The One and Only
Spa Francorchamps 2014
Belgian Grand Prix
Adrian Newey slams new new hybrid F1 rules
News
Screen Shot 2014-04-05 at 11.18.39
Posted By: James Allen  |  05 Apr 2014   |  9:28 am GMT  |  264 comments

Red Bull Racing design guru Adrian Newey yesterday launched a broadside against the 2014 rules, questioning the environmental imperative for switching to hybrid turbo engines, the cost of the changeover and the relevance of the technology to the outside world.

“You have to question the whole thing,” he said.

Speaking as part of a panel of team technical experts in the Friday FIA press conference in Bahrain, the 55-year-old didn’t hold back in his criticisms and afterwards further detailed his reasoning to waiting TV and radio crews.

“It seems to me that what we have done is create a set of regulations which, whilst technically interesting, [still lead me] question whether it gets all the compromises right,” said the Red Bull Racing Chief Technical Officer. “Ultimately, there is a relationship between cost, weight, aerodynamics… all sorts of factors if you’re going to go into road relevance. How you weight that, how you proportion it is impossible for an open-wheeled single-seater. It’s a very different beast. So no easy answer. We’ve gone for a package which is very complicated, very expensive. The cost of the power unit has at least doubled compared to last year, which is difficult for some of the smaller teams.”

There are discussions behind the scenes this weekend, especially involving FIA president Jean Todt, Bernie Ecclestone and Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo, with the latter pushing hard to spice up what he describes as “Formula Boredom”, particularly with reference to the lack of noise from the engines and the drivers being forced to drive “like taxi drivers” because of fuel saving.


Like Ferrari, Red Bull Racing finds itself well behind Mercedes under the new technical regulations. Newey did not spare Renault’s blushes either. Sitting in front of Renault’s Remi Taffin at the evening’s press conference, the body language was very clear and at one point Newey referred a question about when the Renault power unit might match Mercedes to Taffin with the words, “I don’t think we’ve actually got anything particularly different this weekend but in reality, I think you should be asking the person sitting behind me.”

Asked what changes, if any, he would like to see to improve the show from the talks likely to take place in Bharain this weekend, Newey said: “I guess ultimately the spectators and the television viewers are going to vote with their feet. What we say in here won’t make much difference in truth. I think obviously all the talk is about the engines, as mentioned earlier, it’s not just about creating a formula that looks at how many litres of fuel you use per kilometre with everything else fixed, because everything else isn’t fixed in reality. If you go into the real world, cost isn’t fixed, the cost has gone up hugely to create this.”

Newey also questioned the rationale behind the changes to hybrid turbos, questioning the free credentials of the changes, the relevance of the technology and the cost,

“My opinion is from a technical aspect first of all you have to question…the whole thing. When you get into things like batteries then an electric car is only green if it gets its power from a green source. If it gets its power from a coal-fired power station then clearly it’s not green at all. A hybrid car, which is effectively what the Formula One regulations are then a lot of energy goes into manufacturing those batteries and into the cars which is why they’re so expensive.

“And whether that then gives you a negative or a positive carbon footprint or not depends on the duty cycle of the car – how many miles does it do, is it cruising along the motorway at constant speed or stop-starting in a city. So this concept that a hybrid car is automatically green is a gross simplification. On top of that there are other ways, if you’re going to put that cost into a car, to make it fuel efficient. You can make it lighter, you can make it more aerodynamic, both of which are things that Formula One is good at.

“For instance the cars are 10 per cent heavier this year, a result, directly, of the hybrid content. So I think technically, to be perfectly honest, it’s slightly questionable. From a sporting point of view, to me, efficiency, strategy etc, economy of driving, is very well placed for sportscars, which is a slightly different way of going racing. Formula One should be about excitement. It should be about man and machine performing at its maximum every single lap.”


However, sitting next to him in the FIA press conference was Williams technical director Pat Symond who dismissed his old rival’s negativity.

“Many people from the UK will remember a guy called (Gerald) Ratner who basically killed his business by negative comments on it. I think we should be positive. We’ve done something good and we should tell the world about it.

“The technology that we’re employing in Formula One now is impressive. The road car industry – rightly or wrongly – has to hit CO2-per-kilometre targets and those are very difficult targets to meet. And they will have to employ technologies such as we are using in Formula One. So we are moving things forward, we are more relevant than we used to be and I think that’s very important.”

After the press conference, one press room wag pointed out, “Why is it that the people who make the most most money in this sport are the ones so vehemently criticising it?”

Featured News
MORE FROM JA ON F1...
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:
264 Comments
  1. kenneth chapman says:

    i find myself agreeing with newey in totality. this new F1 is an anachronism. surely his comment re sports car racing is valid given this ridiculous concept of ‘F1 green eco/road relevance’. by all means move forward technically but don’t kill the concept of what F1 should be all about. RACING.

    1. Gazza says:

      I totally disagree with Newey, I had had enough of his clever aerodynamics enabling drivers to go around some of the iconic corners as if they didn’t,t exist.
      At least the drivers are having to work harder at the wheel.
      I like the new F1

      1. Sebee says:

        So are you saying his points are invalid?

      2. grat says:

        No, there are some valid complaints– the cost of the power unit, for instance. Of course, *any* more technically advanced unit would be significantly more expensive.

        As for the rest, I suspect Newey would be less critical if his car had a Mercedes power-unit in the back.

      3. Marcin says:

        I think they are invalid – look at just some headline numbers – they are using about 60% of the fuel they used last year, and are achieving similar lap times. If it wasn’t for the other changes (aero regs and tyres), you would see these power units going faster but using 40% less fuel. So what the cars are 10% heavier – they use 40% less fuel.

        I think that is amazing. Even struggling Renault has a faster engine/power unit here, out of the blocks, than they did at the end of last year’s championship.

      4. Sebee says:

        Marcin,

        Did you read what Newey said? So what that they use less fuel and go faster in the name of green when there is a higher footprint on these PUs on the front in manufacturing of batteries and other components? If you added up the battery manufacturing you may find total waste and carbon footprint is higher than V8s. Someone really should estimate the carbon footprint of these PUs vs. V8s.

      5. Wayne says:

        Yes, I have no doubt he has to question the whole thing now that he is not winning anymore. However, whenever anyone’s questioned RBR over the past 4 years for their engine maps and off throttle blowing etc. he labelled them ‘jealous’. That Label now fits you, sir, does it not?

      6. It does seem that the shoe is on the other foot at the moment, doesn’t it? Even if the comments regarding the overall carbon footprint (e.g., energy needed for battery production) is, to this reader, a valid concern if “green” is the true goal. That perspective certainly applies to today’s road cars and their overall cost per mile for electrically assisted or powered cars is any indication. High MPG figures being advertised, while possibly accurate, do not reflect the true costs per mile over the life of a vehicle.

        In addition, for RBR to be raising concerns about cost when their history to date has been opposition to cost limiting efforts is a bit of a red herring that may have been in the sun being dragged accross the table. So too for the Ferrari back-room lobbying and complaints about decibels and tone

      7. Martin (England) says:

        Well said

      8. Chet says:

        No different to Williams now praising the sport to the heavens because they have 100hp more than the other non-merc teams.

        I do agree with the point that the teams have spent an astronomical amount of money on these new power units and fron the sporting perspective all we got for the money is boring sounding cars doing 2 hour economy runs.

        I was at Melbourne and the Mazdas driven in the celebrity car race were almost as loud as the F1 cars. Zero atmosphere, boring racing. The new powerants aren’t a step forward from a sporting perspective.

      9. Howard P says:

        I want a bit of the old and new. Away from the dominance of aero, in addition to the increased torque resulting in drivers (especially under pressure) squirming the car around.

        At the same time bring back the “old” engines, powerful and representative of what F1 is.

      10. Steve Zodiac says:

        Sure F1 has to move forward but Batteries? ancient technology and still not very good (laptop battery anyone?)and certainly not very green (millions of spent batteries dumped all over the world every day. At least a well made internal combustion engine will last hundreds of thousands of miles making greener than it gets credit for. It also (and always has been very recyclable whereas most batteries end up in land fill. Newey’s completely correct if someone of his calibre says it then we should listen

      11. Urko says:

        Spot on! All i can say about RBR is sore losers.

      12. KRB says:

        “The big teams like Ferrari, BMW and McLaren are currently on the back foot, but they won’t stay there of course. I think that’s refreshing and healthy for Formula One. It creates more interest, seeing different teams and drivers at the front.”

        ~ Adrian Newey, after 2009 Chinese GP

      13. j says:

        Nice pull. +1

    2. Gudien says:

      Exactly. F-1 is supposed to be about RACING AT THE LIMIT, not stroking around an entire race waiting an hour and one half to see who is the most efficient.

      1. aezy_doc says:

        He wasn’t complaining last year when the driver of his car was winning. They weren’t at the limit then either – if a car can go through eau rouge flat, or turn 8 in turkey without changing down then the drivers aren’t working.

      2. Kay says:

        +1

        Monaco train, ring bells anybody?

      3. NickH says:

        I agree with Newey 100%, what a mess these new rules are.

      4. IgMI says:

        I think F1 is still racing at the limit. However, there are a number of them and they have changed. They change continuously. They change from race to race.

        Looking at the changes introduced by regulation I think the limits have been changed in the right direction.

      5. Tim Burgess says:

        Odd – as far as I remember, none of the cars actually used all their fuel. Could anyone explain how the race was based on fuel conservation?

        These cars are being raced at their limit. The problem for Adrian is that the RB limit is somewhat lower than the Merc one!

      6. j says:

        Exactly right Gudien! They aren’t driving at the limit at all. Not sure why Vettel crashed off when the cars are so easy to drive though, maybe he’s lost it?

      7. Kay says:

        Maybe he’s never had it?

    3. Chas says:

      +1 Adrian Newey is correct on every point he made.

      Man and machine against time and speed. That is the credo of F1 in it’s simplest form. Go fast in the quickest time… period.

      And for the wag journo with the wise ass comment about money and negativity… maybe if FIA working group truly took counsel from Adrian Newey and engineering colleagues of his caliber we would not be at this farcical point in F1. They make money because they know how to win and design race machines…. leave the Prius engineering for the grocery getting market.

      1. Wayne says:

        “Man and machine against time and speed. That is the credo of F1 in it’s simplest form. Go fast in the quickest time… period”

        lol, we have not had this for many years, not once while RBR won their championships. What we had was man and machine against TYRES.

      2. Dr Lewis says:

        +50!

      3. KRB says:

        Question: who holds the lap record for Bahrain?

        PEDRO DE LA ROSA!! FROM 9 YEARS AGO!

        So I can’t buy what you’re selling, sorry.

      4. j says:

        Man and machine in it’s simplest form… except for fully active suspension, movable aerodynamics, mass dampers, exhaust blown diffusers, thousands of hours of CFD, thousands of hours of wind tunnel…

    4. Spyros says:

      I almost agreed with him, until he mentioned relevance to road cars…

      It may not be exactly what we want or need for our cars, but the new formula sure has A LOT more potential to be relevant than exhaust blowing, engine maps and the rest of the barely-comprehensible aero nonsense that so thoroughly plagued Formula One in the last 5-6 years.

      In any case, it’s hardly surprising that the team that is NOT on top of the rules (whether it’s their fault or not) is against them. Unless they can come up with a serious alternative (which doesn’t involve dusting off last year’s cars), the criticism means very little.

      Give it a little longer, people, we’re only two races in!

      1. NickH says:

        Who gives a damn about the relevance to road cars. Is this not F1? Are the car companies not capable of pursuing that chapter without F1 helping them? Yes they are. The whole ‘relevance to road cars’ theory is utterly pointless and has compromised F1 to the state that is pretty much isn’t F1 anymore

      2. Rossi says:

        Not when the car companies are the ones building the engines.

        My understanding is that the FIA are trying to tempt manufacturers back into the sport with the increased relevance as opposed to ending up with two engine suppliers with works teams dominating.

