Ferrari 056

Ecclestone “anti, anti, anti, anti” 2013 engine rules

2013 F1 seasonPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

Ferrari 056
Ferrari 056

Bernie Ecclestone says he does not agree with F1’s planned change of engine formula in 2013.

He told journalists in Australia he is “anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula.”

F1 is moving to 1.6-litre, four-cylinder engines in 2013.

Ecclestone added: “We don’t need it and if it’s so important it’s the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing.”

According to Ecclestone only two thing are important in F1: “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.”

He said: “The rest of it is basically PR – it’s nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport.

“I’m sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I’m quite sure we’ll lose TV.

Ecclestone said he and FIA president Jean Todt were “at loggerheads” over the planned changes, saying:

“He’s not a promoter and he’s not selling Formula One to be honest.

“Jean and I are a little bit at loggerheads over this engine. I don’t see the reason for it.

“We had the KERS and this was supposed to solve the problem that Formula One is not green and now we’ve got something else.”

Image ?? Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

168 comments on “Ecclestone “anti, anti, anti, anti” 2013 engine rules”

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. If they ease the restrictions so that engines can once again run to 1000bhp and they sound good then I don’t care on the formula. More engine development is needed though!

  2. “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.”

    Excuse me while I die a little inside.

    1. May I join you.

      I actually think more people would watch F1 if Ferrari left the scene in favor for some of the bigger manufacturers. Bring back Toyota BMW and Honda. Lure in Mazda, VW and Ford too and ban those poor red wannabes and then let the true party begin.

      And… the noise will always be there – no matter how many cyls they use.

  3. who cares f1 about being green
    if the rule changes went ahead id probably stop going to races becasue there will be no noise

    i completely agree with bernie
    NOONE CARES ABOUT F1 being green

    and f1 is going back to the 80s in 2013 so
    basically i agree with bernie because F1 will lose ALOT of viewers and i mean ALOT.
    and i also agree with mcmercslr

  4. According to Ecclestone only two thing are important in F1: “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.”

    Anyone still think Bernie is the right man to be running formula 1?

    1. Well, i wont hide the fact (and im going to half quote the man here) that im ‘anti, anti, anti’ Ecclestone.

  5. So he is anti small turbocharged engines, but for shortcuts and artificial rain…I’d comment, but I’m just shaking my head at the man!

  6. Nobody made up any Ferrari conspiracy theories in the comments yet? I’m shocked! :)

    1. It would hardly be a conspiracy, when it’s said so in such an upfront way.

      It was one of the reasons I wanted a breakaway series a few years ago sans Ferrari (before the latest threat, a few years before). Not because I wanted to see them gone but just to prove that they weren’t as critical as they maintained they were in financial negotiations. F1 would be lesser without them, but it would survive.

  7. One is Ferrari and second is the noise

    lets be honest, that’s very true.

    1. He is correct, first thing people think of when you say f1 is “NEEEEEEEEOWWWWWW!” and the second is Ferrari.

    2. I can see why he considers Ferrari important.

      But the majority of F1 viewership occurs through television and that gives little sense of the noise at all. I expect the new engines will sound fine I think Ecclestone’s just having a whinge.

      1. ‘that gives little sense of the noise at all’
        Sorry Keith just being curious where do you find that, is there any data etc showing that? :)

        1. Try standing next to an F1 car when it’s revving, then watching the same thing on TV.

          1. Totally agree, TV sound is suppressed to hell (and you surround sound can’t even produce the same level of output), so unless you are at the race it make absolutely zero different if the db level drops by 5dbs

          2. Sorry Keith, misunderstanding here i thought you said majority of tv viewers doesn’t care about the noise at all, my bad.
            I been to F1 race before it’s different i know especially the sound when the cars shift down there is a big bang where we don’t really catch that on TV. But for the sound on tv i think we could hear the difference as well although not the same as on track, in my opinion V10 sounds more racey and has higher pitched, V8 sounds good too but just too tame. If the engine does go smaller again i just hope the characteristic of F1 sound doesn’t go badly even on TV.

          3. Ah that clears that up!

      2. The problem I have is that i’ve never been to an F1 race in person to experience the atmosphere and the SOUND! I just hope that i’ll have enough money to go to a race before they destroy the noise with these pathetic engines!

        1. I guess you should wait to see/hear it before you call something ‘pathetic’. For me it’s always too easy to judge something before it really happens.

  8. Guilherme Teixeira
    17th March 2011, 23:26

    “The rest of it is basically PR – it’s nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport.”

    Yeah, sure, it’s going to be terribly costly to the sport to attract brands like Volkswagen, Honda, Hyundai and possibly others who might be interest in the new engine regulations. It’s going to be terribly costly to change the status quo of engine power, to introduce new technologies and to be more ‘green’ at the same time…

    I’m sure it’s not going to be costly to F1 as a sport, but to FOM, I wouldn’t say the same…

  9. V8, V10, V12

    V8 sounds good, V10 sounds perfect, V12 sounds like a multiple orgasm.

    lets just have them all, F1 going ‘green’ is not going to save the planet, so lets have some screaming engines while we’re here please.

    1. you only live once!! (I do realise this is a completely ignorant and selfish attitude with regards to the future of the planet, but im sure the F1 cars thmselves make up such a small proportion of emmissions that what we really need to be changing is road cars and such like transportation!)

    2. 4 – sounds terrible
      6 – sounds acceptable
      V6 – sounds acceptable
      V8 – sounds good
      V10 – sounds perfect
      V12 – sounds unbelievable!


      1. Good scale you should really make a presentation to The FIA.
        Bernie’s version of that scale would be:
        4 – Going to loose alot of money
        6 – loose some money
        V6 – still loose some mone
        V8 – Profits stay the same
        V10 – Make more money
        V12 – Make a hell of alot of moneys!!!!!!!!!!!

        The FIA should make all decisions based on this type of scale.

        1. Haha! Brilliant! I must admit, I agree entirely! Sound is as important as speed, as far as I’m concerned.

  10. I’m with Bernie. And I never thought I’d type that on a public forum. “Going green” and making Formula 1 “more relevant”? Rubbish. Jetting several 1000 tons of equipment and people around the world to ever further flung places isn’t the basis of a “green” sport. And why does F1 need to be relevant? When has it ever been relevant? Surely that’s why we like it, the escapism from the humdrum of our own motoring? Otherwise we might as well take our deckchairs to our local roundabout and watch the diesel Golfs going round and round.

    1. It seems to me that the argument about ‘going green’ is only ever made by those against the new regs to use as a stick to beat it.

      These new engines could potentially attract more manufacturers to the sport because of the increased relevance to production cars, which means teams can buy engines more cheaply due to increased competition and teams like HRT could be set up and get a decent engine while devoting more of their budget to building a better chassis.

  11. I agree these rules suck. F1 cars should be v10 as far as im concerned. I dont want to watch a 4cylinder go kart going around a track that sounds like a edge trimmers or a petrol blower.

    The smartest rule to introduce is keep the existing V8 engines. Why spend money if you dont have to. Most teams would be happy to keep the current V8’s.

    FIA has no idea, even with TODT running it. This rule change will never happen, I bet 2012 will be the last year of f1 under CVC control. The teams will start there own series, bernie and the FIA cannot stop it. The can even call it f1 if they choose it.

  12. First off… we are talking about 24 cars. What impact will that make on the rest of the world’s consumption? Zero.
    So what’s the point? I wonder what these things are going to sound like? A weed whipper?

    1. it’s about promoting and developing greener tech, not about the actual CO2 produced by the cars or the circus that move them around the globe.

  13. James Williams
    18th March 2011, 0:52

    Finally, Bernie says something that I agree with!

    Formula 1 will sound like crap with 4 cylinder engines.

  14. Engine displacement and the number of cylinders doesn’t really bother me too much. What does bother me a bit are rev limits. I’d love to hear a turbo 4 screaming at 20,000 Rpms, maybe more.

    Maybe another bother for me is what I see as a move towards a spec F1 engine, and of course one can easily argue that current engines are so close in power that it’s really the aero effects of the car that really make the difference. So why not use a spec engine?

    “It’s just not F1” would be my answer.

  15. For once Bernie says something I agree with.
    Its the sound that does it for me.
    During the Mansell years, I tried watching Indycar, I could hear the sounds of earth movers but could see smaller cars moving fast. Always made me want to throw up as my mind couldn’t cope with my ears telling me one thing and my eyes telling another.
    When you hear an F1 engine revving you can’t help but have a big grin on your face. You know there is some very serious argument going on between those cylinders and they are being very vocal about it.

    This is F1’s last true identity. There is almost something spiritual about the wail of these engines. You won’t find it anywhere else and once F1 loses it, F1 will be finished. No one will immediately notice F1 is dead, as it will be a gradual death. When the lights go out you wonder what happened to the music.

  16. i think quiet engines is good.. we might
    have more street circuits

    1. and all you will hear is … 1) squueeeeeaaaaak.. and 2) whooooooooosh….

      first being the tyres squeaking due to forces exerted on the road, and second was the car going pass

  17. I just wish they change the regulations on the engine to simply:

    You have 20000MJ of engery to use per car for the whole weekend, including free practice, quali and the race. You can split this as you choose.

    You may use any fuel source (petrol, diesel, hydrogen, wood, electricity).

    You may use any engine design that complies to safety regs.

    Then we’d see some innovation, and some difference between the teams! Way more interesting! Ferrari can go back to their V12s, Toyota (if they come back) could go hybrid or full electric. Everyone would be happy. We’d have screaming V12s, gas turbines, who knows what else, and it could be as road relevant as the teams want. Everyone would be happy!

    (btw 20000MJ is very approximately equivalent to 500 litres of petrol)

    1. every car would be electric under these regs

  18. Finally a man with common sense.

  19. I disagree with Bernie and the rest of the doomsayers.
    I see the move to four cylinder engines not relevant for the sake of “going green” (that’s just a nice soundbyte) but for becoming more relevant to road cars you or I could actually own. Small displacement turbocharged engines are the future for fossil fuel passenger cars, and racing technology always trickles down to road cars. Do you think we would have seen half of the awesome turbo road cars of the 80’s and early 90’s if it wasn’t for engine development through racing, whether F1, rally, or other series?

    I think the benefits outweigh the downsides, including reduced engine noise and the lower RPM formula. Turbo engines are fundamentally quieter because they’re muffled by the turbo.

    And I really wish the engines were specced to 18k or 19k RPM as there are currently. Although, the lower RPM limit will let the engines be more drivable, with more torque at lower RPM’s. If the tiny engines made peak power at 20k RPM, their torque curve at low RPM’s would be seriously compromised.

    1. Agreed. If nothing else, the drivetrain technology of an F1 car should be able to trickle down to road cars. And as much as it pains me to say this, small capacity turbo engines really are the future of road cars for the next decade at least.

      It would’ve been better if the FIA had freed up the actual configuration of the engine instead of freezing it as an inline-4. I would’ve loved to see a modern take on the BRM V16 turbo. But I’m quite satisfied with 1.6 litres. In any case the new engines will produce over 500 bhp without KERS. That’s still quite amazing.

  20. i think four cylinder turbo engines are perfect, there should be more of KERS and finite amount of fuel available for the race…. and engines should be free to develop within certain parameters.

    1. The KERS shouldn’t have a limit? it’s a green technology they should have unlimited amount of KERS during then race.

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.