F1 teams lobby for equal engines (Poll)

Renault want engine performance to be equalised in F1 in 2009

Renault want engine performance to be equalised in F1 in 2009

Honda and Renault are leading the push for F1 engines to have equal power outputs in 2009.

Renault?s Flavio Briatore is said to have demanded the equalisation because Renault, unlike many other teams, did not get around the ??engine freeze? rules to enhance its power output in 2008.

Should the FIA equalise engine power in 2009? How could it be done?

Coming only a few weeks after the Formula One Teams Association argued strongly and successfully against standard engines , it seems strange that some of those teams now wants the FIA to make all engine power outputs the same.

It seems like a very complicated proposal to me. The characteristics of an engine are not simply defined by its power output – torque and the nature of the power delivery (is it smooth and progressive or does it all come in one big lump) also play an important role. Would these have to be equalised too?

Would it even be technically possible for the FIA to monitor the different variables and ensure the teams don’t make further performance tweaks to their engines? Presumably it would have to be done by the standard ECU introduced this year.

The attraction of equalising engine power is that it would help keep the racing close. But is equalising engine performance an artificial device that contradicts the ethos of Formula 1?

Do you think the FIA should try to equalise the power of teams’ engines in 2009? Cast your vote below and have your say in the comments.

[poll id="30"]

2009 F1 season

Advert | Go Ad-free

40 comments on F1 teams lobby for equal engines (Poll)

  1. I said it before and I still think it: I can’t understand why Renault (and Honda) followed the ‘spirit of the rule’ instead of following the ‘limits of the rules’. F1 is, in part, about that: engineers pushing the limits (physical AND legal) to make the best car. If Renault and Honda has lost the train, it is their problem. Of course one can see it the other way around: Renault and Honda are trying to catch up by bending the rules a little… (and that’s also part of F1…)

  2. I like the idea on limiting the amount of fuel per race, that would also make F1 appear greener. This is probably the solution. Here are a few more I would also like to see.

    I think that they should do away with the rev limit all together. Let the teams take chances, maybe increase the severity of penalties for engine changes to deter teams from going too far. Say a point reduction for engine changes.

    I would rather see extremely limited areo and let teams work with suspension and horsepower. These two areas would seem to be the most road relevant areas of an F1 car.

    Teams are going to spend massive amounts of money as long as the reward is worth it (or not -24m a point Honda!?). Why not make them focus on areas gear-geeks like us are interested in.

  3. Why are we looking to change F1? We’ve just witnessed the one of, if not the greatest season in history. Why change it? Use other ways of cost cutting. You cant tell me that the only way is technical. Please leave it alone. Im so worried its not going to be the same with all these talks of aero packages, equalised motors and limited fuel.

    Please Max, do you best to leave F1 as it is. I can understand there is issues that need addressing to safeguard the future of the sport but surely there is other ways.
    Equalising is not what the fans want!

  4. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th November 2008, 16:45

    Adam – “We”? Surely “they”?

  5. Shahriar said on 11th November 2008, 16:58

    Defffinately NO

  6. Pingguest said on 11th November 2008, 18:43

    The curent situation of unequal engines is the result of the anti-autosport freeze on engine development. Allow any development and manufactures will get their chance to equal their engines by innovation.

  7. bernification said on 11th November 2008, 21:42

    Haas,I support Flavio and Ross Brawn on this issue. My argument is simple, what did the ‘Engine freeze’ mean? It was done for the teams to stop developing thier engine to cut costs (coz engine development took a huge chunk of money out of the F1 teams).

    Forgive me if I’m wrong here, but I thought the reason that the FIA introduced the engine freeze was so that people would spend their money and research into something else, ie. KERS

    I don’t think that any of the teams developed any component for reliabilty, and in it’s newest guise it developed less power, and Renault went from the mid of the grid to poles and front three rows, so I suspect that they did the same.

    I think really Flav is trying to buy time and establish the rules, as he did last year in the spying rows.

