2013 engine changes approved, but postponement possible

its a fact, its to go green. They seem to think that 24 cars racing for a few hours each for about 18 weekends a year are killing the Emperer Ottawa Sperm Whale Headed canadian-mexican-american-asian flying albatross or some shit. What kills me is that some modern supercars (enzo, SLR, SLS ect...) are based on these things, what will that do to them?

If it is a fact why has no one provided a source? Stating something is a fact doesn't make it so.
 
If it is a fact why has no one provided a source? Stating something is a fact doesn't make it so.

Statement from FOTA from one year ago

the BBC article from yesterday (i think)

and there is even more out there if you google "F1 green initiative 2013"

but Bernie is not happy about it:
Bernie Ecclestone appears intent on fighting the FIA's plans to switch to four cylinder engines in 2013, which he believes will detract from the show.

The governing body and most of the teams support trading the current high-revving V8s for fuel-efficient, turbo-charged four pots in two year's time. But Ecclestone has warned that F1 risks losing its two biggest selling points - the noise of over 20 naturally aspirated engines and Ferrari, which is also dead against halving the cylinder count.

"I meet people worldwide in all different walks of life - sponsors, promoters and journalists and I think there are two things that are really important for Formula One," Ecclestone told AAP. "One is Ferrari and second is the noise. People love and get excited about the noise. People who have never been to a Formula One race, when they leave you ask them what (they liked) and they say 'the noise'.

"I brought some Russian gentlemen to Singapore and I met them afterwards in Russia - it was the first race they'd ever been to and I said what was it that impressed you. I didn't even think about the noise and they said the most important thing was the noise - it's incredible, it really gets to you. It's unbelievable that even moreso the women - the ladies love the noise."

One of the main reasons behind the shift is to use F1 to develop greener technologies such as advanced turbo-charging and KERS. As part of the regulations the teams will have to race with a restricted fuel allowance, which will force the engineers to balance performance with frugality.

But such initiatives do not wash with Ecclestone, who is concerned about the cost of building new engines and selling the sport to TV broadcasters.

"I'm anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula," he added. "We don't need it and if it's so important it's the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing. The rest of it is basically PR - it's nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport. I'm sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I'm quite sure we'll lose TV."

I have much respect for him after reading this. He is very right.

He admitted that he does not see eye-to-eye with FIA president Jean Todt on the issue.

"He's not a promoter and he's not selling Formula One to be honest. Jean and I are a little bit at loggerheads over this engine. I don't see the reason for it. We had the KERS and this was supposed to solve the problem that Formula One is not green and now we've got something else."
 
Why the fuck does racing have to be green? Why? Honestly?
 
You people bitch a lot. The current engine regulations are boring and frankly garbage, we're stuck with engines that should much better than what they are now. It's not going to take long before these engines are producing more power than the current engines, and before we complain about noise, listen to the turbos from the 80s, they are far from quiet and the new engines will be revving higher. The addition of the turbos will make the design of the car more of a challenge as well, teams will have to find a way to package all the plumbing compactly so as to not hinder flow to the diffuser.

Do you remember the big ass engines from brfore 2008(i think)? They sounded massivly epic! Its about the sound, as bernie stated, thats a huge part of F1.

lol, that's the least of my worries, what will happen with fancy supercars bought by superficial assholes.

Not all supercar people are superficial assholes.
 
I'm not sure I can take arguments of someone who refers to a 3L v10 as a "big ass engine" all that seriously.

Hey with all the "green" requirements nowadays in motorsport, anything above a milk carton is a "big ass engine".
 
it was the V10 that i was referring to, not the 3 liter part.

The v10's were good in part because the engine regulations were open to innovation, they're being opened up to innovation again so I fail to see where the problem is.
 
The v10's were good in part because the engine regulations were open to innovation, they're being opened up to innovation again so I fail to see where the problem is.

The problem is that this is F1 not MotoGP.
 