      3. IgMI says:

        I think people would have different opinions on what F1 is. I am an F1 fan and I like the way it is going. I do give a damn of them being more relevant to road cars.

        I don’t give a damn about the people who complain when they are not winning.

      4. Tim Burgess says:

        Who gives a damn? Renault, Mercedes, Ferrari, Honda…

        F1 would look a little silly with no engine manufacturers – and the first three listed above actually created these engine rules.

      5. Growers says:

        Not relevance in technical terms but in marketing terms (car makers marketing road cars as having ‘F1 derived technology’). Creation of wealth for the key players underpins the direction of modern F1.

      6. Spyros says:

        I didn’t bring up ‘relevance to road cars’, Newey did.

      7. NickH says:

        Well the race promoters don’t like it and they’re the ones that pay the massive money for the races, obviously from a result in a downturn in ticket sales.

        For sure the technology is amazing, but it doesn’t have to be F1. They could have done this in DTM or touring cars or whatever, not F1. Newey is talking about F1 as a whole going the wrong direction as he is a purist, it isn’t because they aren’t winning.

        Judging from the noises coming from Bernie and these meetings taking place I wouldn’t be surprised to see some changes.

    5. Doug says:

      I agree with the wag! :-)

      F1 still is racing. I would describe F1 as a middle distance race..like a 5000m or 10000m race in athletics.
      In races like these it’s not (and never has been) an all out sprint. It’s about tactics, knowing when to push, when to hold back etc.
      I love the sound of the new engines, love the sound of the tyres on the edge of adhesion, the only thing I don’t like are the new noses but they will be gone soon. I’ll certainly be impressed when my car becomes 30% more efficient as will a lot of people who are currently fighting the new face of F1…it’s the future, embrace it!

      1. IgMI says:

        Agreed.

        F1 is going through a significant change and it is understandable that there would be a spike in cost, and teething problems, but it would all settle down over few seasons, until the next cycle of something new (like low profile tires, for example).

      2. mrstone says:

        Interesting point about being a middle distance race. Made me think about how nice would it be to have a ‘sprint’ race (just before the main event), and award half of the points for that.

        It could be all out 10 lap race, where cars are allowed to use any tires and any amount of fuel

    6. C63 says:

      If the Red Bull was the fastest car on the grid, Newey wouldn’t be whining like this and you wouldn’t be agreeing with him!
      BTW, look up the definition of anachronism – you might want to check you are using these ‘big words’ in the correct context ;-)

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        @ C63 hahaha, what a joker you are. are you saying that lapping slower is not ‘anachronistic’?

        your argument is not only spurious but a complete ‘gallimaufry’ if you’ll pardon my usage.

      2. C63 says:

        The definition of anachronism:
        A thing belonging or appropriate to a period other than that in which it exists, especially a thing that is conspicuously old-fashioned.

        What is there about this new formula that you consider to be old fashioned?
        The new power units are far more relevant than the old fashioned V8′s (which were indeed an anachronism). The cars are covering the same distance, in a comparable time, burning 35% less fuel. If that fuel saving/power delivery were to be replicated around the world [in the cars we drive] the benefits are obvious.

        As for your complaint about the slower lap times. The FIA, for a long time now, have been wary of the teams continual performance gains – dragging them back a notch or two, when required, with regulatory changes. You surely don’t expect lap times to continually drop year on year do you? The drivers would need to wear G suits and the potential for a serious accident would increase dramatically – the latter being the area of concern to the FIA.

        On your final point ‘gallimaufry’ – which part of my post was confused or jumbled? For that matter, which part was spurious – nothing false or fake in what I said.
        As I said, you might want to check you are using these ‘big words’ in the correct context ;-)

    7. Rod says:

      I’ve been checking races from the mid seventies lately. Now that was hair-raising, manly (?) and brutal. Nothing in the last decades resembles even remotely that type of racing.
      So what’s the big deal with these changes? F1 will never again be what hard core fans would like.
      We’ve traded the glory and the risk for a bloodless “show” resembling more a bobsled competition than anything else.
      But at 61, I’m still watching….

      1. IgMI says:

        I see your point and I am glad that you have not dropped the sport now that it does not require for people’s lives to be so endangered. Can you tell us what thrill you these days? I can give you few things I find exciting so that you can compare it: skills of all involved (not only drivers, as F1 is after all a team sport), strategy components of a single race and the season as a whole, looking at F1 as an endurance rather than a sprint race, seeing how different teams deal with difficulties presented to them (from race to race, from season to season), hoping that somebody would catch Mercedes (applicable to this season only, though, for now).

      2. Rod says:

        The first difference is that F1 was really not a team sport, as far as the fan was concerned. Of course we all knew the team was crucial, but that was on the back of our minds. Strategy before the race was general and rather simple. Most of the time it was a reaction to some change on the track.
        The margin of safety was a personal thing. Today all drivers race as fast as the car will go, safely… Then, you couldn’t do that. There are pics of 4 cars going around the Parabolica and if you look closely, you can see the drift on all of them. It was a different way of controlling a fast car.
        But there are still many interesting things about this new F1. About the skill, I would bet any of today drivers would have been good then too.

      3. johnpierre says:

        great points…

    8. Byron Lamarque says:

      Interesting discussion.

      Gordan Murray (very excited about his return to McLaren) has been saying for years and years that light aerodynamically efficient cars are more viable then hybrids.

      The problem is people like their SUV’s and luxury. It’s hard to imagine these new very light vehicles living on the same roads as huge heavy luxury vehicles and everyone feeling safe.

      Neweys right about the environmental costs and weight of batteries but technology is going to make significant progress with durability, longevity and weight especially if these devices are bolted to an F1 car.

      No you can’t help but suspect that fundamentally Renault and Ferrari have made mistakes with their power units and everyone is scrambling to negate Mercedes advantage by attempting to change the formula.

      Maybe it’s the Mercs turbo on one side compressor on the other with all the cooling advantages that brings that is causing their competitors so much grief…

      1. Marc says:

        @Byron – do you have a link for a story on Gordon Murray returning to McLaren, I haven’t seen it mentioned anywhere ??

      2. Byron Lamarque says:

        On reflection and further research I now realize I fell for it on April 1st! My dad went to school with Gordan Murray (no joke) so I was overcome with excitement at this news…

        http://thejudge13.com/2014/04/01/daily-f1-news-and-comment-tuesday-1st-april-2014/#murray

        Sadly the tone and the hint at the end of the article elluded me on the morning of April 1st. The Judge however is well worth following he makes a lot of valid points in MHO.

      3. Robert says:

        Light, aerodynamically efficient cars would be GREAT…except they have to share the road with ever larger lorries (trucks) that grow larger and heavier every decade. The turbulence from these large lorries is so great, and the accidents so catastrophic, that ever lighter passenger cars are not a viable option. There is no magic for keeping your car in contact with the pavement when hit by the blast of one of them passing you, other than a bit of mass in your own vehicle.

        You can’t have bulk goods being delivered by massive trucks (that really perhaps should be on rail service), and then ask the public to get into eggshell cars and hope for the best with their lives, and their family’s lives. You want to know why more people are driving SUVs? Because the government has caved into pressure from the trucking industry and allowed the size of lorries to grow massively over the past three decades – people are just keeping up by buying SUVs. Unless the trucking firms are actually forced to downsize, people will not change their preferences, and frankly who can blame them?

      4. Byron Lamarque says:

        Good point about the trucks/lorries!

    9. Michael says:

      Really? We didn’t hear peep from Newey When Redbull was dominating for 4 straight years. He’s a hypocrite. U have to take the good with the bad. He should just keep quiet and do his job. Redbull are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.

      1. JB says:

        Dont take this the wrong way. Adrian is a guy who loves challenges. I have no doubt his team will come out on top.

        His criticism is the way F1 is selling these new Hybrid tech. If the rules change, why not focus on weight reduction and slicker aero. Both those can also improve fuel consumption. He has got a valid point.

        That said, I think FIA will tweak the rules year by year so that it makes more sense. I mean this is just the first 2.5 race of the new rules.
        I like the idea overall so FIA needs to be vigilant to stay on track.
        I would say, Double points is a really bad idea.

    10. Michael says:

      I’m losing a lot of respect for Newey. I thought he was a genius. lol

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        @ michael
        WOW, some decision. have you told adrian yet? bet he was mighty disappointed. i expect he will slink away to some dark corner and give serious consideration to your decision.

      2. Michael says:

        @ kenneth chapman I feel your pain. I know you’re hurt because your beloved Redbull isn’t performing the way u would like them to. You need to take a chill pill. It’s a forum. I’m sure Adrian Newey is staying up late at night worrying about what people are saying about him on this forum. Give me a break.

  2. Fireman says:

    “Why is it that the people who make the most most money in this sport are the ones so vehemently criticising it?”

    Maybe they see their sport taking a wrong turn which eventually means less money.

    1. Brent says:

      Or maybe it’s a control issue.

      1. Fireman says:

        Care to elaborate?

      2. Brent says:

        Look at who is complaining. 2 of 11 teams. Red Bull, a marketing company, who will, I assure you, quit if they cannot win and as it is they won’t win this year. Ferrari, the pride of Italy, who have built another also ran car and designed, at least, the second best engine (with Honda still to come). An old man, up on bribery charges, who is likely to lose control of a business he considers his. All of that old man’s buddies, who will lose their special privileges with a power shift.

        This has nothing to do with the rules. It is about who is going to control F1 in the future.

      3. C63 says:

        @ Brent
        +1. There is a huge elephant sat in the paddock – it’s name is Munich :-)

      4. Ben says:

        @Brent

        I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. Right now there is a big power struggle going on. Is this part of Bernie and the team’s talking down the value of F1 so they can try and buy it!?

      5. Fireman says:

        @Brent

        Which power shift are you talking about? Whose power is shifting to whom?

    2. Sebee says:

      Or maybe they have a clarity of vision as to what the product should be.

      Is change for sake of change a good thing?

      It seems to me that while many are putting on a brave face here, the reality is there is much displeasure behind the scenes for a wide gamut of reasons.

      1. tim clarke says:

        you are right on, Seebee.

      2. C63 says:

        Oh Sebee, please!!! If Red Bull were still in the pound seats, do you really think they would be moaning? Or if Ferrari had built a decent car, would LDM be twittering on.
        It’s ridiculous to pretend otherwise.

      3. Sebee says:

        Of course they are selfish. But let’s not forget that this was supposed to be a close grid due to rules. I think this MB domination is greater than RBR. I would actually take bet you than no one but MB will win this season.

        These teams are blowing their budgets in this PU formula and are still left in the dust. Plus we have no sound, remember that point?

      4. Fireman says:

        There were worries about processional races and engine sound before the season even started. Voiced by Bernie and Ferrari at least.

      5. C63 says:

        @sebee and fireman
        If, Newey or either of you two (Red Bull fans) had complained about processional or boring races when Vetell was at the front I would be more sympathetic. However, so far as I am aware, none of you did. We were invited to marvel at the excellence on display and the other teams should step up to the mark etc. Moaning now just appears to be sour grapes.
        As for the sound of the engines , I really like them. I didn’t think I would (Google C63 if you want to know what sort of engines I like). Sure, if I was stood watching an old V8 engine being revved next to the new V6 there is no contest and the V8 wins hands down. But, in the context of the race I prefer the new engine. I really enjoy the other sounds that I couldn’t hear before, tyres screeching, whistles from the turbo(?) crowd cheering etc.

      6. Sebee says:

        C63, you are confused a bit. I’m not moaning because Vettel isn’t winning. Ideally, it would be nice for the sport to have Vettel defeated in a close battle.

        This scenario of MB being 2s faster actually gives Vettel fans a potential point of denial in that he was only beaten because of Renault PU. A point hard to argue against really

        If you think you’ve seen domination during 2011 or 2013 RBR years, strap in, you ain’t seen nothing yet!

