Di Montezemolo: 2013 engine rules ??pathetic??

F1 Fanatic round-upPosted on | Author Cari Jones

Ferrari boss Luca di Montezemolo is concerned about the new, cost-cutting engine rules for 2013.

Di Montezemolo has told Auto Motor und Sport: ??Four cylinders is not Formula One. We will not be building any for our street cars [and] for the top class of racing it sounds a bit pathetic.?

??Why couldn’t we have a V6 turbo? We should not confuse affordable with cheap.?


Ferrari opposes ‘pathetic’ engine changes (ESPN)

??Ferrari boss Luca di Montezemolo has admitted he is looking for allies in his aversion to Formula One’s new engine formula for 2013. When the four-cylinder turbo regulations were announced recently, di Montezemolo said the team was ??not happy? but ??will not stand in the way?.??

Brawn plays down speculation over his future (ESPN)

??Mercedes team principal Ross Brawn has looked to play down increasing speculation over his future amid a reported restructuring of the German team. ??I will not resign until this team is successful,? he told Germany’s Auto Motor Und Sport.??

Construction underway on Austin F1 venue (

??Work has begun in earnest on the new United States Grand Prix venue in Texas, as race organisers push ahead with preparations for Formula One racing?s return to the country in 2012.

??To view the circuit’s draft 3-D layout in more detail click here. To view the circuit’s draft 2-D layout in more detail click here.??

Jenson Button on 2011 (The_Real_JB via Twitter)

??Good 3km swim this morning, now we’re stuffing our faces! Hawaii rocks!

??Big thanks to all my fans for your support over the years.. I’ve got a feeling 2011 is going to be a very special year! Bring it on ;-)??

The Dakar Rally: Scariest race in world beat the terrorists (The Express)

??It’s dangerous enough to border on the insane. A 6,000-mile dash around jagged terrain but with a unique appeal to professionals and amateurs determined to test the limits of driver and car to the utmost.

??The 33rd Dakar Rally started yesterday with 430 machines ?ǣ some with two wheels, others with four or even six. Originally it went from Paris to Dakar, in Senegal, but the threat of terrorism has forced the event to move continent ?ǣ drivers are now confronted by a daunting loop around Argentina and Chile.??

Timo Glock in training (Twitpic via realTimoGlock)

??After a hard training day, there is a Lasagne waiting for me and for you the proof, that I don???t eat just soup and salad! Have a nice Sunday evening.??

Comment of the day

Sahajesh is going to the Belgian Grand Prix and has a few questions ?ǣ can anybody help?

I?m going to my first GP ever (Spa 2011) and I?m undecided between Silver 1, Silver 2 and Gold 4. I?m guessing Gold 4 would be a better location (higher up, great views of Eau Rouge etc) but I?d appreciate comments from the people here.

There will be 3 of us going (and a birthday weekend for one of us), this guy loves F1 and Spa as well!

What are the relative views from each stand and what would you choose?

From the forum

As we head into a mammoth long season, Zadak asks where does the future of the Spanish Grand Prix lie?

Happy birthday!

A big happy birthday to Ajokay ?ǣ hope you have a great day!

On this day in F1

And happy birthday to Michael Schumacher, who is 42 years old today.

The seven-time world champion is the oldest F1 driver on the grid. His career history includes 91 victories, 1,441 championship points and 76 fastest laps, spanning 269 race entries.

After a difficult 2010, Schumacher remains with Mercedes this year.

186 comments on “Di Montezemolo: 2013 engine rules ??pathetic??”

  1. Juan Pablo Heidfeld (@juan-pablo-heidfeld-1)
    3rd January 2011, 0:03

    Timo has good taste :D

  2. Could not agree more with LdM, for once.

    1. Agree entirely (like you say, for once) :)


    2. and the latest!!!! tony fernades from team lotus, say that the new engine rule it’s the best that could happen to f1. And the next step is to make the tyres like the road cars so the car industry can benefit from the smart people that work in f1. Smart people like him i imagine.
      That’s what hapens when no racing men get into the sport.

    3. I want powerful and big engines!

  3. Keith the top link from ESPN does not work, it links straight back to this page.

    1. They’re all broken it seems. None of the links on the page work, not just the top one.

      1. None are working for me either.

        1. Just looked at the source, and all those links are all just missing the equal sign right after href in the tags…

          1. Ah that seems to be the reason those links do not work.

            Can you have a look at that Keith?

  4. Oh, shut up, Luca. It’s Formula One, not Formula Ferrari, however much you might like it to be.

    1. I’m sorry but 4 cylinder engines are just not formula one in my opinion, what is the point in people like ferrari or mercedes taking part in f1 if their road cars engines are all v8’s and v(some riduculously high number) and yet their f1 engine is a puny straight 4?

      1. The point is, their road cars may currently be V8/ 10/ 12/ 20,000, but the future trend will presumably be one of all cars being lower on power.

        Perhaps LdM is a relic of the past, of the Enzo era, when engines were all that matttered. Times are changing, yet his views seem rooted in the past

        1. Perhaps LdM is a relic of the past

          Nail! On! Head! He should retire and refrain from commenting on F1 at all.

          I honestly don’t get everyone’s aversion to 4 cylinder engines. It’s the power that matters, not the shape, size, color, flavor, texture, smell or even the sound of the engine (although the new engines are gonna be some throaty beasts). If they can make small 4 cylinder engines as powerful as the current V8s, they should! Luca’s just afraid of the new competition that will likely come with the new engine formula, and the potential leveler between the teams that a new set of regulations typically are.

          1. Luca’s just afraid of the new competition that will likely come with the new engine formula, and the potential leveler between the teams that a new set of regulations typically are.

            Not to mention the way there will be new design regulations for 2013. We all know what happened to Ferrari last time there was a major change in the technical rules – they really dropped the ball with the F60. It was horrid to begin with and they hadn’t even been able to extract any reasonable and consistent speed out of it by the end of the season. The only reason why they won in Belgium was because of Raikkonen’s KERS button (and that start), robbing Fisichella and Force India of victory.

          2. We all know what happened to Ferrari last time there was a major change in the technical rules – they really dropped the ball with the F60.

            I was thinking the same thing. Newey thrives with new rules. Apparently Aldo Costa doesn’t.

          3. In response to US_Peter

            Nail! On! Head! He should retire and refrain from commenting on F1 at all.

            Hell no, he’s a constant source of amusement, especially when Ferrari lose.

            In Reply to Prisoner Monkeys

            Not to mention the way there will be new design regulations for 2013. We all know what happened to Ferrari last time there was a major change in the technical rules – they really dropped the ball with the F60.

            They also dropped the ball when Mid Engined cars became the norm, and when F1 engineers realised that V10’s had better power to weight ratio’s they stuck to fat heavy V12’s which road cars were matching in acceleration at the time.

          4. In reply to PM

            They really dropped the ball with the F60. It was horrid to begin with and they hadn’t even been able to extract any reasonable and consistent speed out of it by the end of the season. The only reason why they won in Belgium was because of Raikkonen’s KERS button (and that start), robbing Fisichella and Force India of victory.

