FIA boss Jean Todt on F1 as entertainment and the red line on engine technology
Innovation
Jean Todt
Posted By: James Allen  |  08 Mar 2017   |  5:39 pm GMT  |  225 comments

FIA president Jean Todt has said that a return to F1 of high revving V8, V10 or V12 engines would not be accepted by society, setting out the FIA’s stall when it comes to negotiations with Liberty Media over future power units beyond 2020.

At the same time he acknowledged that “motor sport.. did not adapt enough” to the revolution that has happened in social media and entertainment, but which he now expects to be rectified by Liberty.

Asked whether he would accept to go back to V8 or V12 engines for entertainment purposes, as has been suggested in some quarters and by many fans, Todt said,

“It will not be accepted by society. Again we have a responsibility to run an organisation monitored by global society. And global society will not accept that. I’m sure if you said, ‘let’s go back to engines from ten years back’, a lot of manufacturers would not support [that] any more. I’m sure you would have a minimum of three out of four who would leave.”

That said, he does accept that F1 needs to be more entertaining and to create more fascination. The new chassis regulations this year are one step on that road, but Todt’s former employee Ross Brawn is now in charge of the racing side of things at F1 and discussions have already begun on long term planning for what the F1 product should be.

“I think entertainment has always been a priority,” he said. “What has changed is the way to entertain. But not only in sport, our lives are more or less [the same] – for people like you it has been a revolution.

Jean Todt, Michelle Yeoh

“All communication – clearly and I think probably [that] will be one of the values of the new Formula One commercial rights owner. He has the expertise, he has those things. I am not an expert but I am surrounded by people who know much more than me. But, take my wife, she is in movies and now movies go to Netflix. A new movie doesn’t go to a theatre any more, it goes to Netflix [and] 180 countries immediately have access to the thing.

“So it is a revolution, and probably in motor sport we did not adapt enough the evolution to this revolution.”

When it comes to the current engine formula of hybrid turbo engines, these have been confirmed until 2020. But Todt says that when plotting the course beyond,the stakeholders need to address costs as one of the key elements, something that was overlooked last time, to the detriment of smaller teams like Marussia, Manor and Caterham. Ross Brawn has also made a lot of this point.

Even Sauber came close to folding as it wrestled with engine bills of $20 million a year. Todt admits that the governing body has to accept some responsibility for not controlling costs.

Ross Brawn

“I don’t think you can say we are locked (in to 2020) but we know that stability is essential, firstly, to have as much competition as possible, and then to protect the investment,” said Todt. “You cannot invest in new technology every year, it will not be affordable and we already complain about the cost of motor racing, the cost of Formula One, which is for me absurd.

“It’s really something we need to fight and so far we did not manage to bring a solution and I’m happy to take part of the responsibility of the governing body. But saying that, it is not easy because you need to share. For me I’ve always liked to get a certain solidarity when you take decisions.”

As F1’s new owners, the FIA and the teams consider what the F1 of the future should be, there is a school of thought that it should now diverge from the automotive industry that has pulled it into hybrid turbo engines and instead follow its own path as a global sporting entertainment. As the automotive products become increasingly electrified, Formula E looks the more likely laboratory for the automotive technology in motorsport. Todt is not so sure.

“At the moment Formula One has nothing to be compared to Formula E,” he says. “One costs an average of €350m a year, the other one costs €10m or so. [That’s] the first big difference. Then the location is different.

“Formula E is probably the championship that has been the most advanced in communicating and in attracting new fans. But clearly I think, which is a good thing, we have quite a nice range of categories of motor sports.”

What do you make of this development? Leave your comments in the section below

Featured Innovation
INNOVATION BRIEFING
Share This:
Posted by:
Category:

Add comment

E-mail is already registered on the site. Please use the login form or enter another.

You entered an incorrect username or password

Sorry, you must be logged in to post a comment.

225 comments

by Oldest
by Best by Newest by Oldest
1

A large proportion of 'society' don't give two hoots about F1 . That's fine. For those of us who do we may want a louder engine. I'm no expert but I'm sure some clever people could come up with some louder more efficient engines? Bernie was quite happy to pay for some to be developed. But he's out of a job so I'll shut up.

2

I don't want a louder engine. OK... I watch on TV, that's how most people following F1 watch most of it, so the volume is not much of an issue. Subjectively I quite like the sound of the current PUs - it's throaty, deep. I like that.

If the noise changed, it wouldn't be a big deal. What would be is that they'd abandoned marvellous engines that are reaching very high levels of thermal efficiency and that show a way forward to cleaner, more efficient road cars.

It would be a shame if F1 lost that, and I hope the new commercial rights holder does what the previous owners should have done and highlight these remarkable feats of engineering.

3

The motor racing world could perhaps take a leaf out of the aeromodelling fraternity when it comes to making a loud noise. In recent years increasingly models have been powered by electric motors, and whereas an electric motor running at turbine speeds may well suit a jet engined model it doesn't fill well in a Lancaster bomber. The answer adopted by some modellers is to install loudspeakers that emit a piston engine sound. Perhaps F1 should follow this example?

4

The generations have turned now, look forward to Ocon, Verstappen and Wherlein. Ross Brawn steering the ship for technical direction, all's well.

5

Louder engines are less efficient engines. Noise, like heat, is wasted power. The most efficient engine will run cool and quietly.

6

Yawn Yawn. The pinnacle of motor sport is not watching vacuum cleaner sounding cars with bicycle wheels.

7

can you please substantiate that claim...

8

Quercus, You are right, the trick is that I don't pay to see and hear efficinecy I pay to see and hear brutal horspower and speed.

9

Well said, the cars need to sound more brutal, in person they just don't sound the same, the onboard camera is where the issue is most pronounced, they don't sound like there being thrashed and that is what racing is all about.

10

F1 has always had some element that makes it stand out. Noise used to be the thing and I, personally miss it, however if we cannot have noise then something else is needed to make both hardened fans and casual observers go "wow". This years cars are a step in the right direction but more is needed, we need to see heroes trying to tame these beast and last the distance. This is far more important than overtaking which has become an obsession even though there has never been much in F1. I have watched Super Bikes which have tons of overtaking and it is great, but, you know F1 still, up until recently still blew it away for sheer awesomeness!!

11

Yes, you are right about that, the cars always sound like they are out for a Sunday afternoon drive, which they are but Sunday afternoon drives are for old people who this a Vauxhall Aguliera is a nice car!

12
Gareth (the Philadelphia one)

Absolutely, a completely silent engine would be most efficient.

Imagine a Spitfire silently swooshing through the air, no roaring Merlin engine. No so evocative is it?

13

Gareth, not as evocative, but the Spitfire was designed to shoot down enemy fighters, if that efficient engine made it faster and gave it better range, then it is a better aircraft.

14

Having heard hundreds of Spitfires, Hurricanes and Lancasters, I can tell you they are not as loud as you seem to think.

Had the Merlin engine been silent, the RAF would have been over the moon.

15

To continue the analogy, It may not have the music of a Spitfire, but if you want the volume turned to 11 you need a Vulcan.

16
Gareth (the Philadelphia one)

The point is I was poorly trying to make was it would be technically clever, and so so efficient, for Mercedes to make an utterly silent F1 engine, but it would make the cars and racing less enjoyable. The RAF might have loved silent Spitfires, but they would be less enjoyable for us today at airshows. F1 races and airshows are for enjoyment, no? If I don't enjoy it I won't go/watch.

Historic F1 cars sound better than the current ones and that is not progress in my opinion.

17

Gareth, Formula one cars are designed to get around a track as fast as possible, if the teams could knock a tenth of s second off that lap time by making them silent, they would do it. The noise a car makes comes from inefficiency, there are thousands of highly educated and talented people working for the teams whose sole aim is to eliminate inneficiency whetever they find it, you can't criticise them for doing their jobs.

18
Gareth (the Philadelphia one)

TimW - I am not criticizing the teams for doing the best they can under the rules. I *am* criticizing the governing body (hello Jean Todt) for making the sport operate under lame restrictions. While technically ingenious the current powertrains leave me cold.

I've been an avid follower of F1 since the 1970's. If this season turns out to be Lewis Hamilton leisurely cruising along in his Prius Max while managing his tyres I may well be done with the "sport", and spend my time and money on something that excites me more.

"Here's 100kg of fuel for the race, have at it engine designers!" Wouldn't that be interesting and *gasp* fun?

19

Quercus, louder engines are more efficient at inspiring fans to part with their hard- earned cash and go see a Grand Prix.

They are also more efficient at putting smiles on faces.

20

I can't agree with that statement sorry. I've never went to a race because the engines were loud, nor I'm not going to stop going because they are quieter. F1 is about many things, yes sound was one of them, but all this whining about going back to V10 engines is really getting old. It's like saying hey let's use dvd's again, all this flash drives around don't make movies what they used to. Come one guys get over it, hybrid engines are FUTURE technology, if we go back because some people feel nostalgic, it will just make Formula E all the more relevant. F1 should be powering and investing in future and promising technologies, and V10 engines are wasteful. It's all about electrical power now. If you guys want to complain complain about the noise (fair enough) but changing the engine formula is beyond silly.

21

A better analogy would be when LCD tv's became popular. They were much more efficient than plasmas and took advantage of the latest technology, but guess what - after years they are just now getting close to the picture quality of plasmas from 10 years ago. Do you buy the most efficient and technologically advanced of every item in your daily life? No - you buy what makes you feel an emotion, while at the same time moving forward technologically. Nobody is asking them to return to cars of 20 years ago - we just want something that makes the hair on the back of your neck stand on end again. Go see an air show with no jets then go to one where an F-16 does a sneak in the middle and screams past you and tell me you prefer the prop planes because they use less gas and produce less noise!

22

It's ironic that one of these manufacturers that is supposed to be so concerned about road relevance of F1 - I' talking about Honda - still use the scream of their V10 F1 engine at the tail of their TV ads "the power of dreams" , rather than the bucket of bolts squawk of their hybrid PU.

23

Why is it all about electrical power? Who cares if racing cars are efficient? I don't understand your views at all, do you work for an engine manufacturer?