      7. KRB says:

        So RBR will be all for the cost cap, to ensure that teams like Sauber, Marussia and Caterham do not fall out of the sport?

        They’re all for the good of the sport, after all.

      8. Sebee says:

        Without these rules, you would have cost savings.

      9. powersteer says:

        + 10000000000

      10. powersteer says:

        Add to that, if Mr. Newey is genuinely concerned about cost and the environment, please agree to cost cutting! Shut down your energy gobbling wind tunnel, CFD cluster, the massive R&D.

        Give the smaller teams a chance. Bring only the bare minimum spares to each race, only 1 mechanic per car please … that will cut down on the massive weight of cargo everyone have to lug around every race.

      11. j says:

        This act of always taking the contrary position but never being able to clearly make any point or take any position is getting really old.

        Is the grass ALWAYS greener on the other side Sebee?

      12. Sebee says:

        On this issue, it wasn’t. That’s why F1 shouldn’t have done it. Well put actually…they thought it was greener and with these batteries and carbon footprint of some components in this PU Newey is making a point that it’s not greener at all perhaps. Remember, F1 is a marketing show. These manufacturers want to appear green, meanwhile they are quite the opposite making lovely V8s or even V12s for the marketplace.

        There are points I don’t agree with and comment in that direction. Plenty of times I was on the right of the argument. Other times not so much. Here I agree with some valid points made by Newey. Was I wrong to not agree with tires being changed mid season last year? I don’t think so.

      13. Sebee says:

        I should also point out I AGREE with what Newey says. I’m not disagreeing at all.:-)

    3. Wayne says:

      Because they can and because they are all embarrassing examples of hypocrisy and petulance. Newey is no different in this regard.

      RBR’s employees can slam the sport harder than most as they are not in it for F1, technology or racing – they are in it only as long as they win. They have no history or vested interest like some of the others. And by this I mean the people at the top not the (I’m sure) great guys on the front lines who probably adore the sport and motor racing. Newey doesn’t care, he’s off to design boasts and he wants to be able to say of 2014 ‘it’s not my fault we lost gov’ – his ego won’t allow anything else.

      1. Michael says:

        +1

  3. Nick Lynn says:

    I think Pat Symonds hit the spot with his observation about Ratner. RB and Ferrari should be careful about the message they put across to the public.

    Of course, one cant’ help but feel this is part of a concerted campaign from those not doing so well to pressure the FIA into yet more changes – which is a bit ironical given Newey’s comments.

    Sadly, its the comments from Newey that disappoint me most as I have a lot of respect for him. It sounds like sour grapes.

    To paraphrase him (at least I think it was him) from last year when asked about RB’s dominance and how that was causing fans to drift away; I think he was clear in saying that breaking RB’s dominance was down to other teams to step up to the mark.

    Now that it’s his team that have to do that, all of a sudden it’s the fault of the rule changes. You can’t have it both ways Adrian.

    I think the changes are great, and not just because it’s shaken up the pecking order for a while. The unexpected and unknown puts a fizz back into it and it’s certainly rekindled my interest.

    1. AndyFov says:

      Everybody’s arguing in the interests of their team and not in the wider interests of F1 at all.

      If Red Bull had Mercedes’ advantage they’d be saying very different things about the 2014 regs.

      1. Sebee says:

        I don’t think that’s entirely true. I think they have valid concerns. There is a reason why most of us here can agree MP4-8 is a reference point as to what F1 should be.

      2. tim clarke says:

        i’ve always admired Adrian Newey’s pragmatism…i’ve never heard him speak “corporate” and i believe he
        puts the sport he loves above even
        the team he works for.

      3. C63 says:

        There is an expression here in the UK; ‘He who pays the piper calls the tune’. In essence, if you want the motor manufacturers money (as F1 does), you have to accept that they will want to do things their way. Motor manufacturers are investing heavily in hybrid technology – what better test bed than F1? One of the greatest ironies in all this, is that Renault were one of the major forces pushing through the changes. Be careful what you wish for, lest your dream comes true ;-)

      4. KRB says:

        Why the MP4-8? MP4-8 was way underpowered compared to its competition.

      5. Sebee says:

        KRB,

        Look and sound. 6, 7, also OK. I’m not picky. With these hoover looking and sounding cars, F2002, FW19, whatever man…just give me something that sounds like an F1 car!

    2. David says:

      Well put, Nick. It’s very hard to read these reports of Newey’s views without recalling that he himself is fiercely competitive (see second question!). It can’t be easy being knocked from your perch.

    3. dren says:

      Very well stated Nick. I couldn’t agree more. Those were my thoughts exactly as I was reading this article. People also seem to forget there was fuel saving going on before the fuel limit regulations.

      1. j says:

        And these supposed fans of “true F1″ are totally oblivious to the fact that when the limit was 150 Kilos teams routinely ran 20 Kg less than allowed.

    4. Robert says:

      100% agrees with you.

  4. Kenny says:

    IMO, Newey is missing several points. Most electric road cars have a much smaller total carbon footprint than internal combustion engines. Plus, it should be much more efficient to tackle pollution at a central generating source than from individual cars. Last, it’s easy to find shortcomings in all of the solutions : none of them are perfect but we shouldn’t shy away from good partial solutions that move us forward.

    1. Richard says:

      Ironically, what he describes is a gross simplification of the issue. The drive towards non-fossil fuel cars is inevitable, and economical in many ways not mentioned by Newey.

      It shifts the generating responsibility (and energy governance) to factories. When (not if) traditional fuel becomes uneconomical as a generation source, electric cars won’t notice a difference. It centralises the onerous and difficult task of adapting our energy usage in response to rising costs and finite resources.

      Most importantly, it shifts air, and noise pollution away from cities (and, where renewable or Nuclear power is used to generate, entirely) where there is a pressing need to reduce pollution levels if we want to avoid a pea soup in the coming century.

      Whether F1 has a role to play in this or not to me is slightly irrelevant. It’s sad to hear some of the brightest minds argue such a straw man for the benefit of a few.

      I don’t really even know where to start with the wisdom that F1 should be about the “best” technology, whatever makes it go fast enough. Who says you can’t do this with electricity, famously responsible for as much torque as you can shake a turbo at.

      1. IgMI says:

        I agree, Richard, that Newey oversimplified and took issues out of context to make support his argument.

        With that any attempt to counter-argue his points in few paragraphs would suffer from the same shortcomings, but may even the scale in terms of pros and cons of introducing electrical energy into car industry.

        I may spice it up a little bit with one single word: disel. Please, don’t shoot me right away :-)

    2. AlexD says:

      Kenny, but before we are going to go into these discussions, we need to understand why F1 is and what F1 is not.

      If F1 is about a man and a machine performing at its maximum, then we clearly do not see it this year, at all.

      If F1 is about new directions and marketing buzz words, then yes…we see it this year.

      1. aezy_doc says:

        If F1 is about the drivers actually having to perform then we are seeing more of that this year as they struggle with the lack of downforce and increased torque. That is good.

        I’m not sure what people want – do they want cars that are more poorly engineered/ designed (or a forced change due to new regulations) so that the driver has to work harder, or do they want cars that are bulletproof and have amazing drivability but the driver just sits there?

      2. AlexD says:

        Let me reiterate what people want:-) People want drivers to be on the limit and not focus solely on tire management, fuel management, engine management, everything else management. Of course, it has to play a role, but not 90% of everything else they do today. Plus the noise is rely poor.

      3. IgMI says:

        @ AlexD
        Aren’t those all the limits that drivers and teams are facing and that they have to drive to those limits as fast as they can? If those are not the limits you are referring to, what are they?

        If a car this year is slower then a last year car that would only mean that limits have changed, not that the teams and drivers are not performing to the limits.

        The question is, do we like these limits rather than some other limits. I like them. If you don’t what would think would be acceptable? More downforce? More power? Rocket boosters? ;-)

      4. C63 says:

        @ AlexD
        If F1 is about a man and a machine performing at its maximum, then we clearly do not see it this year, at all….

        I am confused, are you saying that Vetell and Ricciardo in their Red Bulls have not been performing at their maximum this year? If that’s the case, and they could have gone quicker, then I should think Christian must be jolly cross with them.

      5. Sebee says:

        Come on C63. RBR and MB have different capabilities this year. And hence different limits. And certainly Daniel and Seb are not at their limits. Guess what? Neither is Lewis and Nico.

      6. C63 says:

        @Sebee
        I beg to disagree. The original comment was along the lines of F1 being about man and MACHINE performing at their limits. Are you honestly trying to tell me that either, Nico/Lewis or Dan/Seb, were not performing at the limits of man and MACHINE, that they left something on the table on Sunday.

      7. j says:

        This silly “drivers are not on the limit” argument again.

        So Vettel and some other drivers are chucking it off the road because they hit a banana peel? Or maybe some of them fell asleep at the wheel?

        Or maybe it’s because they aren’t used to driving at the limit of grip without a blown diffuser and with an engine that actually has some torque for once.

    3. Craig D says:

      +1
      F1 appears to be putting across the wrong message. Of course F1 will never be green but it’s not about trying to be green per se, but about being more efficient, in all areas, weight, aero, power, etc. They should be putting across how F1 is good at pushing technology forward, just like war, which ultimately are both competitions in different forms.

      The techniques and knowledge F1 engineers learn will get filtered to technologies for the public.

      So they should be telling us the hard work gone into solving these challenges (and hats off to Mercedes here), rather than complaining. F1 is never happy!

      1. Chas says:

        There already is a testbed series for effcient technology experimentation… World Endurance Championship.

      2. Craig D says:

        F1 is all about efficiency, ti’s how you go fast. And it’s becoming a myth the sport has become an extreme fuel saving competition. The drivers and teams have said it’s not that big an issue (certainly for Mercedes engines). It’s just the media and those politicking like Ferrari that are talking it up as a massive issue. I’ve seen plenty of racing in these first 3 races to not think “This is not a race”.

        It doesn’t matter if you give them all the fuel they want/need, the most efficient engine will be the best.

        But yeah, go keep running antiquated engines for another decade or two, and watch as technology and the world moves on the engine builders leave.

    4. Dan says:

      I think Adrian is right about ‘carbon footprints’. The current obsession with per KM does not factor in manufacturing carbon, transport carbon, in use carbon and dismantling carbon.

      Le Mans does seem to be the perfect place for a hybrid system- I still don’t know why F1 didn’t go flywheel as that seems a lot ‘greener’ than a stack of batteries.

    5. Sebee says:

      WHERE IS THE AIR-CAR ALREADY?

      100 years ago they could make air locomotives, 100 years later we can’t put together an AIR car that can go 100km before a quick air refill? UNBELIEVABLE!

      1. IgMI says:

        Be careful what you wish for. :-)

  5. Neil says:

    It’s no surprise that Red Bull (Adrian Newwy) would want change, Renault has been caught on the hop. One has to go along with Pat Symonds, that change was needed, to bring F1 into the modern era and to the benefit of the car makers. Otherwise what would F1 be without Renault and soon Honda …. a series with no engines.

    Then again, we could have kept the old engines, boring races and no techical gain for anyone. I for one had got bored with it and stopped following all the races …. now they have an interest again.

  6. Grant H says:

    Another red bull chief with sour grapes…

  7. PeteC says:

    I think we can take Pat Symonds’ view with a pinch of salt. After all, Williams develop hybrid powertrains commercially.

    1. tank says:

      I believe they sold that division recently after losing money.

      Interesting tech though, the flywheel mechanical battery. Surely more green than lithium batteries.

    2. Ahmed Seedat says:

      Not anymore, they sold that division very recently.

    3. ChrisC says:

      I think you replied to your own question in one sentence. Impressive :)

    4. Truth or Lies says:

      Williams very recently sold that business for about £8M, so I’m not sure thats entirely relevant.

