Surely this will create problems, will it not?

    SOme engines last forver (alonsos last few), some don’t (ferrari at the start). If a driver lost an engine in the 2nd round, then they would be completely and utterly screwed, mulled, destroyed, for the rest of the year. 3 engines would be left to do 34x 1.5 hour friday free practice sessions, 17x 1 hour sat prac, 17x 1 hour quali and 17x 2 hour race. That’s rediculos and they won’t last unless you baby the engine which means they wont be competitive. THAT IS BRINGING THE SPORT INTO DISRIPTUE, THAT is rediculos.

    I prefered the sound of the V10s anyway, F1 is about power, and crazy looking cars, lots of excitment a bit of glamour, crazy fast cornering speeds and howling noise.

    No where in there do I care more about ecofriendly (if you want to do something eco, then cut down the no. of gp’s) nor about saving stuff.

    I thought ths year really showed, that all the drivers are held back by what they need to finish the season. Yes, put a limit on it, but when they go out to race and 15 laps in are in fuel saving mode refusing to go faster so as to save fuel, and they drive carefully and not in slipstreams so as to make there tyres last longer and they can’t push the engine because apart from burning precious fuel, it also means they may run out of engines (run out of engines.. sounds stupid huh? Imagine if you said, sorry, I can’t go down to the shops, I may run out of engines! It’s motorsport, for goodness sake, priority is to the speed not to the savings).

    If they are trying to save money by doing that, then its a lost cause as engine manafactures will charge more per engine as they are only selling less engines. SO the teams are stil spending the same.

    Any money saved by manafactures making less engines will be spent on other bits of the car, and so it is completely and totally useless.

    Very disappointed by the FIA today

    1. peterp says:

      COMPLETELY 100% agree!

    2. Steven says:

      Theres a cap on how much the engine suppliers can charge.

      1. unoc says:

        So? They will still charge the same as before for the seasons engine allocation, if they just want to cut down on costs then they cut the max price. The problem is that some manafacturers like ferrari will spend heaps on the engine and sell it at a loss because it means they will win. Honda and BMW wont, and so theyh wont enter F1. The only way to cut budgets in engine terms is to cut the price they can for and make a budget for how much they can spend doing it.

      2. James Allen says:

        The development costs of the new engine will be significant, but that will be amortised over the duration of the engine formula

      3. unoc says:

        True, but my point sitll stands, and that is if they are trying to make it look better for manafacturers not already in f1 to start making engines then it wont work at all.

        The only advantage the new formula has is that it is greener and so manafacturers may want to be involved then. Although its f1 still and not woodstock (festival) so fuel will be burnt and while being greener it still wont be that green. Big fail.

        James, while you are here, could you answer a question that has been with me since toyota split from williams last year.

        ‘Why didn’t Williams just keep Toyota engines?’

        cosworth was untested and unknown, the toyota engine they already knew, had info on it, had been run through seasons, and was a known quantity. Yes Toyota pulled out, but why couldn’t they just have a few engineers to do the engine for whoever wants it. It doesn’t need to be developed so no cost is required it would just be supporting it with the staff already there.

        Similiarly, the engines used in F1 are
        Ferrari (team)
        Mercedes (now with a team)
        Cosworth (no team)
        Reanult (soon to be no team)

        while there are developed engines up to current standard and spec
        BMW (no team like cosworth and renault next year)
        Honda (as above)
        Toyota (as above)

        Surely, atleast one of the new teams would prefer one of the three over the two races and 3rd is down on power cosworth… or are the rumours of FIA having backroom deals with cosworth and only picking new teams that want cosworth engines true?

        thanks, it would be great if you could answer the year old question!

  64. Chris Orr says:

    What is this about a re-introduction of the intermediate tyre?
    Are they talking about the rain tyre because as far as I am aware, they havent been banned.

  65. zombie says:

    I am all for greener,leaner engines, but they have to let the engineers free.When you have a maximum allowed fuel rule,whats the point in capping the revs to 12K RPM? Ridiculous! And why the cap on engine development?