            You have to stop letting your hatred of Ferrari cloud your judgement dude. McLaren had a pig of a car in 09, as did Renault and almost every other team without a double diffuser barring the beast that Newey designed.

            And weren’t you the one that kept saying something along the lines of if you cant overtake a slower car then you shouldn’t be in F1?
            Fisichella couldn’t overtake Kimi because the perfectly legal and optional KERS gave him extra speed on the straights and you say he was robbed.
            Alonso couldn’t overtake Petrov who had extra speed on the straights. Are you going to say he was robbed?

            I just hope you haven’t yet realised that it shows greater character to show respect to people or things you dislike rather then just beat them down every chance you get. Otherwise you’d just come across as a keyboard hero getting high of his own narcissistic bigotry.

          5. Wow very well put Julian. As much as I hate Ferrari at times, I totally agree

          6. Well said Julian.

          7. Prisoner Monkey: If KERS was so overpowered that you could “rob” wins just by having it in your car, why didn’t all the teams (including Force India) have it then? Those teams chose not to develop KERS and put their resources elsewhere, which turned out to be the right decision, because KERS was bad for car’s balance.

          8. We all know what happened to Ferrari last time there was a major change in the technical rules – they really dropped the ball with the F60.

            And Mclaren, BMW and Renault. In fact, every team that concentrated on either finishing 2008 strongly, or on KERS.

            The only reason why they won in Belgium was because of Raikkonen’s KERS button (and that start), robbing Fisichella and Force India of victory.

            Oh, yeah, since KERS was this illegal device that had no other drawbacks (like upsetting the balance of the car) that evil Luca had up his sleeve and no-one knew about. Rubbish, PM, rubbish.

        2. There is a difference between having the engines be “the only thing that mattered” and not having them matter at all. It is auto racing. Autos have engines. They should matter, and at the highest echelon of the sport they should stand out. If I want to see a four cylinder, I’ll walk down to the Toyota dealer.

          1. And what if you wanted to see a 4 cylinder producing well over 600BHP?
            Don’t be so daft as to think they will be anything like the engines in road cars.

      2. Mercedes make lots of different engines. A V6 turbo does sound more interesting, but I think Ferrari is the only team likely to care massively. As long as they don’t continue development freezing and the engines start off with a similar amount of power to now, I don’t mind too much.

        1. Mercedes do indeed make zillions of engines BUT,Let’s hope they give the VERY best GOLD PLATED engine to Schumacher this year :) Seeing as it is the great mans birthday today the 3rd of Jan..
          42years old and going for his 8th title.HAPPY BIRTHDAY MIKE!!

          Hey,I wonder if this will be the trend for the future of F1?
          IMAGINE >YEAR 2044
          FERNANDO Alonso heading for his 16th title.Will he beat the great Michael Schumacher who won his last Title at 59years of age?

          OR>YEAR 2065.
          Lewis Hamilton has just won his 18th World Title at the record age of 79years old.
          Lewis Hamilton

      3. The Sri Lankan
        3rd January 2011, 3:48

        i think honda and toyota shoild come back as engine suppliers. both of them have straight 4’s in their roadcar lineups

      4. a “puny” straight 4 was rumoured to be the most powerful ever in f1!!

    2. Where’s the thrill in watching (and listening to) F1 cars with puny 4 cylinder engines?

      1. How about you tell me when you actually hear one.

        1. Eh, perhaps that was a bit wide of the mark, but let’s face it- how much more road relevant and cost-effective is it to get the teams to pour investment into 4 cylinder turbo engines than continue with the V8 engine formula we’ve had for only a few years?

          If the FIA simply want new regs to attract more manufacturers to the sport, then they better be prepared for another exodus if they fail.

          1. What is Formula 1 really about? Is it about bolting four extra cylinders and fifty extra kilograms onto an engine to make it louder … or is it about refining engine technology so that you get an engine that is half the size of the current ones, has half the internal capacity, has half the maximum number of revs and yet still produces the same amount of power as the current rules allow?

            Because I know which I prefer. I’d much rather see high tech than hear high-pitch.

          2. I’d much rather see high tech than hear high-pitch.

            I think I might actually prefer the throaty growl of a small turbo to the hair-metal scream of the current cars.


          3. @US_Peter

            For the 4 cylinder turbos you don’t need earplugs, while the the current engines and those of the past F1 cars you do :).

            I think the screaming sound of F1 cars definitely brings a special feel to the audience and it will be missed, but the change is inevitable. As mentioned by someone below in future F1 might even use hybrids or electric engines. Maybe one day all we will hear is the wind effect and tyre squeaks. Woooooosh… squeeeeeeeak…. lol

            The only hope that they never dicide to use 2 cylinder or 1 cylinder.. pop, pop, pop, pop…. haha lawnmowers

          4. *decide

        2. anakincarlos
          3rd January 2011, 4:48

          Maybe in 10 years all engines will be hybrids running on batteries and there will be no sound at all?

          1. Hybrids have sound, only 100% battery powered cars don’t.

          2. dyslexicbunny
            3rd January 2011, 16:00

            That’s when drivers will be making their own sound effects. Someone else posted a video with some making their own.

    3. it does sound weird, to have F1 cars fitted with 4 cylinder engines, when, just 5 years ago, there was a 3 litres V10 racing.

      Let’s face it. Changes are usually not the most popular thing to do, appart from banning traction control and refueling.

      I don’t think people liked the idea of having V8 engines… I was dissapointed when i first heard them in Barhain 2006 after more than a decade with the huge V10’s we all loved, shaking the entire living room.

      But by the time we get to 2013, the idea of 4 cylinder engines won’t be that stupid…

      1. As I’ve said before, I don’t mind the new regulations that much but I love the sound of a V10 and woud be happy to see one again.

        Montes probem might be that 4 cylinders aren’t relevant to Ferrari at all. They do not build engines like that and presumably they never will. Can you imagine someone coming to Ferrari and saying ‘hello, i would like the 458’ ‘yes, no problem sir, look over here’ ‘oh thats magnificent .. does it come with a straight 4 engine?’ ‘no, but look at this wonderfull masterpiece of an engine in it’ ‘nah, I’ll rather take the Porsche, I prefer the straight 4’. And as we all know, there is a massive difference between people who buy Ferraris and those who buy Porsches. I would be very surprised to see a Ferrari with that kind of an engine. Nevertheless I’m sure Ferrari could learn a lot from developing a new engine and if it turned out to be a 6 cylinder one, I wouldn’t mind.

    4. jsw11984 (@jarred-walmsley)
      3rd January 2011, 8:20

      As much as it pains me to admit it (having a massive hatred of LdM) I agree with him, I think the engine specs should have been a two stage process with 2013 being any configuration 6 cylinder turbos followed by 4 cylinder turbos in about 2020.

      But on a lighter note I feel it unlikely that we will see the 4cylinder turbos as the world ends on December 20th 2012 doesn’t it??! :D

      1. Actually, some folks think May 2011 – that’ll put a damper on the Indy 500 – huh?

    5. I am agreeing with Montezemolo for once.

      ‘Why couldn’t we have a V6 turbo?’