      On the other hand parts of what Adrian Newey said are true and F1 has probably went much too far with these new regulations. Fuel efficient turbos with KERS like before and electric running in the pit lane seems like a reasonable compromise and that would have retained the principal character of Formula One.

      The sport is now in a really dangerous place, unless the racing at the front improves dramatically, fans will simply switch off. People will not fork out hard earned after tax earnings, to watch these things wizz by in formation lap after lap.

      But once again I have to say, the F1 media has been entirely complicit with the FIA and are not informing about the crisis F1 has made for itself. The sound is what matters most and that is the real issue. That’s an issue that can’t be talked away.

      1. aezy_doc says:

        If the racing in FE come September is better than F1, I wonder what will happen – is it really the noise, or just the fact that there is one dominant team?

      2. Dr Lewis says:

        Did you watch the ‘racing’ in the second half of last year?

        Once Red Bull got the tyres they wanted Paul at Pirellis winter prediction came true – he knew because they had seen the winter testing load data. RBR were way ahead. Result of harder tyres? They walked it.

        Two races in to this year and suddenly all is unwell because a certain marketing company is not winning?

        I think not.

        I have issues as an engineer with being sold the pile of ‘green’ dung and ‘environmental benefits’ as a reason for the changes but you can’t help but note the drivers are actually driving now. Remove DRS and I think it might just show the good from the average instead of dumbing down talent but that’s another discussion.

        Racing rather than overwhelming superiority because one team has an aero genius has not really been on the agenda since fragile tyres were introduced creating a situation where dare I say it, the ‘slower’ ‘measured’ drivers were handed an advantage over the, quite frankly real racers. Or you employed an aero genius – of which, like drivers, there are few…

        The regulations relevant or not have at least made drivers work for a living thus making things look far more exciting but frankly I would guess that’s by accident.

        At the end of the day – its only when aero regs are changed we start to see interesting races rather than tyres, fuel, or any other artificial aspect thrown in to to spice up the show are a major component in the cause or effect…

      3. IgMI says:

        I read somewhere (I have trouble finding it now) that one way to make drivers work and races interesting would be to remove the wings and bold on wooden tires – in essence make the track more slippery.

        When I read it I laughed, but then I realized that the most exciting races were those on rain. They were slower, and the road was slippery, and yet the races were great. Hmmmm…

    5. Phil R says:

      We can take Williams Hybrid Components as proof that F1 hybrid technology can be directly relevant to road car technology given that it’s in various Porsche and Bus systems. Some changes were made for sure (If only a bus could brake at 5g), but at the end of the day it is physics that causes the relevance, with the energy being recaptured being energy, where it being acquired through speed or weight.

      1. Dr Lewis says:

        Porsche – sports car and endurance racing – excellent but not F1!

        Buses – well yes I can see the relevance and technology transfer (?) but am having trouble finding any worldwide racing series involving such.

        Come on this level of green racing application is well established already.

        And F1 is using very none green batteries and in other series super capacitors.

        No one is using the flywheel system hence you have to ask…

  8. Aneesh says:

    I think poor lil Adrian just threw his toys out of the pram :D

    1. Gazza says:

      Along with everybody else at Red Bull.

      What a lack of class.!,

    2. Red Rider says:

      Oh yes he did.

      Like all babies he KNOWS it’s all about him.

    3. C63 says:

      I don’t know if you saw the press conference , but AN had his arms tightly crossed and his bottom lip stuck out. Hilarious! He even tries to tell us it’s not sour graoes

  9. Francois says:

    I use to appreciate Red Bull, not this year.

    1. Joshua says:

      100% agree.

      Whilst he may have some valid arguments, if they were winning they would be silent.

      Just like last year. They knew harder tyres would suit their car better. ..They got what they wanted and walked the championships.

  10. Tony Bale says:

    Having had the pleasure of meeting Adrian Newey and having a conversation with him, I am very surprised that I find myself agreeing with Pat Symonds wholeheartedly!
    Let’s keep to the positives and try to enjoy a season of the NEW F1 before we start ripping it apart….

  11. The paddyman says:

    In some ways Newey is a Luddite…in other ways he is a genius….

    1. Gazza says:

      I am a bit surprised by his attitude.

      These new Hybrid power units are fantastic cutting edge technology, they are getting very near last years lap times with 50kg less fuel.

      Has an engineer he should be celebrating this, not kicking the sport in the teeth because things are not going his way.

      Very sad.

      1. stoi says:

        Yeah, I don’t get the people saying this years power units are less powerfull than last years. As you said they are very near last years lap times which is quite impressive considering they are 10% heavier, smaller wings, no beam wings and no exhaust blown diffusers. Cutting egde tech indeed.

      2. Alex says:

        And tyres are harder

      3. Ben says:

        Red Bull and Bernie obviously have an agenda. They have been very critical of this new formula. There is an elephant in the room and it’s called Munich!

    2. Rob says:

      All I read is, “boo hoo hoo, my inverted airplane expertise is no longer the only thing that matters, and I suck hard at electricals, and I am getting too old for this”

      Red Bull may give you (inverted) wings, but as a fuel for your engine, it lacks electrolytes…

      Honestly, go fly your planes or crash cars or something, if you can’t stand not being the only expert that matters.

  12. Tealeaf says:

    Obviously Newey has the brains in that room there and I totally agree with his assessment of this farce of a formula, the only reason this british media and the Hamilton fan club are so happy with it at the moment is because Mercedes are the quickest, if it had been any other team the outcry would be enormous.
    Pat Symmonds can counteract all he likes but he shouldn’t even be in F1 with his involvement in the Piquet Singapore incident. Just shows the morality of his nature tbh. As for Renault, If I was Caterham and Lotus I’d default on payment, those team’s future has been compromised by the failings of this company, and to charge the most for these PU??? give it up, hand Mercedes and Hamilton another title by default much like 2008 and 2009′s Brawn, absolute joke.

    1. Gaz Boy says:

      Tealeaf, not everyone in Britain is jumping for joy over F1 at the minute, the first two races so far were dullards to watch, and whoever you like or support, nobody wants to watch a procession.
      I would say, lets give this brave new F1 world time to mature. It may take until the middle of the European/Canada season, but it will get there eventually.
      I remember under the old V8 formula, races at the likes of Barcelona, Monaco, Magny-Cours (remember that venue?) and the Hungaroring were dreary Sunday afternoon cruises, so I think its more incumbent on the circuit – and weather! -for exciting racing, rather than the actual Formula.
      Fortunately, Canada, Silverstone and Hockenhiem are usually very dramatic races for one reason and another, and Austria has a lay-out that promotes good close racing and overtaking opportunities aplenty, so keep the faith Tealeaf!
      PS Let’s hope it rains at Monaco…..

      1. C63 says:

        I admire your tenacity in trying to communicate with Mr Leaf . In time, I am sure, you will come to realise your efforts are futile ;-)

      2. Gaz Boy says:

        C63 – Jenson’s motto after winning from the back at Canada in 2011 – and Jesus bringing Lazarus back to life come to think of it (Jenson’s situation was kind of similar to Lazarus): Never give up!

      3. Tealeaf says:

        I completely agree, the races so far have been boring, slow and predictable, those dull sunday afternoons will be quite common this year. Sure it’s easy to get use to the noise but dorsn’t mean I’ll like it though, same as when I got use to the V8′s I never preffered them compared to the BMW V10s.
        Props for the number 2 drivers this weekend to uphend their team mates so nice one Rosberg, Raikkonen, Ricciardo, Button and Perez. At least it makes the race more interesting so there’s hope, but those races like Spa 2000, Hungary 1998, Monza 2003 or Suzuka 2005 where on the edge driving in beautiful cars are things of the past.
        But as I said I’m happy for Jenson, Kimi and Ricciardo, would be great if Bottas could get the jump on both Mercedes but I doubt it.

      4. Gaz Boy says:

        Tealeaf, I would agree the races you mentioned were stonkers, I’d also add Germany 2000, Brazil 2001, Brazil 2003, Hungary 2006, China 2006, Nuburgring 2007, Japan 2007, Silverstone 2008, Belgium 2008, Monza 2008, Brazil 2008, Melbourne 2010 and Montreal 2011.
        What did they all have in common Tealeaf? Rain, rain, rain! Just a few inopportune showers heading in the direction of Europe and Canada this summer, preferably on a Sunday afternoon, just a few moments after the red lights have gone out will transform a predictable snooze fest to a memorable orgy of wild oversteer, front end lock ups and skyving revs
        Remember those crazy first few laps at the Nuburgring in 2007? A present from the big man in the sky. Lets hope he gives us more this summer.

      5. C63 says:

        Props for the number 2 drivers this weekend to uphend their team mates so nice one Rosberg, Raikkonen, Ricciardo, Button and Perez…

        You have somewhat glossed over the fact Vetell has gone out in Q2 for the second time this season, haven’t you? Did you like the way Vetell changed his tune between the in lap pit/car radio broadcast and the interviews? One minute he was blaming the car, next he said he didn’t want to blame the car. Come on Seb, make your mind up.

      6. Tealeaf says:

        C63 what are you getting at? In Australia Vettel’s PU was already faulty during quali with no drive or power hence the 3sec deficit, this quali session maybe he just wasn’t quite hooked up and all I was saying was the number 2 driver shone through today and that was the case, it’ll make the race more interesting than Malaysia, imagine the mindset of Hamilton if Rosberg manages to win the race.

      7. Joe S says:

        Japan 2007 had a lot of the race behind the Safety Car and Canada 2011 was red flagged for a while. Lasted around four hours in total I think. That’s a problem with some wet races, too wet and they get stopped and we have to wait around. People seem to forget those parts and instead think all wet races deserve to be listed among the greatest races of all time.

      8. Robert says:

        The start of this year has been no more predictable than the second half of last season…just a different team with a huge margin. And with Ricciardo showing that the RB does indeed have pace, it is not clear that RB will not seriously challenge later in the year.

        This year in many respects is more interesting…at least the leading team has two actual #1 drivers, that they let race each other. And I think that up and down the field, there are many rivalries going on that make the race interesting…after all, it’s not ONLY about who takes first.

        The drivers are working much harder this year – having more torque than grip is exactly what high-performance cars SHOULD have IMHO. I am loving watching the most skilled drivers struggle with getting the power down…THAT shows how impressive these cars are.

        You want to fix F1? Simple – increase the peak fuel flow so that the engines can actually hit 15k RPM. That will increase the speed, and vastly increase the noise. It wouldn’t take much – maybe a 5-10% increase in peak fuel use. And it would increase the risk. But quite probably worth it for the overall benefits.

    2. aezy_doc says:

      2008? I get the double diffuser malarkey of 2009, but I don’t understand your comment about 2008.

    3. Dr Lewis says:

      2008 – you mean the last time (and one of very few) the champion did not have the constructors championship winning car?

      Hmm – perhaps a crash migrant…

      1. KRB says:

        That last bit has already been confirmed in the past.

    4. C63 says:

      @tealeaf
      Please don’t stop posting. Your comments are hilarious.

  13. David L. says:

    Sounds like sour grapes. Like every other year, when a team doesn’t have the top car they begin to criticize and try to force a mid-season change to the rules. It worked last year for Red Bull, let’s hope this year F1 holds course and we can have a championship that rewards innovation–not hinder it.

  14. Longy says:

    RBR didn’t get their own way in Melbourne and now it’s the childish “toys out of pram” routine which makes them so unpopular (or at least to me) first Horner, then Seb, now Newey. This is the part of the sport which can make geniuses look like 8 year olds, the one bit of the sport I really would rather not see.

    The way I see it, if you come off looking even more petulant and self-entitled than Ferrari then you really are scraping the barrel.

  15. robert christian says:

    i got the feeling adrian newey was biting his tongue about the new formula power units and fuel saving racing. so i will say it for you adrian fuel saving racing is not what F1 fans want to see

  16. David Hamilton says:

    Well, he would say that, wouldn’t he?