24

You've hit the nail on the head. Motor manufacturers care about these things. F1 has two choices.
1) Ignore the motor manufacturers and the money and resources they inject into the sport
2) Keep those real world motor manufacturers interested by giving them something that has some relevance to their business.

(1) is not impossible, but might not increase the willingness of motor manufacturers to invest in F1. The financial effects of this would be non-trivial. Mercedes and Honda would almost certainly pull out of the sport. Others would be less inclined to get involved because look, you invest all this money in an engine for F1, then they go and change the rules and your money is wasted.

25

NO, it's not silly at all. Why should what is basically a form of exclusive entertainment be set to develop and evolve another form of motor transport...the family car. That is nonsense. F1 needs to be exclusive in the sense that it provides excitement and offer the ultimate is sound and pace.

26

LukeC, The problem with that theory is track attendances are rising.

27

TimW; I saw a lot of empty seats and grandstands last year. How do you know that those seats and grandstands wouldn't be full if only the sound was a little more exciting?

28

Luke, because when the cars were louder, there was even more empty seats! The fact that track attendance has risen in F1 while both Nascar and Indycar have seen large falls is impressive.

29

The majority are actually seeing a decline or are flat lining except for the likes of Silverstone, COTA, Mexico, Australia and Barcelona.

Feel free to provide a link that backs up your assertion .

30

Sarsippious. Here's alink to an article that reports on a major survey of track attendance in F1 http://www.autoblog.com/2015/07/17/2016-dodge-viper-acr-first-drive/.
if you feel like breaking with tradition and providing some evidence to back up your assertion, then I would be happy to look at it.

31

Sarsippious, oops wrong link! Try this one instead http://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2016/07/formula-money-grand-prix-attendance-report-reveals-f1-ticket-revenue-increase/
I look forward to reading your retaliatory article describing a fall in ticket sales.....

32

So you haven't paid attention to the numerous links I've posted before in reply to you Tim?
Thanks for the link all the same, pity its a link that has zero relevance to the argument your trying to support.

33

May I offer you this wonderful recent 2017 Catalunya testing footage? One little edit has been done to it. The poster took V8, V10, V12 sounds and overlaid it expertly on these anemic sounding PUs. Tell me this isn't exactly like getting a Michelin star chef to spice your stew?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hLOWSLd53U4

34

Now that is what we should be watching this year, I hope liberty media understand the importance of that sound.

35
Clarks4WheelDrift

I like this video, you do get to hear Lewis's engine, near the end of his lap, when Montoya is back having a cup of tea in the pits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sUtNwm4qIpc

Can see why Alonso misses it and doesn't care for the last few years of PU hell that Todt is convinced "society" wants 😉

36

I like the video, but can you explain to me why a higher revving V6 wouldn't do an OK job? I, for one believe it would be a first step forward to enhance the sound experience for the fans around the circuit.

37

Impossible.
As everybody can see even in Q3 engine is limited by engineers to 12000 rot/min even as the rule say s "Max 15000".
This is because each cycle of combustion needs fuel to burn and the actual burning control (which is nothing short of brilliant) allows just for this 12000 limit to be achieved in the idiotic (IMO) 100kg/hour fuel flow. Even if this limitation would be lifted,allowing engines to be fueled for 15000 rot/min, the 100kg/race limit will still make coasting half the time mandatory in order to finish the race.

38

It just doesn't have the impact. It doesn't stomp its authority on the area like a V10 or even V8 did.

I can't explain it to you. If you lived through a V10 F1 start you'd understand.

Have you ever been in a place where a fighter jet flew overhead at high speed and surprised the crowd? That's what F1 used to sound like. The sound arrived before the car, and stayed with you long after the car was gone. And it sounded powerful and glorious. You couldn't wait for the car to drive by again.

39

Indeed I haven't, so I will take your word for it. Thanks for replying.

40

I am not interested in the decibel levels delivered by these cars. What is to be loved about a nuisance level of noise? They are fine to me as long as they are fast and provide exciting racing. I am not interested in going back to the "iron age" era of V12 and so. These PUs will be faster than any V12 have ever been, and we will see that happening this season or the next.

41

As many posters have already pointed the vast majority of fans watch the races on TV ( millions) rather than from the stands so the decibel level is at their fingers. What is we mall are nostalgic for is the tone. You can make a mouse squeak as loud as you want, it will NEVER sound like a Rrrrrrrroaaaaaarrrrrr !!!

42

Well, the V10 cars were the fastest. No fastest lap record set by V10s has been beaten yet. And they had 1 less gear than PU cars and grooved tires. They were already being held back. F1 needs fast powerful cars, because we want to watch the most exciting cars. It's why people buy expensive cars in the first place - because they look and sound exciting. And F1 cars should look and sound most exciting of them all, as they used to. And they certainly should be the fastest. I already told you that F1 car on NASCAR turf likely loses to a NASCAR - unthinkable stuff really! How can that be allowed?!

43

Sebee. And I already told you that the fastest a Nascar managed to go at Daytona when running alone on the track was 172mph. Are you trying to suggest that an F1 car wouldn't manage to beat that paltry figure, even without the battery?

44

@sebee
I feel for you Sebee, I really do! Like a little brother who's just been dumped by his first girlfriend😭😳😉
But great video👍🏻

45

I don't know what society he's talking about??? Barely anyone I know gives a damn about F1, or technology it utilizes. Fans are the only ones who care, and they are driven away for a loooong time now, by not listening to them/us.
From the iron corporate curtain I can hardly see the passion driven people and teams we all enjoyed for decades. I cannot connect with any team any more, like I did way back in '77 when I started following F1.

Cost of running a team has been constantly driven up and up, while sponsorship has been cut (eg cigarette advertising ban).
On top of that FIA allowed hybrid engines, which are nailing one of the last nails onto F1 coffin. I'd love to be proven wrong.

Why didn't they (FIA) pay for the engines for all teams, if they want them to do the change. That would be the last they can do from the billions F1 generated them over the decades.

I know Jean Todt has to balance between big corporations now involved in F1, and try to make everyone happy, but his first priority should be make fans happy. Without them there will be no F1.
Just now, he sounds like insane man.

46

'I don't know what society he's talking about??? Barely anyone I know gives a damn about F1, or technology it utilizes. Fans are the only ones who care, and they are driven away for a loooong time now, by not listening to them/us.'

Fully agree.

47

@NickH, it's obvious that you don't know any of us visiting the exquisite jamesallenonf1. Or maybe you did not mean what you wrote.

48

is that why the motor industry has always invested in technologies to improve engine efficiency?
is that why health and safety at work place have been made law in the modern society?
progress goes forwards, not backwards..

49

Are you in any way related to that other chap....Aveli?

50

just a typo kenneth...no need for alarm.
incidentally, can you describe how the f1 wastegate sounds like when it opens?

51

WOW. [mod] F1 is fantasy motoring and has nothing and never did have anything to do with public motor safety or family road-cars. It is about entertainment first and knowledge / technology transfer second. The mere fact that JT thinks that modern global society is watching and judging F1 is hysterically delusional [mod]

The hypocrisy [mod] is breathtaking. Eco engines for a racing series that uses more air miles than almost any other? Are you kidding me? This ivory tower, pc thinking has destroyed the enjoyment of the sport and many other pastimes as well to be honest. It is the entertainment value that attracts eye balls and hence sponsors - manufactures clearly wanting to tap into the exposure. Mobile billboards, nothing more and nothing less, can we get that straight please? So if you make them look good, sound good and go fast, people are going to watch, if they are not, or too hard or expensive to watch then people will watch or do something else. Its very simple. Soundless V6 Turbos are not the solution and if they were axed, and the manufacturers left it would not be the end of the world, F1 doesn't need OEM's - manufactures need the exposure that F1 gives them. F1 would be just fine if it were a 20m a year budget with a bunch of garaistas doing they're own thing driven by passion, ingenuity and a some drivers looking for the thrill of the challenge. It would just mean that all the hangers on would be out of business and that has absolutely nothing to do with climate change - its called money. Things that make you go hmmmm.

52

Its not delusional at all. You have to consider all of the stakeholders in F1. Many of those are people who do not watch the races at all. They are the people who buy the products or the road cars from the sponsors and/or the car manufacturers. The reason these organisations put money into F1 is to sell other products, products which they do not want to be associated with 20 year old, un-environmentally friendly technology.

53

if that was the case, they would be racing the cars they make. manufacturers are in F1 because of the 'halo effect' of the aspirational, exclusive, A list celebrity glamorous Grand Prix lifestyle portrayed by society.
F1 has nothing to do with technology in road cars, otherwise it would have pop-up wings, ground effects, launch control, abs, stability control etc - all technologies available in the showroom now.
F1 is already10 years behind road car technology.

54

Isn't that halo effect a pathetic thing? Primitive really.

55

the president of the fia with extensive experience, both in rally, when it was the most popular form of motorsport and f1, the current most popular form of motorsport surely understands what f1 is about. may be a little bit more than wiki f1 fans..

56

He was in charge at Ferrari when we had peak F1.

Now he's the president of FIA when F1 is scraping the bottom of viewership numbers and backlash.

57

That is debatable......How can todt categorically state that 'society wouldn't accept a return to NA race cars that make seriously loud noises'? He can't. He may think so but without showing us the definitive global study that authenticates his statement he is simply giving us all the 'one finger salute'. The man is an enigma and he should be removed from anything to do with F1 and let a real racer take charge...one that understands what the fans want..

58

al gor has convinced all governments that pollution from burning fossil fuels is responsible for global warming and they have commissioned projects to monitor air pollutants and find solutions to the problem. so it's not difficult for you to find such information on line. the current direction of f1 engines motivates manufacturers to find solutions to the same problem. asking him to provide data is not a challenge...

https://consult.defra.gov.uk/airquality/draft-aq-plans/supporting_documents/Draft%20plans%20to%20improve%20air%20quality%20in%20the%20UK%20%20Overview%20document%20September%202015%20final%20version%20folder.pdf

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/15-million-funding-to-reduce-co2-emissions-on-the-roads

https://www.epa.gov/clean-air-act-overview/air-pollution-current-and-future-challenges%20

https://www.oecd.org/derec/adb/47170274.pdf

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/bravenewclimate.com/2008/08/29/top-10-ways-to-reduce-your-co2-emissions-footprint/amp/

i wonder where myopia resides?

https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/phys.org/news/2015-08-carbon-dioxide-air-climate.amp

59

It would seem otherwise based on the comments Todt garners whenever he pops out of his hiding place.