      It would at least keep F1 at LeMan level!

      However, I don’t see this being a reason for F1 to be overtaken by LM24 as the pinnacle of motorsport – it should hopefully bring in new blood like VW or the return of old freinds like Honda, as suppliers – because the new engines afre a new (affordable) challange!

    6. PM, its obvious that you are not a fan of Luca, but I feel that he does have a good point this time. 4 cylinder turbo engines are a joke, and for Ferrari it is an even bigger joke, as they would have absolutely no use for developing an engine and spending million and millions of dollars on building an engine they would never use on their road cars. Renault might be thrilled by the prospect, and maybe even Mercedes. But considering that F1 is the pinnacle of motorsport and automotive technology, I would hate to see these engines in F1 cars. Maybe its just a psychological issue, but I would just hate to think that my Honda accord has a V6 engine, and an F1 car has a V4.

      1. I am not a fan of Luca as well (although he gives us something to smirk at the last 2 years).
        Those 4 cylinder engines with turbo will come quite handy for Ferrari owners Fiat. Not to mention their brands Alfa Romeo and Lancia or the recently tied in Chrystler.
        You can already get mid size sedans with 1.2 l engines doing pretty solid power output. Soon even 4 cylinder 1,5 l engines might be for top performance cars only. Just look at that recent BMW supercar concept, it has a tiny engine but huge power.
        And even if Ferrari will never use such engines itself (although the power they give would not be the argument for not using them) it will lear a great deal from pursueing further development paths to get smaller engines with give more power with better efficiency.

        The fact Monti often rants like this shows, he should get himself some serious hobby.

        1. Well .. Luca was replaced as the chairman of Fiat sometime last year. Considering that he is only the chairman of Ferrari, and doesn’t really have a responsibility to look out for fiat and alfa romeo road cars, I guess he is entitled to his opinion. I wonder if these same statements were made by Whitmarsh, would people call them rants anyways.

          The recent BMW supercar concept is a hybrid, and that only way it produces a high bhp is when both the engines are working together. I would agree with the FIA if they were looking at different technologies and hybrid power, but just to make the engine smaller and fuel/power efficient, is a waste. Either do something revolutionary, or leave it the same. I do not look forward to these V4 turbos in 2013, it does not add any value to the sport or racing whatsoever.

      2. For Ferrari read Fiat, then tell me they don’t have any use for 4 cylinder turbo engines.
        I feel the reason LDM is against engine change is he knows the mess Ferrari get in with new engine changes and needs plenty of time to get there engine reliable. The V6 i suspect is a project already on there drawing board or maybe further advanced?.
        V4s sound fine, accept it, its a sign of our times and the future !!

        1. Ferrari didn’t do too badly when switching from 3 litre V10s in 2005 to 2.4 litre V8s in 2006.

  5. Kyle (@hammerheadgb)
    3rd January 2011, 0:12

    Hi Keith, the links to all the news stories, and to the forum thread, are all broken – they’re all directed back here!

  6. Its my 18th birthday today!. (3rd) :P

    1. Happy Birthday!

    2. Happy birthday to you, ajokay and Schumi!

      1. I hereby join in in the birthday wishes!

        To all of you (Joe Szpara, Ajokay and Schumi) a very nice day today, enjoy it.

    3. Happy Birthday guys! Must be pretty sweet sharing your birthday with Schumacher being fanatics and all that – kind of beats me sharing the 20th September with JPM!!

    4. Happy birthday Joe!

      1. eh, and best wishes for Ajokay and Schumi too :)

  7. 42 years old… wow. Presumably he’s roughly the same age as Jaime Alguersuari and Sergio Perez put together.

    People seem to think of Rubens Barrichello as the oldest driver in F1 because he’s the most expeirenced, but Schumacher was going a year and a half before he him. It’s incredible to think there are still drivers on the grid who have been in F1 since the days of Senna, Mansell, Piquet and Prost

    1. Yep. Schumacher and Barrichello are and will forever be legends in the sport. Barrichello for his longevity, and Schumacher for all the obvious reasons.

  8. Oh, and happy birthday Alex. Hope you have an (aj)okay day AHAHAHA

    1. Here’s hoping, eh?

      1. Happy B-day ajokay!

  9. For once, I actually agree with di Montezemolo. Such a radical change in the engine formula will be detrimental to the sport as a whole. Formula 1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and four cylinder engines are a far cry from being the exotic power plants of the V10, and the soon to be ended V8 eras. If Formula 1 wants increased road relevance (which is counter productive for racing, in my opinion) then a turbocharged V6 is the way to go.

    1. Its not just about increased road relevance. These new units produce the same power using 35-50% less fuel. Id say thats pretty impressive

      I am very surprised by the negativity towards the new spec. You all sound like old school nascar fans.

      These engines will make the v8s look like they are from the ark. Just the kers alone would be enough to power your average saloon and they will be far more road relevant (Renault, for example, is predicting that by 2015 more than 75% of the engines it produces will be small-capacity turbos) than an engine that has been mainly unchanged since the 60’s.

      The new rules also leave a lot of scope for pushing the development of direct injection which up until now manufactures have struggled keeping petrol up with diesel development in this area.

    2. Formula 1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport, and four cylinder engines are a far cry from being the exotic power plants of the V10, and the soon to be ended V8 eras

      I fail to see what is exotic about using a stonking great big brute of an engine to produce the same amount of power as they intend to produce from a much more refined, much higher tech, much more advanced 4 cylinder engine.

      I’m looking forward to the new engine formula in 2013 and think LDM should just accept that just because Ferrari doesn’t agree, doesn’t mean it will change anything. They’re the only engine manufacturer in F1 who only build sports cars – even the ones that are being talked about as possible future entrants (VW, Honda) build a wide range of cars, many of which use small capacity turbo-charged engines.

      My only wish is that they’d gone with Superchargers as well as Turbos… ;)

      1. Its not that Ferrari dont agree. Its just LDM who does not. And I agree with him. This is racing, and some how everyone has been brainwashed by those evil tree-hugging, road relevant go’er ons.

        1. Let me ask you this:

          Was Formula 1 not really Formula 1 back in the 80’s when the cars were powered by 1.5 litre turbocharged engines?

          1. The difference being – teams had the FREEDOM to choose how they confugured their engines. Restricting F1 cars to a 4 cylinder configuration is pathetic for the pinnacle of motorsport. Allow the teams the choice betweena 4,6 or 8 cylinder. The best technology will win and everyone will soon be using it.

  10. Timo and his food Tweets crack. me. up. :-)

  11. East Londoner
    3rd January 2011, 0:34

    Oh dear, Luca’s been let loose again. Where’s the gag. Is this probably because Ferrari do not offer turbos in their road cars?

    1. Of course it is. It doesn’t help that Ferrari’s old rival Porsche has been doing Turbos for ages, and might very well be an engine supplier in F1 come 2013.

  12. Luca’s moaning is not about Formula One, it’s about Ferrari, he doesn’t think Ferrari should go near a four-cylinder engine.

