Some drivers will run out of fuel in 2014 – Sutil

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Adrian Sutil, Force India, Hungaroring, 2013In the round-up: Adrian Sutil warns F1′s new engine formula could lead to drivers running out of fuel in the closing stages of races next year.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Adrian Sutil (Motorsport Monday)

“I expect [to see] some cars at the beginning rolling out with one lap to go without fuel on board, so it opens up some opportunities.”

Mercedes warned against all-out title bid (Autosport)

Toto Wolff: “We cannot be confident, it would be the wrong approach to say we have found the golden key now.”

Tyres will make or break Force India’s season – Mallya (ESPN)

“The change in tyres after Silverstone has certainly made a difference, but we need to come up the curve and get to know the tyres better, but otherwise it is a good car, the drivers are happy and there’s no reason why we shouldn’t be continuing with our form.”

The Finishing Line – with Toro Rosso?s Daniel Ricciardo (F1)

“The last time I lost my temper was…
DR: After the race at the Nurburgring (this year). I started very high up on the grid, and then – nothing. I was very frustrated.”

The long shadow of the 1960s (MotorSport)

“One of the things that made all these drivers so deeply memorable is that they raced regularly in different types of cars. They weren?t pampered, highly-paid superstars restricted by contract and culture to a single category or team. They raced every weekend in different cars because they loved the sport and also needed to earn a living. This very diversity gave these drivers a grand patina, sadly lacking in today?s specialised age, which has cast a very long, agreeable shadow sure to last for many years to come.”

F1 goes back to the future with turbo-charged ‘teapot’ (CNN)

“While a standard engine is powered by a belt connected to the crankshaft, a turbo engine runs on its own exhaust steam, making it more energy efficient.”

How Much Can CNN Get Wrong About F1 Engines, Physics In One Article? (Jalopnik)

“Of course, turbo engines are much more efficient, since they ‘run on their own exhaust steam.’ That would make them basically like, I don’t know, perpetual motion locomotives? That is very efficient.”

Tweets

https://twitter.com/CStubberfield/status/366892189797728256

Snapshot

Renault Megane Renaultsport Red Bull Racing RB8, 2013

Renault have released their latest Red Bull-inspired creation. The Renault Megane Renaultsport Red Bull Racing RB8 is a souped-up version of the standard Megane with added Red Bull stickers.

Just 30 of the ??28,245 machines will be sold in the UK. Curiously it runs on Bridgestone tyres.

Comment of the day

Nick has no time for the view that the new engine formula will damage Formula One:

You think a smaller engine formula is going to kill F1? Irrelevance is what could kill F1 in a few years.

Just do a look around of current auto manufactures building V12 engines. Take a look at what kind of cars they?re driving in the WRC, WTCC or national cups.

I’d much prefer to see the current drivers in 1979 cars, but it’s not going to happen, much like I’ll never see a 400 bhp Ferrari in Group B rally.
Nick (@Npf1)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Chris Monk, Ciaran, Omarr-Pepper, Jonathan, Camo8723, David Knutson and Sevrige!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Ronnie Peterson scored his final Formula One win 35 years ago today at the Osterreichring. He lost his life just a few weeks later following a crash at Monza.

His Austrian Grand Prix victory came in a race run in two parts due to an early accident and worsening rain. Patrick Depailler claimed second place ahead of Gilles Villeneuve’s Ferrari.

Here’s the start of the race including Peterson’s team mate Mario Andretti crashing out:

Image ?? Force India

Advert | Go Ad-free

132 comments on Some drivers will run out of fuel in 2014 – Sutil

  1. ajokay (@ajokay) said on 13th August 2013, 9:45

    Agree with that COTD 100%. *moan moan moan V6 turbo moan moan moan*

    It’ll be fine, you won’t even notice after 2 races.. You’ll definitely notice when F1 isn’t around because it refused to move away from V12 1000bhp petrol engines

    • Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1) said on 13th August 2013, 10:47

      ok lol. But you are telling me you wouldn’t won’t to see a V12 Turbo petrol engine ;-)

    • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 11:43

      It’ll be fine, you won’t even notice after 2 races..

      We’ll all notice when the cars are coasting around to save fuel from lap 12 onward. This season has been bad enough, what with the (supposed) best drivers in the world literally coasting around Monaco like it was a Sunday drive to the supermarket. I’m not too optimistic for next year but hopefully I’ll be proved wrong (for the first time ever!!).

      • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 12:42

        So you were not around for the end of the sport in 1994, 1998, 2005 or 2009?

        • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 14:21

          -The 1994 regs actually improved racing as fewer driver aids meant more skill and craft was required to succeed. Other changes for for safety following Senna’s death.
          -1998 was mainly safety measures.
          -Reg changes for 2005 slip my mind so I won’t comment.