60

I like your post but take some exceptions.
The general consensus seems to be that the 2017 cars are relatively attractive, and this year in the cold of testing, the all time lap record (2009) for the circuit has been beaten. So the 2017 F1 Hybrids are definitely fast, and I also suspect (but stand to be corrected) that the 2009 tyres were stickier than this years Pirellis.
It seems to me that your disappointment with F1 boils down to two things.
1. It's not loud enough
2. It's lost some competitiveness because only one team has really been successful with the power units.
Point 1 is an issue for many, and I suspect takes away that initial fascination with F1 that the first time experience gave in the past. I also suspect that it is missed far more by those who grew up with the high revving engines. I’m not too sure that the general public cares, especially when 99% of people who see F1 see it on TV (and hopefully soon the more watched medium of the Internet).
Point 2 is not new. There have been many times of single team domination in F1 and this is not the first time that Mercedes have done it in this manner.
I do however agree that there are a lot of things that can be done to re balance the sport, but that too is not new. There have always been the haves and have nots, and we all know that the politics is not new.
The other big problem is that it’s hard to overtake, but imo, that is largely the result of modern engineering, and it would seem that the brightest minds in the business can’t write a formula that keeps F1 as the fastest circuit cars in the world and allows for lots of overtaking. I’ll leave that for smarter minds.
I naively wrote a few years back that F1 was in trouble but given the money paid by such a serious company as Liberty, I think it’s fair to say it’s a thriving business. I don’t see Liberty trying to quickly revolutionise this cash cow and clearly Ross Brawn is not planning rapid change.
It has a lot to do to define itself correctly going forward, but we should surely recognise that these cars (as F1 has always strived to be) are very fast and imo amazing engineering.
In fact if I’m not mistaken, the fastest circuit cars ever.

61

Can I just say thank you to everyone that replied and like my first post on this site! I was driven to finally speak my mind after being a fan since the mid 80's and having been to probably 20 races in person over the decades, I like many of you feel incredibly let down by the way my favorite sport has evolved. I have to say getting nearly 50 likes for this post must be a record and speaks volumes for what the fans really think and want. Ignore at your peril Liberty / FIA. Thanks again.

62

i like the direction f1's heading.

63

I'm sure Todt is running around at this very moment, screaming, "50 people don't like my ideas, I'll have to change. Oh, woe is me"

Not that the 50 will hear him, as they're all deaf.

64

not me am excited for the future of f1 and look forward to it. i have zero interest in auditory hazards...

65

I like the way you lay it out there... "Pinnacle" of the sport takes some balls, and money, which only a few teams are willing to engage. F1 needs to differentiate itself with every other racing series. Period.

66

@Blazey - Interesting rant. What are *you* going to do to make this happen? Got a few million to form a team or build an engine. Failing that, get a job in F1 or sell F1 advertising. Promising not to watch the current F1 on your telly isn't going to achieve more than holding your breath until you turn blue.

67

Rodger R: You have nailed the whole issue. The world is full of people who make comments or complain about things, but then say that they are not going to watch/participate until things get better. I learned many years ago when I thought that something should be done about an issue, and someone said to me "what are you going to do about it?". So I did, and with the help of a few other people we managed to change a negative situation to a positive one. This principle applies to most of the people who are using the site to have a free moan. If you do nothing then nothing will happen!

68

I did something. I cancelled my satellite TV.

I worked out that about the only thing I was watching on satellite was the F1 race series. At somewhere between $60 and $90 per month, that's a ridiculous amount of money to watch a few 2 hour races.

I'll follow the F1 soap operas on GP news sites like this one, but I'm done paying money to watch F1 until there's a decent, low cost streaming option.

I can get a load of TV entertainment from Netflix for just $10 per month. If I can add F1 for a couple of dollars per month, I'll consider it. I'd maybe even consider $10 per month as part of a larger, ad-free motorsport TV package, but that's about the limit. If Liberty think they're going to set up a pay wall just for F1 and expect me to pay more than a couple of dollars a month for a couple of hours of TV twice a month, then [Mod]

69

Hey Rodger R, well I think I can only vote with my wallet which means no attendances in person and no pay tv. I've been to every Australian race pre 2014 - Adelaide & Melbourne as well as India, Abu Dhabi - 5 times and Singapore 4 times. I'm sure that wont break their bank but it's my silent protest. Aside from that I think a kickstarter campaign or a petition for change could be a goer. lol. I will get back to you.

70

It's a BINGO!!!

71

Also hard to get them eyeballs on billboards if they are hidden behind expensive and over the top paywalls like Foxtel in Australia. Your F1 option is $50 per month minimum, but comes with 100 other channels an avid F1 fan is just not interested in. But you can't have the option to reduce your monthly costs and just pick the handful of channels you'd prefer.
And then these channels are chock full of ads! Ok, maybe the live sport channels don't interrupt the race or game, but the rest of the time it's wall to wall ads. I always thought we accepted ads on "free" tv as that was the deal to get Freeview. Now they want you to pay a fortune...to continue watching ads! It's a bizarre concept I can't bring myself to enter.

72

Completely agree with your statement. Todt’s statement is absurd. Really shows the divergent goals of the FIA and that of F1. People don’t pay to watch F1 in order to see a well-crafted race “monitored by global society”. As you rightly pointed out, people watch F1 to see the highest level of motorsport. Driven by competition in technological innovation, (not ecological but focused upon getting around the track faster) skill of the drivers and cleverness of the teams supporting them.

Saying that 3 or 4 manufacturers pulling out if larger V8 or V10 engines are used is affirmation that global society wouldn’t accept this is categorically incorrect. Manufacturers will pull out if they don’t see the business reason for continuing to stay in. Namely, a cheaper R&D test environment to build small engines to meet the regulatory requirements of socially minded bureaucrats is why they stay in. Along with the notoriety and advertising they gain. In no way should this be misconstrued as a barometer of “global society acceptance or displeasure.

It is incredulous for the FIA to assume it knows what global society will accept. Global society will show its acceptance by continuing to patronize and watch F1 or not. It is extremely presumptive for the FIA to assume this. The acrimony and self-aggrandizement is palatable.

73

Ah, climate change. I'm willing to bet that if Al Gore had never come out with his unscientific nonsense we would still have naturally aspirated V8s at least.

74

Oh yes Luke, without Al Gore and his 'An Inconvenient Truth' documentary the world and thus Formula One would be none to the wiser to climate change. You really are giving away your age if you believe that it was Al Freaking Gore who 'invented' climate change.

Pull your head out of the sand and do some research, read this..

http://theconversation.com/a-brief-history-of-climate-science-18578

Your welcome....

75

Of course we can still thank Al Gore for inventing the Internet. 😉

76

I'm sure you mean the 'information superhighway'

77

Sarsipious; climate change is a natural phenomenon. Anyone with an even rudimentary knowledge of the history of this planet will tell you this. You don't even have to go back far in time to know that climate change has nothing to do with F1. Even as recently as the medieval times the average temps were significantly higher than they are now. Then the "medieval warm period" was followed by the "mini ice age" which caused the temps to drop such a low level the the river Thames froze over completely.

In fact, any physicist who studies the the workings of the sun will tell the amount of energy the sun puts out is cyclic. Sometimes it puts out more heat energy, and it has periods when it goes very quiet.

This fact alone, combined with what we know about the climactic changes our planet has undergone, should at the very least cause you and any logical person to approach this "man-made climate change" nonsense in a very, very skeptical frame of mind.

As for the nonsense in the unconvinced that truth. That nonsense has already been debunked. That's why the British High Court has ruled the film to be fantasy and has made it illegal to show the film in schools without a discslaimer informing young viewers of this fact.

[mod]

78

I'm going to assume your aware of the relationship between ph and calcium carbonate... Go down to the beach and pick up a shell. Compare it to when you were a kid.

79

50 years ago the weather varied from day to day.....climate change! Today was different to yesterday.....climate change! And so it goes...on and on as it always has and always will. We live in a dynamic environment.

80

climate change has nothing to do with F1.

And yet here you are bringing it up in these threads, again, and again and AGAIN!

81

Information and data are your friends, do not reject them :).

If you want to cling to some British High Court ruling only to feel your opinions validated, go ahead, whatever makes you feel good.
But, and of course you saw this coming, the scientists, the data, gathered on Earth and from space, point to the same conclusion:
WE ARE MESSING UP THE CLIMATE of our only home, our planet.

No one knows how lasting are this changes and the true extent of the damage we are doing, but the please understand that denying it won't solve anything, and to be honest, F1 is just a very small part in the ocean of polluters.

82

How does a hotter sun make the oceans more acidic?

83

Luke..." climate change is a natural phenomenon". Yup, but don't confuse 'natural' with 'safe'. Check for drought and famine in the tropics during that warming period. What's not natural is the rate it is changing, and that is because of the carbon we are putting into the air.
"the amount of energy the sun puts out is cyclic". Yup, and it has been on a downward cycle for decades, and the temps keep going up.
"approach this "man-made climate change" nonsense in a very, very skeptical frame of mind. " Yup, approach every subject with a skeptical point of view. But that is not the same as denying what science and evidence tell us, and just agreeing with whoever tells us a story that makes us happy. I would like nothing better than to live in a world where man made global warming was all a big mistake or a hoax - but sadly I have to live in the real world.

84

Hey would you mind go up-page and see what this site is about !
...and to dot the i's and cross the t's all the talk about the climate change and F1 can be pictured as follows:
Outdoors it's freezing. Human activities in the living room have broken the large bay window. The F1 righteous guy shouts : It's getting cold ! We all will freeze to death ! ..and then he goes to the keyhole, patches it with sticky tape, sighs, and happily stands down with the satisfaction of a job well done.

85

Manbearpig !