    Red Bull were comfortably on top under the old rules, and have lost out under the change.

    Additionally, under the new rules, the power plant can yield much greater performance gains, and aerodynamics play a much smaller part, which plays away from Newey’s strengths.

    Horner’s comment that “this is an engine formula now” exactly summarises Red Bull’s thinking. Of course the converse view is that F1 was basically an aero formula under the previous rules, and has now moved to being a mixture of aero & engine.

  17. Leon says:

    It would be very interesting to hear the views of Gordon Murray and Rory Byrne as well. Especially since Murray has been in road car design at both the very high performance and very high energy efficiency extremes. Newey is absolutely correct by pointing out that the new F1 technology actually has very limited application to road cars now, or in the near future. Hybrids are still a fashionable minority and will remain so for a long (and expensive) time. To load the cost of this fad on F1 – at this time – was short sighted.

  18. Gaz Boy says:

    Adrian, you could always ask your old school-mate Jeremy Clarkson for some help if you can’t maximise the potential of your design!
    Come on Adrian, give this new Formula time to bed in. The first year of a new engine formula is always a season when teams are bedding in and learning about the new PU; this year is no different. Rome wasn’t built in a day and all that………….

  19. BW says:

    Personally, I do not see any importance of F1 aerodynamics anywhere outside F1, so why there is so much money being spent on it, Mr Newey?

    1. IgMI says:

      I would agree that engine is much more relevant to the road cars than aerodynamics. With the engine now chipping away the importance of aerodynamics in F1 it made the F1 more relevant to road cars (it could be an oversimplification, but it would be a piece of a bigger puzzle).

  20. chris says:

    Bad loser number 1. Regulations that work to Red Bull’s advantage = good for the sport. Boring means Red Bull not the fastest. Relevance to roadcars = blown diffusers, bendy front wings and complex engine mapping not hybrid technology.

    Bad loser number 2. Relevance to road cars = big noisy engines like we put in road cars. Only bright red cars that make a noise are special. Fans won’t like it = our fans won’t like it until we start winning.

    I have a lot of respect for Newey but he should do his talking on the track. The fact that he isn’t doing suggests he knows the engine his team bought isn’t going to be good enough this season.

  21. Gary Naylor says:

    I think it is wrong to focus on the engines – and the apparent complexity of fuel consumption – as being too complicated for fans to understand. For me, that is the easiest part of F1 to understand – wing dimensions, degree of flex of wings under load meeting certain thresholds – those aspects of the rules are too complicated to appreciate in the context of a race.

    For the first time in many years I am appreciating the skill of the drivers. No longer is the sport a “point and squirt” skill, it is necessary to coax the car to get the best lap time; balance power deliver through a corner to avoid wheel spin; deciding at what revs to change gear to get best traction.

    This does have relevance in everyday driving. How many of us brake at the last minute for a roundabout, instead of coming off the power 200m earlier (coasting) and then brake for better fuel efficiency?

    Finally – did chuckle at Luca’s comments on taxi driving. Many of the taxi’s I have been in around the world seem to have a death-wish!!

    1. Alex says:

      Agree, I don’t know how are the taxi drivers in Italy, but where I live the don’t care about anything but time and they are fearless. Now we can see many driver mistakes, I think that’s good.

  22. Brent says:

    Red Bull has to be one of the worst things to happen to F1 through it’s history. Constant complaining, no spending limits, no sportsmanship. I can’t wait until they pack up and go unbalance some other sport.

    I’d be so much more impressed if Newey had ever won when he didn’t have a huge budget. Let’s see him compete with Lotus’s or Force India’s financing and facilities.

    I agree with the “wag”; whatever a “wag” is.

    James, a whole article on Newey’s complaining and the naysayers and a little blurb at the bottom from the positive side. Hardly seems objective.

    1. James Allen says:

      It’s about Newey

      Balance from Symonds

      Many people wouldn’t have bothered with the Symonds bit

      1. IgMI says:

        Thanks for putting Symonds’ bit forward for the fans to consider. Much appreciated.

      2. Dave P says:

        James, you were there…what was shocking was not was what was said, but the body language between the three on the bottom row. Paddy looked VERY uncomfortable… Remi also unconfortable… How can FOM and the FIA (No FOTA anymore) standby and watch the sport be put into disrepute. Pat spoke with honesty as did Paddy. It know wonder FOTA could not survive… now we have old enemies Red Bull and Ferrari who left FOTA for oposing reasons banding together….

        They act like a bunch of kids… James can I ask, in the media room while this was going on, did you feel (and others) that this was a public display too far… damaging as Pat says in a ‘Ratna’way? and what was Adrian on about when refering to Pepsi and Coke???

      3. James Allen says:

        Not really, it was expected

        There is a lot of jostling going on behind the scenes at the moment in F1, as I wrote last week

        I think it has to do with uncertainty around the Bernie trial coming up and big players moving into position etc

        If he is convicted, then these guys will.get their elbows out..

  23. Seymour Quilter says:

    I don’t agree with Newey at all and in fact he would not be saying this if he had the Merc engine…

    F1 had to evolve with the times otherwise it will be dead in the water in 5 years…

    I am in my 40s and none of the younger people I know have watched F1 in the past 5 years, and we have had some great seasons! F1 needs to address this and the sooner the dinosaurs retire the better, F1 needs new blood to move it on into the 21st century!

  24. BigAl says:

    I am all in favour of exploring new technology, and making F1 a challenge for the drivers, but drivers having to coast to save fuel is a joke. F1 has lost it’s way. It is all about the spectacle, and the noise is part of that spectacle, and the fact that we are still talking about it, and TV commentators trying to convince themselves and us that this feeble sound is exciting, shows how bad things have become. I have been lucky enough to hear the V16 BRM driven in anger, that is how what is supposed to be the most technically advanced most challenging cars for the drivers to handle should sound. The present rules can be improved with a bit of imagination.

  25. David Hamilton says:

    James, I’ve just realised that there might be an article to be written on where performance gains have been found in F1 over the years: for instance that standardisation on the Cosworth V8 in the late 60s & 70s moved attention away from the engine – wings and ground effect appeared during that time.
    But then turbos arrived and design became -for a time – about weight distribution to get the power to the road.

    I was looking at the 1987 McLaren and was struck with how low it was – I assumed it must be to minimise the frontal area, in an era when there were strict fuel limits.

  26. Adam says:

    He would be singing a different tune if he was at the front

  27. Nick Hipkin says:

    I agree with Newey, road relevance is all well and good but look at the semi automatic paddle shift gearbox which was introduced 25 years ago and has still not made it into everyday road cars.

    As for things like ERS etc that F1 is now pioneering, if you plumped that in a ford focus you would be adding at least £50k-£75 to the price, the point is it will be another 20-30 years before road cars see the benefit of this so does F1 really need to go in this direction?

    1. Pat M says:

      Good lord, my sister’s 5 year old Chevy Malibu econobox has paddle shifters…….

      1. IgMI says:

        My 2008 Mazda 5 has an automatic gearbox that can be turned semi-automatic and back at any moment. I think that type of gearbox is standard on most Mazda cars these days (have to double-check, though).

        It does not have paddle shift and you have to change the gears with the gear stick (by pusing it back and forward to change gears up and down). However, I would not see why would adding paddles present any challenge to Mazda, or any car manufacturer, if people wanted it.

  28. SuffolkF1 says:

    Just another typical Red Bull outburst. When they’re winning, they’re happy to just plod along and dismiss other teams criticism of them. When they’re not the pacesetters, it’s all this rhetoric about “we shouldn’t be taking this direction with the new rules” for example.

    Rather than shouting his mouth off to the press, Newey should instead concentrate his efforts on doing what he is best at and is paid to do… get the best out of the car, the package and the engineers working for him. Whether he likes it or not, the simple fact of the matter is, that hybrids are the future of everyday motoring so as the pinnacle of engineering, Formula 1 is CORRECT to take the lead in this field.

  29. Jim:) says:

    Biggest mistake, was dropping the orignal ground effect aero rules, they would then have the downforce and the efficiency, and hopefully some better racing.

    Why the teams moned and dropped it, and whent for this half arsed aero formula.

  30. Jonathan C says:

    Well even if what he says is right, I suspect he wouldn’t be saying it he had a Mercedes engine in the back of his car. Glad I’m not working at the RedBull factory this year, morale can’t be that high with all this moaning from those in charge.

  31. Simon says:

    The new cars stink. This is formula lame.

    The safety car sounds better than these cars. It won’t last long though. TV ratings and race attendances will plummet.

    We must be positive about the new cars; you can’t polish a turd

  32. Jonathan says:

    I think you are wrong about Newey taking this position because Red Bull is on the back foot.

    That might have been true in testing but it is clear that they are on the way back. Don’t be surprised to see them winning many races soon.

    The simple fact is at the moment its not a formula of man and machine pushing the limits.

    Don’t get me wrong I think some of the new th is grate but not at the expense of out an out racing.

    How is it racing when teams go into fuel saving from Lap 1.

  33. Olivier says:

    I partly agree with Newey.

    If today’s F1 is all about the engine, then freezing engine development will freeze the competition. There’s no way Red Bull can catch up with Mercedes if the Renault engine can only be improved by making it more reliable.

    I hope Rosberg mounts a challenge this year. If not, we’re in for a very dull year. Hamilton is doing an exceptional good job in a complex car. My pre season judgment was wrong. Hamilton is fast & smart.

    1. IgMI says:

      I also don’t like engine development freeze. If that is a cost control measure it could be managed by setting up a cost cap. Ah, I should stop fooling myself that teams would be able to agree how to regulate it. Never mind.

  34. Ian H says:

    if Renault had brought a superior engine package this year giving Red Bull a huge advantage would Newey & Horner still be as negative about the new hybrid rules!

    1. Andre says:

      I think yes. Last year when they complained about the tires, they were already in front.

      And after Silverstone we all saw they were right to complain.

      1. Dave P says:

        And after they got the tyre change they asked for they went on to win 9 races in a row… so I fail to see your point..

      2. Andre says:

        It’s very simple.

        Ian H asks if RB would still complain if they had the huge advantage Mercedes has.

        I said I think they would.

        Last year they ‘ complained’ about the tires. Everyone was saying that they only complained because they were not winning, when in fact Vettel was already leading the Championship and already way before the pre season testing.

        And when we saw how ‘good’ those tires were in Silverstone, and Pirelli themselves asked to change them. It clearly showed that RB ‘complains’ where justified.

        And those who believe that the tires were changed because of RB complaining should think again.

        Also now, does anyone in their right mind really think that Ferrari and some other want the rules changed mid season?

  35. jambo says:

    I think the question comes down to a rather simple dilemma. Do we want a formula where engines / power units make the difference (like cars do) or an aero formula, that has zero relevance whatsoever… I can understand why Newey would be upset by the change as it certainly makes his aero team less relevant than it used to be. Personally i like the mix of cars with grunt vs cars with traction (like we have now) it reminds me of something we used to have in the past. We called it Formula One.

    1. dren says:

      Thank you! Exactly my thoughts, too.

    2. KRB says:

      Exactly right … it’s not called aerosport, it’s called motorsport!

      If Newey wants to, he can move to an aero-heavy formula called the America’s Cup. ;-)

    3. IgMI says:

      I would support additional changes that would further diminish the role of aerodynamics in F1.

      In addition to that, and looking further into the future what I would like F1 to start flirting with is: four wheel drive, electric breaks/motors in the wheels, low profile tires, turbo disel electrical hybrid powertrain. Noise optional.

  36. Spider-Man says:

    Stop moaning!
    You’ve had four seasons of what Mercedes have had in two races.
    Merc win two races and Horner and Newley are already crying about it. You can’t just opt to change the rules when things aren’t going your way.
    Let merc have their turn.