    When will he realise that Ferrari aren’t the be all and end all of Formula One?

    1. Luca also forgets that we saw four cylinder engines in F1 as far back as the 50’s, AND that Ferrari themselves used inline-4 2.0 L & 2.5L engines in the 50’s and won many races with them.

      Luca’s argument that four cylinders don’t belong in F1 is futile, and as shown in this comment, an insult to their own history.

      1. 1952 and 1953 (the years to which you are referring) were years when the series was run under the same rules as Formula Two.

        1. I know. That is not the point, the point is that Ferrari won with 4 cylinder engines and Luca does not seem to care.

          1. No, Montezemolo thinks that four cylinders are pathetic because at the moment they have no place in a racing series that has historically been known as the pinnacle of motor sport. Formula 1 is many things, but road relevant is not one of them. The move away from larger engines is predicated solely on efforts to push Formula 1 in the same relative direction of road cars. Based on your premise of “it’s worked before,” the FIA may as well mandate that in 2013 all chassis must have bodywork that surrounds the wheels a la the W196 Monza.

          2. Formula 1 not road relevant? Maybe check out this article, . Over the years a number of innovations from Formula 1 cars, and other race cars have made their way into road cars, sometimes it just takes 10 to 15 years for the technology to trickle down.

            FIA mandating the use of 4 cylinder engines in F1, seems like a good move to me. The F1 engine manufacturers will be putting effort into making better 4 cylinder engines, and this will in time make road going 4 cylinder engines better, whether it’s more power, or fuel efficiency, or lighter weight or whatever.

            At the end of the day if F1 kept using the same V8’s (with the development freeze) year after year that’s hardly innovative, or attractive to other engine manufacturers is it.

          3. But Argent, how can we see F1 being the pinnacle of motorsport when they use engine designs based on old technology? Is just big(ish) really the pinnacle, or something we are used to and the current supplier have in stock.
            NASCAR has big engines, but we do not look at them as the pinnacle of Motorsports, do we?

            Look at new concept cars where car producers go for 2-4 cylinders and pair that with turbo and hybrid options to make some very interesting packages go very fast very dynamic and more efficient. I think that is exiting.

  13. All the links (at least on the mobile version of the site) are just blue text, not links. Just a heads up Keith!

  14. It’s easy to bag out Di Montezemolo, but he has a point. How do you think Cosworth feel about this after investing $$$$ to return to F1? As Argent said “Formula 1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport” We don’t see presidents or politicians driving 4 cylinder cars, not even turbo ones! The exercise is about cost cutting right? V8 engines will continue to exist, therefore why not focus into further economical running and cost cutting of production?

    1. If you read Keith’s interview with Cosworth, they clearly have no problems with it and understand why the FIA has made the decision it has.

      1. Thas just them being politicly minded.

        1. Or…. is it them supporting something because it’s a financially viable option for them?

          1. I seem to remember a straight 4 turbo Cossie being fairly successful on road and track in the past…

  15. Happy Birthday Schumi hope this year be yours.

    I love Dakar but really miss the European leg.

  16. Happy birthday Michael Schumacher! And ajokay!

  17. I know there were a lot of older drivers in the early days, but I’m wondering who was the last guy to race in F1 who was older than Schumi was in Abbadabby? Could be Mansell or Mario Andretti but I can’t find a good list anywhere.

    1. Jack Brabham won his last title at 40 in 1966 and retired at 44 in 1970. Both Mansell and Andretti were a few months younger than Shumi when they retired from F1.

      1. Grrr, Mansell was younger but Andretti was older. 8D

    2. Instead of watching Australia get pummelled again I thought I’d do another quick search to find out.

      According to wiki, Jacques Laffite was 42 years and 245 days old when he last raced at the 1986 British GP.

  18. 4 cylinder engines w/ turbo and electronic power adders is the future not just for road cars but racing as well..
    For engineers it will be a great challenge and the most important for the onlooking road car manufacturer a very attractive offer to spend money developing their Turbo/small displacement technology road racing as opposed to just spending it in house..

    If I was an engineer it would be a new great challenge… Who will best be able to take the new formula, make the most power while running efficiently and saving fuel.

    And you guys in the Europe might not have that much exposure to high power 4 cylinder turbo engines, but making north of 400 hp/liter of engine capacity is not unusual for even the most novice of Car shops in the states.

    I will laugh my head off when Ferrari eventually sells a Ferrari with a turbo 4. It will happen.

    1. Couldn’t agree more regarding the new engine regulations. Plus a lightweight good handling small Ferrari with a turbo 4 cylinder engine would probably be quite a good drive. Instead of complaining Ferrari should be capitalizing on this.

  19. Perhaps they should have a separate competition where they have v10’s or v8’s and call that Formula 1 and this competition can be called formula 2 or 3 or 4.

  20. Some have commented that F1 has run turbo engines in the past. Yes, true enough. But not 4 cylindre turbos, oh no.

    A quick history lesson, for those not in the know. In the late 70s, developement of turbo engines for F1 began. Possibly the best and most famous of those turbos began as a failure, a grid joke nicknamed the “Yellow Teapot” because most days it would end up steaming alongside the track, retired due to breakage.

    Then in 1979, Renault’s Jean-Pierre Jabouille got the “Yellow Teapot” on the right track, and this was the engine that killed normally aspirated engines in F1. It was a 1.5 litre turbo, true, no larger in displacement than the 4 cylindre engine in a Nissan Skyline.

    But it was a V-6 TWIN turbo, blasting out 1500 bhp(1100kW), that left the rest of the paddock quivering in fear.

    I seriously doubt the inline 4’s will produce the same performance or spectacle. For once I must agree with Luca and with Bernie, in their serious misgivings about FiA’s proposed changes for 2013. If FiA wants to be road relevant then F1 should run road cars. If they want F1 to be a racing formula, then by heaven run racing cars.

    1. I seriously doubt the inline 4′s will produce the same performance or spectacle.

      First of all, they’re not trying to produce the same power as those engines, they’re trying to match the power of the current engines, which is about half that of the engine you referred to. 30 years of engine technology later that’s not gonna be a huge problem for the engineers to tackle. I’m growing tired of hearing about how bad the 2013 engine formula is and how it’s “not Formula 1” and this, that, and the other. The truth is the engines will probably be fairly similar in performance to the current engines. The much bigger wild card in terms of the spectacle is the drastic change to the aerodynamic regulations, and when that transpires there should be a significant increase in drivers’ abilities to overtake (if all of the work that the overtaking workgroup has done is effective). To simply write off the future of the sport and say it won’t provide the proper spectacle is short-sighted and probably just plain wrong. It kind of reminds me of how many fans were so quick to denounce 2010 as a boring season after Bahrain (and some still after Melbourne), and we all know how it turned out, with the most drivers still in contention at the final race in the 60 year history of the championship.

      1. Peter,

        These aren’t the days where engines were built to last one race from the lights to flag. This is the age of engines that are supposed to be bullet proof. It is highly unlikely that a 1.6 liter turbocharged four cylinder engine limited to 12,000 RPM that has to last four race weekends (at 20 races per season) will be able to match the power of the current engines 100% of the time. As suggested so far by the FIA, it gets even worse after 2013, as each car will have four engines instead of five.

