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

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

Jump to comment page: 1 2 3
  1. Dingle Dell
    18th March 2011, 5:33

    Keith, typo error on first line:

    ‘Bernie Ecclestone says he is does not agree…’

    LOL at the ‘he IS does not agree’ :p

    Way to go, bring back V10, V12!

    1. Fixed it, thanks.

  2. ” “I’m sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I’m quite sure we’ll lose TV.” that’s what Bernie is afraid of,he isn’t thinking about engine noise. No people watching F1 on TV he will lose TV rights.

  3. When Spa closes down because of noise levels, how many of you would be happy that the V10s were brought back? Yeh, I didn’t think so.

    If all you care about is noise, go watch Superleague Formula, if it’s critical to what makes something the pinnacle of sport.

    Seriously, every time something like this comes around, be it the engine noise, power, level of technology involved in the sport, better alternatives to F1 in this respect already exist. It’s all there already! F1 doesn’t have to have the best of all these things to make it the best, what makes it the best is the combination of all these things coupled with the best single-seater drivers in the world. It reminds me of whenever they change anything on facebook, people moan for ages but 3 weeks down the line they’re still there and the world hasn’t ended.

    1. COTD… I like the Analogy

    2. COTD for me too.

    3. In the same vain, why can’t F1 cars be built like saloon cars and have 4doors and plenty of space for KERS. A single seater that has no relation to road cars if of little value.

      F1 needs to have the best of all things, because there are other racing formula that cater to every other need.

      Facebook has become a tool for communication for those people who use it,hence they need a comfortable environment they can work in efficiently and not have to fight. F1 on the other hand is of no relevance apart from being entertainment, but for a very few it is a research tool of questionable output.

      From the entertainment perspective, all aspects of modern day F1 combine to give the excitement level it currently does. For you the sound of a free revving engine is of no relevance, for others it is everything.

      If I’m having a nap and I hear the sound of a Ford Focus revving past, I won’t be bothered, but when I hear the sound of an F1 engine revving at the limit, I immediately wake up. GP2 doesn’t give me that same feeling, neither does Indycar or any other category of 4wheel racing.

      So while you see a race weekend as some speed and and hi profile drivers. I see it as an orchestra at high speed.

  4. I agree with Bernie on this one, a great deal of the attraction of F1 is the sound.

    As for engine regs, I think they should be opened up completely, with an air restrictor in place to limit power to around about 950bhp. Configuration, RPM and displacement will be open, even allowing rotaries would spice things up a bit…might get Mazda involved.
    Since power will be pretty equal, the focus will be on efficiency for it’s weight saving gains.
    Alternatively, teams might run engines which fit with their manufacturers brand. Ferrari might opt for a V12 just to be awesome, which could help them sell cars. Mercedes might choose a larger displacement V8 to give a characteristic thunderous bellow. Renault might go for a turbo 4-cyl.

    Someone will build the modern equivalent Cosworth DFV for small teams to use, keeping costs low for those who are skint, while allowing the big guns to play.

    If all teams end up going for the same engine, we’ll know that from an engineering standpoint, it will be the optimal combination, and the sound it produces will be reflective of it. Remember, the sound of an F1 car is not particularly beautiful without the subtext of sheer power.

  5. Superleague cars run V12, 4.2 litre, 12,000rpm, 750bhp engines. Why don’t we watch those?

    1. Well I don’t because it’s a cynical attempt at spoon-feeding motor sport to football fans. As someone who finds a racing car exciting when it’s not painted in a football strip I find it all rather patronising.

      A V12 engine isn’t going to change that.

      1. It may be cynical and patronising. But if Jean Todt goes ahead with his ‘green’ strategy, who’s being cynical and patronising then?

        JT: Here yer arrr children, zis eez wert yer wernt!

        1. Todt isn’t telling us that this is what we want, he is saying that this is what the FIA want. He isn’t pretending that it is going to save the world, he thinks it can benefit various different people who have a stake in the sport.

          So to answer your question; not cynical or patronising at all.

  6. I disagree and I agree.

    I disagree in that I am fascinated over the planned 2013 changes, for the first time in a long time we will have competition in engine development. Not only that, but it will be into new greener technologies.

    On the other hand, I agree with him. F1 should not try to hard to be green, it’s not necessary, and I think it sends the sport in the wrong direction. F1, is spectacle, the noise, the atmosphere, commentary gets significantly better when they are focussing on the things that make the spectacle, rather than the things that take away from it.

    To be honest, I agree with him more than I disagree with him. For F1’s sake, it must not be bogged down in trivial gadgety things like being green, and must focus on the spectacle. Which, when it comes down to it, is F1.

    I am excited about F1 in 2013, but I do not want to hear the word green.

    1. To be honest, I agree with him more than I disagree with him. For F1′s sake, it must not be bogged down in trivial gadgety things like being green, and must focus on the spectacle. Which, when it comes down to it, is F1.

      But bernie lost sight on the spectacle of the racing a while back.

      I dont go to races to watch the magnificent pitlanes and hotels going over the circuit. And that is Bernies F1.

      1. And I agree with you as well. :D

  7. Rare for me to say this but… I agree with Bernie. The cars themselves account for under 1% of the teams’ emissions in a year. Making the cars more green is nothing more than a PR stunt and it might indeed make more sense in saloon car racing where more of the teams emissions do come from the actual racing.

    From Williams’ ‘Spark Report’ it is clear that the majority of F1 emissions come from electricity in the factories. Why don’t they just put in a rule saying something like 40% of all electricity used by an F1 team factory must be from a renewable source and then let the cars continue to be loud and exciting.

  8. Yes. It’s the wind tunnels and the stuff that goes on at the factories that eats up most of the energy. What actually happens on the track is just the tip of the iceberg.

  9. I’m in the minority here, but I am sick of hearing Ecclestone mouthing off about how the FIA are not the promoters, and he knows best.

    I’d rather leave the formula in the hands of Patrick Head and Rory Byrne who are working on putting together the 2013 regs, than Bernie I’m afraid.

    Apparently they are working to reduce the reliance around not being able to follow each other through corners, and if that happens the racing will be better, and people will tune in to watch. Ground effect etc.

    I don’t agree with wasting a whole load of money on a new engine formula as well personally, but has the racing been any less good moving from V12s to V10s to V8s. I dont believe it has.

    Its not like we’ll be tuning in or watching live and hearing Renault clio engines running around. They will sound nothing like a roadcar.

    I watch F1 for the racing, both live and on TV, to see the best racers in the world.

    If Bernie wants something to look into if he has spare time, he may want to try looking into why 80% of the new GPs he has been touting have turned out dreadfully boring races, despite a pretty huge budget.

    Thank goodness for someone like Shell coming in and helping the Spa GP. No doubt bernie would be touting that race as well to the highest bidder.

    If he wants to throw stones at a good man like Jean Todt, he may wish to remember that he is sitting in a rather large and very plush greenhouse.

  10. Patrick Head has something of a vested interest in ‘green’ technology, does he not.

    I can’t help but think that F1 is just some kind of big business pretending to be a sport. But that would be rather cynical of me, wouldn’t it?

    1. But that would be rather cynical of me, wouldn’t it?

      Yes it would ;-)

  11. The “green” thing is a diversion and misses the point. Everyone knows that the racing on the track isn’t a big contributor to F1’s entire carbon footprint. Everyone knows that the change from 2.4l V8s to 1.6l, four-cylinder turbos will have as much of an effect on F1’s carbon emissions as, I don’t know, painting a big green stripe on some of the tyres. Putting the “green” label on the regulations placates some of the more hard-of-thinking environmentalists and gives the climate change deniers something to seethe over. But it misses the point.

    The 2013 engine regulations allow for innovation in a way that we haven’t seen in F1 for years. Rather than spending millions tinkering with a few aerodynamic parts, teams will now be free to develop innovative and exciting technical solutions to the challenges presented by the new regulations. Technical freedom is what many of us have been clamouring for for years, and now it’s arriving people are shouting it down just because it comes with a big green sticker on it.

    Years ago Max Mosley proposed a new set of engine regulations: teams would be free to develop whatever engine they wished, but would only have a certain, fixed amount of fuel to use. That would have placed the emphasis on engine efficiency as well as performance, which would have given F1 the image it’s looking for as well as making for an exciting technical challenge. Sadly this, as one of Mosley’s better ideas, was never implemented. But I think these new engine regulations will be pretty interesting as well.

    1. I’m still pretty undecided on the rev limits but I absolutely 100% agree with you :P This really hurts as well but for me this is COTD.

    2. DeadManWoking
      18th March 2011, 11:52

      We haven’t yet seen enough of the 2013 engine regs to know how much innovation will be allowed. All we know for now is that they will be 1.6L inline 4’s with single-stage turbos (with the possibility of 2-stage in the future) and high pressure direct injection. We don’t yet know what else will or will not be allowed. Current engine regs only allow relatively low-tech spec engines with all sorts of restrictions on: weight and center of gravity, bore size and spacing, valves, camshafts, pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts and the height of their CofG relative to the car, fuel systems, electrical systems, the use of exotic alloys and materials and much more. The use of direct injection, variable geometry inlet systems, variable geometry exhaust systems, variable valve timing and variable valve lift systems and intake charge cooling (most of which are on cars I currently own and all are available on current road cars) are banned outright.
      I hope that when we see the actual regs they will at least allow F1 engines to use tech that is now commonplace on road cars.

      1. @Red Andy Good point. I’ll ease off a bit and wait until I hear one. But if they sound terrible, I’ll be angry again! :P

        @DeadManWoking All very interesting. So basically, there’s absolutely no way we will know what they sound like until someone actually develops one?

  12. For me personally I would be really looking forward to the 2013 season if it wasn’t for the proposed engine changes.

    Ever since I was a little kid (6 or 7) I still remember watching f1 and just loving that whine of the cars. My Dad said I even would try and do impersonations of the cars, running around making high pitched whining sounds :)

    Even with all the engine changes over the past years at least the essence of the high revving banshee screams has remained and for me it’s an integral part in F1’s identity. Sure, I think the 2013 cars will still sound great.I love the sound of turbos just as much as any other bloke,but they just wont sound like F1’s :(

  13. I agree with Bernie.

  14. Anti anti anti ecology, but not at all anti the undemocratic and violent regime in Bahrain its seems. Bernie and jackie Stewart grovelling around dictators on a grid in the barren dessert…its a picture of the future which will kill F1. He is now so out of touch its bringing the sport into disrepute….and then there is the mater of CVC and its deals.

  15. However true that there is no direct environmental effect of F1 going greener there is certainly a very practical advantage: The manufacturers will be forced to develop engine technology that is much closer to road car applications which will potentially attract more major manufacturers to the sport. Though I love to hear the V12’s of the past we have to remember that F1 is just as much about the pinnacle of engineering as it is about racing. As it is evident in road cars the future is not for V8’s as modern engines of smaller and smaller volume can outrun the larger ones of the past. F1 has to be dynamic and very progressive in order to stay ahead and to keep attracting viewers and racing with dinosaur engines is not the way to go.

    Imagine if the engine development was made absolutely free of regulations. Do you seriously think that anyone would race with heavy, complicated, gas gussling and unreliable V12 engines given todays technology and tracks? No, obviously everyone would aim for the smallest and lightest super charged engine possible because modern technology would allow more than plenty of power in that format and this is exactly what the progress in F1 should reflect!

  16. The sooner that Dinosaur becomes extinct the better, if we’re really lucky he’ll take all the other dinosaurs with him who bemoan every step forwards in cutting-edge technology.
    V10 this, V12 that. Stop living in the past, commercial relevance and applications is the main driving force now.

    You have 2 options when dealing with progress:
    1. Embrace it and find ways to bend it to your will.
    2. Resist it and become crushed beneath it.

    I want to see more KERS, hybrids, 3rd gen biofuels and hyper efficiency.

    And as a Motorsport Engineering student I’m perfectly poised to embrace this glorious future!

    Bye Dinosaurs!

    1. Why are you not keen to see KERS and other green technology in Touring Cars, or DTM, after all those are much more closer to road cars and there is a direct relationship between Touring car racing and commercial relevance.
      As far as I’m concerned if you are watching F1 you are following the wrong sport to further your motorsport career.

  17. As long as it’s same for all – who cares which type of engines they use?

    Is it lame to run 4 cyls in F1? Yes ok, but how cool is it to run 13″ wheels? People will get used to anyting as long as the sport remains a fair competition between the best.

    What Bernie says in media never makes any sense. He only opens his mouth to gain medias’ attention and thus promote the F1 brand.

    The sound is not an argument. As long as they don’t use silencers – there will always be tremendous noice – and that’s basically what people want. The tone of it is irrellevant.

  18. I reached this five-years old discussion after following a link from a recent tire rule change article, and after reading all the comments I am amazed at how prescient most of them were, especially regarding the “beautiful noise”, and the effect the recent lack of that noise has had on many F1 fans.

    I’m equally amazed that many F1 fans can’t see the importance of great-sounding F1 engines, whether they be 4, 8, 10, or 12 cylinders. Maybe it’s a generational thing, considering that I’m an old guy, whose very first introduction to the sweet, sexy sounds of motor-racing came from vinyl recordings of the Sebring 12 hour by Riverside Records, and the Isle of Man TT races, via Sound Stories. I played those records until they wore-out, and I can still recite most of the (sparse, fortunately) dialogue. And I can still recall every wonderful exhaust note of the Ferrari 12s at Sebring, and the Moto Guzzi V8 at the TT, along with all the other great engines.

    I shudder to think of an audio recording of some modern electric-motored beast quietly whizzing by, as fast, or faster, than any internal combustion engine racer, but who really cares how quick it is if you can’t hear it and feel it in your bones? Lightning flashes are certainly spectacular, but what makes them dramatic – and wonderfully scary – is the thunder-clap.

    As far as the number of allowed cylinders goes, I would enjoy seeing no restrictions for a few years, just to see how it works out. The weight-saving benefits of modern materials might even entice some to use V12s. Turbocharging and supercharging would be allowed, with a displacement restriction. No fuel restriction, and no fuel stop restrictions. Refuel if you must, or not. Drop the “forced degradation” of tires. This would probably scare-off some tire manufacturers, but let’s see what happens.

    Yeah, I know; … I need to increase my meds. But wouldn’t it be great to see “real” racing for a change? With variety, and wonderful noise? Some will say that such a formula would bring on domination by one team, but that’s what we have now, even with all the supposed “field-leveling” rules trickiness.

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.