    F1 is the blue ribbon of motorsport because it is as much a pinnacle of engineering as it is about drivers. Engineering is all about evolution,so why curb engine development? I really though Jean Todt would be much more sensible than Mosley,guess i was wrong.Heck! Hyundai road car engines are developed faster than F1 engines these days – thanks FIA!

  66. Lev Piautzer says:

    James, with the new engine rules, how big s the possibility of new manufactures entering the sport.
    It seems to me that this was the main reason for the new rules. can we expect Porsche/VW entering?

    What about Red Bull producing their own unit? Dietrich Mateschitz was saying at Brasil GP that whit the new engine rules there is possibility for that (he must be crazy). What about Mclaren?

    Can we expect any (exciting) development towards that?

  67. No longer the pinnacle of motorsport says:

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but Formula 1 is meant to be the pinnacle of motorsport and what is technically achievable when pushing the boundaries. With all these ridiculous limitations its hardly pushing the limits.

    The only limit being set should be a fuel limit capacity! This way teams will push the limits and get the most out of the little 1.6L’s.

    In the days where you can purchase a road car with 1000hp+ (Bugatti Veyron including warranty) and there are plenty of other super cars making 800hp+ what is the point of F1?

    In 1986 F1 cars were making around 1300hp in qualifying trim.

    In 2013 F1 cars will be making around 600hp + 200hp kers, hardly sounds like progress to me.

    1. unoc says:

      It’s that a supercar weighs 59 tonnes and has 750bhp while an f1 car weighs 600kg and has 750bhp.

      Now, things like the Lamborghini Sesto Elemento which weighs less than 1 tonne and has 7**bhp, while an F1 will soon weigh more than the moon and have 700bhp inc KERS.

      When you make the rules you have to weigh up what fans want to see vs what will rbing in the money. And you can argue that bringing in more money means fans are happier anyway, but truth be told, this will make engine suppliers happier and those who want to sponser a greener F1 happier and more likely to do so. We on the other hand will watch it no matter wheather they are running V12s, turbos with 1500bhp or v6′s produce 500bhp.

      So it’s really a very simple argument, why make more power if it drivers away business at the cost of a few keyboard warrior fans?

      I want: A free go on V6, V8, V10, V12 or 4 cylinder turbo. Regs put in place to insure that they all end up about the same, maybe with the more cylinders having slightly more power to offset the extra weight. That weigh some cars will be faster on the straights while others slightly faster in the bends.
      Engines are locked at from the fisrt round and only are open for changing form 2 months prior.

      Leave the regs pretty wide so that the engines on the limit wont last that many gp’s. And finally, a nice (eco) touch, 8 engines a year. Go fight for it!

      Probably an expensive way to do it and engine suppliers wouldn’t want to do it because it would cost alot each year and damage would be done if the engine is lacking. Engines would blow up and cars would go past too quickly for people to see the sponser details. They would be much harder to control with all the power but a few with massive …. would gun it hard and it would be men vs boys.

      It would be a brilliant spectacle. Unfortunately costs prohibite such awesomeness.

      On a side note, that Henesssey thing with 1000bhp in the body of an elise. I wonder if that with a couple of wings would beat an f1 car (probs the HRT atleast) :(

    2. Rich C says:

      Apparently they fear too much HP will frighten the natives.
      Thus the spec, girlie-engine.

      Forget F1; LMP is the *true pinnacle of motorsport.

    3. Steven says:

      The veryon may a road car, but Im pretty sure nobody in this blog can affor one(i might be wrong)

      Formula 1 is not just about power, its about cornering speed, an indycar from the 90s had more power than a F1 car, but put them on the same track and the F1 will be faster, simply because the F1 can accelerate faster and has more corner speed.

      Its not all about POWER people, and whos to say that they cant make 1000hp?