          I absolutely hated the 2009 regs but I’ve learnt to live with them like many others.
          I guess you’re alluding to F1′s current popularity and how reg changes in the past haven’t hindered the sports growth. You might be right and maybe I’m fretting needlessly, but you can only test the tolerance of F1 fans so far before we realise that the sport we’re watching now isn’t an nth of what it was ten years ago. I see next years regs as regressive.

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 14:27

            Why? Do you not agree that F1 engines should be well engineered and efficient?

            10 years ago the cars lined up and then drove around in the starting order for an hour and a half before the guy that was on pole became the winner. That was better than the sport is today? And why? You’re saying that ten years ago the sport was better, but in what respect? Less competitive? More expensive? Less technologically advanced? used artificial gimmicky grooved tyres to slow the cars down?

            You might have arose tinted view of F1 ten years ago but I don’t. I remember how dull it was. I remember having to sit through five minute ad breaks during the race. I remember that Ferrari had an unfair advantage over the rest of the grid. I remember hearing people talk about F1 being the most boring motorsport on the planet, and how it would likely just disappear within the next decade.

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 14:28

            Also – regressive isn’t the word you are looking for. If you think F1 was better in the past then regressive would be a positive thing.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 16:31

            Why? Do you not agree that F1 engines should be well engineered and efficient?

            If it means having fundamentally slower cars the answer is no.

            10 years ago the cars lined up and then drove around in the starting order for an hour and a half before the guy that was on pole became the winner. That was better than the sport is today? And why?

            Let’s be honest, the reason cars overtake nowadays has nothing whatsoever to do with modern regs and everything to do with DRS and gimmicky tyres. If F1 had introduced the current crop of comic book peripherals ten years ago, F1 would’ve been an overtaking festival!!

            You might have arose tinted view of F1 ten years ago but I don’t.

            I think it’s you that has a rose tinted view of modern F1. I definitely won’t look back at this era as being a golden one, the races are artificial in every sense. There weren’t tons of overtakes per race ten years back, but at least you knew that every overtake was completed purely via the drivers own skill and wit, as opposed to modern F1 where you basically get within one second and push a button…yeah, that’s not what I deem elite racing.

            I remember how dull it was. I remember having to sit through five minute ad breaks during the race. I remember that Ferrari had an unfair advantage over the rest of the grid.

            A team always has an advantage over their competitors, name me a sport where that isn’t the case. As for sitting through ad breaks I don’t see how a V6 engine will change that! :P

            My use of regressive – Isn’t going from a 2.4-litre V8 engine to a 1.6-litre V6 a backward step? It won’t be if the cars are faster but from what we’ve been told that won’t be the case. New fuel regs mean yet more fuel conservation so I don’t see how drivers having to what the fuel gauge for half the race with result in a more exciting formula; efficient/efficiency are just words used to convince people that slower is better.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 16:36

            *drivers having to watch the fuel gauge for half the race willresult

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 16:51

            No, going from a 2.4l V8 to a 1.6l V6 isn’t regressive, unless you’re playing Top Trumps and engine displacement or number of cylinders is your chosen category. In terms of power, the new powertrain will be about 50hp more powerful than the old powertrain and will have a much higher level of torque. Effectively the cars will be significantly more powerful while also being 35% more efficient. It’s one of those instances where it’s possible to have your cake and eat it. Made possible purely by virtue of the fact that the old engine formula was decades out of date, and the old engines pathetically inefficient by modern standards. It’s only a retrograde step if you know literally nothing about engines whatsoever.

            With regards to overtaking, then yes to a certain extent you’re right and I agree – I don’t like DRS. I think tyres which degrade rapidly give you everything you need in order to generate good racing. What DRS does is removes the ability of a driver to defend against another. But this current aero setup gives closer racing anyway. You say about getting within one second, but ten years ago even that was virtually impossible because the cars couldn’t run that close thanks to dirty air. Is F1 perfect as it is right now? Absolutely not. Is it better than it was ten years ago? Without a doubt.

            Every single time there are changes to the rules, the doomsayers will come out and claim that it’s terrible, ruining the sport, blah blah blah. Ten years ago people were predicting that rule changes for 2004 which limited a car to one engine per weekend were going to ruin the sport. They said we’d have drivers cruising around trying not to hurt the engine, refusing to go out in practice sessions, and that we’d have engines blowing up left right and centre. They were wrong then, just as the doomsayers today are wrong in suggesting that 2014 is going to be a disaster. F1 will still be the pinnacle of motorsport, it’ll still have the fastest cars in the world, and we’ll all still tune in every week to see it. And in 2020 or whenever the next big rule change comes in, we’ll have yet another wave of doomsayers telling us how it’ll be the death of F1. It won’t. Trust me.

          • @mazdachris +1000000 – thank you for going against the doomsday tide. I absolutely agree with everything you’ve said.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 18:11

            @mazdachris

            No, going from a 2.4l V8 to a 1.6l V6 isn’t regressive, unless you’re playing Top Trumps and engine displacement or number of cylinders is your chosen category. In terms of power, the new powertrain will be about 50hp more powerful than the old powertrain and will have a much higher level of torque. Effectively the cars will be significantly more powerful while also being 35% more efficient. It’s one of those instances where it’s possible to have your cake and eat it. Made possible purely by virtue of the fact that the old engine formula was decades out of date, and the old engines pathetically inefficient by modern standards. It’s only a retrograde step if you know literally nothing about engines whatsoever.