  37. M Gray says:

    For me Adrian Newey is spot on when it comes to the hybrid rules and I commend him for saying it. There is nothing wrong with questioning the direction of the sport and to be critical of him for being “negative” in my opinion is wrong. It is purely his opinion. It is only through questioning rules and opinions that we learn, adapt, and grow. It is because Adrian does question the rules, that Red Bull have had the success that they have had.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      a very sensible post and one that sums up what i said at the beginning.

  38. alx says:

    I have to agree with Newey. These things are good with sportscars and should be left to sportscars.
    To watch F1 drivers drive looking at the petrol gauge is so depressing.
    And another thing… is it not supposed to be a DRIVERS Championship? Radio comm should be banned altogether. Let the DRIVER make the decisions, technical and tactical. This way the smarter driver will shine through. Now they are just robots. Ok if you want robots then keep the constructors championships and scrap the individual championship.
    These robots do not deserve to stand alongside Fangio, Clark or Steward, or Lauda, great drivers and great strategists who did NOT need to be told what to do on the radio.

    1. Kevin says:

      Lewis went faster than Rosberg in the last race, using less fuel as well http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/formula1/26827898

      You’ll find the drivers being given information and instructions over team radio helps them to decide what they are going to do during a race. Also there is a rumour that the Mercedes power train does not need to do much in the way of fuel saving during a race, apparently to Alonso’s horror. Take with a large pinch of salt.

      As for Newey ? Sour grapes more than anything else. Had Renault produced an issue free Power train, Red Bull would be silent. F1 either changes with the times to stay relevant or it dies. Simple as that. The racing is a lot more interesting this year given the drivers have to manhandle the cars a lot more. It’s a test of their driving skills more so than the last few seasons.

      1. kenneth chapman says:

        wrong. drivers are largely puppets now. listen to the pit-to-car-to pit dialogue closely.

        ‘ watch the brakes, brake early, save fuel, coast and save, drop back to cool the car, cool the brakes, push, push, maintain the gap, who am i racing, can i pass, get him out of the way, get charlie to get him out of the way, he is faster than you, maintain delta, increase the gap, maintain the gap etc etc etc’.

        drivers simply are like chess pieces to be moved around at will with the driver expected to obey each and every direction.

        this is not RACING, this is a scripted play with expensive toys. only two drivers have kicked back recently, that i am aware of. kimi,famously and ricciardo who when told to maintain a 2 sec gap to the golden child decided that the request was spurious and possibly ill intentioned kept at it. that his tyres did not malfunction rather proved his point!

        i fully concur with newey’s outlook and refuse to join the mainstream chorus of ‘toys/pram’ singers because what he, newey, says makes a lot of sense. you want road relevance then the world endurance championship is the perfect platform for that.

    2. IgMI says:

      F1 is a team sport. There is a constructor and driver championship. The race is driven by both the driver and the pit wall.

      However, once the driver is taken out of equation or the importance of the driver drops below a certain threshold (which is completely subjective) I would stop watching. I am far, far, far from that still, though.

  39. Phil says:

    Obviously it’s far too late for Adrian’s comments to be constructive – he needed to make them when the rule changes were being decided. And equally obviously he’s smart enough to know that.

    So I agree with poster 3 (Nick Lynn) that there is a concerted campaign here to get the goalposts moved.

    I guess its success or failure will depend on Jean Todt, and on whether Bernie’s still in his post when the Strategy Group votes on it. But even if it fails it’ll give everyone something to talk about other than Bernie’s trial, and at just the right time too.

  40. Peter says:

    Hybrid technologies are the future whether we like it or not we cannot go backwards in time. F1 as the most advanced motor racing class must show good example, reducing Co2 and being more efficient is the name of the game and F1 simply can not be an island that is not effected by trends of economy, technology, environment etc. I loved the V8 and V10 even more, but that`s life, get over it and enjoy. Our kids and grand kids might not be that lucky.

  41. AlexD says:

    To me these words are the essence of what I want from F1 and no longer getting at all: “Formula One should be about excitement. It should be about man and machine performing at its maximum every single lap.”

    Be honest, we did not even remotely see anything like this in the first 2 races and instead it was all about saving fuel, engine, tires, etc.

    It is not F1.

  42. Jonathan says:

    Newey makes a lot of good points, but I have to say all this stuff about

    “efficiency, strategy etc, economy of driving, is very well placed for sportscars, which is a slightly different way of going racing.”

    and Montezemolo’s comments about “taxi drivers” seem to ignore that drivers have been forced to conserve fuel for the past few seasons (basically since refueling was banned). And yes, combined with having to save tyres it has made the racing a bit boring at times, but the strategic aspect has always been a part of F1 and I didn’t hear too many people complaining last year.

    Also on the cost issue, F1 teams will always spend as much money as they can get trying to improve performance. If they weren’t spending it on engine technology they would spend it on aerodynamics; at least the former may have some relevance to the real world.

    Finally, there should be a consensus that any changes to the rules should not come into effect until next season at the soonest. It’s simply not fair to change the goal posts mid season when some teams have optimized their cars for the current regulations. Mercedes should be allowed to reap the rewards of a job well done, as Ferrari and Red Bull have in the past.

  43. Paul Barker says:

    Just because he’s not winning Newey has spat the dummy out.didn’t seem bothered when the sport was being killed by Red Bull last season with Vettel’s run of wins.

  44. Trebor157 says:

    One must remember there are only 2 works teams, Ferrari and Mercedes all others are chassis builders and fit a supplied kit PU.
    Since I have been a F1 fan for the last 60 years, Mercedes have always been in and out of the sport from way back in Fangio days.
    If they felt that other teams were forcing a change of regs to suit themselves, Mercedes may decide to walk away, which would leave just 14 teams on the grid. No Hamilton, Rosberg, Button, Massa. I think circuit promoters and TV stations might just then give up on F1. So it’s down to the teams if F1 survives.

    Jiffy23

  45. Richard Piers says:

    They’re spoiled brats, when everything isn’t going their way the toys exit the pram, and it’s amazing what people will say, and how rude they can be, if they’re paid enough.
    What is the relevance of the ridiculous aerodynamics that absorb staggering sums of money. The basic requirements for road cars (stability and low drag) and how to satisfy them have been known for very many years.
    All of these people have known about and agreed to these changes and their repercussions for several years.
    Instead of wasting nearly 70% of the output of the fuel, that cannot change significantly, the current designs reclaiming heat lost to cooling and exhaust will show worthwhile improvements.
    The current “gobbing” by people who really ought to know better is doing far more to damage F1 than temporary loss of a bit of lap time and a change in noise levels.

  46. Eddie Hard says:

    Overall the changes are good for the F1 Sport. It always was the leader in Technology. The small problems of ie engine noise is to my mind an easy fix if this was an issue. The old cars were very noisy so perhaps currently its a step forward.
    I am amazed how much the power unit makes and with increased torque. As battery energy gets even better smaller engines can be made as the duty cycle of the engine is reduced..
    I suppose a relative 1000 HP with a 1 liter engine withe a 25 % duty cycle could develop 400 HP. This could reduce weight as batteries get lighter per joule output.
    Another thing as most of the public relate to lbft, HP etc.
    The commentators should explain that a joule is a watt second and relate this to HP to educate us all.

    Hope this helps

    1. IgMI says:

      I agree, Eddie. Fans do need to make an effort to catch up with the new technology and the commentators and journalists should do more there to help out.

  47. Steven says:

    I tend to agree with Newey. From a technical point of view strictly, what have the the new changes benefited in regards to going green and reducing costs? Minimal benefits if any if you weigh up the costs involved. As he said the costs are higher than in previous years and the weight of the cars have increased. The fuel limitations are beneficial for going green but detrimental for racing. Ask yourself this question..when last did you see a f1 race that was full of raw racing, head to head sustained racing?

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      exactement mon ami a bloody long time ago.

      1. Steven says:

        lol..looks like this weekend changed everything. Lets hope the racing displayed at Bahrain is a sign of what`s to come for the rest of the season.

  48. Phil R says:

    Interesting that Newey said that they had nothing new this weekend when Renault have arrived with brand new engines for their Red Bull teams….

    James, how does a whole new engine fit into the engine allocations for the year. Will the sub standard ones from the first 2 races be upgraded, or used at tracks that are not too demanding on the engines in the future?

    1. James Allen says:

      Mainly for Friday practice I guess

  49. Red Rider says:

    If a neutral observer on a scale of ten is a ten, Newy is a one.

    He might be right about some details, but for all the wrong reasons.

    Also, Mercedes, Renault, and next year Honda, all might not be in the F1 sand box playing if there had not been major changes to the motors.

    It would then be Formula Cosworth.

  50. audifan says:

    I am amazed at newey , perhaps I shouldn’t be as aero is his bag
    but F1 relies largely on money from sponsors who will disappear if the vehicle manufacturers pull their investment ; and why would the manufacturers continue if the technology has no relevance to their road product …where they are under increasing and continuous pressure to achieve certain targets
    whether or not F1 is ‘greener ‘ is irrelevant …it’s the broader picture that is important

  51. Andy says:

    Newy made some valid points in the Press Conference, but he came across very much as though his view was the right one and the only one that counted. Further more, he didn’t answer the actual questions that were asked either.

  52. Neal says:

    Last year Red Bull moaned, and whinged, and shouted and eventually got the tyres changed, which boosted them and harmed many other teams.

    Looks like they are trying again with the fuel flow – I hope to God that the FIA holds firm.

    1. Gaz Boy says:

      It was actually Renault and Adrian that pushed for a V6 turbo instead of the original idea of having a 1.6 litre straight 4 turbo as Adrian complained that an inline 4 would require a bulky space-frame to carry the engine, where as a V6 could be used a stressed member, like the V8s.
      So Adrian gets his V6………..and he still complains! Damned if you do…….damned if you don’t!

    2. Rockie says:

      This I have yet to get my head around or is it people don’t think anymore before they type?

      “Last year Red Bull moaned, and whinged, and shouted and eventually got the tyres changed, which boosted them and harmed many other teams.”

      So for argument sake Redbull asked for more durable tyres and they go it, how did that affect others?
      What that shows simple is that others lucked into performance on the less durable tyres as if you car is good on durable tyres it would be better!

      1. Neal says:

        This I have yet to get my head around or is it people don’t think anymore before they type?

        If you change the construction of the tyre, you change more than just it’s durability. You change how easy/hard it is to generate heat, for example. It’s not a question of ‘lucking into performance on the less durable tyres’ it’s about having a better understanding of the tyres, and then having the goalposts shifted mid-season.

  53. AJ says:

    RB really don’t like it when they aren’t out in front do they.
    Same as the whining about tyres last year.

    I’m happy for the technology changes, it’s good for the sport and tech to shake thing up a bit. Personally I couldn’t have watched another year of Vettel running around by himself up front.

    Absolutely hate it when drivers are coasting through. Creating a tyre/fuel management world championship is the fasted way to loose fans. We do need to be careful that the new rules don’t take us there.

  54. Cynic says:

    “Red Bull gives you Whinges”!

    Would we really be hearing this if Red Bull (and Ferrari) were winning! I think not.

  55. Kenneth M'Boy says:

    I think Newey speaks a truth, this technology is perfect for sportscars. It fits into what we want in a road car that allows us to save a bit of money on fuel so we can afford groceries or save extra money to take the kids on holidays.

    But Formula One to me is not this, it is man and machine at its peak. It is Ferrari, it is McLaren, it is what made men like Ken Tyrell and Jack Brabham fight tooth and nail to victory. It is Senna, Gilles Villeneuve and Jochen Rindt proving to the world that they are the greatest ever and the most fearless by having their own lives taken away from the hard charging sport that they love. It is Mansell not backing down at Barcelona and overtaking on the outside at Mexico. It is Schumacher on a 3 stop strategy. It is a wonderful season such as 2010 where Alonso and Webber showed how real men lose and Vettel proved that titles only go to the most ambitious.