  68. Jeroen says:

    Finally that ridicolous teamorder-rule is gone! Good job.

  69. Curro says:

    Actually I think Renault are the biggest loosers here. They are becoming less involved in the sport with the Lotus deal, and suddenly there’s a completely new engine to design and develop.

    1. F430-FOX says:

      Nothing sudden about this. It has been discussed for a long time and Renault were very much aware of it.
      It may even suit them to focus only on engine development, which may benefit their road cars too.

  70. Sergio says:

    F1 Eco = F1 is dead.

    Team Orders Ban Lifted = Slap in the Inquisitors Face This season.

  71. sixtenths says:

    Why must we have Green politics thrust upon us ?

    When did they win an election to take over every aspect of our lives ?

    Is there a single F1 fan out there who gives a monkeys about halfwitted Green posturing ?

    Posturing is all it is, the net effect will be less than a billionth of a percentage point of difference.

    However, developing engines and technologies that relate to road cars, is of clear use….

    What is going on with the Team Orders being un banned, but mention being made of the “Bringing the Sport into disrpute” … as they cannot “prove” team orders are they now seriously threatening to use this rule as more of an effective weapon.

    Endless arguments about just how many extra points Alonso has shamelessly cheated do detract from the whole thing. We want a level playing field, a great, straight, close fight between the Vettels and Hamiltons, without Alonso being allowed to steal an advantage.

    1. Steven says:

      Its not green politics. Its all about the sponsors, thats where the “green” thing comes from. Sponsors need to present themselves to the consumers as being “green” and there’s always some nut that will want to boycot a product because they sponsor a “wastefull” F1 car.

    2. Paul Kirk says:

      6 Tenths, your “developeing engines/technologies relating to road cars is usefull” comment is interesting. Tell me, does Mum really need a multi valve multi cam engine made of unobtanium, capable of reving out to 12 grand to take the kids to school and get the groceries? I don’t think so! And I don’t need one to go to work in, nor does my mum and dad, and the youths certainly don’t need one to rap themselves and my doughter (or your doughter) around a lamp post or a truck or a tree or a bus. That takes care of most of the population, then you’ve got tourists and foreigners who either can’t drive safely or don’t know where they’re going! Anyway, nowadays way too many people are getting around in bloody great 4wd suvs that are blocking the roads/vision and rarely go fast enough to get out of grandma’s way, and she doesn’t go fast. Personally I can’t see the connection between the general public’s car and F1.
      PK.

      1. Paul Kirk says:

        Cont’d., Althought, Sixtenths, I must admit a computorised adjustable wing could be useful on my car! (I’m not sure why, but I’ll think about it).
        PK.

  72. Rob says:

    I find the new engine rule absolutely ridiculous!
    If the manufacturers want to go green, fair enough, but Formula1 has always been a glomorous sport and no one should change that. Its all about the champagne, diamonds, good looking girls, fast cars, burning fuel for fun and that georgeus noise! Please do not take that away from us…

    I really hope common sense is gonna kick in and its not gonna go through but if it does its not gonna be the same anymore

  73. Johnson says:

    James, do you think the new engine regulations will make it better or worse for the cars to overtake?

    Also on the subject of overtaking, do you have any stats on which circuits have produced the most overtakes and the least??

    Cheers!

    1. James Allen says:

      I think it will make a difference if they give the engines a lot more regenerative energy and set usage terms so it’s being used at different times by different cars.

    2. Ian says:

      Back in the day (the ’80s), there was always the option of turning up the turbo boost to get past a slower car. I’m assuming that option is going to return, so it should help with overtaking.

      Actually, as there’s been no mention of a boost limit, I’m guessing that the fuel-flow limit will be the limiting factor in terms of horsepower.

  74. jeroen says:

    The new 1,6 turbochargers are the way to go. Great decission of the FIA. The world and manufacturers want greener engines and if the F1 wants to survive, the have to go with the flow.