More "green" lies... One of the large container ships chucs out more pollution than the F1 field does in a year. Nobody cares about the hysterical scaremongering, we want races, with exciting cars, not pathetic eco worthy posturing

86

So do I however now F1 has gone down this path its extremely unlikely to change course and we all to need to find acceptance with that.

I go to two GPs a year and not once has the main reason for attendance been solely so I could listen to the engine sound.
Its a combination of the spectacle, the atmosphere, the support races, the social aspect of having a few days away with mates and to see F1 cars and the drivers in person. The sound of the cars is a very small component of their overall beauty yet by the sound of the moaning here you'd think its the only appealing thing about them at all.
When they're all lined up on the grid, revving in anticipation of light out, and scream away from the grid its still impressive from both a sight and sound perspective and watching it on TV doesn't do it justice.
[Mod]

87

I love you man!

88

...I mean Blazey. 🙂

89

cheers!

90

I like the speed bump that is society on the straight line between PUs and manufacturers and their marketing efforts.

Society wouldn't accept it, but it is 3 of 4 manufacturers who would leave and not society?

Hillarious.

Blame it on society acceptance. Meanwhile, as you point out, hundreds of thousands of kilograms of fuel burned in the atmosphere for every flyaway GP carrying PUs that are front carbon loaded and 122kg heavier per car x 20 or 22 cars plus spares of course. All perfectly acceptable by society because society doesn't see it. Society only sees the apparent 50kg of saved fuel, or is it 45kg now?

91

Why go back to the v10s?
If people had hung on to noisy, out-dated old-tech with no current road relevance, unwilling to let go of the past, we'd still be racing steam engines.

92

Oh Sebee, how will you survive when Formula One cars become fully electric within the decade as that's ultimately where the sport is headed.
The hot word in today's society is 'sustainability' and gas guzzling V10s doesn't mesh very well with that.

Whether we like it or not Todt has arrived at the correct destination ( even if the route he took to get there is laughable ) and the emphasis from here should be how to improve the racing, the tracks, the right balance or risk v reward and not yearn for something that belongs in those yesterdays.

In the words of a 14 year old Sarsippious who once wrote this about his first love;

Live for the future not the past, let go they say, it isn't that hard a task,
But I have memories that is all I need, as long as I can picture your face, Hey I'm as happy as can be!

In your case though you'd change "picture your face" with "hear you scream"....

93

"Society" doesn't buy tickets or turn their TV to F1. Fans do. The fans want noise, that 20,000 RPM scream that you can hear for miles. Looks like the FIA is going to try to hold the sport to hybrid turbo.

Quite frankly, if you did N/A hybrid, you would still get the noise. The turbo is what kills the sound.

94

Exactly. Just ditch the turbo, and increase the capacity. Give them more batteries to up the hybrid power as well if that helps 'society'.

95

it's not the turbo! it's the Revs!
Listen to some mid 80's turbos.. they were LOUD.
The current Pu's can't even hit the maximum rev limit (15,000rpm) That's why they are so quiet.

96
Plus Ça Change

Tyler, you should not presume to speak for all F1 fans. I and many like me, believe the current PU regulations place the sport on exactly the right course, making them commercially relevant to both OEMs and sponsors alike. For those of you who believe we don't need OEMs, name a single period in F1 history where there hasn't been a car manufacturer on the grid. If you want noise, go and watch a series that uses old fashioned engines - there is plenty of choice out there.
As somebody who works in the commercial side of F1, I can tell you that without ethical and technical relevance, the sport will not attract new investment and therefore die.

97

Tyler, the noise only makes a difference if you attend the race, and ticket sales are just fine so it seems a lot of fans don't agree with you.

98

Ticket sales are actually down. And I haven't been to a race since the new engines. I'll just be disappointed and will have wasted the money.

99

Alexis, ticket sales are actually up.

100

Don't confuse matters with facts. I'm pretty sure Todt's 'society' are partly the people who live near tracks and don't want the noise, and those who see a racing car using a gallon of fuel every 4 miles as unacceptable.

101

RodgerR. I believe when Jean talks about society he partly means that section of it that might turn up at the gates with placards and pitcforks etc, but mostly the people who vote for the elected representatives who decide if they should bid for, or continue to pay for a Grand Prix to be held in their country. If F1 goes back to wanton consumption and becomes unpopular with the ever growing "environmentally aware" section of society, then those bids will stop coming and the existing contracts will not be renewed. F1 must protect itself from this.

102

The fact is more people attended the races and the TV audiences were far healthier with the old engines. No one can really deny that.

Wouldn't it be better if they got rid of the fuel flow limit and allowed the engines to rev more? As the majority of fans don't watch F1 for engine efficiency.

103

@ Nick H...that is exactly what i have been saying for a very long time but gave up because it was , in the end, a waste of time.

104

Fact is the Germans killed F1.
Schumacher, Vettel, Mercedes... They're too damn efficient at dominating.

105

Ncik, here's an article from last year regarding ticket sales. Revenuse and sales both increased between 2009 and 2015, and many of those races saw further rises in 2016.
http://www.thecheckeredflag.co.uk/2016/07/formula-money-grand-prix-attendance-report-reveals-f1-ticket-revenue-increase/

106

How cute? 2009 attendance is claimed at 2.9m and growth in 2015 at 3.5m - how many GPs in 2009? How many in 2015? Oh no, 2 more in 2015, and Mexico coming online too. Wow...suddenly I'm not sure we're comparing apples to apples, and when we take those extra 2 GPs under consideration F1 hasn't really grown since 2009, has it? And 3.5m over 19GPs? That's like 185k per GP - not possible, clearly we're counting full 3 day attendance and double or triple counting people with weekend passes. Your article doesn't equalize to per GP number, and doesn't mention races per season. How convenient?

We will read your link and apply critical thought and analysis to provided data. 🙂

107

Sebee. Your analysis of the figures I gave you is incorrect. There were 19 races in 2010, 20 in 2011 and 2012 and 19 in 13,14 and 15. There was an increase in total sales of 4.2% year on year across that period. Attendance rose 6% between 2014 and 2015 with the same number of races, and of course during the PU era. Track revenues rose by 35% in the ten years prior to 2015, so no discounting going on either.
I realise that these figures don't match up with your world view, but they are what they are. Track attendance has risen, no getting away from that. If you have any numbers that prove your point I would be happy to look at them, until then I think we can say that the falling attendance myth has been busted.

108

NickH. More people attending races is not a fact, TV figures being down is, but if the PUs are to blame for that, why did the fall begin in 2009 5 years before their introduction?

109

"Napoleon" is correct in saying normally aspirated multi cylinder engines have had their day. For a start, they are inefficient due to the high frictional losses and consume way too much hydrocarbons (the old 2.4 litre V8s had an efficiency of just 27% - meaning three quarters of the fuel tank just ended up as exhaust gas!). They also lack the mid range torque that is available to a forced induction motor .

The ideal configuration would be a 1.6 litre straight/inline 4 cylinder. BMW built and raced their M12/13 turbo four banger in the early 80s, and it took Nelson Piquet to the 1983 world championship, defeating Renault and Ferrari bi-turbo V6s. The current V6s are alright, but internal combustion engines use the four stroke cycle - suck, squeeze, bang, blow as pioneered by Mr Otto - so in a four banger one cylinder is always on the power stroke at any time, making it the most efficient engine layout in terms of power, economy and balance.

I speak from experience - my neighbour used to own a Jaguar XJ12, a lovely old British bruiser, but it had chronic problems with the oil churning inside the crankcase because, of course, with a multi cylinder engine the crank is always going to be long, and with 12 pistons and 48 valves the frictional losses from all those moving parts was horrific, hence why the oil scavenging was so awful in the V12. You can't ignore Newton's laws of physics - the more moving parts, the more friction is generated, and the whole point of engineering in racing is to eliminate frictional losses in the ICE as much as possible because friction costs power......

110

Yeah, which is why Ferrari can somehow produce V12s that rev to 9000rpm effortlessly and make peak power at 8500rpm with no hybrid assistance. Apparently so can Lambo with their V12 and V10. So much for frictional losses.

Also you might want to read the unconvenient truth about "modern" small 3cyl turbo engines where, apart from vibrations causing structural issues, some (*cough Renault/Nissan *cough) actually have to inject more gas than necessary just to keep themselves cool in real-world driving. VW boss said there is a limit to downsizing and we have reached it as these small engines in reality are more thirsty and unstable. Won't show in lab consumption tests though so "society" is happy.

In reality Mazda staying with their naturally aspirated Skyactiv 4cyl 2-litre engines is a lot more ecological than other manufacturers doing 1.2-1.5l turbo 3cyl.

111

Actually, in line 4 cylinder engines are inherently unbalanced - that is why they need counter-rotating balance shafts. The in line six is the best balanced engine configuration, which is why it is often used in very large industrial engines.
I don't believe Jaguar ever had a production 48 valve engine, but I might be wrong about that. But the crank shaft in that V12 engine would not be appreciably longer than the one in their straight 6, and the crank shaft in a V6 would probably be shorter than in an in line 4. More moving parts don't necessarily increase frictional losses, but increased area of sliding contact does, although that is not necessarily a function of the number of parts. And the whole point of engineering in racing engines is not primarily to eliminate friction, but to increase power. If more moving parts results in enough power to offset any potential increased frictional losses then more moving parts it is.
And just so you know - not all laws of physics came from Newton - da Vinci presented the first formalized laws of friction.

112

Its nice to see Gaz Boy being lectured for a change.... Top man Pat.... You've made my day.

113

Brilliant 🙂

114

The v6 configuration is the worst for noise emitted.Name a good one,look at capri,remember the old formula holden they sounded terrible.If they have to stick to this hybrid pc mod then why not change the config. to 4cyl v8 v10 orv12

115

Gazboy. Your neighbour didn't have a 48 valve Jaguar!

116

Motorsport needs a very different new governing body. The present one is unfit for puporse.

117

According to Bernie, Jean Todt is a poor man's Max

https://www.formula1blog.com/top-story/ecclestone-slams-fias-jean-todt/

118

Jean T,
Yes I'm part of society and yesss I DO want a return to v12, v10 and v8 engines without turbo running at 20.000 rpm or more.
Come on, Formula 1 is for the race fans, not for "society" !!
These n.a. engines are so much cheaper than the V6 turbo crap we have now....so they are much more budget friendly for the small teams too.

