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??”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. 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).

  5. 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…

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

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

  8. 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

  9. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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.

  13. 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”

  14. 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.

  15. 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

  16. 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.

  17. 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.

  18. 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.

  19. 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!

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

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3

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.