Whitmarsh: V6 engines best for F1

F1 Fanatic round-up

In the round-up: Martin Whitmarsh joins the call for a rethink of F1’s future engine rules.

Links

Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

F1 engine debate rages on (MotorSport)

Martin Whitmarsh: “If it were my call I?d probably go for a turbocharged V6. I think more and more cars are going to be turbocharged.”

Name row not deterring Group Lotus (Autosport)

Dany Bahar: “I think the judgement made it clear that the Lotus name in F1 belongs to us, and the Team Lotus name belongs to Team Lotus. That is a clear judgement and nothing can stop us from using our name in F1.”

Chaos in Canada (ESPN)

“The only problem with this location was that it has the pit gantry roofs in the way, so half the time you just fire away and see what you get. I saw Hamilton was very close and he went for it on the inside, but Button kept his line and came across on him.”

Adrian Newey Q&A: Nothing less than the title will do (F1)

Sebastian [Vettel] is remarkably level headed. He is a very private man and isn?t into the fame at all. He thinks a lot about what he does and rarely makes the same mistake twice. And he is very hard working. He is always in the paddock in the evening, speaking with his engineers, going through the data and reflecting on what he did in the car. I think that?s one thing all great drivers have in common.”

New deal for Austin’s Formula One calls for no contribution of city funds (Austin-American Statesman)

“If approved, the new agreement would have Formula One promoters place an estimated $4 million into a state trust fund account every year for the 10-year duration of the contract.”

F1 Fanatic on Twitter

“The F1 Fanzone big-screen British Grand Prix broadcast planned for Kensington Gardens has been cancelled. They say a ‘major partner’ withdrew.”

History: Periscope Exhausts (ScarbsF1)

“The history of the periscope exhaust, as this was at first a retrograde step in aerodynamic development. Historically F1 cars ran their exhausts straight out of the back of the car. Only the introduction of ground affects and turbo engines forced a packaging rethink to exhausts routing through the top of the engine cover.”

Hamilton’s father hits back at Lauda and insists: There’s nothing wrong with my son’s driving! (Daily Mail)

“It’s important everybody remains who they are. There is no point in trying to be someone you are not. The way he drives now is how he drove to win the world championship. He’s always been like that and he will be like that for the rest of his career. There is nothing wrong with it at all.”

Follow F1 news as it breaks using the F1 Fanatic live Twitter app.

Comment of the day

HRT may not be walking the walk yet, but at least they’re talking the talk, says BasCB:

It would be an enormous feat if they would actually get close to reaching that goal, as Team Lotus has at least double the budget and better drivers as well to go with the world championship Renault engine and RBR gearbox!

This is starting to feel like really a real race team, finally.
BasCB

From the forum

Polishboy808 is thinking well outside the box with this one: What if… there was no drivers’ championship?

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris P!

On this day in F1

It was Ferraris in first, second, third and fourth places in the Belgian Grand Prix 50 years ago today.

Phil Hill, on his way to the world championship, led home Wolfgang von Trips and Richie Ginther.

The fourth Ferrari of Belgian driver Olivier Gendebien was entered under the name of Equipe National Belgie and ran in yellow instead of red, but was run by the Ferrari team.

Also driving for Equipe National Belgie, but driving a Lotus, was Lucien Bianchi. He was the great-uncle of Jules Bianchi, the GP2 driver on Ferrari’s driver development programme who has tested for the team.

Both drivers as well as some fabulous footage of the old Spa-Francorchamps circuit can be seen in this clip of the race:

Promoted content from around the web | Become an F1 Fanatic Supporter to hide this ad and others

Advert | Go Ad-free

97 comments on Whitmarsh: V6 engines best for F1

  1. Tom said on 18th June 2011, 0:49

    If the FIA wants engines with better fuel economy, why not set an amount of fuel that can be used at each Grand Prix and let the teams use whatever engine they think can make best use of that fuel? It would cause genuine innovation among the engine manufacturers.

    • moshbeard (@moshbeard) said on 18th June 2011, 1:06

      The FIA don’t seem to want any innovation, it appears that having an original idea means you have an unfair advantage and you’ll soon see it banned.

      • Tom said on 18th June 2011, 1:08

        It is slighting worrying, yes. The FIA seems intent on turning Formula 1 into a spec series.

        • David A said on 18th June 2011, 6:12

          On the other hand, if an innovation is brought in by one team, others simply copy it anyway.

          • infy (@infy) said on 18th June 2011, 10:54

            Innovation is what F1 is all about. The constructors champ is already pretty much pointless because of the current stance the FIA have on innovation.

          • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 18th June 2011, 11:17

            I thought racing cars was what F1 was all about?

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 18th June 2011, 12:22

            I didn’t say I was against innovation (and I’m far from against innovation). It’s more that a particular innovation won’t seem so special 6 months down the line when everyone has the same thing.

          • DVC said on 19th June 2011, 14:38

            Actually, Icthyes, to be pedantic, motor sport is about seeing whose car is best. That’s the way it began. F1 as the pinnacle of motor sport should be about that too. With a lot of homologation there is less opportunity to show that the car your ideas have created is the best.

      • Fixy (@fixy) said on 18th June 2011, 14:04

        Sadly, you’re right and this happens sadly.

    • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 18th June 2011, 2:23

      And big, big costs, sadly.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th June 2011, 14:11

        Sadly so.

        But honestly I would love to see someone trying to get a few hundred horse powers out of that single stroke engine Cosworth mentions

        If the F1 rules required a single-cylinder two-stroke, we’d be there

        just for the fun of it.

        And limit spending on the engine somehow as well as put an energy intake limit (in kWh, to allow all alternatives), if possible.

        • hohum said on 18th June 2011, 15:09

          Did you gentlemen not watch the 61 Belgian GP video,Ferrari, porsche, cooper, lotus, brm, and not an advertisement or sponsor to be seen, yet the Ferrari V12s were dominant cementing Ferraris reputation as the ultimate supercar. Ferrari domination did not last long, with Cooper, Lotus and Brm all going on to be winners. If the teams could afford to design and build motors in those days without sponsorship and advertising, without TV revenue etc. Pray tell why is it now to expensive?
          The solution is to wrest more of the revenue away from Bernie and distribute it amongst the teams so they can afford to innovate. Reading the article about the snorkel exhaust makes it clear that the engine block,heads and rotating assembly design is only a small part of total powertrain development cost. I say given a fixed amount of fuel per race allow the teams to build whatever engine works best, make the fuel allowance fixed for 3 years and reduce by 5% for next 3 years, also compel the engine manufacturer to sell or lease its engine the second year to 3 other teams for a price that rewards the manufacturer and gives the other team a fixed budget for engines. As it is now the engine manufacturers gain nothing in sales or reputation because the public see Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari as all being the same in F1.

          • ob1kenobi.23 (@ob1kenobi23) said on 18th June 2011, 23:32

            Not meaning to correct you, just that I have a mental block, Are you sure those 1500cc engines were 12 cylinder. I thought they were v6.

          • hohum said on 21st June 2011, 19:24

            Ob1 you are correct, mine was the mental block, the 12cyl. 1500cc came later and were flat, for lower center of gravity. But my point about funding engine development remains valid.

    • Kremer (@kremer) said on 18th June 2011, 7:43

      As said just above, a free-for-all engine development race is beyond the means to afford for probably 60% of the teams. Remember the free-spending days of several decades ago, where teams were spending $30m-$50m dollars or more just on engine development costs. That would almost completely fund a mid-pack or lower team currently.

      Economics rules nowdays, which is why current engine rules are so strict.

    • natkid (@natkid) said on 18th June 2011, 7:52

      i think that’s kind of brilliant, tom
      set the fuel limit to at least 30% less from the current use
      and if they need extra, allow but penalise them (example: 10sec per liter)
      why not?

      • Kremer (@kremer) said on 18th June 2011, 8:22

        Cost constraints and budgets.

        It wouldn’t be much fun watching F1 races anymore when 3 or maybe 4 teams roar off in the distance with their expensive high horsepower engines, while the other two-thirds of the field are puttering around in constant fuel-conservation mode because they don’t have the budgets to buy or develop the more advanced ‘green’ engines.

        • SVettel (@) said on 18th June 2011, 10:40

          They should get more manufacturers involved in engines, as they could develop more efficient engines at no extra cost to the F1 teams

        • BBT said on 18th June 2011, 21:26

          @Kremer you are 100% correct, fuel allowance and develop any engine you would not work due to cost reasons alone (although there might be others).

          It might if there was a strict budget cap on engine development.

    • Lee said on 18th June 2011, 9:15

      I think this is what is done in Moto gp, the bikes get a set amount of fuel for the race, and that is then managed by a computer in the bike. If the riders goes mad early in the race he loses power later on to ensure he doesnt run out of fuel. Nicky Hayden “beat the system” a few years ago and rode his bike so aggressively he ran out of fuel, which was quite funny.

    • f1andy83 said on 18th June 2011, 21:23

      Tom you nailed it. If every team had a maximum amount of fuels, and could use whatever engine they wanted, they would most certainly make small, powerful, light weight, and fuel economic engines.

      • BBT said on 18th June 2011, 21:28

        No, it wouldn’t work see posts above.

        • hohum said on 21st June 2011, 21:10

          Yes it would work if the teams had a more equitable share of the revenue, the money now saved on engine development just funds Bernies princesses lavish lifestyle.

    • DVC said on 19th June 2011, 14:41

      I suggested this a year ago.

    • The Sri Lankan said on 20th June 2011, 21:39

      I just REALLY REALLY hope that Toyota will return to F1 as an Engine supplier. i dont see why they cant especially with TMG supplying to the rebellion team

  2. UKfanatic (@) said on 18th June 2011, 0:50

    Wolfgang von Trips great driver maybe better than Hill, unfortunately he died when fighting for the championship.

  3. rfs (@rfs) said on 18th June 2011, 1:10

    Q: What do you think about Sebastian’s habit of naming his cars?
    AN: I sympathize with this tradition because I have always given my private road cars and motorbikes names. My first motorbike was called Hermes, my current car, the GT40 is called Monty and the Ferrari is called Bruno and so forth. I have always chosen male names – they are more reliable than females! (laughs)

    Heh.

  4. sato113 (@sato113) said on 18th June 2011, 1:12

    ok so great race in canada, montreal seems like a lovely city i’d like to visit. but then all this rioting in Vancouver? wow has this shed new light on the country. can anyone explain the vast differences between these cities’ societies and cultures?

    • Zadak said on 18th June 2011, 1:30

      Vancouver is nowhere near Montreal, Canada is HUGE

      It’s sports based riots too I believe, not purely political

      It cannot be compared to the Bahrain riots.

    • Maciek said on 18th June 2011, 1:42

      Main difference being that Montrealers riot when they’re happy. See 3. The Montreal Stanley Cup Riot(1993) here
      It’s got nothing to do with ‘city culture’. I was actually there at when the riot in Montreal started and as soon as I saw the police squads move in I was outta there. It turned out later that it was actually a fairly well-staged affair, probably by the local mafia, where coordinated looters rpovoked all teh young, testosterone-charged fans into ‘letting loose’ so that large-scale robbery could be perpetrated on high-end stores. Anyhoo, it’s a once-every-twenty-years kinda thing. It’s sad and stupid, but it’s still a million times saner than perpetual football hooliganism – I’m in Poland now and boy I am not too optimistic about how things will go down during next year’s Euro.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th June 2011, 14:20

        Yeah, they can get pretty vicious in Poland. I remember what Prague looked like last time Sparta (or Slavia?) had a match with a Polish team.

        Strange habit of looting the stores in Canada, interesting to hear there is Mafia involved. I guess for Vancouver that might have been a factor as well.

    • LordHesketh said on 18th June 2011, 1:47

      I live in Winnipeg, Manitoba (central Canada). I beg of people not to make any cultural assumptions based on a few hockey “fans” and their awful behaviour. I’m sure that several European cities have had to deal with these situations due to soccer hooligans. Montreal also rioted in 1993 after their team had actually won the Stanley Cup. Coincidentally, it happened the same week the grand prix was there. Maybe some readers here actually attended that race and saw the aftermath.
      To give somewhat of an answer to your question, the culture in Montreal could be considered slightly different to the rest of Canada, mostly due to its longer history and french influence. Generally, however, we do share a common cultural thread which has no patience or tolerance for this garbage.
      All events in Vancouver can be attributed to opportunistic morons inciting violence and hysteria. Thanks to social media and a general lack of intelligence on the part of these criminals, several are already being dealt with.
      Canada is a safe and wonderful country to both live in and visit. We’re all embarrassed by these events getting so much attention on a world stage. Please don’t let them form your opinion of our country.

      • US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 18th June 2011, 2:10

        Agreed. I live in the Seattle area and have been to Vancouver many times. It’s a great city, though it does seem to take its team sports maybe a bit too seriously.

      • sato113 (@sato113) said on 18th June 2011, 2:41

        don’t worry, every country has its problems! the hockey fans in the vancouver riot vids are a far cry from the f1 fraternity. :D

      • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 18th June 2011, 2:41

        One of the things I found curious about Canada during my stay there was how sensitive (at least amongst city dwellers) you guys are to how the world thinks of you. You are probably the most ethical people I know and somehow it all seems to work in a way which doesn’t here in the UK.

        Of course, I also saw the G20 riots, but it’s not like the ones in London were any better. It would be stupid to judge you on what some drunk hockey fans did.

        • Snow Donkey (@snow-donkey) said on 18th June 2011, 3:54

          I think a vague parallel can be drawn to what we see of soccer hooligans on this side of the pond. Some people just go to these things hoping for trouble. They exist everywhere and are generally in no way representative of the area they live.

          I am a Montrealer by birth, and now live 2 hours north of Vancouver and can promise you that both are wonderful and beautiful cities in their own rights. They are also as a general rule populated by your run of the mill, good hearted canadians. The scene of the vancouver riots has been cleaned 100% by volunteers who love their city, and the smashed windows which were boarded up have been covered with messages of love. Through the ugliest actions, sometimes we get to see the biggest hearts shine through.

  5. sato113 (@sato113) said on 18th June 2011, 1:19

    In that espn canada link you can also see alonso walking away in the far left if you look hard enough!
    http://f1.imgci.com/PICTURES/CMS/10500/10560.jpg

  6. Just want to point out that the video shows you can make 1.5 litre engines sound good.

    People need to give the new engine regs a chance, can pretty much guarantee they won’t be the disaster people claim.

    • Kremer (@kremer) said on 18th June 2011, 8:14

      You do realize the race wasn’t filmed with sound? (Hardly any portable motion picture cameras back then had any sort of sound recording capabilities. A separate sound crew would be needed to capture audio at the same time, which was a rare occurance because of the extra expense.)

      When the film was being edited, ‘stock’ race car sounds were then added after the fact, along with the commentary. So you can’t be sure those sounds came from any of the cars involved in the race. :)

    • hohum said on 18th June 2011, 16:38

      I remember that era and I can’t be sure if that soundtrack is genuine or not but the cars sure sounded good and different cars sounded different as in the video where the porsches sounded like early porsches so I suspect the soundtrack was correct, after all it was 61 not 31. Also note that 1500 cc non-turbos still averaged 128mph on skinny tyres.

  7. US_Peter (@us_peter) said on 18th June 2011, 2:16

    Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that to change a constructor’s name in F1 the team must either a) forfeit all of their prize money from the previous championship or b) get unanimous approval from the other teams. Forfeiting the prize money is obviously not really a viable option for any team, which leaves option b as the only real way to change the name. I can’t see Bahar getting that support from several teams he’s been a part of in the past, let alone Tony Fernandes. I doubt he’ll be racing in F1 as Lotus anytime soon.

    • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 18th June 2011, 2:35

      That’s correct. Which makes the whole thing even funnier.

      Looks like Bahar will have a get-out-of-jail-free card with opposition to Renault’s and Todt’s ideas for the engines. Renault could leave and get Group Lotus off the hook of paying to advertise a rival car company.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 18th June 2011, 6:51

      Correct me if I’m wrong, but I was under the impression that to change a constructor’s name in F1 the team must either a) forfeit all of their prize money from the previous championship or b) get unanimous approval from the other teams.

      I believe teams can have a transitional period of one year and retain their earnings. After all, Sauber were formally known as “BMW Sauber” last year, even though BMW pulled the plug. The retained the name (with the “BMW” meaning something other than “Bavaria Motor Works”) and were entitled to their earnings. Renault have no current involvement in the team except to supply engines and lend their name; 2011 is their transitional year.

      The problem, as you rightly point out, is in getting the likes of Fernandes to agree. I don’t think Bahar has upset too many people in the past; certainly not to the extent that they’d all deny him the right to change the constrcutor name. And if he remains in the position of sponsor, simply lending the name to the team, it probably wouldn’t be that much of a problem for them because Bahar wouldn’t be running the team. Fernandes is probably his biggest obstacle, but if Group Lotus win on appeal and Fernandes is forced to drop the Lotus name, a part of the ruling may dictate that The Team Formerly Known As Prince Renault may have the right to use the Lotus Cars name as their constructor name, and override Fernandes’ ability to block a name change on the grounds that denying them the right to use that name would be damaging to it.

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th June 2011, 14:39

        I remember there being something limiting the name changes to max. once every 3 years if teams do not want to lose any of that money (again Sauber). But that would be fine for Renault, as they changed their name from Benneton to Renault long ago, not sure the change to Renault GP counts here, as the chassis was not renamed.

        If I remember correctly Renault promised to stay in the sport at least until 2012 when they got the suspended ban for Crashgate. Possibly that is another reason why Bahar must wait, as I suspect the FIA also has something to say before it accepts entries.

        As for Bahar not running into trouble with a name change, it will not be just Fernandes. I understand his parting at both Ferrari and Red Bull left rather bad feelings with both, so he will probably run into objections there.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 19th June 2011, 2:50

          I don’t know – I haven’t really seen anything from Red Bull to suggest they would hold a grudge. They might have concerns that Bahar is just doing this as a quick attention grab, but they haven’t really done anything that smells of revenge.

          As for Ferrari, we know they’re only vindictive when there is something in it for them. Like at Valencia last year – Alonso and Massa got shafted by the safety car whilst Hamilton got away scot-free, even after his penalty. Ferrari complained loudest and hardest about it, but nothing happened. And then, at the end of the race, nine drivers got hit with penalties for breaking the delta time (which led to discussions about the validity of the rule, since Jenson Button was right on top of the pit lane when the safety car was called out and could not have set a time under the delta without stopping on the circuit). Ferrari had clearly scoured the rulebook and tried to find something that would get them a better result. So I think they’ll only block Bahar from changing the team name if they feel there is something to be gained from it.

  8. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 18th June 2011, 2:31

    In those ESPN photos you can see a guy not even paying attention to the race! http://en.espnf1.com/PICTURES/CMS/10500/10564.jpg

    (Top right picture)

  9. wasiF1 (@wasif1) said on 18th June 2011, 2:55

    Probably now is the time when Lewis should tie his hand with his father.

  10. Sush Meerkat said on 18th June 2011, 3:06

    Renault is the only enthusiastic supporter of the tiny turbo concept,

    Right now yes, but Renault want Nissan and its sister branding to take over and make their own little niche…

    I really don’t understand it, why are people opposing the 1.6ltr engine rule? this is good for us,

    Lets break it down;
    Renault = can make engines, big and small (wants new engine rules)
    Williams = cannot make engines
    Ferrari = has the ability to create huge engines not small engines because of some arbertrary rule.
    Red Bull = Cannot make engines.
    Team Lotus = cannot make engines.
    HRT = cannot make engines.
    Mercedes = Can build Ilmors (sorry, I’m only messing), Merc can build engines, hence, they can build 1.6 turbo’s.
    Force India = cannot build….

    You get the picture I hope?

    Who in FOTA can oppose the engine change? Ferrari?

    If Ferrari oppose it then they will fast track themselves to turning into a fossil, a relic of a by gone era…

    As an aside, I’m hugely proud of BasCB getting COTD, I salute you my brother! :)

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 18th June 2011, 6:53

      The only reason why the teams re opposing engine changes is because it’s going to be expensive.

      Ferrari = has the ability to create huge engines not small engines because of some arbertrary rule.

      Ah, the “Ferrari Knows Best” rule.

      • infy (@infy) said on 18th June 2011, 11:06

        They dont want to use scooter engines because it goes against everything they stand for (big on engines, big on sound, big on speed and big on wallets).

        I dont really see the need to save fuel in f1. This is racing, not carebear island 2.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 18th June 2011, 14:45

          (big on engines, big on sound, big on speed and big on wallets)

          You clearly have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Big engines do not automatically equal faster cars. If anything, they equal slower cars because the added weight offsets whatever advantage the extra horsepower might bring.

          And Formula 1 cannot afford to be “big on wallets”. Spiralling costs have killed more teams than saved them. Just look at Honda and Toyota, who were both said to be spending close to $400 million a season in their final few years – and look how many poitns they had to show for themselves. Formula 1 has to cut costs, or else we run the risk of getting into a scenario where so many teams will fall off the grid that the sport cannot actually be run becuse there will not be enough teams to satisfy the Concorde Agreement.

          I dont really see the need to save fuel in f1.

          Uh, Formula 1 is all about techncial innovation. Part of that is developing an engine that can produce the same power output as the current engines, but uses just half the fuel of them. This will trickle down to road car development, the way McLaren’s second brake pedal, second-generation hybrid technology (KERS), and seamless-shift gearboxes all have. Relevance to their road cars is one of the major reasons for manuacturers getting involved in the sport.

    • bosyber (@bosyber) said on 18th June 2011, 10:48

      Well said, I was wondering the same.
      … and also about my brother :)

    • sato113 (@sato113) said on 18th June 2011, 11:44

      you forgot Mclaren, who can build engines now since their recent road car adventures.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 18th June 2011, 14:46

      Thanks for the salute Sush!

      I agree with you for the engines.
      Mercedes even uses 1.6 litre engines in their own road cars, but they seem to be objecting as their performance cars use bigger engines.

      McLaren might be able to build their own engines, but I guess they would be pretty neutral as they would have to do a new engine anyhow (although Withmarsh would prefer a V6).

      The worst part of this is, that it shows again what a chaos F1 is. The discussions started 2 years ago, last year they (all manufacturers were in on the discussion and agreement) agreed on 1.6 turbo. Then all of a sudden Bernie and Ferrari started opposing this. Now it might be postponed, maybe cancelled or something completely different?

      I can understand the Renault board getting bored of constant change and insecurity and axing the program altogether.

  11. Why keep downsizing the engines? All it will allow for is for more aerodynamically innovative stuff. Have a huge engine, rev limit it, and make sure it lasts 5/6 races. With larger engines there will be less freedom aero-wise also.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 18th June 2011, 6:54

      With larger engines there will be less freedom aero-wise also.

      Uh, what? Engines and aerodynamics are not mutually exclusive.

    • Kremer (@kremer) said on 18th June 2011, 8:04

      Aerodynamics will still rule.

      So not only will you have large development costs for the new engines, but the teams will have to spend huge sums of money on all new aero and downforce R&D for car designs, rather than progressively develop on their current aero knowledge and known engine packaging.

  12. damonsmedley (@damonsmedley) said on 18th June 2011, 8:00

    Congratulations on the COTD, BasCB! It’s good to see some positive thoughts on the team. :)

  13. Wheel Nut (@wheel-nut) said on 18th June 2011, 9:45

    Am I reading too much into Newey’s comments in praise of Vettel as a dig at Hamilton too?

  14. AndrewTanner (@andrewtanner) said on 18th June 2011, 12:04

    Agreed with Bas on the COTD, we could be on to a nice little team for the future here. They did really, really well in Canada. Best of luck to them!

  15. For once I do agree whitmarsh 100%. Altough bmw myt be my fav brand there’s no doubt that mercedese and ferrari have been the 2 manufacturers that have invested the absolute most in f1. U may nt like any of the 2 but there is no doubt that wen it comes to the goodness of f1 these 2 teams have in my opinion the best intentions. They have invested a great deal in F1( definitley more than any other manufacture or team)for decades and I think it wud be silly to dismiss what these guys have to say.as much respect as I have for renault I think they view on the new engines is to do more with there own interests than the sport itself because with regards to there road cars its the 4 cylinder or 4cylinder turbos that are der speciallity.renu is one of the manufacturers that wil only be in f1 if they get any success to strengthen der brand image..but if the goin gets tuf der board members wud most likely pull out of f1 unlike ferrari mercedese/mc laren..and I am in no way a macca or merc fan watsoevr.its rediculous for the pinnacle of motorsport to be runnin aroun with 4 cylinders wen 6 cylinders are a great compromise.

  16. Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 18th June 2011, 13:47

    The real story isn’t just that Todt wants F1 to go green for its image and Renault wants to test engines for its road cars. The underlying agenda is more that the FIA want to further reduce engine speeds, which the current plans will do.

    And what is the obsession with attracting manufacturers? We’ve just seen three of them leave in two years and a fourth doing all it can to avoid spending money in it.

    • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 18th June 2011, 14:49

      And what is the obsession with attracting manufacturers?

      Because the sport needs manufacturers. They bring stability to the grid, because as we’ve seen with private teams, they struggle to make up their budgets, which can easily kill them off. Without manufacturers to balance the grid out, Formula 1 would just become a revolving door of smaller, struggling teams who replace each other every few years. Or do you think another Jordan-Spyker-Midland-Force India scenario with four different owners in as many years is a good idea?

      • Klon (@klon) said on 18th June 2011, 15:09

        Yes, because Toyota, BMW and Honda brought so much stability to the grid and didn’t left gaping holes by leaving…

        Oh wait, they did.

        Manufacturers should be involved in F1, but only as turbo engine suppliers.

      • Icthyes (@icthyes) said on 18th June 2011, 15:28

        They bring stability to the grid, because as we’ve seen with private teams, they struggle to make up their budgets, which can easily kill them off

        I almost fell off my chair laughing!

        Whilst it’s true private teams face yearly budget struggles, we haven’t had any actually drop out since Super Aguri collapsed in 2008 and before that Arrows in 2002 and Prost in 2001. Since then Honda, Toyota and BMW have all left the sport. 3 in three years compared to 3 in nine. Which one is the more stable model again?

        I suppose you’ll scream “the recession”. We all know that was convenience. Had they been winning they would have bit the bullet, reduced their budgets and gone on. How a team like HRT can field a team and Toyota not in a recession points to motives other than money.

        Without manufacturers to balance the grid out, Formula 1 would just become a revolving door of smaller, struggling teams who replace each other every few years.

        And that didn’t happen with the manufacturers? Honda left and they became Brawn, who would have faded even further had Mercedes not bought them out. Sauber had to enter last year with no TV money and only the arrival of James Key really saved their season (and they still finished second-last of the established teams). Toyota didn’t even leave a presence behind.

        Or do you think another Jordan-Spyker-Midland-Force India scenario with four different owners in as many years is a good idea?

        Oh yeh, take the most extreme example, present it as typical and turn it into a black/white either/or issue. Never mind that besides the unseemly demise of Jordan, the only other major take-overs of privateers we’ve had are Brawn bought by Mercedes, Minardi becoming Toro Rosso (another privateer, by the way), Sauber selling to BMW and Benetton becoming Renault – in eight years. In eight years Jaguar became Red Bull, BMW went back to Sauber and Renault is practically GenII F1. Three came in, three came out.

        So tell me, where’s the urgent need for manufacturers? Because F1 seems to have done quite well with them and without them.

        • hohum said on 18th June 2011, 15:45

          Re Toyota, they planned to come into F1 with a V12 engine of their own design and manufacture to demonstrate their engineering prowess and no-doubt promote their Lexus brand as worthy competitors to the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari, being forced to develop a V10 clone was a big disappointment for them and as redbull have demonstrated the engine is only a small part of the overall cost of success so they pulled out due to lack of any promotional benefits. Who knows what they would have done had they built a V12 to beat Ferrari and had other teams clamouring to use it.

          • David-A (@david-a) said on 18th June 2011, 16:52

            I doubt a V12 would have won anything for Toyota. The inefficiency of V12s was the reason for others to go to V10s in the first place.

          • hohum said on 18th June 2011, 18:59

            It was not inneficiency but packaging and power curves that made the V10 the sensible compromise between V8 and V12 designs. V12s smaller pistons or shorter stroke allowed higher rpm and thus more hp. at peak rpm. V8s larger pistons or longer stroke reduced rpm thus top end Hp. but better torque at lower rpm. V10 compromised on both, the same was true of engine length V8 shortest wheelebase, V12 longest wheelbase, V10 in between the 2.

        • Prisoner Monkeys (@prisoner-monkeys) said on 19th June 2011, 2:55

          Whilst it’s true private teams face yearly budget struggles, we haven’t had any actually drop out since Super Aguri collapsed in 2008 and before that Arrows in 2002 and Prost in 2001.

          You should also consider teams that can no longer afford to be in the sport and so sell on to someone else. It’s effectively the same thing, even if grid numbers are stable. How else do you explain Jordan selling to Midland, who sold to Spyker, who sold to Force India? A massive game of pass the parcel?

          Since then Honda, Toyota and BMW have all left the sport. 3 in three years compared to 3 in nine. Which one is the more stable model again?

          The thing about manufacturers is that they can only justify staying in the sport if they have success. In the case of teams like Williams, they have no road car division, and so their priorities lie in racing. If they are not racing, they have no reason for existing. Manufacturers, on the other hand, have cars to sell.

          So tell me, where’s the urgent need for manufacturers?

          How else will technology developed in Formula 1 trickle down to road cars?

          • Hewis Lamilton said on 20th June 2011, 16:23

            Just out of curiousity, which technologies are you referring to that have trickled down from F1 to road cars?

          • MagillaGorilla (@magillagorilla) said on 22nd June 2011, 9:20

            I really wouldn’t just say F1 helps with the advancement of road cars. Le Mans sport car series do abit more in terms of race to road car use than F1. To answer Hewis for PM, the carbon fiber composite that f1 uses has founds its way in limited areas for road car use. Carbon ceramic brakes, paddle gear box, electronics for engine management as well as other parts of the car. Aeroparts as well or at least ideas…these are f1 of course. A nice one from sports cars of course is Direct fuel injection combined with a turbo-loader, also diesel technology in recent years. Oh and lets not forget kers and ers.

            As far as manufactures go…who needs em. I mean yeah it’d be cool to have all the different well knowns to root for, but we forget one simple thing, does it fit the manufactures image? Would F1 be a better sales boost or perhaps sports car racing or better yet rally. Or are the regional racing groups more of a sales boost. Why would toyota need F1 if they sale a camary more easily due to a nascar victory. Same with Audi winning Le Mans…kinda makes me want to go get a diesel audi. The point is F1 has been full or racing privateers more so in the past than actual manufactures. Or at least manufactures that sale cars to the every day person. Merc and Renault seem to only qualify for this currently. Ferrari and Lotus as well as Mclaren do not qualify as regular manufacture of road going cars. IF anything those three seem to do more of bringing the race car to the road for the enthusiast. Basically yes I think it’d be awesome seeing Ford, Toyota/Lexus, Nissan/Infiniti, Lambo, Lotus, Audi/VW, Merc, Peugeot, Renault, Citroen, Ferrari, Mclaren and a few others along with privateers racing even it if was just engines. However, it doesn’t really fit the mold of most of the manufactures I listed for the type of car they sell the public.

  17. Klon (@klon) said on 18th June 2011, 15:07

    No, Todt has got the engine formula perfect. It is the most reasonable technology for a still-to-be-relevant F1. I support him fully in this regard and hope he goes Louis XIV on the teams with this one.

  18. SupaSix-1 said on 18th June 2011, 16:14

    He would be of that opinion now that mclaren are building their own engines (not in F1 yet).

    Whats going on?
    This is Formula 1..the pinnacle of motorsport where it all should be bigger, faster and louder. We should be going up to V10s and V12s.

    F1 is being too dumbed-down.

    • MemorableC said on 18th June 2011, 18:44

      Yes, because the smaller lighter potential more powerful turbo engine that is easier to package and uses a bit less fuel is the dumbed down version.

      the just make make it bigger, not better days are over.

      [sarcasm]
      yes 4 cylinder turbos are the dumbed down engines.[/sarcasm]

  19. Stephen W said on 18th June 2011, 23:24

    Just a couple of points to mention,firstly Mclaren DO not make their own engine,the road car unit is built by Ricardo,unfortunately McLaren appear to fog this fact.

    Secondly there isn,t any 4 cylinder engine which will sound as good a 6 cylinder.A 1600cc inline 4 turbo even in the old days never came close to sounding good.

  20. GeeMac (@geemac) said on 19th June 2011, 6:51

    Somebody has to tell Dany Bahar, and Tony Fernandes for that matter, that the only people who care about the use of the name “Lotus” in F1 are them.

    As far as I’m concerned Team Lotus died in 1994, and while I support the “new” Team Lotus, I see them as more of a “homage” to Chapman’s team rather than a continuation of the team. Nothing anyone can do will bring back the team, its long gone, and all of this petty bickering between Fernandes and Bahar is just damaging what is frankly a remarkable racing legacy.

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.

Skip to toolbar