119

Sad that it isn't an open formula. Let the engine manufacturers decide what would be fastest.

But then I guess everyone would fit V10s

120

Except McLaren, who at this point would settle for a lethargic hamster.

121

F1 $350m, FE $10m and more relevant to the future than F1 ever will be. Talk about F1 wasting money. FIA taking blame for allowing PU escalating costs that caused teams to fail. How comforting to those teams and their employees?

122

Meanwhile it would appear Ferrari hasn't won titles with V6 engines before as their most success came with the V10s in the 2000s

Also Ferrari hasn't won titles when Jean presidents have been in charge e.g. Jean-Marie Balestre 1985-1993

123

Balestre was in charge of FISA from 1979 (Jody Scheckter WC) until 1991 (and FIA until 1993). Of course there is also the Ferrari Constructors of 1982 and 83, but we'll not let facts get in the way of a good rant eh.

124

@ Colin B

Oh no, the president of the FIA from 1975-1985 was Paul Alfons

126

@ Rudy Pyatt

Aah so Ferrari have won with the V6s before, my mistake.

Thanks for the links

127

"Also Ferrari hasn't won titles when Jean presidents have been in charge e.g. Jean-Marie Balestre 1985-1993"

One of your best goferet 🙂

128

Phil Hill and Mike Hawthorn are frowning, however.

129

@ Random69

Cheers m8

130

Presumably this is Todt's 2017 appearance over with. I think he was last seen at the end of the qualifying format furore last year?

What exactly is the Todt and the FIA's purpose? Might as well let Liberty run the whole shebang

131

Interestingly, JT's perspective on what the "world" is concerned about may be misplaced when true carbon footprint and (incidentally) cost is added to the equation. At least that's what engineers involved in the "industry" on the commercial side of the "world" equation seem to believe.

Have seen similar information in publications regarding the consumer market for electric hybrids as well, save perhaps for one brand. Think that's already been pointed out on this site in comments appended to other articles published in the last few weeks.

132
devilsadvocate

"It will not be accepted by society"

What? Is he joking? What society? I would wager that greater than 90% of the people going to races and tuning in on the TV either drive or wish they drove cars with V8/V10/V12's in them.

Jean Todt is bending over backwards trying to please people who have probably only "heard" of F1 in the sense that one of their progressive bleeding heart activist groups sent them a mailer telling them that they should oppose it. What society is he talking about exactly?

I actually dont mind the choice of V6 turbo architecture per se (lots of brilliant road cars use this to great effect).... its the 100lph fuel flow restriction that kills these engines. They would sound amazing shrieking down the straights at full power witht turbos screaming and the howling from the wastegates being wide open at their 15k rpm rev limit. They never get there though because the power falls flat on its face at 11-12k RPM. That's the problem.

Regardless, Todt proves he needs to go every time he opens his mouth.

133

Jean Todt wants F1 to be compatible with what he thinks society wants, not with what society actually wants.

Individuals too adopt beliefs based on what they believe society wants.

I remember a few years back, some market research was done on what people wanted cars to be like and being "green" was high on the agenda. But when asked to choose between a "green" car and a car with chest hair, many chose the car with chest hair. When subsequently asked to explain why they had initially said they wanted a "green" car, they responded that it was because they though that that's what the researcher wanted to them to say and they wanted to please him.

134
devilsadvocate

I think that's part of it. I think the deeper problem though is the a fundamental problem with modern liberal/progressive thinking of "one rule for me and another for thee".

People select green cars in focus/research groups because that's what they think "other" people should drive. When it comes to themselves though, the idea of the greater good conflicts with their own priorities. Communism always fails because people want to find a way to have the rules apply to everyone except themselves.

For people like Jean Todt and other progressive idealogues, "society" means the people other than himself.

135

V8 or V12 engines not accepted by society?? WHO is society?
I know F1 is all about development, but JT wanting to develop the worlds first politically correct engine, now that is something!

136

Apparently by Mercedes AMG buyers, as top selling AMG engines are V8 and V12. Also, by Ferrari buyers, as top selling Ferrari engines are V8 and V12. Finally by McLaren buyers as all McLaren cars feature a V8.

137

More of Sebee's unreliable facts.

Not a word about Honda or Renault vehicles, neither make v8s. Mercedes don't only make high performance cars and Fiat own Ferrari and they sell a lot of 2 cylinder cars.

138

Rodger, apparently it doesn't matter that Honda don't make a TypeR hybrid, or that Renault don't make an RS badged hybrid. It is however an absolute scandal that Mercedes decided not to add an AMG badge to any of their full range of hybrid cars.....

139

Speaking of unreliable facts, can you show me how V8 and V12 are not top selling AMG engines? Can you show me a non V8 or non V12 Ferrari? Can you show me a non V8 McLaren? Just want to get my corrections right for the future.

140

Oh, you know what else Fiat owns? Fiat owns Chrysler. Dodge is part of Chrysler. Dodge makes the Viper ACR, a V10 6 speed street legal car that owns more track records than any production street legal car and has taken those records away from McLaren P1 and Porshe 918 hybrid cars. Just in case you think hybrid performance cars are the bee's knees, Viper ACR reminds you otherwise.

141

Sebee, still on about the ACR? Technically street legal but after you have finished setting those blistering lap times, if you want to actually drive it on the street you have to crawl underneath the car with your spanners and remove the front splitter and rear diffuser!

142

The spec, reviewed by Dodge legal department before being posted in the most litigious country on the planet, clearly says 5.0 inches of fixed clearance on the Viper ACR. The car meets all road going specifications. I also already told you the ride height is higher than Porsche 918 and I told you it's higher than McLaren P1, and I also told you the McLaren P1 did the hot record lap adjusted down to track mode at 2.6 inch ride height, because it has fancy ride height adjustment suspension, but still can't beat Viper ACR lap times. Oh, did I mention Viper ACR is 1/10 the cost of P1? Yes I did. Forgive my need to repeat, but clearly you require repetition to retain information.

143

The Viper ACR has all those records and is street legal. Just goes to show it's not necessary for racing cars to have high revs and be stupidly loud.

How's your foot, Sebee ?

144
Stephen Taylor

James what if a V12 or V10 engine that utilised hydrogen fuel cells was proposed for future use ? Would Todt say that was not no? After all this is something ( hydrogen fuelled cars) is something Mr Todt is very open to . I see see no reason why we can't have V10s or V12s in the future as long as they are fitted with ERS hybrid systems. Surely that would be a good good step in development James and would give manufacturers necessary time to research and develop hydrogen fuelled power plants?

145

I say screw hybrid.

World is going 100% electric.

F1 should be 100% V10 Naturally Aspirated 8 speed gearbox 600kg refueling slick wide tire monsters.

You want fan involvement? Let fans vote on things they don't like. We don't like the shark fin, it's out. We don't like the weather antennas, banned as of next GP. We don't like penile implant noses, cut off! Ouch. Ugliness is banned in F1 as part of rules.

146

Fuel cells provide electric power.

147

Jean Todt is wrong, wrong, wrong.

148

Geez.... Todt is out of touch with what society wants. Does he not realize that the majority of people don't have time to chant "save the one eyed yellow spotted butterfly" and want loud fast v8,v10,v12 engines that make 1500 hp????
No one wants F1 to be eco friendly in the engine department but the few people who watch formula e... and I'm not sure if those people are real.
Being back real engines and loosen up the technology rules. Please get away from cookie cutter cars, fuel restrictions technology handcuffs...

149

"High revving V8s, V10s or V12s will not be accepted by society."

My question is this: what's "society" going to do about it? As long as there are enough people willing to pay to watch F1, it will thrive.

Besides, "society" isn't always right. Didn't "society" elect the Nazis in the thirties?

150

End of the day F1 needs Manufacturers. Renault, Merc 'pushed' for V6. Honda cameback for V6. Without Engine makers' interest its just another standardized, racing. Not to mention the Market trends.

151

Bloody Jon Todd. Can someone tell him he already has the Formula E? I want F1, not a silent electric series. No one frankly gives two shirts if you can save 50L of fuel in each car over a race weekend where many hundreds of people are flown all over the world, burning way more fossil fuels in one flight than are used by the car all season long. Does he really think this is environmentally responsible? F1 is sliding down a slope and to be honest i blame Jon Todd more than Bernie in this. Pathetic.

152

Really, do you except anything of the guy who wear blinkers because he is afraid to face the reality, fact, Exon, Shell, BP, & others players will never dilute their market prominence in Automotive Industry, the Electric introduction of cars is a fad that will die of slow death just like wind generated power without Government subsidy they are dead in the water. Mr Jean Todt should take a leaf from the Romans Empire entertainment events, it was gruesome but everybody come to watch it. Please Mr Totd give the people who follow F1 & who pay with their hard earn money to watch & in turn pay your generous expense & what not , I as a follower of F1 since 1968 have to ask you what have you done for F1 since you become President of FIA, my suggestion is sweet f+++ al

153

The reason why all this "green" nonsense has to be subsidised by the tax payer and fueled by the "man-made global warming" lies is because that stuff cannot survive in the Darwinian-like environment that is the free market.

The "green technology" equals 6-8 times more expensive and there is nothing in it for the consumer. I mean, is electricity produced by windmills superior to electricity made in a gas or coal powered power plant? Will it make my iPad run any better?

The interesting thing about this "green" agenda in F1 is that it has had the opposite effect to what the marketers intended. It has demonstrated for all to see that "green" equals astronomical costs with nothing to show for it. This is exactly the case in the wider world; F1 is simply a microcosm of that.

154

HE'S ALIVE!!! Good to hear from Jean, it's been far too long and he had me worried for his wellbeing. Too bad what he said is a load of tripe.

If F1 was concerned about social responsibility they should do something about the absurd costs that could support third world nations, the tonnes of used rubber, the carbon footprint of flying tonnes of equipment all over the world and back several times a season, the inter- and intra-sport elitism, the support of countries with questionable human rights records, the leaching off the taxpayer for the right to 'host' a Grand Prix, the bare-faced corruption...