    1. Paul Kirk says:

      Well, Jeroen, maybe they better do something quick about the planes that transport the f1 circus around the world! (And the trucks/transporters). One plane on one flight can use as much fuel as one F1 car uses in a whole season, or more!
      PK.

  75. Paul says:

    Finally, Turbo has returned. Oh I hated the move to normal aspiration seeing the sleek, smooth lined cars of 1988 lost in time. I for one can’t understand everyone’s love of having their eardrums half destroyed by V12′s V10′s and V8′s. Remember we’ve watched F1 cars with big air ducts above the driver’s heads now since 1989, Ugly cars compared to the sleek beautiful cars of 1988.
    Turbo will bring back the Engine manufacturers, Audi or Porsche Tag on behalf of VW, Toyota and Honda. In a nutshell, I have waited for the return of the beautiful, sleek, Turbo’s for years. Turbo is the future, I don’t care how it sounds, its the overtaking, fuel management (Prost) and strategy of waiting to lead and that free for all in balancing boost vs running out of fuel. I can’t wait!

  76. peterp says:

    The whole eco thing is a joke! F1 is supposed to be the PINNICLE of motor racing – not an economy run! The whole eco/cost saving thing is a sham! If we had limited days testing – or say the day AFTER a GP – costs could be cut because the facilities etc are already paid for & everyone is there!Have any of the above children heard in real life the Ferrari V12 engines (unrestricted) from the past!

  77. Nic Maennling says:

    The sound is very important. The worst sound they made was when traction control kicked in when leaving a corner. That was pitiful. Thank god that is gone.

    I’ll just have to play my CD of the V-16 BRM – awesome !

    I read the banning of team orders as “no change” carry on as before.

  78. Darren says:

    Right everyone, I will now set the rules for F1…

    Team orders ban gone – good, better to have it out in the open instead of all the coded message cloak and dagger nonsense, they got that one right.

    Engines
    No no no no no, I dont disaprove of changing the engine formula, far from it, I think its due a change (anything to get rid of those bland V8s). Whats with all this setting the number of cylinders, power output, compression ratio blah blah..

    No, the best way to go about it would be to give them a max displacement, state whether turbos are allowed or not, and a fuel limit per race. The fuel limit should be small enough so that it is a real challenge for the engineers. Other than that leave it up to each designer, that way it will start a ferocious competition, nothing advances technology faster than hard competition, (that big competition between Germany and the rest of the world a few years back did wonders for technology)

    Get rid of the number of engines limit, not enough cars retire from the race if you ask me, i used to love it when the likes of Jean Alesi was flying round the track in his time bomb of a Ferrari that would probably run out of fuel anyway. No retirements mean that the race result is very predictable (within 2 or 3 drivers / cars) no chance for the further back teams to play it safe and pick up the pieces for some glory, boring.

    Overtaking
    We dont need false moving wings, they are all racing drivers, they know how to overtake (I think Mr Kobayashi should give them all a refresher course though).

    A combination of the tracks and the cars is at fault. Overtaking is possible at some tracks (mainly the older ones) but not others. In all of the modern tracks the corners always have one line through them, this means the cars have to go through one at a time, this makes the offline part of the track very dirty, this means that if someone goes onto the dirty part to try some overtaking he will fall off.

    Go back to steel brakes, the braking distances are too short. Basically every lap the driver stamps on the brake as hard as he can as late as he can. This is not conducive to overtaking. With “old fashioned” brakes doing that every lap would mean you get a very spongy pedal very quickly. This gives someone following a chance.

    Go back to manual gearboxes, the drivers as a whole dont make enough errors (good for them, bad for us) bring back the possibility of missing a gear and of destroying a gearbox with over enthusiasm. This will also bring back the forgotten art of heel and toeing, this alsop places more emphasis on driver skill.

    1. Jez W says:

      I couldn’t have put it better myself…

  79. Alexis says:

    Won’t be attending another GP after 2011. Without the noise, half the spectacle isn’t there.