        The 2013 cars will be significantly slower without massive intervention from some kind of additional power source that isn’t as arbitrarily limited as the current KERS. When it is quoted that the 2013 engines will be on par with the current V8 units, it is always mentioned with the caveat of a an energy recovery system. That means the peak power rating of the cars is only present when the energy recovery systems are active, but when it’s not running the engine is anemic.

        1. Then the engineers will have the great and exiting challenge of getting to beat the current engines as soon as possible. Bring it on!

          1. Argent

            Im sure engine designers/manufactures are just sitting there like you saying we can match the power levels those v8’s that hark back to the 60’s have!

            What rubbish, they will be licking their lips at this. Like everytime the downforce is cut…1st race of the new season and oh look the downforce is back to last years levels.

            You are right on one point though. The units will be slower “without massive intervention from some kind of additional power source” Kers! It will be opened up and supply easily more than your road car power from a total weight of roughly 25kg. Some power to weight ratio there!

            I agree with you US_Peter. Im disappointed with the short sighted reaction from a large proportion of people on the new engines.

    2. Nelson Piquet won the 1983 WDC driving a Brabham powered by a 4 Cylinder BMW Turbo.

      1. DeadManWoking.
        Your comment should be in caps, bright red and flashing. The 4 cylinder turbos were fast, loud and spectacular. F1 has nothing to fear by their reintroduction.
        However there will be considerable trepidation on the part of certain manufacturers. BMW and Hart (I think) produced 4 cyl turbos, Renault made V6’s. Today Porsche/Audi, BMW, Renault, Honda all have considerable experience in high performance straight 4 turbos. Ferrari does not.

        1. There were 4 inline 4 cyl turbo engines in that era – BMW, Hart, Zakspeed and an inline 4 Alfa Romeo unit that was tested by Ligier but cancelled by Fiat (who of course own Ferrari) when it took over Alfa.

  21. if ferrari had its way we would be racing alcohol fueled rocket cars, but at the same time, he does have a point..
    this is supposed to be the pinnacle of racing cars, and the pinnacle of racing.
    F1 needs to decide if its going to be the pinnacle of racing cars OR the pinnacle of racing… and it seems they are going down the racing path.

  22. Why some people think that more cylinders = pinnacle of motor-sport ?

    Did you know that a 4-cyl-turbo engine could almost humillate the current V8 normally aspirated engines in terms of power and torque?

    1. Where did you get that information from? Sounds like spontanesous human misconception.

      1. You do realize that in the days, 1.5L turbo engines humiliated the 3.0L V12’s?

        1. And?

          Is that your substatiation for the above comment?

          Well then, that settles it! We have all the evidence we need. The stament must be true.

  23. Luca di Montezemolo’s words almost make me want to become a ferrari supporter. I’m so happy someone in the sport managed to look past the memories of the glory days of the turbos era and thought to themselves wait this is rubbish. I really don’t want to watch glorified Toyota Prius’ (the devils car) with so many technical limitations on the engines that we would never see eny inivation racing. 4 Cylinder turbo’s just isn’t F1 it will sound crummy and it wont be as exciting. In F1 one would usually say less is more except when it comes to the engine. Don’t reduce the number of cylinders and go to a proven technology (small turbo engines) and a dead end technology (hybrids). If you want to change from the V8 allow more freedom allow more cylinders or gas turbine hybrids (the only type of hybrid that makes sense). The reason why we will never see the Jaguar C-X75 Hybrid ( with the highly efficient jet turbines is because the technology (ie small jet turbines) isn’t developed enough. So why not let the teams pick up these types of fledgling technologies and actually make a real difference to the world.

    1. Development costs, I would suppose, meaning that only very wealthy teams could compete, to the overall detriment of the F1 field. But that Jaguar (prototype?) does look very interesting.

      1. Oh! so introducing a new classification in 2013 is not creating a new development differential?

        It doesn’t matter whether f1 uses 4cyl Turbs, Gas turbines, Hybrid engines or Warp Cores. The change in technology will require Massive amounts of new development which will favour the well funded teams even more. They will either directly absorb the costs themselves which will reuqire an even larger budget, or, as with the case of the engine suppliers, pass the cost of debelopement to their customers.

        Lets get one thing very clear! the developement of new technology costs money… a lot of money. You may be moving to more efficient means with smaller plants and turbo units, but ultimately the teams pay the price with R&D and/or supply costs. YOu simply don’t get anything for nothing.

        Baring in mind that the cost of KERS development cost some teams in the order of £50 million dollars, how much do you think a new engine classification is going to cost? Now compare that to the fuel efficiency saving or what ever the supposed motive is for implementation? Do you think that is a true financial/performance return for such a serious amount of financial expenditure?

        The efficiency saving cannot possibly account for the cost in developement for a new engine classification, so why the change? The change from V10’s to V8s was a fairly major one, and now we have a new significant change. If you make such a change and claim that it is in the interest of efficiency the someone has to be benefiting from this new efficiency, that is fairly obvious. So just who is benefitting in this case? Who is really getting the benefits of the few thousand litres of fuel saved in a season from slightly smaller engines running round our favourite circuits?

        Surely the teams aren’t so strapped for cash they are all saving Tesco club card points to ensure they can get around the Spa circuit?

        I think someone is pulling the strings of F1 in order to have the teams ulitmately pay for the R&D necessary these smaller egines that car manufacturers don’t want to invest. I wonder whoose back pockets are bulging from this change in regulations?

        And, I might add, I think this was the primary reason for the intruduction of KERS in 2009 and now its reintroduction in 2011.

        1. Hi Jim, you do have a fair point about the development cost. But that is exactly why the FIA has defined the engine rules in a pretty limited way, so as to focus development.

          From the Cosworth interview Keith ran last week, they expect development to come at about 30 million. That is a lot of money.

          But equally they see that as an opportunity to be right in the mix and to get technology on board that will be of use to them in other bussinesses as well (car manufacturers, aeroplanes, wind turbines, etc.).
          So in the end it is an bussiness investment like any other. You invest to be able to make more money from that in the future.

          1. 30 million a lot of money? Sure, but the manufacturers were spending up to 200 million a year on engines just to squeeze out 20bhp extra every year.

          2. Hey Bas. That is really my main point. It’s all very well and good for the developments from one arena of a business to benefit another. I even applaud the fact that the technology from F1 benefits regular road users and the like. It’s fine for the technologies to filter through the pipeline and become useful in other technological endevours, but in this case the cost of this development being born by F1 under the guise of efficiency. This is an immidiate cost that someone has to finance.

            These Areoplanes, turbines and car manufactures you speak of see the benefits long after these F1 teams have endured a struggle to find the money to pay for million dollar engines. Meanwhile these said industries are far more profitable and benefit hugely at an enourmouse F1 expense when there isn’t a justifiable need for change.