Now to shake all that hippie leftism off for a minute, of course Jean would defend the current engine formula, he was one of the key figures behind its broadscale introduction in 2014, which in turn presented some of the worst field spread in the last decade, and broadened the gulf between the works and customer teams. Not to mention the removal of some of the keys points of differentiation from other forms of motorsport.

I don't think that those massively concerned with social responsibility are likely to be watching this sport (or any sport? 😉) and aren't likely to, so why pander to them?

155

I agree. This latest response from Todt is nothing more than a justification for making what is quite possibly the most destructive and most unpopular decision in the history of F1.

Unfortunately there does not seem to be an easy way of reversing it, and this "green" hybrid nonsense in F1 will always remain his legacy, even though he may not be the sole responsible party.

156

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zAFhmq-txk

I don't know if Mercedes processed the sound for this video in some way, or if they just positioned the mics differently on the car, but it sounds somehow more aggressive and richer here than it did at any point during the season. It's still the V6 turbo engine, but somehow... better. I wonder if something like this could be done for the TV coverage at least.

157

I watched Die Hard once, only they were speaking Spanish.

The technology exists 🙂

158

Jean Todt [mod] the "society" you talk of simply doesn't accept F1, or any form of motorsport for that matter. Where the hell are you getting your information from? You are falling for the two card trick, they are tricking you into making F1 unattractive, so that eventually they get what they want, no more F1. If you can't see that then you are plainly blind.

Basically you are asking your enemy what weapons you should arm yourself with. As John Fowles said "I must fight with my weapons. Not his." Fuel economy, efficiency, and environmental protection are your enemies weapons. F1's weapons are competition, speed, danger, noise and spectacle. Use you weapons Jean, not some greenies' who will never be an F1 follower, they are are you enemy no matter how hard you try to appease them.

159

Excellent post. I was thinking exactly the same thing but refrained from posting it because I thought I would just get told to put on my tin foil hat and nobody would take me seriously anymore.

160

As a card carrying member of Global Society (which Jean and his FIA buddies are not one of), I can definitely say that this man is full of beans. Completely out of touch, beyond arrogant to think that F1 matters in the eyes of general society.

F1 is a side show, a circus act that a small fraction of well off people with too much time on their hands pay attention to. The fact that F1 thinks its a big enough deal that it has some sort of grand social responsibitiy is laughable.

Want to be socially responsible. How about stop milking local tax payers for 10s of millions of dollars a year for hosting fees. How about stop propping up tinpot dictators in socially backwards oil rich countries.

And if you want to tie the sound issue in with efficiency and environmentalism, how about you start with designing a calander that doesnt cross the globe 5 times in a single season. How about you put restrictioms on the size of the rediculous motorhomes and entertainment facilities that the circus drags around with them.

[mod]

161

Ever noticed that every time Red Bull or Mercedes does an exhibition day ,they always use the v8 cars? There's probably a reason: they know it makes the hair on your neck stand up! If they took the v6 hybrids, it wouldn't make near the impact. Maybe per rules they aren't allowed to use a current spec engine for demonstrations, but thank goodness they cannot .

162

James, other than fan comments I never see the powers that be talk about increasing the revs a solution to the lack of noise. Why is this? Technical reasons? Costs? Politics? Surely a higher revving V6 would bring back more of the sound we all miss.

163

I agree it's not just the decibels, it's more the pitch that is the problem

164

I've read that fuel flow limiter is what's preventing high revving engines, is this true or are there other factors keeping the revs down to about 12,500 rpm ATM?
Would allowing rotary engines be a possibility for the future to keep PU weight and size down so the cars are more nimble?

165

Yes that is correct

If it were adjusted the engines could rev higher

166

Something that should've been addressed many years ago. They were designed and marketed as being 15K capable but in reality ...never ever near that mark. It was all a hoax to try and convince people/fans that it wasn't too great a reduction from the 18K revs of the previous cars and that it wouldn't affect the racing!!!

167

damn, reading your comments I get the impression you really don't know what motorsports is all about, of course is about society and companies developing "daily usage" cars, do you really thing honda, mercedes, renault, or in the past toyota, ford, jaguar, just enter to formula 1 to get you fans all the excitement and entertainment you deserve in your lifes for be such a great fans? lol

really?

of course they are there to develop their own cars, all the technology that we saw in F1 goes someway to the "daily cars" that we all use, otherwise why spend such amounts of money? com'on people, think... think...

I do agre with Todt, there is no point for any company to continue invest in V10, V12 louder faster furious engines, if they are not being use in a regular car that no one or not all the "society" will accept, what is the point? are you telling me that the "big F1 fan base" will cover the millions invested in that by... watching F1 in public tv? or going to the tracks, maybe buying official merchandise ... lolx2 lolx100000 ,

It is really naive of you to say that society doesn't care. Damn this site its full of dumb people, I felt like I was in a soccer forum lol.

168

@jkimgt....I'm just one of all the 'dumb' people that post on this site so treat me to the fount of your superlative knowledge. Where is it that the current F1 technology is used in our 'daily usage' cars?

169

It doesn't really matter to me what engine is in use, I enjoyed the V10 days and I enjoy the sport now. The PUs are technically very interesting but lack the in your face punch that the old naturally aspirated engines had. This makes zero difference while watching on tv however, it's only an issue when you attend a race, and as someone who has actually done that (unlike most of the people who complain endlessly on here about the PUs) I can say from experience that you quickly stop noticing it and just get on with watching the race, which after all is what you went for! The fact that track attendances continue to be strong three years after the V6 turbo's introduction tells its own story. I don't miss the ear plugs, I don't miss conversation being impossible and I'm quite sure that the tracks don't miss the noise protests from local residents.
Jean is right to mention society, if F1 becomes socially unacceptable then governments will stop wanting to host races, this would be a much more serious threat to the sport than a few complaints from some of the fans. Complaints are omnipresent in F1, whatever the era, if it wasn't the noise it would be something else, 'twas ever thus. As it stands we have more countries wanting a GP than we have slots, this is not s sign of a "sport in crisis".
The biggest problem with reverting to v8s would be the manufacturers leaving, as Jean says if three out of four engine suppliers left, what would remain? Seven or eight teams all using the same engine? Doesn't sound very exciting to me.

170

Good points Tim, well said.

171

But for large chunks of its history, F1 was ALL about seven or eight teams using the same engine; more to the point, the British F1 industry grew out of that phenomenon. Without Coventry-Climax and (later) Cosworth, forget about Lotus, Cooper, Williams, McLaren etc. The Constructors Championship exists for that reason.

Bringing back independent engine manufacturers would not be a bad thing.

172

Rudy. When did F1 only have one engine supplier? Never happened in the history of the sport! We have never dipped below 10 teams either. In the days of the Coventry Climax there were also engines from Ferrari, Porsche, Maserati etc etc.

173

On the '61 grid, every British team including BRM used the Coventry-Climax FPF. Other than Ferrari and Porsche, I believe the only variety that year came via some converted FJ Ford 105-engined Canadian entries at Watkins Glen at the end of the season. I'll have to pull my copy of Whitelock's "1 1/2 Litre Grand Prix Racing, 1961 - 1965: Low Power, High Tech" when I get home tonight. It's a comprehensive treatment of that period, and I recommend that all F1 fans have a copy on their bookshelf.

The broader point I hurriedly tried to make still holds: Constructors, in the garagiste sense, are a legacy of the Climax and DFV eras. That legacy has nothing to do with road relevance and the R&D goals of multinational automotive companies; and absolutely has nothing to do with "societal acceptance" in the sense Todt seems to mean. But that legacy has everything to do with mating an affordable and powerful engine to the best chassis, tires, and suspension a given bunch of gearheads could come up with, and just going racing for the fun of it. Note that a similar dynamic played out here in the U.S. during the era of the Offy-engined Indy roadsters; Joe Scalzo describes it in another racing history I highly recommend, "Indianapolis Roadsters: 1952 - 1964."

But let me go further. I believe that the Constructor model, a model predicated on multiple independent teams having access to affordable off the shelf engines and transmissions, hasn't been appropriate since the end of the DFV/Hewland "kit car" era. If F1 insists on tying itself to the automakers, then Todt's consideration of wider societal pressures is unavoidable; these are publicly traded multinational corporations with myriad stakeholders and constituencies. If they are going to be in F1, in racing generally, these vagaries will have an impact. The VW Group's withdrawal from various sporting activities in the wake of the diesel emissions scandal demonstrates that point.

I would rather see F1 decoupled from the likes of Renault, Daimler-Benz, and Honda. But a Coventry-Climax, Offenhauser, Cosworth, etc. would have to be available for that to happen.

174

Ferrari, Lamborghini, Aston Martin, Rolls Royce all run V8 / V10 / V12 engines and society seems to get along with them just fine. In fact, most of society wants one of 'em. Bernie has gone, now [mod] return F1 to the absolute pinnacle of motor racing with screaming V10's where it should have always been. Make F1 Great Again!

175

Do you own any of the above?

176

I drive a normally aspirated Ferrari that sounds SO MUCH better than the current generation of cars... Society doesn't watch F1, gearheads do. If they went back to V12/V10/V8 people would love that.

177

Todt does not speak for me

178

Todt is completely out of touch with the fans.
Normally aspirated V12's or turbos can simply showcase clean burning fuels. No amount of persuading is going to change anything on Todt's mistaken agenda, not even empty grandstand seats. He's just simply in the way.
Todt is simply the absolutely wrong guy for the job and if Chase Carey can't get Todt out of the way, Chase Carey is wasting his time trying to make a series out of whiz-bang hybrid battery operated toys. It's just a glorified Toyota Prius parade on its way to self-extinction.
With Todt out of the way, Chase Carey would have a chance to fix this unbelievable mess.