    Well done FIA. Watch those gate receipts plummet…

  80. Rich C says:

    >setting the number of cylinders <

    And I guarantee you that when the engineers setting all these specs finished the meeting, *each one was thinking "ok, here's how we get around that rule".

    The foxes guarding the henhouse…

    Sadly, most suggestions I see here are waaay too simple for the engineers to enjoy trying to 'beat' them.

  81. Steven says:

    The thing with the engines is that, yes, it should open to any number of cylinders, limited only by the capacity and the fuel consumption. What I think they are trying to do is stop engines suppliers from expending all kinds of money, which in turn hurts the smaller teams. Will the new engine formula lead manufactureres to have to expend tons of money? Yes, but it becomes even worse when supplier A comes to the 1st race with a 3L V10 and suppier B comes to the 1st race with a I4 1.6T and the I4 1.6T becomes the engine to have. Then they spent all that money, and now they have an engine that is obsolete even before the 1st race is over, they then go back to the factory and desing the I4 1.6T and in the process expend all that money AGAIN! ANd it becomes an arms race.

    Formula 1 is not about traditions anymore(sadly), we’re not in the times when we all knew that Ferrari was going to have a V12 simply because they are Ferrari. This era has become about having the best convination. Look at this year, McLaren had the Fduct, and everybody copied it, same thing with the blown diffuser and the double decker last year.

    By agreeing to unified engine formula it saves ALL the teams money in the long run, the Ferraris and McLarens and the HRTs and Virgins.

    I dont understand why everybody is so against it, in the 80s they had the turbi 4s, and they were some of themost exiting years of F1, the difference is that it wasnt agreed, all the manufacturers just migrated to that type of engine because it becam the one to have.

    I do disagree with the 5 races per engine, that rule should stay the same as it is now. Who knows, we still have 2 seasons to go, they might change that rule.

    Can somebody tell me for sure if these rules were imposed by the FIA and the agreed to by FOTA, or if FOTA agreed to the rules and the FIA is just following what FOTA wants? They way I understand it is the rules were drafted by FOTA, independent of the FIA. James?

    James I want to thank you for allowing us to make more than one post at a time, it was annoying when when we had to wait for one post to be moderated before we posted another one, THANKS!!

    1. Bec says:

      Rules can be proposed by any stake holder, but the FIA only have a mandate over safety rules, all other rules have to be voted on, and some need 100% agreement.

      However FOTA have 1 vote per team (12 votes), the FIA have 1 vote only as do FOM, so ALL rules apart from rules concerning safety are basically FOTA’s rules.

  82. Paul Kirk says:

    It’s a pity they’ve limited engines to 4 cylinders. I think it’s a good idea to limit the fuel amount, revs, and capacity, then let the engine supplyers decide how many cylinders they wanted. 4 cylinders, that’s ridiculous, and with the turbo they’ll sound like Formula Ford on fast forward–BOOOOORING!!! Also, I’m biginning to think the powers that be are making the cars too complex and relying too much on electronics and computor controled stuf! When you think about it some of the most exciting racing around the world comes from some of the most basic vehicles with no computor controled stuf, except ignition and injection, and minimal areodynamic aids that allow slipstreaming and passing!
    Wots da wurld commin too? Huh?
    PK.

  83. Mike from Medellin, Colombia says:

    12,000 revs? 1.6 litres. So will we expect the track to sound like a Renault Clio Cup race.

    Screaming engines are the soundtrack to F1.

    Let’s leave things alone….this was a great season.

  84. Mike from Medellin, Colombia says:

    For those of you who are worried about hoe F1 will sound…..you should be…

    Just listen to how uninspiring this footage is:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYEtWoAfSIY&feature=related

  85. PaulL says:

    Is there still a testing ban for 2011? I think they should at least do a few group tests at Barcelona and Silverstone during the year

  86. Bollo says:

    Yup based on the information that is available right now I think I would rather watch an entertaining nutcase GP2 race than the new 2013 cars.