            I wouldn’t mind so much if the FOTA had said “hey, we want 4cyl Turbo power plants, we think this is the way to go” but that is not what is happening. Someone is advancing this new engine agenda, getting F1 to do the work and using efficiency and cost saving as a scapegoat.

            I dont mind this happening per se. I am not opposed to 4cyl turbo engines. I don’t personally care if f1 cars are rubber band powered, but the pretence that it is an F1 efficiency saving is an insult.

            This isn’t a nickle and dime front wing spec change either, this is a huge expensive developement change only a year after we had Max Mosely trying to give us a 40 development million cap.

            Anyway, I’ve had my rant. I just think this thing smells.

          3. Hi Jim, the reason I mentioned these industries is, Cosworth itself has greatly expanded from being a race engine supplier to wind turbines, aerospace and car parts supplier so they will be able to get part of the knowhow from these fields of bussiness and will be able to benefit in these businesses themselves.
            That means the engine packages can be for a reasonable price (I think that was another big part of the negotiations between the engine manufacturers and the FIA, how much to take from the teams).

            With the wings, I think it is getting a bit absurd how much is thrown at that, and next year will be even worse with the fancy rear wing (instead of a pretty cheap F-duct solution).

  24. Great argument, interesting to see the defense against!I drive a 4 cylinder turbo and was thinking.. Maybe the teams could could run their 4 cylinder turbos on the poor excuse for high octane fuel that we get sold here in Australia and then see what they can get out of them…Now that’s an engineering challenge!

    I must say even if performance wise a 4 cylinder Ferrari thrashed a V8 Ferrari, they would need a mighty smart engineer to make it sounds as good as a V8 does.

    1. But it won’t sound like a 4 cylinder, It will sound like a 4 cylinder Turbo…

  25. I don’t care if the performance or speed is lowered, so long as we see some close combat and highly skilled racing.

  26. The links are not working for me. They just link back to this round-up.. Using firefox 3.6.13 on windows 7.

  27. Di Montezemolo: “pathetic”


    For a team that prides themselves on being the best, greatest, etc. Ferrari are awfully insecure about being made to face new challenges. Sad to see the team founded by Enzo Ferrari turn from racers to chickens.

    1. only in the eyes of the english

  28. do the links work? i dont seem to get them working :-?


    Blick are reporting that a) Sutil and di Resta will race for Force India in 2011, with Hulkenberg driving on Fridays; and b) Toro Rosso will be purchased by a group of Arab investors.

    1. I think that Blick papers is a bit of a Swiss tabloid, but Weber might use it to bring out some news.

      It does sound very possible.

      1. They’ve been fairly accurate before.

        1. It certainly sounds rather plausible, which always helps :)

    2. Wow, if that’s true I wonder what Torro Rosso will become… and who will drive for them. The di Resta news has popped up on a few sites, probably all grabbing it from the same place though.

    3. dyslexicbunny
      3rd January 2011, 19:12

      Yea, I saw that TR news on BBC’s F1 rumors too. It’ll be interesting. I was never really a fan of the Red Bull driver program anyways. Plus, it offers more diversity to the sport.

  30. I think DiMontezemolo is just preaching to his flock. People who buy Ferraris aren’t likely to put a high importance on relevance and sustainability, methinks. They’re rather much more likely to think that ‘small engines’ means ‘the poor’, like Toyota owners. He’s just playing it up for them.

  31. Di Montezemolo: “pathetic”

    I agree. This whole V8’s are the only real engines thing is pathetic in itself. Why don’t we just go for W12’s?

    Surely a 3.5 litre 12 cylinder engine must be the pinnacle of motor sport. *Sarcasm*

    The engine’s have been the same every year for ages now, Can’t you guys be a little enthusiastic about the prospect of the engines being part of the package of the F1 car, rather than a rather boring talking point for Legard?

    I mean, geez, do you really want to hear the commentators going on about how the Merc is more powerful but the Renault is more efficient in 2014 and 2015 as well?

    I mean, Forcing engineers to try and create new and revolutionary engines with smiler levels of power with half the cylinders within tight resource limits? Isn’t that what F1 should be? Inventive and innovative minds creating solutions to problems the world wouldn’t otherwise be able to solve?

    And to answer Luca’s question, Why couldn’t we have a V6 turbo? The same reason we don’t have V10 turbos, fan cars, 6 wheels with jet engines attached. They are trying to keep F1 reasonably safe for the drivers.

    The fool should keep his mouth shut.

    1. Wow, such ignorance…
      Mike, Mike, Mike, you just don’t get it, don’t you? F1 was always about pushing the envelope and going faster, not the Volvo commercial!
      Fan cars and 6-wheelers are the stuff everybody wants to see. Safe? I keep my gun in one…

      1. Does your everybody include anyone besides yourself? Fan cars etc are what everyone likes to be nostalgic about, including me, but seeing them racing now would be like watching spitfires take on modern fighter aircraft – it’s a fantastically romantic idea, but just as ridiculous. And bravo to you for practicing gun safety. Even small steps out of the dark ages are progress, so you must be on the right track.

      2. Pushing the envelope and going faster? Is that what the currently frozen V8 the harks back decades is!?!? Lagging behind current real world engine development and going the same speed each year more like.

        Im not sure if you comment was for/against new engine or just against safety

      3. F1 was always about pushing the envelope and going faster,

        Well, not in the last few decades. The FIA has brought in multitudes of regulations just to keep the speeds of the cars down, and rightly so. F1 without rules would be chaotic to say the least, and wouldn’t survive in today’s politically correct world.

        1. Not to mention that one of the main safety features in place (track runoff) would constantly be having to be increased and modified if cars were continually getting faster and faster every year.

  32. Four cylinders in F1 sounds so pathetic, nevermind they will do the business. The problem is that F1 must go along the hype in car industry, and use technologies that can be placed in commercials. Will 4c engines in F1 save the planet? F1 is already saving the planet keeping few hundred million drivers in front of their LCD-s for few hours during the race weekends, so they do enough… Downsizing is the word right now, so downsizing in F1 it is. Luca has the point, 4c engines are a little bit “not in Ferrari F1 style”, but high technology is high technology-nevermind the size

    1. Not one valid point made there, rolls eyes, who is the one with “such ignorance”

  33. If the FIA continue down this path of thinking then how long will it be before they curtail things like aero decelopments to ‘road relevant’ and we will end up with just really fast road cars.

    There’s tons of motorsport classes in the world, why can’t we use series such as touring car or lower formula to develop smaller engines?

    I’m already disappointed that the slowest f1 car in the pack isnt much faster than the fastest GP2 car. Formula One to me should be the most advanced and powerful race car possible within safe reasoning.

    I see the appeal for the FIA to entice manufacturers to the sport but plenty of small engine open wheel racer formulas exist, let’s keep it different, let’s keep it a spectacle!

    I’m more amazed by a screaming V10 or V12 than a large turbo and the engine out of a ford fiesta.

    1. There’s tons of motorsport classes in the world, why can’t we use series such as touring car or lower formula to develop smaller engines?

      Because no other class of motorsport has the level of investment and pace of development that F1 does.