179

To coin an old Aussie cliche, 'someone is a few kangaroos short in the top paddock'! Yes, that someone is Todt. He is deluded and totally out of touch with the core supporters of F1...The fans, without whom he would be out of a job, metaphorically of course. To quote a 'society' that doesn't exist within the broad ambit is duplicitous. There is enough evidence to support the re introduction of less complex but fiercely powerful and competitive engines without resorting to the extension of these PU's beyond 2020, which are the major distraction from what we, as F1 consumers, want from our sport. Yes , the tech is fantastic and that has been proved, but fans don't really care all that much, if the tech detracts from what we all want....racing, noise, and economies that encourage more teams to enter. The oft quoted ridiculous sums being paid for the engines results directly from this attempt to hi jack the sport from green leftist activists who are slowly but surely strangling the world in costly inefficiencies in search of an elusive valhalla! When Red Bull were struggling to find an engine supplier bernie threatened an introduction of a cheaper but no less competitive, engine! The manu's soon capitulated to reduced costs but it is still far too expensive. Todt really should be removed from his position of authority over F1 and leave it too someone who values our heritage in racing.

180

Mechanically there is nothing wrong with the current ICE, the problem is the fuel flow limit just restricts their power and at the same time kills the rpm so that they sound like a fart in a jar. The old 80's turbo engines sounded fine, but they actually rev'd to decent F1 levels and made plenty of power at the same time.

181

This. Remove the fuel flow limit and bring back refueling. Nothing else would need to change.

182

Jean Todt quote from this interview that was not included in this post, which puts it all in perspective, I think.

"It is true a Formula 1 race will create less pollution than one plane going from Paris to New York, but we must be an example."

183

I agree with most commenters here. Excitement in Grande Prix racing was when innovation naturally occurred and others adapted it to keep up. The Cosworth DFV and the Lotus 49 were not designed by beancounters like Jean Todt. In fact they never would have happened if a central committee concerned about some imagined society and environmental scare tactics by politicians to control people were the main concern of race promoters. Let the engineers figure out how to spin an engine faster. A 4-cycle engine turning 20,000 rpm is and achievement. The noise should be a byproduct, not a goal. Our priorities should not be the heat efficiency or friction coefficient of an engine. Get out of the way and the racing series will promote itself. It is called competition.

184

Interesting perspective, but we should not be asking the rule maker how to break the rules.
Rule breaking by definition generates entertainment value and thus dynamic excitement. Talking to Jean Todt is like talking to your parents about how to change the world. Let's hope that Liberty Media understands this basic conflict of interest issue.....Ah hum.

185

This guy sounds like a green party politician not the leader of a motor racing governing body. Why not just ban formula 1 entirely then since the cars still emit polutants in the air. Give me a break. Sick and tired of this liberal PC culture, there is enough of it in the world we don't need it in F1!

186

You're not the only one who is sick of the liberal PC culture -- far from it. That's why Trump is the president of the USA.

187

todt is right about technological advancement.
all those who don't understand that events of the past will always be for the past and that we should embrace change should look at mclaren who thought they'd have success with honda simply because of their past success..

188

Hi all,
It's been a few years since I submitted to this excellent JA on F1 column. Back then I made a few posts on what I saw was a totally flawed and unnecessary decision to introduce this dopey 1.6 litre, turbo hybrid experiment to F1....essentially Toyota Prius' (which is an amazing car btw) on steroids. In fact, I think I called it 'absolutely crazy'!

I remember being the first to draw a direct comparison between the millions of litres of aircraft fuel burnt to freight the F1 circus to/from just a few events (including my own in Melbourne) and the relatively small total fuel savings achieved over a season of 20+ F1 turbo hybrid boring weekends.

I compared the truly extraordinary sound of the relatively basic 3L, V10 engines revving to 19,000+ rpm (and the 'ok but not so exciting', 2.4L, V8 engines which followed) with the ultra quiet, truly awful sounding new formula which would guarantee to keep fans away from both the tracks and from television.

I also pointed out that F1 still used bulbous, high sidewall tyres with ridiculous looking tiny wheels, still relied on 2 archaic tiny glass mirrors to provide the drivers with essentially NO side or rear vision (enormous blind spots that would never be tolerated in road cars) and had zero anti-collision radar detection or avoidance technology on-board whereas our road cars had already made significant progress on all 3. In fact, essentially ALL technology transfer between our road cars and F1 was in that direction, not in the reverse, particularly in the myriad of safety systems that professional mechatronics engineers were constantly developing for the cars we drive.

Roll on 4 years or so and we have Jean Todt, clearly under great pressure to somehow defend the indefensible and sounding to me like the Emperor in his new clothes, making absurd statements that simply don't pass any reasonable sanity check. It kind of reminds me of Sir Humphrey back in the 80s defending the hospital with no patients! Indefensible, absolutely, but that didn't stop him trying...

To conclude, I would like Mr Todt et al to kindly abandon their ridiculous, failed turbo hybrid experiment as a huge and costly mistake that has done absolutely nothing to improve our road cars and has (quite predictably) ripped the heart out of the amazing F1 sport that we were all so privileged to experience back in the 00s? The proponents said it would raise the sport's 'green credentials' by saving fuel (a few 100s of kL yes but that pales into insignificance with the ML used to freight the cars around) and would reduce costs which it clearly has not.

And, to start the return to excitement again, could you please arrange for a 2005 V10 car (with grooved tyres and all that was in vogue in that era), or perhaps even a less exciting 2006+ V8 car to be in Melbourne to do ALL the practice sessions with the current turbo hybrid cars? Yep, in actual competition right thru to qualifying if they make it. I think that would be a dramatic demonstration to both the fans at the track (who would come out in droves to witness and hear!!! one of these amazing machines again), as well as the worldwide television audience, on just what has happened to F1. If that could be arranged in the 2 remaining weeks, I'm sure that either David Coulthard or Mark Webber would be more than happy to volunteer to drive the thing!

Ah yes, if even a single 3L, V10 machine was at the track, there would be a need to provide say 100,000 ear plugs to the fans. From my experience, it is simply not possible to be within 30m of the track without earplugs when a V10 comes by...an absolutely extraordinary experience.

Thoughts?

Cheers,
Ian

189

@ Ian...extremely well put. I really do agree with all your points and would love to see a 'challenge' happen. Could it happen? Absolutely not as the FIA would stamp all over it. Public humiliation is not their bag.

190

Ian you're bang on the money mate! Thank you

191

When Todt refers to "society" it could be the people at all the cocktail parties he attends on the Champs Ellysse, who lift their nose and "harumph" when he says he is in charge of the organization overseeing Formula One; that's why he likes to have "road safety" in his back pocket.
Or, "society" could be the OEMs presently supporting the series with their aggregate billions spent on engine R&D and the $300 million per year in operating costs to run F1 teams. Yes, they won't accept a return to normaly-aspirated, high-RPM engines, that's for sure. And the end-game here is battery-electric F1 cars because that's where the OEMs are going.
Liberty Media needs to bet the farm on these 2020 regulations, i.e. force a revert to normaly-aspirated V8/10/12, because if they follow the OEMs down the Primrose Path of "road relevant technology" they are going to lose their race series and their investment. When the bottom falls out of F1 after it goes PHEV in 2020 and BEV in 2027, the OEMs will walk away from the wreckage w/o a care in the world. Liberty Media shareholders, bond holders, bank lenders and the FANS will be left holding the bag.

192
Z Milosavljevic

While F1 has not been great in the last few years I think this downward slide happened way before the v6 turbo hybrids came in. When the FIA started mandating engine configuration, instead of just capacity, it doomed the series. When I started watching F1 in the 80's it was a free for all you could run a 3.0 liter NA motor or a 1.5 liter turbo they could any configuration (accept rotary) inline 4, v6, flat 6 v8

193

you're right.. nothing to do with the superefficient v6s.

194

"society wouldn't accept them"

What a pathetic thing to say, and how incorrect. F1 fans hate these washing machine PUs, they are the lowest point in our history, halfway to soulless electric nonsense. F1 is about screaming engines, not whining greenpeace bedwetters eco fantasies, a pox on them

195
Z Milosavljevic

Although the last couple of years have been dull, I think F1 started circling the drain way before the v6 turbo hybrids showed up, I was excited when they said they were going back to turbos, but then I started watching F1 in the 80's during the last turbo era. What started killing F1 was when the FIA started mandating engine configurations v10's only then v8's only and now v6 turbo hybrids. In the 80s you could run either a 3.0 NA or 1.5 liter turbo it could be any configuration (accept rotary) V, flat, inline, 4, 6, 8, 10, even 12 cylinder engines, whatever the team thought they could win with. For the last twenty years F1 has been adopting too many ideas from NASCAR too much standardization to save money it never saves money and just as in NASCAR the wealthy teams are always successful, there is really never a point in cost control even if you mandate a cap a team with more money will have the money to hire better engineers and drivers.
I remain optimistic about these new cars only because the NA cars sucked in comparison to the 80's turbo cars and it took a few years for the NA cars to catch up. As far as the drivers with the exception of Kimi they are dull both as drivers and personalities.

196

Late night plowing fields the naturally aspirated inline six exhaust glowed red. It wasn’t an entertainment moment. I learned to wear ear plugs because I wobble stepped down the tractor stairs completely strung out! My middle brother superseded me and exchanged the latest tractor’s turbo exhaust muffler pipe for a straight pipe per neighbor situation. My brother liked loud.

The thing is: middle brother, I, and ancient formula one fan are dinosaurs. Loud is immediate. Standing near a late 70’s rock concert pa system while a drum god drum soloed- AWESOME. The actual impact of Formula 1 per the environment is irrelevant. The proposed impact the pinnacle of motorsport offers is relevant.

Motorsport is declining in general. I would crash my dirt bike and know not to come home hurt. Who does that anymore? Many of us are ‘has beens’. Todt is trying to figure out F1’s future. I’m not sure live ear shattering experience, while awesome, is enough.

197

Well Jean, as you're feeling so politically correct, here are a few more ideas:
- Rename the pits "The Safe Zone"?
- Level off the podium so no one feels inferior?
- Introduce eco-friendly wooden medals and trophies?
- Gender quota for female drivers?
- Ban the use of blue flags as they are micro-aggressions against back-markers?

198

I'm not so sure that cutting down trees to make medals and trophies is eco friendly, but I do like the last one 🙂

199

Random....Trees are a renewable resource!!!!