The v10's were good in part because the engine regulations were open to innovation, they're being opened up to innovation again so I fail to see where the problem is.

well, what i think most are speaking about, including bernie, is the fact that its F1. its not about a "4 banger with a turbo", its about V-10's and V-8's and the sound they make at 18000-20000 rpm and not a I-4 at 12,000. its about a group of old fat guys in some boardroom somewhere telling F1 to "go greener. Im sorry but i just dont want to se a 4 cylinder in my favorite teams car. Just doesnt attract me. I say that maybe they should open the engine rule up completely to any size and then regulate some ridiculous small amount of fuel for each race and let the teams design the best engine for the job. thats what i think. know what im saying?
 
well, what i think most are speaking about, including bernie, is the fact that its F1. its not about a "4 banger with a turbo", its about V-10's and V-8's and the sound they make at 18000-20000 rpm and not a I-4 at 12,000. its about a group of old fat guys in some boardroom somewhere telling F1 to "go greener. Im sorry but i just dont want to se a 4 cylinder in my favorite teams car. Just doesnt attract me. I say that maybe they should open the engine rule up completely to any size and then regulate some ridiculous small amount of fuel for each race and let the teams design the best engine for the job. thats what i think. know what im saying?

F1 isn't about any sort of engine configuration. F1 has always been about the fastest configuration possible and the engine option is merely a means to that end. Formula 1 has had v16's, v12's, v10's, v8's, turbo 6's, turbo 4's, flat 12's etc, with the rpm levels you speak of only being achieved in the last 10 or so years. The fact is that in 2013 we'll have engines that are just as powerful and use 2/3rds the fuel, how is that a bad thing? Also if you give the teams 100 kg of fuel for a race, do you really think you'll be seeing v10's and v8's in the field? An efficency formula means you are going straight for smaller engine anyway. The only way for these larger engines to be a viable option is to ban all the alternatives. If you open up the engine regulations and allow say 150kg of fuel for the race, do you think the teams will really opt for a 800hp v10 which needs all 150kg of fuel to finish, or for a 700hp turbo4 which needs 100kg of fuel to finish the race? Remembering that 1kg of fuel is worth 1/10th a lap or something around there isn't it?
 
F1 isn't about any sort of engine configuration. F1 has always been about the fastest configuration possible and the engine option is merely a means to that end. Formula 1 has had v16's, v12's, v10's, v8's, turbo 6's, turbo 4's, flat 12's etc, with the rpm levels you speak of only being achieved in the last 10 or so years. The fact is that in 2013 we'll have engines that are just as powerful and use 2/3rds the fuel, how is that a bad thing? Also if you give the teams 100 kg of fuel for a race, do you really think you'll be seeing v10's and v8's in the field? An efficency formula means you are going straight for smaller engine anyway. The only way for these larger engines to be a viable option is to ban all the alternatives. If you open up the engine regulations and allow say 150kg of fuel for the race, do you think the teams will really opt for a 800hp v10 which needs all 150kg of fuel to finish, or for a 700hp turbo4 which needs 100kg of fuel to finish the race? Remembering that 1kg of fuel is worth 1/10th a lap or something around there isn't it?


and how much has the fan base and the tv support for F1 gone up over that time? i see your point about my fuel/engine idea though, it was just a random though i had really.
 
and how much has the fan base and the tv support for F1 gone up over that time? i see your point about my fuel/engine idea though, it was just a random though i had really.

lol, so you think the higher the engines rev, the more people will watch F1? :lmao:
if you all realy can't live with turbo I4...you can just stop watching
anyways, it's gonna happen! stop bitching about it
 
not bitching, discussing. As you can tell, im not in favor of it and im here to talk about that with others.

and I'm not in favor of it either. Turbo-I4s are not the essence of F1. V6s are the smallest engines I want to see in Formula 1 racing. If the FIA wants to see Turbo-I4s so bad, make a new racing series and have the dingbats watch that.
 
Top