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. 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.

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

  3. 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.

  4. 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’?

  5. 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”. :)

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

  7. 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

  8. 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.

  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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.

  12. 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!

  13. 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

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.