Di Montezemolo: 2013 engine rules ??pathetic??

F1 Fanatic round-up

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.?

Links

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 (Formula1.com)

??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?
sahajesh

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.

Advert | Go Ad-free

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

  1. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 3rd January 2011, 1:29

    Happy Birthday Schumi hope this year be yours.

    I love Dakar but really miss the European leg.

  2. David A said on 3rd January 2011, 1:36

    Happy birthday Michael Schumacher! And ajokay!

  3. Stevo said on 3rd January 2011, 2:22

    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.

  4. Glenn (@glenn) said on 3rd January 2011, 2:28

    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.

    • Pinball - roadography.com (@pinball-roadographycom) said on 3rd January 2011, 5:07

      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.

  5. Jared404 said on 3rd January 2011, 3:26

    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.

  6. dsob (@dsob) said on 3rd January 2011, 3:44

    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.

    • US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 3rd January 2011, 4:01

      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.

      • Argent (@argent) said on 3rd January 2011, 5:15

        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.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd January 2011, 8:18

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

          • adamf184 (@adamf184) said on 3rd January 2011, 11:24

            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.

    • DeadManWoking (@deadmanwoking) said on 3rd January 2011, 4:43

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

      • HounslowBusGarage (@hounslowbusgarage) said on 3rd January 2011, 10:29

        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.

        • DeadManWoking (@deadmanwoking) said on 3rd January 2011, 14:36

          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.

  7. Stephen Jones (@aus_steve) said on 3rd January 2011, 4:40

    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.

  8. Pika said on 3rd January 2011, 4:55

    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?

  9. Stephan said on 3rd January 2011, 5:43

    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 (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1316273/E-Type-Jaguar-supercar-200mph-electric-hybrid-jet-engine-costs-200K.html) 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.

    • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 3rd January 2011, 12:29

      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.

      • Jimscreechy said on 3rd January 2011, 15:25

        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.

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd January 2011, 16:10

          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.

          • Patrickl (@patrickl) said on 3rd January 2011, 16:27

            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.

          • Jimscreechy said on 3rd January 2011, 18:39

            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.

          • BasCB (@bascb) said on 3rd January 2011, 20:06

            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).

  10. funkyf1 said on 3rd January 2011, 5:55

    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.

  11. driftin said on 3rd January 2011, 6:55

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

  12. SoerenKaae (@soerenkaae) said on 3rd January 2011, 7:18

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

  13. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 3rd January 2011, 7:32

    Di Montezemolo: “pathetic”

    Fix’d.

    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.

  14. Hatebreeder (@hatebreeder) said on 3rd January 2011, 7:35

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

  15. Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 3rd January 2011, 8:10

    http://www.motorsport.com/news/article.asp?ID=396892&FS=F1

    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.

Add your comment

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

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