  34. Correct me if I’m wrong here, but I always though that the BMW powered Brabham Turbo’s were 1.5l straight 4’s.

    1. I think your correct. He is a video of one. Quite a large crowd for a lump that will sound terrible according to most people.

      This sounds terrible to ;-P

      1. Here is a nice link as well

        Who says F1 engines cannot be taken from road cars? Let Honda or Hyunday or maybe SAAB put in their top range engine and boost it to compete. I would love to see these kind of things

  35. All this durability and environmental friendly talk is not what F1 is about. Formula 1 is about having a car that can drive a grand prix distance faster than any other competitor (plus offering some degree of safety, so we don’t see a driver get killed every weekend). It was never about road relevance. All technologies that found their way to road cars were developed for one thing: Making race cars faster. Not because they would be good for road cars.

    So instead of dictating exactly what they can and can not build, why not leave some degree of freedom. I bet that if you scrap the rules about exactly how much power a KERS system can deliver and for how long, we would have super efficient KERS systems producing hundreds of horsepower for laps. Why? Because that would make cars faster. And maybe if it is relevant for road cars, the technology finds its way there.

    1. jimscreechy (@)
      6th January 2011, 1:27

      Best, probably truest comment I have seen on this site to date! Well said, well said.

  36. What about the turbo era when F1 cars could make 1500bhp? Then, they only had 1.5l V6s, which, when compared to the 2.4 V8s, the smaller engines have about double the power of the larger, normally aspirated engines.
    Smaller engines with more power! Group B Formula 1 cars!!!

    1. Those engines made that power at 5.5 bar; during the race they were running less than half that. Do you really think that with the downforce levels of today that the FIA will allow that level of forced induction?

    2. Peoples memories of the early 80’s turbo days is the biggest problem because as was said before these turbo motors will be rather neutered things due to tight regulations which will focus engineers attention rather on the dead end technoligy of hybrid technology.

      Personally I blame the fact that the FIA is trying to ruin the beautiful sport that I love so much on stupid smelly hippys.

  37. I like steam locomotives. They represented a pinnacle of technology in their day. People still get nostalgic about them and that’s a nice and pleasant thing. And I’m sure you can find afficionados who’ll tell you why they were much better than modern transport. Be that as it may, there’s a host of obvious reasons why we don’t travel in them every day and wouldn’t want to, no matter how quaint it might seem.

    Saying that such and such a thing is not what F1 was about in the past so why should it be now, is no argument at all. Things change and you can either make the best of the changes or you can get left behind and become a technological dinosaur. It’s all a question of perception really. A lot of people seem to identify speed and technology with big, loud engines, but those kinds of engines were just a product of their time and of a certain level of technological development. We can be nostalgic about them, but technology will always move towards efficiency. It’s in the nature of research. So unless we want F1 to become an obsolete relic, and if we really think it should be the pinnacle of motorsport, then we have to say: rest in peace to big engines. We will always love you, but we’ve outgrown this relationship.

    1. Well said. I like the look of steam trucks (see for example but I don’t think we need new steam powered cars or trucks back.

    2. jimscreechy (@)
      6th January 2011, 1:54

      I don’t completely disagree, but I do think you are confusing confusing notions of the sport in which are clearly seperate entities. Yes things change and to do anything but accept this to some degree is foolhardy, but some fundemental objectivs of the sport don’t change. Saying such and such is not what f1 about is a fairly accurate assesment of the objectives of the sport, particularly in the context Dutch Alex details in his next sentence. I have VERY little doubt F1 will ever have any other objective than beating the other guy by producing a faster more relaible car than your rivals. And if it does, then perhaps it isn’t really F1 as it was either originally defined, or as it has been come to be accepted, regardles of how it is officially titled.

      The F1A can make all the rule changes they like with whatever objectives they have in mind, good or bad for the sport, but teams, fans, drivers and others involved have certain expectations that need to be considered. Deviating from these expectations can have disatrous often unexpect results particularly if they are rejected by the people who actual do consider F1 ‘Not to be about’ the new principles that have been stipulated.

      Once upon a time football and rubgy were the same sport, and subsequently rugby league and union. Sepation comes preciesly for the reason that people find new rules, objectives or directions unacceptable, and in effect contrary to what they consider the sport to ‘be about’ a concept you seem to dismiss out of hand. The budget cap is a very good example of this unaceptable change in opearation that prompted teams to make a break away group.

      I think it is a very valid point indeed.

  38. Why do you keep forgetting about the 10,000 rev restriction and 600 hp restriction? Just a thought…

    1. Also did you guys see the new Gp2 2011/onwards Dallara spec car?

      1. That GP2 HRT car was announced quite a while ago.

    2. I don’t understand why everyone is forgetting about it either. I could maybe live with those regulations if those 2 limtations werent there.

    3. Hold on a minute letts sort this out.
      Here is a section of the proposed 2013 regs.

      The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry.

      Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

      So I see no mention of 10000 rpm or maximum horsepower, or even turbos, although there will need to be some kind of forced air induction for that power on a small engine.

      Please if you must correct people, correct them correctly or they’ll incorrectly beleive there correct and correct others incorrectly, got tit!

  39. Is it me or does always seem to be days behind in their “reporting” of stories?

  40. Four cylinder turbos with KERS can only mean one thing,
    slower F1 cars!Can’t agree more to LDM bcause V6 turbos are still an option.It does change the game in terms of technology at the same time, without losing the noise and glamour F1 stands for.

    1. Why? These cars will very probably be slower at the start of the new rules being put into place, but after some development, I exptect them to be almost as fast.
      With the smaller engines, they will be very agile. The engine capacity will be boosted by the KERS systems to help out at lower Revs where combustion engines are less effective.

      It is a bit different concept, but after all the teams went form big chunky V12 engines to lighter V10 and V8 engines for a better total package. We are doing not tractor pulling or drag racing here were only pure power matters.

      1. Even if they catch up during the season. They will be slower.

        Not sure how that is either a surprise or a problem though. The cars simply are starting to go too fast again. So it’s obvious that regulation changes will be implemented to make them go slower. Or perhaps “less ridiculously fast” is a better phrase.

  41. Luca should look at the positive side : developing fantastic powertrains for their partners in America, the Chrysler group.

  42. We Want Turbos
    3rd January 2011, 16:14

    I can’t believe people are complaining going from official stats off Mclaren when switching from V10’s to V8’s power was down 200bhp did it detract from the sport? I think not, however the engine freeze did. The 4 pot turbos should be 700 bhp which is a drop of 50bhp However hopefully with a reduction in the minimum weight an a relaxation of the KERS rules (more power for longer periods) these cars should be faster, more economical (yet lighter and faster still), couple that with the aero updates and 2013 F1 should be awesome… Then hopefully with a little common sense from the FIA 2014 and beyond should be better and better and better…

    1. Have you even looked at the proposed regulations at all? Engine power will be limited to 600hp and revs will be limited to 10000 RPM. These engine regs are too tight and choking.