    Formula One is passion, and while there is some competition this year and a sense of relief that a great team like Williams is showing competitive signs, it appears to be a demonstration of cars on parade amongst the front runners. There is a definite lack of passion.

    I honestly feel that watching real Formula One is watching an onboard lap with Senna in a McLaren before semi automatic gearboxes. It is a master display and the fastest Formula One was before Formula Boring really started to rear it ugly head. Even Senna’s onboard laps in a semi automatic don’t really appeal. Now it is cars going efficiently fast around very smooth tracks with lots of run off areas that are also very smooth. Oh and whats this? can’t prove you are a worthy racer and overtake using real skill, then just press this DRS button. Where is the danger and the thrill? Where is the passion? Where have the heroes gone?

    Fortunately there is a very promising element currently in F1 that is exciting and that is the new chargers proving the top crop better watch out. To Ricciardo, Hulkenberg, Bottas, Kyvatt, Magnussen and Vergne as well, I say thank you. A drivers ambition will always bring out the flames of adrenaline no matter how devoid of passion these current cars are. These cars are efficiently interesting to me, nothing more.

  56. Dr Lewis says:

    Thing is though…

    Regardless of your views on relevance, I can’t help thinking that all this work and development is undertaken in another long established formula. In fact several. To the extent that it has far more manufacturers involved.

    (I am an engineer and bluntly the cross over of current F1 technology to your car is hugely insignificant – most has already been done and to suggest that the millions spent on improving the technology will help cars of the future is ridiculous. I imagine much of the work is involved in getting steady state energy transfer to work within the instant delivery requirements and managing the heat created in doing so – how does that relate to your Prius?)

    Single seater, open wheel, slick and wings – call it what you like, it was about racing and who can do so the best.

    Yes there was some strategy, tyre considerations and all of the current considerations but these were in the background and rarely did they create situations where the fastest racers could never ever drive at their best.

    The one aspect I agree with Newey on is whether this has created a perfect platform that blurs the difference between the truly fast/skilled – whatever you prefer, and the ‘average’ racers…

    To my mind as a 30 year enthusiast and former club and national champion, add some additional fuel delivery maximum, keep the aero under control, give them some single compound tyres that work, dump DRS and let’s go racing…

    Oh and yes I actually have enjoyed watching the drivers get their heads around these slightly wilder less aero efficient cars because at least it looks like they are working for the money and the truly skilled racer rather than computerised play station genius is coming to the fore…

    Just my thoughts.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      and in the main, thoughts that i fully agree with. well said.

  57. Steve Clark says:

    I can’t help viewing the criticism from Luca, Adrian and Christian with a large amount of cynicism. I feel certain that if Renault or Ferrari had built an engine that was winning races we would not be hearing this from them.

  58. BrumCar says:

    This part I agree with 100%
    “From a sporting point of view, to me, efficiency, strategy etc, economy of driving, is very well placed for sportscars, which is a slightly different way of going racing. Formula One should be about excitement. It should be about man and machine performing at its maximum every single lap.”

    1. IgMI says:

      Can somebody define the “maximum” for me, please?

      Because, I can think of several definitions and each of those, when applied, would make significantly different Formula Ones.

      I think you always have to perform to the maximum if you wish to be ahead of others. The problem is when one team’s maximum is much higher then maximums of most of the other teams, which causes one team to dominate. That may be seen as boring for many fans and it may happen this year. I am normally fight that by looking at the whole grid, not just the leader.

  59. PaulD says:

    I lost a lot of respect for Pat Symonds after the Piquet affair but that’s a few times recently I’ve noted his sensible, balanced comments. Newley was always going to gripe that F1 in 2014 is biased toward the power unit so it’s hardly a surprise.

    1. foreverf1 says:

      Pat Symonds is a very capable and outstanding engineer but he put a driver’s life at risk to save his neck and their program. Piquet could have been badly hurt or worse yet, killed. He should be banned from the sport. Period.

      1. PaulD says:

        He served a ban and expressed his regret over the incident and if a well respected figure like Sir Frank Williams is happy to give him a second chance then I am too.

  60. foreverf1 says:

    I can’t wait to have these new power units on my Kia. I already know how to lift and coast. Doesn’t everyone?

    When do you guys think it will be available?

  61. Ace says:

    F1 has never been about flat out racing all the time, regardless of what people may think. If you’re that interested in flat out racing, go watch GP2 please
    Noise in F1 is a by-product, always has been. Nobody came to F1 to take part or to watch because of the noise. They came for the whole experience, part of which they were given ear defenders to stop going deaf. The sound was just a banshee shriek which appeals to me too, but that’s not to say this noise is rubbish, it’s more interesting than the wail from the older engines, just needs a bit more volume but i don’t really care if that’s not possible.
    A lot of people within have lately been bashing the sport, who have received much from the sport and now are shunning it because it adapts to the current world. Yes there are some contradictions like cost and complications for the fans, but if some of us are really that non-technical minded, they should really go watch truck racing or an egg and spoon race. Harsh but true, if I am an enthusiast of the sport, I would make it a part to understand it’s facets rather than sit there like a monkey.
    Regarding Adrian Newey’s comments…if he’s as influential as is claimed, surely it would make more sense if he levelled his comments at Renault F1 who pretty much blackmailed the FIA into bringing these rules otherwise Renault F1 would leave the sport.
    Do not give me any arguments about fuel saving, lift coasting, short-shifting because it’s been there since the dawn of f1, it’s just now being made into a mountain out of the historical mole-hill. Slow times? the times based off 3 tracks is 3 seconds slower than last year and the engineers think they can make up that time.

    Rant over :)

    1. IgMI says:

      No rants from me, Ace, I agree with you, short of the “harsh” stuff :-)

      On the point of noise, I can see how some fans see that as the most powerful and immediate impact of an on-track experience. However, the sound alone does not make the whole experience. And, BTW, I like the new sounds (intentionally plural as I can hear more of them now).

  62. AdamJ says:

    I love the new tech and enjoyed watching the cars trackside in Melbourne. Yeah the races have been a bit boring but face it, they always were 80% of the time.

    I have huge respect for Newey but I think he is letting the race results cloud his thinking IMHO. I hope he wasn’t the guy who decided to stick with Renault instead of jumping to Merc ;-)

  63. Ward Hargreaves says:

    I’ve watched the new Formula with interest and find myself asking the question, “When did Al Gore take over the FIA?” At this pace next year’s Formula will mandate catalytic converters for the “power unit” and Depends for the drivers! This year’s attempt at having us view a pack of hopped-up Toyota Prius’ is NOT Formula One racing and I have a lawn mower that sounds more racy! This is definitely not the “balls to the wall” race cars we have come to expect from this formula. Disappointed and bored by this hugely expensive under achievement…

  64. richardc says:

    newey takes some beating I,ll give him that!! Both Horner and Newey are critical of all aspects of the new F1. In fact I cannot think of anyone in the pit lane more vocal. I think they are doing the team or their chances any favours. Newey is supposed to be some sort of God in f1 and yet his over the top packaging is causing major issues. I am bored of their constant winging and rule streching, if you can,t stand the heat, GET OUT OF THE KITCHEN!!

  65. Leslie D'Amico says:

    don’t remember this argument being made by anybody but the fans when all of this was in the planning stages, now that it doesn’t seem as appealing as they thought it would be to the public Newey and company are trying to distance themselves from it. hypocrites all…

  66. Brace says:

    I just don’t understand how someone can support Red Bull. They must be really new to the sport, so just picked a team and aren’t really too deeply invested in what’s really going on in the paddock and which team has which attitude.
    I mean, without exaggeration, I’ve never despised a team like I despise Red Bull, and I’ve been following F1 since 93. Ferrari was disgusting with their politicking back in the early 2000s but it was still not close to the public mouthing off we hear from Red Bull on a daily basis, as soon as some little thing doesn’t go their way.

  67. Gordon says:

    Newey is exactly right. Hybrid technology is marketed as “green”, but if all factors are considered, a “normal” internal combustion engine is better in the short to medium term and “greener”. By “greener” in this context means as smaller “carbon foot print”.

  68. jmv says:

    Shame Ross Brawn wasn’t sitting on that press conference…

    As architect of Mercedes dominance he would have grinned at Newey’s negative attitude :-)

  69. Fareed says:

    “Why is it that the people who make the most most money in this sport are the ones so vehemently criticising it?”
    Simple- because they want to make MORE

  70. Rohan says:

    Newey is just a [mod]

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      what a lovely post that is?

    2. James Allen says:

      Don’t darken the door of this site again. There is no place at all for posts like this one. Apologies that it slipped through mod first time – [Mod]

  71. Sp says:

    I kind of agree with newey, esp with regards to how non green etc these new engines are. Ok it’s a step but like these electric road cars it’s still using fossil fuel.

    Maybe if genuinely serious about being green they should go down the hydrogen engine route. I remember seeing it on top gear. Think honda developed it?

    Oh and don’t get me started on formula e

    Excuse my little rant

  72. sunny stivala says:

    Looks like/sounds like a carbon copy of the original tyre construction crusade of 2013.
    Push here, pull there, squeeze here, scream some more and chances are changes might be made that will suit us best!

  73. Martin (England) says:

    If you cant stand the heat get out of the kitchen, time for Newey to retire and go and design a boat or something, there are plenty of young guns coming through to take his place, he has had his time.

  74. Van says:

    Shame. I would expect better from Newey.

    Deep down we all know that F1 technology has very little relevance to road cars, but the previous regulations dominated by aerodynamics were even worse in this regard.

    1. kenneth chapman says:

      that was simply because of the ridiculous engine freeze adopted by the FIA. where else could the cars be developed?

      freezing development in what should be a development series is stupid in the extreme…is it not?

      1. James Allen says:

        No because without it you would have an arms race and only rich teams would survive

        It would kill the middle sized and small teams

      2. kenneth chapman says:

        james, how could the FIA and F1 in general claim that F1 was the ‘pinnacle’ of motorsport when development of the engine was frozen?

        maybe some of the middle teams would have suffered, so what? if they can’t afford to be competetive they shouldn’t be there. does stifling technical development contribute anything to the racing?

        as for the ‘small’ teams, well i sometimes question why they are there at all? when cars are being lapped continuously what can they actually bring to the table. i would far prefer to see eight three car teams where the quality of the cars would provide for more competetive racing at a lesser cost. can you name any backmarker team that has, based on their own strengths, made it to the top or even the middle to high range as i can’t.

  75. JOdum5 says:

    Hard to think much of Red Bull and their management when they react this way. I highly doubt they’d be complaining so much if they were winning. Don’t see why journalists don’t make that the story.

  76. Tim B says:

    It’ll be interesting to see what happens. The FIA has shown itself in recent times to be susceptible to this kind of orchestrated pressure – e.g. with the tyre change last year.

    There is clearly a vocal group of fans who don’t like the rules and/or the spectacle, and Newey, Horner, et al will no doubt be playing to those people as much as they can.

    Personally I like what I’ve seen of the racing so far. The cars move around and have more torque than grip, which makes for a bigger emphasis on car control. If the FIA can resist pressure to change things, we’ll see how it pans out once the teams have got on top of all the variables.

  77. JC says:

    I always said that Current regs are for sportscars. However this won’t change so better get on it … No way back…

  78. Simple Simon says:

    Why didn’t they just shorten the races to save fuel (and a set of tyres?)?

  79. CT says:

    I have only skimmed the comments on this article, forgive me if I repeat.

    I saw Toto Wolff’s comments regrading this and I believe he is spot on. Who is complaining? Ferrari and RBR; no surprise they are the two works (preferred in RBRs case) teams, who have not done the job that Merc has done. They are embarrassed by how badly Merc has jumped them on the new formula and rather than put their heads down and do better, they are deriding the sport. Wolff said as much in his comments; something to the effect of don’t complain about the sport, rather take a look in the mirror.