    Does anybody really think that Flav only found out about the McLaren information on his teams computers the week following McLarens ruling? His team had actually questioned the legitamacy of some of that years car- McLarens j damper, because Renault backroom staff couldn’t understand it.

  8. Wesley said on 11th November 2008, 22:31

    @ PinballLes

    I think the limiting of fuel is a great idea,I echo the the first paragraph of what Dan M said….but,I am not quite sure about the rev limiter thing Dan,seems to me that frying an engine undermines the purpose of trying to go green.(of course Formula 1 and GREEN are a contridiction in terms to begin with)

  9. I voted yes, though I felt the wording was loaded! What I feel is that teams should be given an equal opportunity to develop their engines before the start of next season. Then freeze them again (according to Mad Max’s wishes), and this time do it properly. If any team is left behind after that, well tough luck.

  10. PinballLes said on 11th November 2008, 23:08

    Limiting the amount of fuel available to a car during a race will require the different team’s engineers to get smarter about creating high powered engines that are fuel efficient.

    The research and development required to create a high powered fuel efficient engine may require a fair chunk of cash to do, however by “forcing” the teams to engineer fuel efficient high performance engines, not only does it “look green”, it also has a major benefit to the actual road cars that the different manufacturers build and sell to us, the public. If the manufacturers can use the knowledge they gain by creating fuel efficient formula one engines, and apply it to the engines used in road cars, we can all start driving around in cars that use less fuel without compromising on power, which is good for our wallet, and kind of better for the environment at the same time.

    If I was in charge, I’d set one rule regarding engines – each car is allowed to use “x” number of litres of fuel per race, and forget about power limits, rev limits, engine size limits etc, and let the engineers get innovative and create a fuel efficient high powered engine.

  11. Alex Cooper said on 11th November 2008, 23:41

    As no-one, not even Bernie or the FIA, know the exact recipe that makes F1 work as well as it does you would have thought that they’d bring any fundamental changes like this in slowly. In order to reduce the risk and resolve it if it fails (such as qualifying over the last 10 years).

    To level the aero, bring in KERS, allocate slicks, reduce costs AND limit the engine outputs all at once will make it easier for die-hard petrol-heads to walk away from the sport should it not work.

    The big question is – does F1 really need these sorts of changes? Based on this article in The Guardian, the need to reduce costs doesn’t wash with the teams.

  12. Keith Collantine (@keithcollantine) said on 11th November 2008, 23:48

    PinballLes –

    Limiting the amount of fuel available to a car during a race will require the different team’s engineers to get smarter about creating high powered engines that are fuel efficient.

    Lots of people have made that point and I’ve still not heard a good argument against it. Yes, it would open up engine development and increase costs, but it’s not as if KERS is inexpensive is it?

  13. Certainly NOT!

    I think they can just equalize engine geometrical measurements and weight. The power of the car now depends (and should not be equalized) on the efficiency of the manufacacturer’s design.

    If they are to equalize the power, i think it much is better to have a pedal-powered F1 car and strip the constructors title as well.

  14. AmericanTifosi said on 12th November 2008, 4:33

    One problem with KERS that has been cited, besides the danger, is the weight. If KERS must be implemented (please, no) I propose that they lower the minimum weight of the cars. This would encourage the teams to design lighter gearboxes, engines, KERS systems, and a host of other things.
    Maybe this idea is rubbish, but I think that the weight restrictions are too limiting.

    And to get back on subject, standerdised F1 engines is a horrible idea and if it is passed, the best option would be all-out revolt.

  15. Thinking about it , specifying a maximum capacity of 2.4l is already a form of standardisation , so I say they should leave it at that , and with the 19000 RPM limit. If teams like Ferrari and McLaren are innovative enough to extricate more out of such a spec. engine than Renault and Honda , then it’s up to the latter to get off their tails and do some more development to catch up. A large part of F1 is all about continual development and must be left that way.

Add your comment

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

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.