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

2013 F1 season

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

Advert | Go Ad-free


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

  1. phil said on 18th March 2011, 0:05

    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.

  2. ETS Mesa said on 18th March 2011, 0:21

    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?

    • Sam said on 18th March 2011, 9:23

      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.

  3. James Williams said on 18th March 2011, 0:52

    Finally, Bernie says something that I agree with!

    Formula 1 will sound like crap with 4 cylinder engines.

  4. Alex Bkk (@alex-bkk) said on 18th March 2011, 1:53

    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.

  5. Oliver said on 18th March 2011, 2:29

    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.

  6. quick_kill said on 18th March 2011, 2:39

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

    • Maksutov said on 18th March 2011, 2:45

      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

  7. gDog said on 18th March 2011, 2:50

    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)

  8. Stephan88 (@stephan88) said on 18th March 2011, 3:30

    Finally a man with common sense.

  9. Seyr (@seyr) said on 18th March 2011, 4:02

    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.

    • Burnout said on 18th March 2011, 5:39

      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.

  10. Dev said on 18th March 2011, 4:11

    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.

    • wasiF1 said on 18th March 2011, 7:20

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

  11. Dingle Dell said on 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!

  12. wasiF1 said on 18th March 2011, 7:19

    ” “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.

  13. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 18th March 2011, 7:39

    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.

    • BBT said on 18th March 2011, 8:54

      COTD… I like the Analogy

    • COTD for me too.

    • Oliver said on 18th March 2011, 15:33

      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.

  14. DavidS (@davids) said on 18th March 2011, 7:45

    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.

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.