200

excellent!

201

How will Liberty view this? .. they're American .. they want to crack the USA .. which means more races in the USA .. are the Americans interested in watching the current format ? As for electric cars .. we have Formula E .. so F1 has to differentiate itself and offer something inherently exciting, which means something to make your heart race and ears shudder .. shock and awe .. F1 is a bit dull these days, no real competition for the last few years and the cost of entry into the series is so restrictive, let alone the cost of being competitive. Hidden behind expensive paywalls it's not so attractive for sponsors anymore .. another nail in the coffin. F1 has lost its way. Take it back to engines that don't cost a few £100M to develope and make a decent roar.

202

Look, if the V8/10/12 is not brought back pronto, l'm giving F1 the flick.

203

If you want to understand why hitching Formula One's wagon to automobile OEMs, which is what's been done, is suicide, please read this article on VW at the Geneva Auto Show and then connect the dots.
https://mishtalk.com/2017/03/07/volkswagens-bizarre-looking-sedric-the-future-of-driverless-shared-rides/

204

i am so happy to hear a sensible fia president explain why f1 needs to progress not regress.

205

Me too - Let me know when it happens 🙂

206

did you not hear that architects are talking of introducing plant covered structures on sky scrapers to reduce the levels of pollution in cities? did you not hear of paris calling for reduction in car use because of pollution?
the global society don't want polluting vehicles so f1 will continue to progress in being road relevant and i like it..

207

Whether we like it or not the general public non F1 fans think that F1 is an extravagant waste of fuel and money. In an era where any negative is used to push their cause the noisier the car and the more fuel that's used the more they've got grounds to complain. This is partly why F1 is going the way it is, it's not racing in isolation from the rest of the world. That said though, whether it's an inline 2, V6 or V12 these people will always complain so F1 won't gain any credible brownie points for trying to do the right thing. There's an argument from a commercial perspective just to get the cars loud and attract new fans and hope this offsets the negative publicity from other areas.

208

I'm not sure what he is talking about in terms of not being accepted by society. Does he mean in terms of emissions?

If so, it's a complete non-issue as more emissions are wasted travelling between venues and of all the fans and support structure.

209

F1 has never been about road relevance. It makes that claim only arbitrarily. Get rid of pneumatic valvetrains, aero-induced cornering power, and slick tires if you want that; none of these things matters at all for road cars.

Manufacturer marketing and prestige are served by F1, that's the only relevance. Frankly, manufacturers would be better served by sticking to sports, GT, and endurance racing. Ford Racing executives are on record stating that F1 (and Imdycar) are too far removed from anything road relevant to warrant the expense of participating. I believe BMW executives have made similar remarks.

210

Rudy, I have never heard any BMW executive make any remarks of the kind you describe. I wonder if they have changed their tune since they were overtaken by Mercedes in the sales charts.

211

I've reviewed all the comments and I've come to the conclusion that I think formula one should be banned. It's increasingly against societies values and norms. I'm sorry James but your future is now in serious doubt. We can't possibly allow these horseless carriages to continue on as is. Automation is the only future society will accept. In the meantime let them in cake.

212

Oh my. Jean, it seems you're out of touch with F1 fans & put your foot in your mouth. Was a big supporter of you when you were at Ferrari but be honest this FIA gig you have is beyond you - it's not for you. Curious on which society are you actually referring to - the one that doesn't follow nor care about F1? Why would the pinnacle of motorsport & a niche entertainment show be appeasing to them the broad masses instead of F1 fans who pay to view at the track & on Pay TV? How many new fans have you brought on board since the introduction of this V6 turbo hybrid vacuum sounding era compared to the old F1 fans you've lost? Fans want entertainment, a real show, great racing, more competition & better looking cars & yes better sounding engines!

Track attendances are down & as costs keep going up less people will attend if it's the same story & as a result more heritage Grands Prix will be gone from the calendar as organisers keep making losses. More & more fans aren't paying for Pay TV either. Focus on what your F1 society want first Jean!

The society as you say, seem to accept, buy & enjoy the V8/V10/V12 engines that current Manufacturers in F1 like Ferrari, Mercedes & McLaren make. Curious on what cars you own & drive/get driven in these days? Bring back the real sound of F1 (am sure they can be made to be more fuel efficient) before 2020 & the racing again & am sure both new & old fans will come on board. Hope Ross Brawn can help here. Start now with removing the fuel flow restriction so they can rev higher for tge first GP.

James open up a poll to see what engine our society wishes to have - am sure it won't be the current configuration.

213

Same as Bernie, old bloke ain't got a clue...

We can only hope he won't get reelected and F1 will get a proper engine again

214

Not acceptable to society! Why doesn't Jean Todt let the fans vote for what we want?

215

Give nascar fans a three cylinder 1.0 turbo engine and see if any of them turn up to an event.

216

Barry, Nascar has had a major fall in track attendances over the last few years, so unlikely to make it any worse than it already is.

217

Jean Todt is in a world of his own. To say thathat multi cylinder engines are socially unacceptable is rubbish. Why? V6 engined cars are not widespread in the market so if the present configuration is his defence then it is not credible. Manufacturers would not rely old designs. Ì favour a return to open V8-10-12 rules. It was a fans delight yesteryear to hear different sounding loud engines that made your hair stand as they passed by. The 2017 cars are still muted. Let's return to spectacle and sound.

218

At its current state of development, Formula E is a triumph of political correctness - as the presence of so many manufacturers proves yet it is hardly exciting motor sport.

The racing and the cars may well improve but they have a long way to go before they can even compete with GP2 ( now F2 ) let alone Formula 1.

219

Wrong, Mr Todt. F1 has no obligation, moral or otherwise, to appeal to "global society". What a ridiculous statement! I think his personal crusades on environmental matters have created a major conflict of interest and he is not the man to be moving the FIA forward. Maybe Bernie can find a new job for him.

220

For F1 fans, Jean Todt’s mention of a ‘global community’ is a major worry. It’s a fantasy that only exists in the muddled minds of New World Order believers.

Todt’s frequent appearances at the UN and other international political forums suggest that he has higher career ambitions than merely FIA President.

While he’s fiddling, F1 is burning. Declining spectator attendances reflect falling interest in F1’s Brave New World. Pay TV has accelerated the downward trend in ‘eyeballs on screens’.

But Todt’s solution is a recipe for disaster. Like most motorsport administrators and promoters, he confuses sport with entertainment. They’re chalk and cheese.

Sport is a contest to find the best competitor, not the most entertaining competition.

Casual viewers soon get bored if the competition isn’t close. But sports fans don’t care as long as the competition is genuine.

In motorsport, wheel-to-wheel action is a bonus, not a requirement.

Instead of chasing the ‘entertainment’ market, Todt should focus on recapturing F1’s lost fanbase.

So far he hasn’t showed any sign of doing that. Phonebook technical regulations and contrived sporting rules have reduced F1 virtually to a one-make series. The cars all look alike, sound awful, corner as if they’re on rails, and are nearly impossible to overtake on the track.

Yet they rarely provide close racing, even between team-mates.

As for controlling costs, if anyone should know how impossible that is it’s an ex-Ferrari boss! One way or another, sporting teams always find ways to spend whatever money they can lay their hands on.

Todt’s ham-fisted attempt to make F1 more ‘entertaining’ is only turning more fans away. We want cars that look different, sound different, are exciting when they’re alone on the track, and can overtake without too much trouble.

Instead of trying to contrive close racing and contain costs, Todt should be encouraging more big-spending car companies to join F1. A good start would be to free up the technical regulations so that they’re relevant to different road car design philosophies:
* Chassis – free except for only overall dimensions, a crash test, and a total ban on ‘aero’.
* Engine – free except for a dynamic total energy consumption limit.
* Tyres – free except for overall dimensions and a limit of one pit crew member using manual tools, including the jack, for replacements (think about it).
* Replace the Safety Car with speed-limited Yellow Zones and a drive-through penalty for offenders, so that racing can continue around the majority of the circuit

In a nutshell, Jean Todt needs to choose between fixing F1 and becoming the UN Secretary-General.

221

I can't help but wish for the normally aspirated V8. These hybrid engines are way to complicated and hugely expensive. Change the rules to allow for engine refueling, allow Pirelli to design a normal race tire and require all non factory cars to get current engines. Let them drive with fury! It would save ton of money and provide a much more entertaing event! Saving fuel, tires, combined with tempermental, comlicated overly expensive engines is much less exciting! Most teams still don't have it right! Alonzo must be gutted. 3 years counting this one and Honda still is uncompetitive - much less reliable. Proves my point!

222

F1 is dying a slow death. The racing is dull, there are no personalities left in pit lane and the cars look and sound hideous. Money has become the primary objective of F1's management (thanks to Bernie and his cronies) and has been to the detriment of the sport.

223

An entire V10/V8 F1 race used less fuel and was less detrimental to the environment than a SINGLE atlantic airline flight. Such unproportional reasoning.

224

23yrs a fan no more. F1 thinks by being on social media is the answer? Not really as its dull, lacking in action. 5m fans left last year! F1 needs huge changes, and the prices dropping. Bernie right, its a full rip off. Alanso right, 1st lap cruise for fuel, lap 4 tyres harvesting is not fun. More fans will go.

225

What rubbish is Todt saying now ! Read between the lines and it translates to "if the engine manufacturers (road car makers) pull out, F1 will lose a massive amount of revenue, & our huge money making industry will have to rely on paid-for combustion engines from the likes of Cosworth, Illmor, Hart & Ferrari".
That is what F1 is all about at present, it's not for the fans, and it's not about the drivers anymore. Many are leaving or have just about had enough of pedaling these play station eco pieces of emasculating sh*te". F1 does not need to be relevant to road car technology, It's motor racing (the clue is in the name) in the same way that Moto GP, NASCAR, INDYCar & every other form of motorsport has stuck to it's petrol guns.
Time for Todt to go !

Top Tags
SEARCH Innovation
JA ON F1 In association with...
Multi award winning Formula One photographer
Multi award winning Formula One photographer

Sign up to receive the latest F1 News & Updates direct to your inbox

You have Successfully Subscribed!