    If we are going turbo again they have to be special like the old turbo era F1 cars. They were were amazing, brutal and hugely powerful things with proper wide tyres (I still dont like how narrow the modern F1 cars look in comparison).

    The turbo engines should be highly stressed mechanical marvels with insane power outputs that take lions of men (or women if any are about) to drive. Truly skilled and brave people that deserve the privilege of piloting one of these things and not just the richest kid who can steer acceptable well.

    On a side note it was interesting seeing Adrian Newey’s concept ultimate F1 car. Cars are so much safer now so why cant we go along these lines and F1 be about being FAST FAST FAST! OK maybe every track in the world would have to be redesigned for safety but hey it would be great.

  87. Rick M. says:

    There’s already aggravating developments regarding next year’s championship and this year isn’t even over yet.

    A Green Faux-tus and a Black and Gold Faux-tus are both contributing to a farce. Neither deserve to have any connection to the great Marque. Buying a name and expecting some sort of instant credibility stinks. It’ll have Colin Chapman rolling over in his grave, or his beach chair, if you know what I mean…

    And ratifying the use of movable rear wings, but, only if the cars are less than 1 sec. apart, only in certain parts of the track , etc., etc. is just plain stupid and dangerous. “Moveable aerodynamic device’s”, have always been illegal up to now, and should remain so. If they went back to metallic rotors, it would accomplish 2 things: dramatically reduce costs and increase the braking zones. And carbon rotors have no relevance to the non-racing world. What ever happened to the idea of limiting driving aids anyway?

  88. Steve W says:

    Regarding the new 2013 engine regulations i can understand the need for more “green” fossil fuelled engines,what i can,t quite understand are the issues about “addressing the needs of the automotive industry”?

    I can only read far to many ambiguous statements here,none of which make much sense.

    Since when have F1 engines have ever been related to road car use,and if they are to be in 2013 what is the relevance? KERS? hardly green and will we see the showroom salesman explaining the virtues of pressing a button to overtake the car in front?

    This is about manufactures who wish to enter F1 with small capacity engines and with proven knowledge using small turbo,s,ie Cosworth who appear to be calling the shots.

    Engine capacity does not relate to efficiency even with a turbo added,if it does lets see diesels in F1.

    Commercial trucks are all turbo diesel charged,why?

  89. Damian J says:

    James,

    Why does n’t FIA try and sort out Flexi wings for 2011…or more accurately, figure out how to introduce more robust testing rules for 2011 than continue to rely on the use of static weights?

    It seems that FIA is bringing F1 into disrepute by failing to resolve the problem of drooping wings. Why let the issue rumble on into the 2011 season?

    1. James Allen says:

      They are working on it!

  90. C Lin says:

    Lifting of TO, that must be great news for Massa. His season ends even before it can begin. *sighs*

  91. Gord says:

    How about maximum engine size of 3.0l or 2.4l and whatever cyclinder combination the team wants ?

  92. Will says:

    How will the cars sound at much lower revs? Ferrari road cars at 8500rpm sound awesome, but no way near the high pitch if an F1 car.

    Team orders: as far as I am concerned, I don’t like them, period. Let drivers race, best wins. No one wants to be a patsy. I like Ferrari, but have no allegiance to any team. What they did with Massa this year made me annoyed, if the race if fixed or pre-planned, why bother watching? What’s the difference between this and match fixing in football or any Other sport?

  93. kate says:

    sound perfect when F1 concern eco-friendly. hopefully every engine designer always think about eco-friendly that be better. care earth sound cool !!

  94. NH SEO says:

    I cherished up to you will obtain carried out right here. The comic strip is tasteful, your authored material stylish. however, you command get got an impatience over that you want be delivering the following. in poor health definitely come further earlier again as exactly the same nearly very steadily inside of case you protect this increase.

LEAVE A COMMENT

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Top Tags
SEARCH News
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer