Whiting predicts era of excitement for F1 with new 2014 engines
Innovation
CharlieXPB
Posted By: James Allen  |  26 Jun 2013   |  2:56 pm GMT  |  100 comments

Formula 1 race director Charlie Whiting believes the sport is set to enter a new era of excitement when it introduces 1.6-litre V6 turbocharged engines next season.

Whiting was speaking on the opening day of the FIA Sport Conference Week, hosted by our own James Allen, which looks at the vision for motorsport over the coming years as well as the challenges facing the sport in terms of safety, sustainability and affordability.

Whiting highlighted that fuel efficiency will be key, with 2014 cars requiring around 50kg less fuel than this year to complete a race distance.


“We have new powertrain coming in 2014, with all sorts of energy recovery devices, which will I think bring the power up to a little over what we have at the moment,” said Whiting.

“The cornerstone of this new power unit is that cars will only be able to use 100kg of fuel for a race. There is also a fuel flow limit that will be checked and verified by the FIA fuel flow meter which will be fitted in all cars’ fuel tanks.

“Currently the fuel used is about 140 or 150kg and that will come down to the 100kg mark. That is a significant difference.

“Efficiency is the key thing. There’s no limit to the amount of fuel a team can put in a car but there is a limit to how much they can use in a race. It is a significant change to the efficiency of the car.”

Whiting also said that engine technology has moved on significantly since Formula 1’s last turbo era in the 1980s so the engines will be safer, with the risk of fire no greater than it is now.

“You will not see any more fires than we see now,” he said. “Things are much safer than they ever were in the past. The technology has come on in leaps and bounds and it is the most efficient way of developing the required power and that, alongside the energy recovery, means we will see some amazing machines out there.”

The conference also discussed how if motorsport is to prosper, it must increase its relevance to the general public while retaining the emotion that has hooked core fans of the sport.

FIA deputy president for Sport Graham Stoker said: “A healthy grassroots motor sport culture is necessary. We need new blood and this has to be tackled with vigour. If we show that motor sport brings positive social change that’s a real step forward.”

Vicky Chandhok, president of the Federation of Motorsport Clubs of India (FMSCI) said that India has focused on increasing involvement in all forms of motorsport, and this has see a 40% year-on-year- increase in events.

“We have taken a conscious decision that as well as hardcore rallying, racing and autocross, we will have time speed distance rallying, plenty of karting and family outing events,” he said. “That whole batch then starts developing the sport in the sense of spectators and sponsors.

“This is working quite well for us. It has increased our events greatly. We have had a 40 per cent year- on-year increase, we now have 368 motor sport events. In a country like ours, that had only 100 events a year or two ago, I think we’re doing something right.”

Meanwhile, Maria de Villota pointed to the positive step in the development of the FIA Women in Motorsport Commission. If [Williams F1 development driver] Susie Wolff gets
a superlicence that would be good,” she said. “We need girls to want to be like Susie; if there is no one involved at that level girls will think it’s not possible to do it.”

And Alejandro Agag, promoter of the Formula E championship, added that the electric-powered series would be able to fulfill a role of opening up motorsport to new generations.

“Formula E has the chance to talk to new fans but those fans want real racing as well and the way we deliver that racing will be decisive,” he said. “Cars are not as relevant to kids these days, as they have smart phones and tablets – so to make it more relevant we need to give them motor sport through those devices.”

Featured Innovation
FOM
INNOVATION BRIEFING
technical innovation from tata COMMUNICATIONS
Previous
Next
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
100 Comments
  1. Andrew C says:

    More exciting?! Who’s he trying to convince? I’m just so fed up beyond reason with F1 right now that I’m at the point of giving up on it completely. This season has been the first season since I started watching F1 in ’92 that I’ve chosen to skip watching races because of the whole tyre drama that is mostly deciding results for us. Now we’re to expect yet more ‘driving to a strategy’ next year with the drivers having to hold back to preserve fuel in addition to preserving their tyres.
    F1 is being neutered to the point where I honestly think it looks do-able to me now. F1 used to be so fast and exciting that even as a car enthusiast I would say ‘WOW I just know that I couldn’t do that’ and ‘WOW they sound so exciting and dangerous’. Today, with the pace pulled right back during a race it doesn’t have that ‘WOW’ factor any more and with the muted V6′s for next year it won’t sound all that impressive either. I’e heard the Renault V6 and the word boring comes to mind. They’ll be revving barely more than a Honda S2000 from a few year ago. Wonderful.
    There’s so much more that I could say but yet it feels like the fans voices fall on deaf ears so what’s the point.

    1. Knuckles says:

      Had you watched F1 prior to 92, you’d know that fuel management is nothing new.

      1. Andrew C says:

        Same old tired generic response. Tyre wear was also always a requirement too but not to THIS degree. Even many experienced drivers agree with that. There’s every reason to think the same of the fuel saving initiative too so don’t dismiss my concerns so easily.

      2. Knuckles says:

        I didn’t say anything about tyres. Fact is that we had times in history when fuel management was a much bigger factor than it is today or will be after 2014.

      3. KaRn- says:

        Why will the need to manage fuel more than they do now? Sure they can use less but engines use it a lot more efficiently. It might turn out they run similar now where they have just enough to get to the end and is managed only slightly.
        An S2000 that can rev to 15/16k? OK keep believing that.
        You’ve heard a small clip of an engine revs with none of the other noise and can from that say they will sound poor? You need to wait for a full track test to say anything really. IndyCar have a similar format and sound awesome (opinion ofc) so I don’t see why these won’t.
        At Monza the new engines will reach an estimated 220MPH, about 20 up on the current V8s and may be faster around there (it depends on aero differences)

      4. testgate rules says:

        you are right. In the early 80′s some of the races were economy runs, and they were crap. To you want more of that?

      5. Andrew C says:

        Knuckles, I’m using tyres as an example of how your logic is flawed. You said fuel management existed pre ’92 and therefore imply that it’ll be a good thing going forwards somehow. I disagree because using your logic, we shouldn’t have issues with tyres like we do now since tyre management was around pre ’92. It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to see that if a driver battles wheel to wheel with another driver next year, they’ll wear their tyres out AND use more fuel thereby resulting in the need to preserve tyres and fuel – i.e double the problem we have now. If I wanted an endurance race then I’d watch Le Mans or the ‘Ring 24 hrs.

      6. Knuckles says:

        I didn’t imply that it’s a good thing going forward, just objected to acting as if it was unheard of. Whatever.

      7. Eddy V says:

        Well said,

        F1 is chess not checkers.

        As a fan I want to watch on the limit racing because it forces drivers to improve their craft, they make more mistakes (giving us unpredictability), and parts will break much more frequently too. Overtaking may happen less, but when it happens it will be awesome, cause it is 100% driver skill.

        If the FIA would just let F1 be about the racing, all the other problems will sort them selves out!

    2. KGBVD says:

      Indeed, what’s the point of continuing to complain? Formula 1 is moving forward for the good of the sport, the industry, the environment and the show. This, despite the protests of Bernie and other dinosaurs.

      The cars will have more cumulative power next year, and will likely be faster – despite using 30% less fuel. The new regs have attracted Honda, and have Audi/Porsche sniffing around too. The tech in F1 is about to explode, as it should be. Homologated ancient engines do not belong in top flight motorsports.

      Good news is that you can always watch NASCAR. I prefer to watch something innovative.

      1. Andrew C says:

        I suspect you’ve been suckered by FIA propaganda. If they truly wanted to be green don’t you think they’d focus on the cheaper and easier low hanging fruit like say the whole international transportation of F1 and what fuel could be saved there perhaps? If you had holes in the windows of your house and you wanted to reduce your heating bills and improve your energy ratings wouldn’t you fill those holes first or would you focus on replacing your heating system?
        You can have plenty of innovation without affecting the racing which you seem to have missed the point on.
        The teams themselves are all keen to save costs yet many of them are also questioning the wisdom of these new engines. You can’t dismiss them all as dinosaurs. Maybe they have a point?

      2. Sean says:

        It’s not about saving fuel per race. It’s about forcing fuel saving technologies that will flow down to general motoring. The current v8′s aren’t doing that. If they get the same power, who cares.
        The upside is it resets the field. All teams are starting from a clean sheet design so the development race should be interesting.
        I still think they should bring back ground effects.. that will spice up the racing again.

      3. KRB says:

        I don’t mind and even welcome the green turn. What I think is killing the racing is DRS making passes too easy. The exciting part of racing is two drivers side-by-side flat out heading into a corner only fit for one car. Who will blink/relent first, and who will keep the pedal down and/or brake latest? That’s when the competition transcends the machines and becomes mano-a-mano, and from that a good amount of the human drama flows.

      4. Hugy says:

        I think you aren’t understanding the real motivations behind the new regs. It’s not that they want to make F1 more green, if they wanted that, they’d do what you said. The reason of the new regs is to become technologically relevant again. It’s because new technologies are aimed towards more efficient use of energy that the new regulations are too. There was a time when F1 was the state of the art concerning novel technologies (such as TC), that’s what they are aiming for.

    3. JohnT says:

      Totally agree with you! F1 is getting slower! Im all for saving the planet and all that, but the way F1 is trying to be green is a joke! Im more interested in the fuel savings they can make to the trucks and planes who transport the teams which are polluting the environment way more than any F1 car would each weekend! These tyres that fall apart are a bit of a joke when the sport is trying to have a greener image! Pirelli could make a set of tyres last the whole season if they liked, then F1 wouldn’t need all those tyres to be delivered each weekend!

      Make each team have a total yearly allocation of ‘fuel’ this would include the cars and trucks. Then the cars could go flat out and the teams could come up with interesting ways of transporting the kit to each GP.

      F1 should be flatout from Friday to Sunday at the finish!

      1. Sebee says:

        Could you please provide factual evidence in form or data that F1 is slower.

      2. JohnT says:

        We will all see next year :)

      3. Andrew C says:

        Wasn’t the race pace at Monaco down to GP2 levels? I’m fairly sure that I read that in a few articles.

      4. Sebee says:

        Andrew C,

        Can’t compare YoY due to stoppage.
        But we can compare Canada.

        Canadian 2013 GP 70 laps @ 1:32:09.143
        Canadian 2012 GP 70 laps @ 1:32:29.586

        We just shaved 20 seconds of previous year with no blowing or flexing.

      5. offcourse says:

        Its not just the metric of speed or time, It’s that the drivers don’t seem to be pushing. The cars may be faster, but that’s not the point. Are they (regularly/frequently) being driven to both driver and car capability, or at least as often as in the past. Many of us would say no, and that is what is frustrating us at the moment.

        I would point to a number of driver comments that suggest that my opinions are correct, plus the anecdotal evidence of zero safety cars this season, outside of Monaco. That suggests to me that the drivers are hardly ever on the edge.

        As a last note, I find that most commentators ( my opinion) don’t want to discuss this. Perhaps its a political / pr /marketing thing?

      6. Sebee says:

        Offcourse, that’s strictly objective and not factual.
        Were they pushing last year? How can they not be pushing this year and finishing GPs in less time? PR BS.

      7. Gazza says:

        The drivers themselves say they are not flatout. Many complain that they are driving to the limit of the tyres.

        At Monaco you could visibly see they weren’t on the limit. Vettel said the Mercs were going around like buses.

      8. Offcourse says:

        Sebee,

        I can’t tell you if it’s factual as you cant tell me that its not. Its my opinion, although I would note that I am not the only one with this opinion.

        The only ones that can confirm or refute it are the drivers, teams or those close enough to know. James?

        I will offer this as anecdotal evidence though….

        - Drivers asking engineers if we are racing
        - No safety cars (apart from Monaco)Don’t you find it weird that by your comment everyone is driving faster, but no-one is losing it?
        - 3 x WCC, 3 x WDC, 2013 leader in WDC & WCC saying that this isn’t racing.

        I believe that the risk to reward ratio in pushing the car has been reduced to the point that (outside of the first 2 laps) it is not worth taking the risk to chase. I believe that this ratio should be moved more towards the reward side of the equation.

        I would love to hear Jame’s opinion on this and be told I’m wrong (or right), it would be nice to know for sure, but in the past he has chosen not to comment. I respect his right to that.

      9. Sebee says:

        offcourse,

        I have a hard time accepting the blame being thrown toward Pirelli, or drivers saying things.

        Numbers don’t lie. E

        veryone is throwing all this opinion and “evidnece” at me, yet no one is able to explain to me how F1 is as fast or faster in 2013 than in 2012. Clock doesn’t lie offcourse. And it says that this year’s Canadian GP was 20 seconds faster. Miracle? Add to this no blowing and no flexing and what have you got? Poles are 1s faster on average than 2012.

        I don’t care about what a driver says on the radio. I compare it to a sales rep who claims that meeting targets this quarter will be very hard, and then he exceeds them each quarter. Eventually I’m deaf to their talking. If it’s not racing, I want to see slower GPs than 2012 and slower Pole times than 2012. End of story.

      10. Peter says:

        2004 Lap Times Around 1:12
        2013 Lap Times Around 1:16

      11. Sebee says:

        @Peter
        2004 – V10, Tire War, Schumi walking on water.
        2013 – V8, plenty of tricks restricted, single tire.

        Basically, you’re comparing Apples to Grapefruits.

      12. petes says:

        Ha, ha, I hope everyone looks at this post, understands it, then ponders the logistics of Formula E, the nice new “GREEN” formula that’s to be showcased around the world in major cities.
        Save a little fuel on track, throw the savings away in jet fuel and CO2 + emissions.

    4. testgate rules says:

      agree. If you read this. Do not go to a f1 race next year. Cars are going to be so slow is going to make you sick. Wait a few year until engineers do their job, and make cars faster.

      1. Random 79 says:

        Part time F1 fan.

    5. knoxploration says:

      Ditto. F1 has become a joke filled with gimmicks like DRS and disintegrating tires, major rules violations that go essentially unpunished, and so on. It’s a mere shadow of what it used to be.

      As far as I can see, what we can look forward to next year is the exact same gimmicks, and worse racing because the front-runners inevitably pull away from the back markers after every significant rule change.

      We haven’t had the significant reduction in aero and increase in mechanical grip we need to see more exciting racing.

      1. Laughing Viking says:

        It had to change because it was boring with zero overtaking and drivers not interested In trying the impossible task.

      2. knoxploration says:

        “It had to change” is not a reason for making a bad change, even if you agree with your claim that it was “boring with zero overtaking”. (And either way, I would strongly dispute that drivers at the very top of their game are “not interested in trying”.)

        If a change was needed, the change should’ve been made in a fair way. Giving one driver a tool — DRS — that is not available to the guy in front of him is not fair.

        It is a cheap gimmick, and it makes the pass no more meaningful than would be a goal in soccer, scored only because the goalie had been forced to tie one leg to the post to give the goal-scorer an advantage.

        What DRS has done is given us plentiful passes, but those passes are largely boring foregone conclusions — and they’ve completely replaced the extremely exciting, hard-fought passes that took actual skill to pull off, not a yawnworthy ability to press a button at the right point.

        The difference between not passing and passing with DRS is something you or I could easily do, and that’s wrong. (I’m sure you can press a button. I know I can.) Is this what the supposed pinnacle of motorsport has become?

        Sadly, this is the way F1 is going. The sport is becoming rife with unfair, nonsensical rules, and they largely seem to be happening because Todt and Mosley both showed almost zero leadership, and Ecclestone is hell-bent on bleeding the sport dry.

        Instead of gimmicky DRS, what the sport needed was a decrease in aerodynamic downforce and an increase in mechanical downforce to make up for it, but the FIA lacked the spine to write the rules, and many of the teams lacked the money for a ground-up aero rethink. (Something which could easily be rectified if Ecclestone’s primary goal wasn’t to fatten his own coffers.)

        Yet we’re switching to extremely expensive new engines that are nothing but a publicity stunt that pays lip service to being “green” while actually being the precise opposite, will have zero real-world impact on road cars, and will do the square root of nada to improve racing, and teams are being forced to foot the bill for that.

        At the same time, we have teams unable to test and improve their cars (and breaking the rules to do so), and we have a situation where even basic development in many areas is forbidden, leaving some teams with a regulated advantage in the engine department, for example, while other teams are expected to somehow compete with one hand tied behind their back because their engine is sub-par and they’re not allowed to fix it.

        Again, if Ecclestone would take his fangs out of the vein and let the blood circulate, there would doubtless be money sufficient to allow teams to test and to improve their cars, and if the FIA wasn’t so cowardly and incompetent, we’d have a rule book that allowed real development. We’d have back what F1 used to be: a true team sport where the struggle took place on and off track, rather than a near-spec formula with little relevance masquerading as the “pinnacle” of technology.

        And don’t even get me started on the fact that we’ve replaced a thrilling battle between two major corporations to transfer power from engine to track, and replaced it with cartoon rubber that falls to pieces every time somebody so much as looks at it.

        We, the fans, are the losers. We see utterly mind-numbing passes by the dozens, we see less real racing than we ever did, and we see our sport in a race to the bottom in competition with Nascar. About the *only* correct decision we’ve had in recent years is the current qualifying format, which is the best we’ve ever had.

    6. iceman says:

      On the rev limit point: I have to say when I first heard of the 15,000 rpm rev limit coupled with a reduction in cc per cylinder, I thought it sounded pretty conservative.
      But the bore is down from 98mm to 80mm which will make the V6 a considerably longer-stroke engine than the V8 (53mm vs 39.8mm) and the mean piston speed of the V6 at 15,000rpm will be considerably higher than the V8 at 18,000rpm (26.5m/s vs 23.9m/s). 26.5m/s is similar to what the V10′s were running when engine reliability requirements were less stringent than now. So I’d say the 15,000 rpm rev limit is not excessively low in relation to the engine design.

    7. Tyler says:

      So what about the tires, and the engines… next year it will be something else and the next year another thing and so on and so forth. Its time to come up to speed with the modern world of F1, it is not 1992. If you expect anything less then heavy politics, scandals and technology ebb and flow from a multi-billion dollar racing enterprise, your naive. This is an organization who’s direction is charted by by corporate fat cats…what do you expect? Logic? Common sense? Keep waiting.

  2. Sebee says:

    May I respectfully disagree with Mr. Whiting?

    I think manufacturing processes, simulations, knowledge of this technology is so good that there will be very little between these engines next year. I think we’ll see overall a well polished and quite evenly matched product land on the grid in Bahrain.

    1. Scott says:

      I hope your right. I refuse to watch a race knowing that only those with a Merc power plant or those with a renault or those with a Ferrari will have a chance of winning.
      I hope it’s not a return to some of the races in the times of the last “tyre war” where we knew this was a Bridgestone track & the next was a Michelin track as far as the predictability is concerned anyway.

  3. Ed says:

    At a guess, the new regs will harm redbull more than the others due to their tendency to run a high drag aero set-up – this will mean that they will have less maximum power time as they will have a higher fuel consumption when cruising. The cars with better straight line speeds will be at an advantage next year.

    1. KRB says:

      Had it ever occurred to you that Newey might not stick with the high-rake, high-drag philosophy with the new regs? I think RBR has been best at managing the entire airflow, and this starts with the wide front wing. Thankfully, the front wing is being narrowed, by 15 cms overall, so hopefully we won’t see as many side swipes causing punctures. And of course this will affect the entire airflow regime for the cars.

      Basically, any team that fights the new war like they did the old war, will likely be overrun.

  4. Lol says:

    They sure as hell wont sound exciting.

    1. Sebee says:

      How do you know?

      Obviously many of us are on the fence. I’m one of them having been on bikes that push 14000rpm all day long day-in day-out and costing $8000 new I can understand that it’s not exactly exotic to hear F1 engine will rev to 15000rpm. But let’s make our conclusions after we hear the cars.

      I admit, V10, 20,000RPM was just…well, no other way to say it…it was right. As there is no options to go back – we have to let that wonderful past go.

      1. testgate rules says:

        the sound is not going to be a problem, the speed is. I am sure they are going to be slow for a while, then like always speed will show up somehow.
        During the 80′s the 4 cilinder bmw turbo sounded fine. The same could be said to the rest of v6′s porsche, renault ferrari.

      2. Andrew C says:

        Have you not heard the new Renault on the dyno?

        Here, check it out.
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g8jz_Dgb8D4

        Sounds much more muted and boring to me. Shouldn’t F1 be exciting to hear AND see?
        Personally I always loved boasting to friends about how technologically advanced F1 was but now I can’t any more. It’s merely interesting.

      3. Random 79 says:

        Does any engine sound as exciting on a dyno as is does in the real world?

        Let’s wait and see how they sound on track when they’re racing each other before we predict the end of F1 (again).

      4. Sebee says:

        I’ve heard it, but dyno sound is not good enough for me to judge because there are variables like proximity of mic, engine being in a confined space, etc.

        We need to hear it at a track in a car to decide. I fear honestly that it will be no different than a bone stock Suzuki bike engine sound. I think F1 engine sound should be uncomfortable, it should pierce. But some PC hearing damage dude would clearly disagree. And I always slap earmuffs on my kids at the track as habbit. I think 2014 onwards, no one will really need earmuffs or plugs. And perhaps that’s not right?

        Flip side, perhasp all those Monza noise comlaints will stop, and F1 will be able to go to places it couldn’t before because it won’t be as noisy. Who knows?

      5. Adrian J says:

        So, you’re judging based on the sound of an engine that clearly isn’t being revved anywhere near to it’s maximum potential and based on a processed digital sound file that will have been through compression and editing that will have taken most of the depth and power out of the sound…

      6. Random 79 says:

        @Sebee

        ‘Perhaps F1 will be able to go to places it couldn’t before because it won’t be as noisy’

        In that case I call the first ever backyard GP…assuming I can come with the 30m race fee…

      7. Sebee says:

        Fess up Random, you don’t have the acerage in your yard. Only the Arabic dudes have backyards big enough to fit a track. Everyone knows that!

      8. Random 79 says:

        Yeah, you’re right Sebee…but I can dream! :)

      9. ManOnWheels says:

        It sounds smooth and slick and you will be able to bear it without ear buds on the track, so you get to hear the real thing, not something muffled by stuff you put into your ears.

  5. Zombie says:

    Can someone please provide the average fuel consumption in kmpl now vs an estimated kmpl next year with 1.6 l V6 engines ? After losing the 3.0 V10′s, F1 lost close to 200 bhp ( BMWs of the early 2000s were rumored to be producing more than 900 bhp in qualifying trim ). There is a good chance that these 1.6 l turbos will struggle to reach 700 bhp.

  6. Sam I says:

    I agree entirely with Andrew C. I wont even bother going to the grand prix next year. this thing they have about bring f1 in touch with road cars is just ridiculous. I wont go I to technicalities either but come on why are they hurting the sport. the other beef I have with this fuel economy crap is that there is more ethanol (beer, wine, spirits etc) used by the crowd s that watch then the cars actually use so in all honesty shoumd we cut down our beverage intake just to be more economical?

  7. Robert Lujan says:

    I watch F1 to see the Fastest cars and the fastest drivers doing just that, driving fast! Not slowing down to conserve this or preserve that. I want to see these cars going flat out and drivers on the edge of thier ability. Not watch a procession and timed/staged fly-by passes. If an F1 car explodes because the engine could not handle the race situation then so be it. If the smaller teams cannot afford F1 then we would be better off with 4 constructors with 6 cars a piece. At least then we would see the best drivers really showing thier stuff and RACING!!

  8. shri says:

    James not sure what sort of developments will be allowed on the engines once they are firmed up. I however guess there would be continous tweeks possible on electronics / gizmos (like ERS & others), engine mapping, energy distribution, etc. on the engine. This might be the differentiating factor in the coming years and may even bring more controversies.

  9. Elie says:

    I think we will see some failures next year for sure. Testing will still not sort everything out initially and everyone knows anything focused around batteries and electrical is never fool proof immediately- of course bench testing is much more advanced but only in the heat of battle on the limits will we know . From this angle it will prove interesting- I think the drivers will really earn their stripes because the cars will have to be driven quite differently so only the most adaptable will remain competitive.

    I don’t really see that any team can be ruled out or in – especially not RBR . From what I gather the aero regs are still very similar for next year even though rear of the cars will be quite different-aero will still play a big role just not as much as we currently have- and people must remember that RBR are works team for Renault and the fact that they know how to package things really well will be crucial with ERS, batteries and related wiring will need to be aero packaged .

    1. Quade says:

      Front wing is going to be much smaller, a low nose will be mandatory, exhausts will pop out of the bodywork at an angle and too far out to be of use for any blowing, the rear wing (and general body) will conform to 2011 aero regs. The above alongside low fuel consumption will kill the influence of todays exhaust blown aero.

  10. SimoneL says:

    “Formula 1 race director Charlie Whiting believes the sport is set to enter a new era of excitement”

    Has Charlie checked this with the World Motor Sport Council :)

    1. Quade says:

      ‘Surprised to see him giving an interview so soon!

  11. Steve Zodiac says:

    Whilst understanding that F1 can’t stand still or it will loose it’s relevance and would become stale if it just stayed as it is, it seems that this latest move will take away many things, the noise being just one. There is no doubt that drivers will have to work to their fuel flow so won’t be able to drive to their maximum. This will mean that it becomes all about the car/engine and the driver will relegated to a highly competent operator. Maybe we just have to accept that motor racing has had it’s heyday. The skill and bravery has all been removed by technology. Bit like modern music, maybe, soon a short skirt will soon be the only thing you need to win! Umm, do you think Lewis would look good in a skimpy dress?

    1. Sebee says:

      100% right.

      Old F1 was primative. This is what made it awesome. Primative technology, safety, tracks, aero.

      We have to accept where we are. Give any old F1 car to current F1 designer and he’ll shave seconds off that design on a napkin while having lunch. We’ve learned things. Can’t unlearn.

      1. Random 79 says:

        +1

        Can’t wait to see what happens in ten years when everybody starts complaining about the noise of V2 engines and how great those old V8s and V6 turbos were ;)

      2. iceman says:

        Little risk of that, since V-twins on open pipes sound like God’s artillery division… the quicker we get there the better I say :)

      3. Steve Zodiac says:

        We can unlearn how to make useless tyres and we can unlearn how to make F1 sound like Indycar. See and hear them both at Goodwood, the Indycars don’t sound very exciting compared to a good V8/V10/V12. Still it is what it is, might just lose interest

  12. Steve says:

    I can’t believe Whiting still has a job, after his role in the Tyregate fiasco.

  13. Anne says:

    My problem with this new engine is that I don´t understand what F1 wants to accomplish.

    1. Sebee says:

      Avoiding becoming irrelevant.

      1. Paul Kirk says:

        “Irrelevant”? B S! F1 is f1— it isn’t relevant to enything, only itself. How bl—y ridulous it is to try and fool us that it should be in some way similar to road cars! That’s crazy, the reason we watch F1 is to see something that is different, is the pinacle of motor sport, sounds terific, etc., etc. Sure, have a class of motorsport that is relevant to road cars, but call it something else, don’t f— with F1!
        PK.

      2. Sebee says:

        Hmmmmm…

        Concorde.
        SR-71
        V12s

        We could make a list of wonderful hardware that no longer has a place. End of day F1 is a marketing show. And it would appear that sponsors need relevance of some sort, and F1 needs to look cutting edge. What’s cutting edge about a 6L V12? It’s just brute force, and not “euro style.”

      3. Jarv027 says:

        Couldn’t agree more.

      4. Steve Zodiac says:

        Like modern cars, good but dreary!

    2. Eddy V says:

      Its all about cost cutting and marketing.

      Engine manufactures need more relevance and exposure.

      Teams need to cut costs with fuel and engine numbers.

      The ‘green’ part of it is just media spin.

  14. duffy says:

    Dream on Mr. Whiting… just sayin’

  15. aveli says:

    would whiting have attracted more interests by saying next season would see quieter engines with more fuel management as well as tyre management with drivers preserving tyres and fuel by not attacking other drivers, hoping that they’d run out of tyres or fuel at the final stages of the race?

  16. Rudy Pyatt says:

    The manufacturers would not contemplate building prohibitvely expensive new engines, the cars would be slower and less powerful than those in the outgoing formula, and GP racing “would be reduced to an unimportant contest carrying no prestige whatsoever.”

    As described in Mark Whitelock’s excellent book on the era, thus spoke Autosport and British racing intrests generally upon the announcement of the 1.5 litre F1. Yet we all know that F1 became primarily a British industry because developments proved to be far different than those doomsaying critics prophesied. Clark, Chapman, Lotus, G. Hill, Surtees, Stewart – all came to prominence during the “mini-F1″ period. BRM became a winner and consistent competitor. Tire and suspension technology advanced during the era. The formula saw monocoque chassis construction firmly esetablished in race car design. Honda came into the sport, the first passenger car manufacturer to do so, Ferrari aside, since Mercedes left the sport a few years before.

    I could go on, but you get the point. We have been down this road before. History tells us that the cars and the racing will be better, more spectacular, and will spur more innovations, than pessimism over change predicts things will be. Any team that has simply gotten on with the job of getting ready for the new formula, as Ferrari did for 1961, should prevail – as Ferrari did in 1961.

    What team that will be this time remains to be seen. If Williams and McLaren dominate in the way that Lotus and BRM did in the 1.5 era, I suspect that many of the complaints we’re hearing now will melt away as if they had never been.

    1. Rudy Pyatt says:

      Mind you, I would prefer adopting the old 1.5 regs (with no wings on the cars) using modern materials with complete engine freedom and a tire war, and races on the full ‘Ring and the LeMans 24hr course. But I dream…

      1. franed says:

        I’m with you there, no aero but full electrical freedom, traction control, active suspension, abs and why not mass dampers too one of the best ever innovations. And unlimited KERS.

  17. cosmosxiv says:

    “Cars are not as relevant to kids these days, as they have smart phones and tablets”

    Really? I have a smart phone. I like technology. I still love motor racing. The two aren’t mutually exclusive. The marketing of the sport is what needs to be relevant. Make it exciting, and available on youtube, smartphones and tablets, for a reasonable price, and kids/teenagers will watch it and grow up into paying race fans.

    Why isn’t this happening? It’s almost like there is some correlation between uncaring fatcat owners milking the sport for all it’s worth, and the lack of engagement with core and upcoming audiences. But surely thats not the case?!

    As for all the naysayers complaining; it’s never going to be perfect, and F1 has been through many different era’s with many different limitations. If it’s not for you any more then fine, but there seem to be a lot of people who are ‘done with F1′, yet who still have an awful lot to say about it.

  18. Mark V says:

    So much complaining about F1 being watered down because the cars are not driven on the limit due to conservation of tires, fuel, engines, blah blah blah…

    First thing: there is NOTHING new about race pace being compromised due to conservation. Period.

    Second thing: 99.9% of F1 fans watch all the races on television. On TV there is absolutely no way to visually tell the difference in car speed between a 1:30 qualifying lap and a 1:40 race lap. If you didn’t know the lap times or saw the onboard data I guarantee you would have NO idea how fast the cars were actually going.

    In other words, there is no way the overwhelming majority of F1 fans are having their experience negatively compromised by slower lap times during the races.

    1. Offcourse says:

      “NOTHING new about race pace being compromised due to conservation.”

      I agree, however, the conservation didn’t preclude extending the car for some reasonable periods of time. In the past, although conservation was necessary, it was always worth the risk to go up to the limit and battle for some laps to gain track position or to push the car for a number of laps to chase a car down.

      This seems to have disappeared in this years racing. Cars seem to push for the first 2 laps, because that is when the biggest track position gains can be achieved, and then after that it is not worth pushing because the risk dramatically outweighs the potential reward.

      Re your point regarding not being able to discern the difference in the lap times between a 100 second lap, and a 90 second lap, if it was an in car view, I bet I could, but big deal. I agree that visually it is somewhat similar, but it is the racing that I see as being different and that has receded dramatically.

      If F1 does not improve the risk / reward ratio for pushing cars to the limit, then I’m afraid it will be dumbed down to a mathematical equation. It will be sad if that’s what “Formula” ends up meaning.

  19. Marybeth says:

    Whiting…? After last weeks tribunal decision is he still in F1…? Having said that, I have sensitive ears & a quieter engine would work for me, not that I could afford tickets beyond the parking lot. :)

  20. JohnBt says:

    If it sounds bad but is much faster I can dig that.
    Other than that it’ll be pure overhyped marketing.

    BTW since when did Mr. Whiting started promoting F1, smells fishy.
    And what about the sound boosters?
    After listening to the Renault turbo sample I ticked ‘NO’ on the box.

  21. dean cassady says:

    I really don’t know why people are grumbling about the races right now?!? Besides the last two races, we’re in a stretch of about two and a half years of ‘the best’ racing.
    There is no way to go back to the way racing was in the past, it just cannot and will never be replicated; get over it.
    Going forward, with the extreme solution delivery techniques that are used now means that there is always going to be the limiting factor!
    Right now, it is the tires.
    In the future, it will be something else.
    One can see why the addition of the increased complexity, and therefore technological component of the show, continues to cause the yet tedious repetition of dissatisfaction, from the dissatisfied class.
    Th onset of new sets of specifications and constraints is the new format of the sport, constantly evolving, overcoming new sets of constraints in the obsession to be the team that maximizes the end result.
    That is what the sport is, now.
    It is a bit different, but it is good.
    Hopefully the new engines can enable an exit of the most contrived aspects of the formula, first and foremost, the DRS. With the other limiting factors bring a high degree of variability over the entire course of the race, let alone weekend, DRS has served its purpose and should now be put out to pasture for a year, to see how it is, without it.
    I am hoping to the the black flower with a fully functioning gizmo this weekend.

  22. Nic Maennling says:

    We are all dreaming but none of them seem to be coming true.

  23. Jon says:

    F1′s not really about the fans anymore…..actually has it ever been ;)

    1. Tyler says:

      Amen, its about money. If you don’t like it don’t watch. But don’t expect it to be the like the past, foolish and pointless nostalgia.

  24. Clear View says:

    I think you missed the fuel econemy point there, it’s not about the fuel the new F1 engines save but the knock on effect. Imagine if all the cars throughout the world used 30% less fuel, that would be a massive. Putting less strain on limited energy reserves, cutting global emissions of CO2, and giving the world more time to develope alternative formsof energy to run our transport from.
    This is the legacy of the new powertrains, not a saving of 50 liters per car per race.

  25. Jarv027 says:

    This is what Gary Anderson had to say.

    “For any engineer, the challenge of any new regulation is great. So the new V6 turbo with increased electrical power is a great challenge. But taking it further than just being an engineer, I believe the change was made to make it look like F1 is a bit more ‘green’. I don’t think they needed to change the engine package to do that. It could have done that in lots of other ways. But when you put in control criteria, such as the fuel limit for next year, you end up with the potential that people will drive around saving fuel and that lots of things will happen during the race that the viewer and commentator have no idea about. And we are opening up that door. If you think this year’s confusing – wait until next year”.

    Doesn’t sound too good :(

  26. Vic says:

    I was more excited about the engines when there was no development ban.

  27. ACx says:

    Reading through the comments, it is as though Daily Wail reading neanderthal men are due to be castrated by lentil eating feminists, having just found out that European immigrant travelers cause house price cancer.

    This is the loss of 2 cylinders, not 2 testicles…

    Notable that since the Renault engine sound was released, many of the words used to criticize it (not just here, but every where I have read comments) are pretty much the same words as people have used to favorably describe current and past engines. For example I have seen comments that say these new engine “scream”, while other comments say these engine don’t “scream” like the current ones do. No consistency at all.

    On top of that, most fans watch on TV. You can not hear the engine properly on TV at all. Any one who has witnessed an F1 engine live will know that TV gives you about 10% of the actual sound. Further, you don’t hear an F1 engine as such, you more feel them, which cant ever happen via TV. What we are really seeing is a conservative (with a small c) reaction to the most scary thing of all: change. Well, history tells us that people get over that very quickly. For example, I don’t see any more complaints about big wide ugly front wings any more. Same with KERS, refueling, and so on. Always the same.

    I’ve seen this routine before, repeated over and over again. Literally every time there is a significant regulation change we get comment threads just like this. Yet the sport lives on, and grows. No regulation change has ever significantly lost the sport fans, in fact most work out just fine. TV ratings and race attendance are pretty much locked in to national driver success, not engine spec. People care about drivers and teams, not obscure specifications. Fans will still watch.

  28. MISTER says:

    I understand that sometimes, you have to move on with the time and new technology, but this is a sport and they take away the things that make it special, like loud and powerful engines, fat tyres, pushing to the limit etc.

    So basicaly, for each GP, the 22 cars will save in total around 1100 litres of fuel. The fuel for road cars is around £1.4 per litre, then the F1 fuel might be around £2-£3 per litre. That is a saving of about £3500 per GP.

    I know there will be other benefits in the future for road cars, but still. It doesn’t seem to be worth the bother for £3500 a GP in saving fuel.

    I guess we will see how will turn up.

    1. Clear View says:

      If you can make every car on the planet use 30% less fuel over the next say 10 years as a direct result of these technologies championed in F1 that would be an amazing achievement and buy time to help us find alternative energy sources for our everyday transport. It’s not about saving a few liters of fuel on a GP weekend.

      1. [MISTER] says:

        An electric car has just reached 204mph and we already have fully electric road and racing cars.
        Koenigsegg already tested a car with internal combustion engine for 3 years with a “free valve system” which has fuel consumption reduced by up to 20%. When it’s going to be fully optimized they expect to have 30% fuel reduction, 30% more torque and 30% more power and 50% less emisions.

        Car manufacturers already are developing these technologies without being part of F1. Do you think Audi and Ford and not doing anything? You think the only car manufacturers are Renault, Ferrari and Mercedes? Lets get serious now!

  29. Glennb says:

    So if I understand it correctly, the fuel cell will be capable of holding >100Kg of fuel yet they are only allowed to use 100 Kg of fuel. If that is correct, I wonder how that will work. Will a car be penalised for using say 105Kg? What sort of penalty?
    Maybe I interpreted what Charlie said incorrectly.

    1. Random 79 says:

      As I understand it (and as always I may be wrong) currently teams can start with as much fuel as the fuel cells can hold.

      I agree that it sounds like that might change next year, but either way the intrinsic penalty from starting with more fuel on board comes in the form of increased lap times, which is obviously something the teams try to avoid.

  30. B@rney says:

    The headline of this article shocked me, because it marked the first time in recent memory I have found myself in agreement with Charlie. That is, until I re-read it and realised it DIDN’T say:

    WHITING PREDICTS PERIOD OF EXCREMENT FOR F1 WITH NEW 2014 ENGINES

  31. Mac says:

    Surprised by how everyone going on about loss of power and wanting to see drivers at the limit. The truth is if you turn off the driver aids like traction control; NONE of the drivers would be able to drive them. Lets not even talk about wet races. F1 has been as much about competing at thinking, innovating, access to resource and yes money. If you enjoy primitive machines where the person predominantly determines outcomes the F1 is not for you. Face it; the sport is no longer about the likes of Tyrell building cars in sheds and still competing.

    I enjoy winning through innovation as much as through so called superior talent. Who can forget the Brawn diffuser allowing a journeyman like Button to look like a genius. How about Schumi and the team using the last lap to do a drive through penalty to win a race. What class!

    The regs for next year are about curtailing over powered machines as they have been since the original lethal turbo era. I’m anxious to see what the engineers come up with.

    And yes in an age when gas guzzlers are ethically wrong; it is right to limit it’s consumption, force energy recovery and introduce an electric powered series.

    Thank god there are visionaries controlling the sport and not nostalgic fossils.

    1. ManOnWheels says:

      For someone who doesn’t know that traction control is prohibited in Formula 1 you are awfully loud mouthed about them.

      http://www.formula1.com/inside_f1/rules_and_regulations/technical_regulations/8710/fia.html
      “9.3 Traction control
      No car may be equipped with a system or device which is capable of preventing the driven wheels from spinning under power or of compensating for excessive torque demand by the driver.
      Any device or system which notifies the driver of the onset of wheel spin is not permitted.”

      For someone who does seem to ignore, that not only was Brawn GP one of _three_ teams starting with double diffusers, but also that “journeyman” Button has beaten Hamilton on a regular basis, you are being awfully noisy about things you don’t seem to have a clue about.

      But I do second you regarding new technologies, especially the turbo. Turbos open a whole new range of possibilities. Imagine one day Formula-1 could get rid of DRS in favor of a boost button that everyone is free to use for limited time per race, which just relaxes the fuel flow limiter and doesn’t bear the “unfair advantage” of 1″-second-behind-anyone” DRS-detection points.

      1. Mac says:

        So what is launch control then?

        And I didn’t compare Button to any driver. Are you implying he raced against Lewis only through out his career? He’s not exactly beating the rookie in the team now is he.

  32. Matthew says:

    A lot of F1 fans are drawn to that sound of the engine!! I think crowds will start to drop off as they soon realise its not so much of a wow factor! Think of an FA/18 Hornet blasting with 38,000 horse power twin turbo fan engines overhead! You are drawn to it because of the ‘RAW POWER’! if it was as quiet as a mouse, no one would give a shit. I understand that we live in an environment where efficiency is the way forward but there is no doubt, that a v6 engine sounds pretty average.

  33. mike says:

    guys…f1 has become really boring these days mainly because they are getting slower and slower by each year.. we,ll never see lap records being broken ever again…f1 suppose tobe all about expensiveness but it has become cheaper and cheaper these days..i just want to see the old very powerful 3.0litre v10 20,000rpm engines..they are just so amazing ..with the new v6 next year producing a low 700hp i think its gonna suck…f1 is all about fast ,top speed,lap records not some dumb tire and fuel efficiency…the cars of next year will be 3-5 seconds slower..and thats gonna suck.

  34. bob says:

    F1 is over. first refueling was eliminated and so was the excitement of soft tires, light fuel loads, multiple pit stops and when they hit the line at the end of pit road… instant 20,000 rpm gear bangin excitement. you can’t lie those cars of the v10 v8 era were mechanical technology at its finest. if you attended ANY event with v8 or v10 F1 car, the moment you heard that motor you never forgot it, you smiled from ear to ear and never watched any other form of racing with any interest again. i used to watch every race start to finish.. now with the new format i could hardly stand to watch… it is so much like nascar everyone just drives around worried about tires and fuel load.
    you have now removed the last thing that kept me coming back…. the sound of a 20000 rpm motor and semi auto gearbox.
    maybe the should change the name to T1 and everyone drives a tesla

    thanks for all the great years of racing… because now it is just motoring

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 Innovation
JA ON F1 In association with...
Download the chequered flag podcast today
Download the chequered flag podcast today
MTS
Industry-Leading Testing and Sensing Solutions
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer