FIA could postpone 2013 F1 engine rules

2013 F1 season

Cosworth CA2010 engine

Cosworth CA2010 engine

The FIA may delay the introduce of four-cylinder 1.6-litre engines in F1, the World Motor Sport Council confirmed today.

A statement issued by the FIA said: “In consultation with the main stakeholders, and following the outcome of this consultation, a fax vote by the WMSC could be considered by 30 June latest to redefine the implementation date of these technical regulations”.

The WMSC confirmed the planned rules changes for 2013 included the new engines, with “high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm, with extensive energy management and energy recovery systems (now known as ERS)”.

It also promised revised aerodynamic rules “based on 2011 rules, with modifications in order to improve the aerodynamic efficiency: together with the power train rules, this will enable a 35% reduction in fuel consumption”.

The heights of the cars’ noses will be altered for safety purposes and the number of transmission units teams may used will be further reduced to cut costs.

The minimum weight of the cars will be increased from 640kg to 660kg.

F1 technology

Browse all F1 technology articles

Image ?? Cosworth

Advert | Go Ad-free

83 comments on FIA could postpone 2013 F1 engine rules

  1. Burnout said on 3rd June 2011, 19:22

    Wouldn’t it just be easier to come up with a really tight restriction on fuel consumption instead of a rev-limiter restricted to 12000 rpm (granted that’s 3000 rpm higher than my motorcycle’s redline, but too low for a top level racing engine)

    After all, turbo engined cars in the ’80s were restricted to 150kg of fuel per race. And those cars produced over 900bhp in race trim. I’m sure current technology can produce engines just as powerful while consuming even less fuel.

    While I love the sound of a screaming V8, I’d be willing to forego that for a free-revving turbo engine. Now if the current engines were V12s, then I’m not sure which I’d choose :)

    • colin said on 5th June 2011, 21:51

      seems to me that there are now too many changes every year, i am sure the teams must be getting tired of the FIA tinkering, its time the teams went on their own. why should F1 cars be worried about fuel economy etc ? let them race !! and lets encourage real racing drivers who are in the senna, prost and mansell mould – lewis, fernando, webber. the FIA are acting like auditors

  2. Rooney John said on 3rd June 2011, 20:01

    The FIA may delay the :INTRODUCE” of four-cylinder…. an itsy bitsy typo present there!

  3. racerdude7730 said on 4th June 2011, 0:37

    all i can say is i think the indycars will have a great engine package that will be very close to f1 when its all said and done. The new engines for the indycar series will be a 2.2-liter, twin-turbocharged, direct-injected V-6 racing engine powered by E85 fuel. Thats what Chevrolet will be using. The power output will be around 700hp and from what i hear right around 11,000rpms with a kers type system that will give them a 100hp boost. I think it will be a pretty cool thing to watch. Also the fact that the indycar teams will not be allowed to design their own aero kits for their cars. It should be a fun series after next year,it will be what i would consider the closest open wheel series to f1 once its all said and done

    • Jev said on 5th June 2011, 4:47

      i have to say that this sounds better then the proposed new f1 engine…

    • Michel S. (@hircus) said on 6th June 2011, 6:01

      Will, not will not, be allowed. Sadly they all just voted to defer the introduction of non-standard aero kits, so we’ll have one more year of watching identikits racing around :(

      • hohum said on 7th June 2011, 15:18

        Shouldn’t be difficult to make a better formula than F1 the way Bernie and FIAsco are NASCARising the sport in the name of cost-cutting, otherwise known as profit-maximising.

  4. mattymc96 said on 4th June 2011, 3:51

    okay I haven’t read through all the comments but the noses of the cars shouldn’t be lowered, the reason cars lift in such incidents is because of the rotation of the tyres. Mark Webber’s crash in Valencia is a perfect example, when a car approaches from the rear of another car and makes contact with the tyre the tyre pulls the wing up, therefore lifting the car. We generally don’t see incidents like these in closed wheel racing because the tyres are covered. And if the do lower the noses then the car in front will lift which would be worse because it would then mount the car thats approaching and possibly behead the driver. Nobody wants that to happen.

  5. John Cousins said on 4th June 2011, 7:33

    If f1 needs to relate to road cars, then why not make them use the factory cast block and cylinder head from a production car… i.e a fiat 1.6 for ferrari, a clio engine for renault etc. with no limitations only on rpm… say 10,000 rpm. Believe me, with 2 bar boost and advanced variable geometry turbocharging they WILL sound awesome and some impressive road cars might actually come from this. With forced induction, peak power levels will be slightly lower but low down torque could be doubled (especially if modern antilag strategies are allowed)which would see some serious sideways antics from the cars! Bring on the engine changes!

    • John Cousins said on 4th June 2011, 15:04

      One thing that is very different these days from the previous “turbo era” is the fuel restrictions. I’m not sure of the current fuel regulations but I was under the impression that F1 uses an FIA controlled 100 Octane unleaded fuel. This would not permit the insane boost levels of the previous generation of turbo cars which used all kinds of anti-detonation techniques and fuel cocktails. To be honest I am glad to be returning to forced induction but I haven’t actually seen the words turbo or supercharged used in any official FIA press. I fully support the move to direct injection also. As long as they never go diesel!!!!

  6. VXR said on 4th June 2011, 9:18

    There’s no doubt that the turbo engines will be much torquier than the V8s. Peak power isn’t everything.

  7. jake said on 4th June 2011, 15:20

    i dont mind 1.6 litre 4 cylinder engine but please someone explain why its limited to 12000 rpm.. thats ridiculous!!!! they better make that thing sound good!!, i could hit 10000 rpm in a slightly modded skyline!!!!

    • Michel S. (@hircus) said on 6th June 2011, 6:03

      Doesn’t your Skyline sound good doing close to 10k rpm? I’m also thinking of all those supercars that do less than 12k rpm too, and sound marvelous at it

      • VXR said on 6th June 2011, 8:43

        Most of those have more than 4 cylinders.

        Think of a 650 bhp Mitsubishi EVO that can rev to 12,000 rpm, and you won’t be far off with how the new F1 turbo engines will sound.

        An I3 engine would actually sound better than I4.

        • hohum said on 7th June 2011, 15:38

          PLEASE lets not fixate on the sound, it’s an irrelevant distraction, pushrod V8s sound great but if you have identical engines, even if built by different manufacturers you have sacrificed most of the team interest, F1 came from Formula Libre ,that is Formula Free ( think Auto Union V16 Supercharged rear-engined ) F1 was made more affordable and safer by limiting engine size but not format ( think Ferrari 1500cc V12, BRM 1500cc flat8 ) great racing but the emphasis on lightness was to dangerous. Slowly but surely the cars have been standardised and a lot of interest in the technical aspect of the cars has been lost,all we are left with is aerodynamics, you don’t know what you are missing but one day someone else will bring it back and F1 will change or die.

  8. garratt said on 17th June 2011, 21:41

    This is purely my humble oppinion, but i think small capacity turbo engines with low end torque and no traction control would be brilliant to watch, i also think that too much emphisis is placed on aerodynamic effect and maybe more should be placed on mechanical grip this would maybe then increase overtaking and make f1 more interesting to watch. Im sure that if we let f1 engineers do there very best to make a fast car they could create something that would be stunningly fast but would this then become more of time attack car becouse of the relince of aero effect and less overtaking being done. I think that f1 would be more interesting to watch with more overtaking, rallying is a good example of how motorsport has become to refined, would you rather watch a group b audi/t16 peugeot mk2 escort in full attack with its ass hanging out or a modern rally car? sure the new rally cars do faster stage times but who cares? i dont. Maybe looking at what has made f1 amazing in the past would make it even more amazing in the future. My point is that f1 cars dont have to be mega powerd superlight with huge amounts of aero effect with astonishing lap times to make f1 good, overtaking/racing is good.

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.