  43. I don’t think that anyone is actually stopping Ferrari from putting V12’s into its road cars, in much the same way that no one is stopping Mercedes and McLaren from doing the same. They shouldn’t be too surprised, however, when even stricter emission regulations and governments refusals to take hand-outs of cash in lieu of turning a blind eye to their ridiculous fuel consumption/emission figures, start becoming the norm.

    If they think that they can get emissions on the same level as an inline 4, then good luck to them.

    Countries like China, Russia, Brazil and India don’t need to be adding to a problem that we’re trying to make go away.

    It may also have escaped everyones notice that the COTY (car of the year) 2011 is Nissan’s “Leaf”!!!!

    1. The times they are a changing, Luca!

      1. I’m off to watch some Superleague series re-runs. They have 4.2 litre 750bhp V12’s you know!

        1. Surely they must be the ‘Pinnacle of motorsport’?

  44. Luca, this time you’re wrong. I know that most people loved the V12 sound and then the V10… and then the V8. F1 evolves and every time legends were born due to the engineering and road challenges, not because of sound. in 2013, it will be the same, only with a different “scream of science”. :)

  45. A CAT 777F is the way forward. 1000 BHP+ must be better.

  46. Christopher Vissing
    3rd January 2011, 19:57

    I really don’t like Luca.. And to all of you who are sceptic.. why can’t you just accept that f1 has to involve like everything else? That’s why is the pineapple of motorsports..

    I don’t see a problem in bringing the windshield (is that what it’s called? not that good at english) to improve safety.. formula one has to involve. But even though, to be honest, then i’m happy to have experienced f1 without the shields, i must say, haha

    1. “That’s why is the pineapple of motorsports..”

      When you’ve built as many ‘lemons’ as Ferrari have, perhaps the ‘pinnacle’ really is a pineapple?

      1. Christopher Vissing
        3rd January 2011, 20:17

        LOL VXR! My bad, of course “pinnacle”.. well, your comment was pretty funny actually :P

  47. I’d like to see the other teams give Ferrari the go ahead to make a V6 1.5 turbo, and meanwhile the others can concentrate on getting exactly the same power output out of an inline 4, which has better fuel consumption (less friction), better packaging (not as wide, long, nor as heavy) and can sound just as good as a V engine (Yamaha’s 800cc flat plane crank I4 MotoGP engine anyone?).

    1. Those machines go up to 20,000rpm right?

      1. About 18,000rpm. The point being that even at 10,000rpm the noise is still great, but no one ever watched a motor racing series just because it sounded better, right?

        5 and 6 cylinder engines are actually permitted in MotoGP regulations, but for reasons of fuel economy and packaging they are totally disregarded. The inline 4 appears to be the engine of choice, and for many good reasons.

  48. I’m not seeing a lot of comments that are adding anything substantive to the argument in favor of switching to four cylinder forced induction engines in 2013. I am, however, seeing a number of sarcastic, asinine A to B correlations, and my words being fabricated into straw men.

    My point is that four cylinder engines are not the way to go right now–it is a massive jump down that simply is not required, and does not provide sufficient room for another formula change. While I think that the V8 engines are still quite relevant to motor racing, I’m not, and have not ever said, that I was against a step to forced induction six cylinder engines. Not only do I actually think that a turbocharged six cylinder would be a great engine for Formula One in the next few years, but it would also be much better for a number of reasons than a straight four; primarily, by providing a progressively smoother step down to a new formulas.

    Personally, I would like to see a straight six, as it is inherently perfectly balanced, and would provide a platform that can be somewhat easily changed to a straight five, or four in later years. This would effectively provide an additional 24 to 30 years of internal combustion engines until battery, hydrogen fuel cell, or some other radical new cutting-edge automotive technology can become more cost effective for the teams to race.

    1. Are you deranged, How would a straight six easily be changed into a five or four cylinder? Just chop off one or two cylinders I suppose. Its not that easy i’m afraid and if you don’t know this, well if i were you i’d keep very quiet for a while, until you’ve learnt a little more about the Internal combustion engine.

  49. Hairpin,

    Every major manufacturer does this. For example the Nissan VK series V8 is based off of the Nissan VQ V6. Thanks for contributing nothing positive.

  50. A straight six is too long. Pure and simple. A straight 5 is too long. Pure and simple. A V6 is too wide. Pure and simple. A straight four will provide all the power necessary from just four cylinders, just like BMW’s ‘Megatron’ engine did. It will have better fuel economy, just like BMW’s ‘Megatron’ engine did. It will also have more relevance and be more easy and cheaper to manufacture than any ‘V’ configured engine ever could be, and this has a very large effect on the mass production of such engines for road cars.

    1. All of which raises the question – might this entice BMW back?

      1. Not just BMW. Think VW, Hyundai, Suzuki, Honda, Fiat, GM, etc. It’s the whole point of the thinking behind the inline four concept.

        1. Put it this way. If you want another engine manufacturer to leave F1 (Renault), then the FIA should let ‘Lots of Luca’ have his way.

      2. But for BMW to be interesting they should go to a 1l engine with KERS boost up to 600HP!

    2. Length and width is your only point? Formula 1 cars used to have V12s and V10s with displacements in the three liter range. A modern, small displacement 1.8 liter straight six would no doubt be shorter in length than the 3.5 liter V12s of the early 1990s.

      Since the mandated V8s will have only lasted seven years at the end of 2012, where would you suggest that the engines go after four cylinders in 2020? There’s not a lot of room to downsize the cylinder count.

      1. They could still go for 3 cylinders, or none at all :-(

      2. So you’re suggesting a gradual downsizing, rather than going straight to what everyone knows is needed to cut fuel consumption and costs straight away.

        Why bother with a straight six, when everyone knows that a straight four is what’s needed on the technical front. It’s lighter, shorter, narrower, more economical, leaves more room for packaging of things like KERS, turbos, fuel tanks, etc. These are also important points to consider for any car manufacturer entering the era of ‘alternative power sources’.

        And what F1 ‘had’ and what F1 now ‘needs’ in order to ensure continued sponsorship interests and relevance to the road car industry, are two different things.

        What happens after inline fours? Who knows?

        Maybe something completely different that will have nothing at all to do with internal combustion engines. Not sure how well ‘Electric F1’ is going to go down. Not sure what Ferrari will make of it either! LOL But they will have a price to pay for selling their cars in places like India and China.

  51. I don’t agree with Montezemolo here. F1 is fast but not about speed or power. The formula will always have to stay above GP2 etc… the FIA aren’t THAT stupid. The most pleasing thing to me is seeing these machines work in the most awkward of constraints and still blowing me away and sounding like hell just opened.

    And there is more to F1 then Ferrari. There. I said it!

  52. I think that Ferrari are only worried about 4 cylinder turbos because the reality is that they only know how to make v8’s and v10’s with any power or they’d be putting potent straight 4’s into their road cars. Imagine a light F355 with a weightless engine stilling running around the 400BHP mark! it would lack the Ferrari soundtrack but owuld be great fun!

    As a car fan in general I would love to see high power straight 4’s appear in the sport especially if they are running at the 600BHP mark. The cost issue is aside to this, they are trying to reduce emissions and fuel consumption not reduce the spend

Leave a Reply

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

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.