    Fans want to believe the formula is doing the sport harm. What is really harming the sport is the cynicism shown by some of the biggest players, when they are not in a leading position. Ferrari have shown for years now that they are inept at building and developing a top car. RBR chose to pile on and destroy the field last season, while Merc went about getting ready for this season. These teams need to look in the mirror when they are not getting the job done, rather than deriding the sport and the new formula. I expect this from Ferrari, but am disappointed that Newey has gone down this road. He is one of the class acts of the sport. My opinion on him has definitely changed because of this.

  80. David says:

    I RBR should break there engine (power unit) contract and and get a Mercedes unit and i think everyone would be a little happier at RBR.

  81. Ryan says:

    In Indycar… Their cars have powerful engines that are a rival to F1(not talking about economy, I’m talking about a proper RACING engine, the thing you never hear about in f1 now). I don’t know about laptimes yet…. But they’re really not far off and this becomes embarrassingly apparent when you consider that they spend maybe 10% of the budget of an average F1 team. $20 million. Granted, F1 is better in every way, especially finesse of details and aero.

  82. ferggsa says:

    Some general thoughts:

    Noise.
    Do I like it?, yes. Is it essential to F1? I would say no, and besides it dont seem like the V6s are mute anyway
    Will it drive fans away from the track? No more than expensive tickets

    DRS
    I dont like artificial devices in principle, but given present aerodynamics, it is the least worst option to no passing at all, and having faster drivers held up by slower ones
    Besides, I think us fans have an idea where drivers just push a button and fly past, but there are many variables involved, and is not that straightforward
    Second option is to cut even further on wings and allow for closer racing

    Tracks
    Want more fans on track? Have cheap races close to larger fan base. I cant fly to Bahrein and pay for plane, hotel plus tickets, only affluent Europeans, Aussies and Japanese can. Locals probably dont go on track in India, Korea, etc., because tickets are too expensive, not because they dont like F1

    Fans
    Just like the teams, we can not agree on everything, so even with the mother of all polls someone suggested, there will always be different opinions
    The powers that be should listen, and we have become more vocal, but in the end they (FIA) should decide whats best

    Speed
    Someone already proved speed is relative. If the car is doing 280 or 320 you cant tell from trackside or on the TV screen. The new cars are faster on straights and slower on corners than the previous ones, so what?
    The main thing is that they are driven to their full potential, not how fast they are actually going

    Race management
    In the old days drivers had to manage tyres, fuel, engine, gearbox or they broke. Now they have to do it for imposed conditions: degrading tyres, fuel limits, but end result is similar, otherwise it would be racing for 1, 2 laps then follow each other for 50 laps, more so when cars speed is largely defined by the teams budget

    I do think, regardless of strategic decisions, drivers should be able to push closer to the cars limit
    Having less driveable cars, like these new ones seem to be, is one of the few elements that add to the sport and the show

    Sport or Show
    FIAs thoughest job is to regulate a sport that provides a good show. Some of us like the sport more, regardless of the show conditions, others want a better show, regardless of the fairness of it
    And on top it has to do it with by dealing with state of the art technology, so who has the best solution? Todt, Bernie, Newey, Random, Goferet? Hell, not even James Allen has it

    Bernie
    Like most dictators, Bernie was great when he started and he singlehandedly put a little known elite sport into worlwide TVs, but he should move over soon for the sports sake

    F1 bosses crying
    I find it hard to believe that Mr Todt decided on his own to change the rules and Bernie, Luca et al had no idea what would happen
    There are tech commitees, sporting commitees, commercial commitees and a now defunct FOCA where they should have voiced their opinions beforehand, not after 3 years of development and manufacturing

    Of course it is difficult to agree with your competitors, but if they dont even try, then they have to live with whatever the rules say, however awkward they may be

    RedBull
    When RB started I was a big fan, I liked the spirit and the fact that they were giving the big boys a run for their money
    They became successful on merit and I admire that, but in a few years they have become more arrogant and ruthless than the worst ever from Ferrari

    Threathening to quit, to leave Renault, to blast the present rules sounds to me like very poor spotsmanship, and even, a bad business decision, they might end up with Bernie cutting down on their money, Renault refusing to supply engines, FIA not listening to their opinions, and even fans not buying drinks

    Pardon the long speech but it is a long time before the race starts

  83. Simon says:

    Firstly, if people want to wax lyrical about the “green footprint” as it were then they might like to consider less fly away races and spend more time racing in europe. The carbon cost of getting the cars and teams to a venue most likely exceeds all the running done during that weekend by ALL the cars involved, including the support races. But that aside there is some relevance of reducing the engine size “for the benefit of road going cars” since most people don’t own cars running 2.4 litre V8 engines. I like the new turbo plants, I like the new engine note and noise as I can now hear what else is happening. I know many people like the thunder of an F1 race and if thre are ways to increase the decibel output of the new power trains while retaining the ability to hear the screech of tires as Sebastian Vettel spins out at turn 3 then I’m all for it.
    Mr Newey is a fantastically talented designer and engineer, I think this year he’s done his job as always. Construct the most aerodynamically tight package around and engine and the bloke in front of it. However his plan doesn’t seem to be working well yet, the engine suppliers have let him down, he has under estimated the cooling requirements of the new power plants, the loss of grip at the rear wheels and the list goes on.
    He is famous for finding the areas of greatest “greyness” within the tech regs and fully exploiting them, blown diffusers, off throttle diffusers, engine maps etc. This year he seems to have missed one of the biggest early season advantages because it has nothing to do with the aero package. I think Mercedes using splitting the turbo components up is a frankly breathtakingly simple idea that no one has ever considered before (to my knowledge). Whats more it’s an advantage his team will NEVER have this season since the power trains are homologated and I don’t think even Renault could convince they need to move theirs. Sour grapes indeed…

  84. gaza says:

    Newey is making himself sound like a sore loser and, like he said its nice to see different teams winning. Stop moaning like a knob jockey “adrian” and design a better car. You can’t just change the rules because your not winning anymore rbr and Ferrari. Get used to losing

  85. The Gastropod says:

    Anyone who thinks that motor racing is simply about thrashing round as fast as you can has little or no understanding of what is going on. For example, Mr Newey’s complaints about tyres last year worked a treat. Pirelli we forced to change the makeup of the tyres for one which “coincidentally” suited Red Bull better and Hey Presto!, no more complaints from Messrs. Newey, Horner and Mateschitz and Red Bull won all the rest of the races, Big surprise….
    You won’t find Adrian Newey et al complaining about the rules if Red Bull are at the front of the grid. Throughout the history of Grand Prix racing, politics and rule bending have been as important as going fast. Remember the Williams with “water-cooled” brakes and the Brabham (then owned by a certain Mr Ecclestone) “fan” car to name just two. Both were later deemed to be outside the rules.
    Fuel economy is nothing new either – remember Jack Brabham running out of fuel a hundred yards from the end of the 1959 US Grand Prix thus handing Bruce McLaren his first F1 victory. If Brabham had driven with a lighter throttle he would have finished in the points and still won his Championship.
    The same is true of tyre wear. In many races over the years, not just in recent times, the result have been strongly influenced by tyre wear, The driver capable of being kinder to his tyres winning or finishing higher than the others. This is as true of Fangio and Ascari or Senna and Prost as it is of the current batch of drivers.
    As regards noise, how many of the complainants have actually been to a race and heard the current cars and so compared them to previous years? Not very many! They are still noisy but not as dangerously loud as the last few years. Not having to wear ear protection is surely a plus. Volume is not necessarily good…..
    So let’s all grow up a bit and see what is going on for what it really is. The racing is as good as ever and the best team/driver combination will win; just as it did in 1950 with Farina winning for Alfa Romeo and so on all through the years. At least we don’t kill three drivers every season any more!!

    G

  86. Richard says:

    Just like last years tyres, when it doesn’t suit RBR, it is all horribly wrong!

  87. Narshe says:

    I am so tired of people saying the new rules are producing boring racing. WE ARE TWO RACES INTO THE SEASON!!! There have always been some boring races and some exciting races, just like in any sport. If you don’t like it, then please stop threatening to stop watching F1. Just stop watching it, and stop whining.

  88. Steve JR says:

    They are all just like children once you take away their shiny toys. In this case, the trophy cabinet has a bit of dust in it for Red Bull, while Ferrari need a cleaner to sort there’s out.

    Clearly we would not be hearing any complaints from Newey if the bulls were mopping up the silverware as they got used to. But thanks to a changing formula, we get new stories to talk about as other teams get to shine.

    I think secretly we’d all got rather bored of the weekly wagging finger that made racing about as predictable as the weekly trip to the supermarket.

    Having said all that, as a fan, F1 should always be about being on the edge – it should strive to constantly pay homage to its roots where drivers had to extract the maximum from the car at all times. If it’s all about tyre management and fuel consumption then it’s not really racing on the edge is it?

  89. Nige says:

    I do wonder about the logic of using hybrid engines to reduce fuel consumption and CO2 and then run the race at night using huge amounts of electricity.

  90. Fabian says:

    Why cant they develop hydrogen fueled engines instead of this “green” electric power

  91. Luke says:

    I’m dumbfounded by Newey’s comments here and it reeks of self interest and crying over spoilt milk.

    This is the very man who loves ‘a chalenge’ and prefers F1 to be at the pinacle of technology, which is finally is this year.

    Even my colleagues who don’t follow F1 are suddenly interested in this new formula, and they think the noise is different and not rediculously loud and irrelevant.

    Newey’s attitude reflects, sadly, all of those at Red Bull these days and their belief that they are bigger than the sport. Winning changes you, and it certainly did for Red Bull. The cheek to even threaten to punt Renault, who were a masive force in all of Red BUll’s championships thanks to their V8 and exhaust trickery, demonstrates that.

    It also re-affirms my belief that the teams, and idiots like Ecclestone, should never, EVER, be given power over the sport. That is exactly what governing bodies are for. There is just too much dirty self interest and prejudice within that old guard in the paddock (Ecclestone, Luca, Horner et al), and I certainly hope they are marginalized in the near future as this isn’t the 1960s anymore…

  92. Colin says:

    Well, Bahrain was hardly boring with overtaking all round the track from No 1 to No 22 from start to finish. Brilliant stuff. Not much sign of taxi racing either. No wonder BE and LDM slunk away before the end.

    As for the Red Bull and Ferrari, well they have just got it wrong. Just like 2009 when Brawn got a march on the rest.

    The fact that Lewis moved to Merc for 2013 shows that in mid 2012 Mercedes had an engine design idea that was going to revolutionise the power unit.

    It will be interesting to see if Honda have a similar design.

    And perhaps Volvo should join in – the new V60 184bhp diesel EU figures are 99gm/km. Amazing.

  93. Scott D says:

    It does appear to be a case of sour grapes. Current winners rarely cricise regulations so strongly. Had he said all this pre-testing I might have given his comments more credence, but now I just think Newey is ruing the lack of fruits of his labours with what may have been a championship winning car with a Mercedes donkey in the back.

  94. crank1 says:

    Newey made some fair statements about 2014 regulation changes.. The teams running in front row won’t be supporting the so called negativity, RBR or ferrari or Lotus is having.. F1 racing for an average spectator is all about intense comepetition from start to finish, Cars running full on, Drivers demonstrating the pedal to metal stuff through out.. Now, it has reached to a level that the 95% of viewers who are not falling in the technical expert category started to feel there is some thing going wrong with the game and few of them are switiching back.

    Fuel saving, fuel efficient cars, Technology example for road cars all are good but why should F1 racing be a proving ground for these. Let the manufacturers do the R&D for road cars on there own.. IMO the regulatories are trying to redifine the word Flat-out-Racing when it comes to Formula 1..

    Hopefully, the fuel limit regulation and exhaust decibel tweaking will be in consideration by teams, while F1 racing will get back the level where ** speed will be a critical measure of success not fuel saving..!! Saying that,, Bahrain GP an was just awesome.

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