            In the words of Rubinho – All I’m hearing is a load of blah blah 35% more efficient blah blah made possible by blah blah. Answer me this simple question: Will next years cars be faster or slower than this years crop, yes or no?
            If next years lap times are slower then it’s a step backwards as far as I’m concerned.

            I’m not part of the doomsday crew, I’m just pointing out the fact that F1 cars are slower today then they were 10 years ago and the 2014 regs will do nothing to remedy this shameful reality.

          • wsrgo (@wsrgo) said on 13th August 2013, 18:20

            @hellotraverse Gone are the days of 10 yrs ago. The financial situation in Europe is different now and there’s no sense denying it. If you believe that F1 should adopt 4 litre engines in this age, I would ask you to make the financial situation better. If you can’t do that, but still can’t bear watching 1.6 litre engines in action..please stop watching F1.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 18:33

            @wsrgo
            At this rate a lot of people will stop watching F1.

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 18:51

            @hellotraverse

            Over the duration of a race they’ll be about the same, if not slightly faster thanks to more durable tyres and higher speeds down the straights. That’s just in the first season of new rules as well. Give it a couple of years and they’ll surpass the speeds of the 09-13 cars. And the point you made was specifically about the engines, saying they were a step backwards, which isn’t in any way true. Not in terms of efficiency, not technogically, and not in terms of power. The lap times are being affected by aero changes, making the wings smaller and relocating the exhausts to stop diffuser blowing. Even then, already teams are reporting that their designs for next year are going to be close to current downforce levels.

            Your principle moan was that drivers would have to spend races conserving fuel. As I’ve pointed out, that’s not going to happen.

          • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 19:44

            In 1994 the sport died because of the ban on driver’s aids, in 1998 because of the grooved tyres, in 2005 because of the two-race lifespan (2006 I should have mentioned because of the switch to V8s) and in 2009 because of the new aero regulations.

            My point being; doom was cast over the sport many times, still it prevails. The more you gloom about what could happen, the more you are setting yourself up for a disappointment.

          • @hellotraverse

            Answer me this simple question: Will next years cars be faster or slower than this years crop, yes or no?

            I will answer that that in terms of outright qualifying speed, initially yes. However, that has absolutely nothing (I repeat, nothing) to do with the new engines – in actual fact that aspect will make the cars faster.

            What will slow the cars down is having smaller front wings, no beam wing, lower noses and one central exhaust who’s vertical placement is severely restricted.

            In race trim though once any fuel issues have been ironed out (which I’m sure will happen fairly swiftly I’d imagine the cars will actually be faster due to the new harder tyres and better powertrain optimisation meaning they have to carry less weight around at the start of the race. As has been said, +35% thermal efficiency and -1/3 cubic capacity yet greater power and markedly greater torque will equate too a far better engine that shouldn’t come up against too many troubles with regards to fuel usage (current cars use 130-150kg, so 100kg for a 35% more efficient engine won’t really be a problem).

            So actually I think the new engines are the best thing that could’ve happened to F1 at the moment with all the recent gimmicky introductions (I think DRS in its current form is bordering on terrible and the tyres are too dominant in most cases, so 2014 should be a welcome change as long as they don’t become Bridgestones – I always remember Schumacher being told on the radio in Indy 500 that his tyres were good for well over 100 laps which is too much). The sound shouldn’t be a drastic shock either – I actually think if we factor in the fact the sound recordings that have been released were from the test bench the sound may actually be better than the current engines apart from on downshift and in the high extremities.

          • Traverse (@) said on 13th August 2013, 20:35

            @mazdachris @npf1 & @vettel1
            I love you guys, you’re all so well informed, even if your engine arguments are a little incipient. I guess only time will tell, hopefully hell will freeze over and I’ll be proved wrong!

          • @hellotraverse I’m well informed by my memory actually – I haven’t researched anything about the engines really since the details became readily available! So allow for a degree of inaccuracy in any value I state as it may be out by a few percent/kilograms etc. ;)

      • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th August 2013, 13:56

        We’ll all notice when the cars are coasting around to save fuel from lap 12 onward

        well, those V12s would probably have trouble even finishing a lap at that rate then @hellotraverse!

        I think everyone is far too dramatical on “wow BIG engines”. If you want to go big, look at a supertanker’s engine. Oh, and that also uses VERY big batteries for peak power.

  2. venom (@venom) said on 13th August 2013, 10:44

    Having Fuel regulations is like asking Usain Bolt to starve for the entire weekend leading to his sprint..

    completely pointless in my opinion..it seems to contradict the very definition of a motor race as we have come to know.

    • Nick (@npf1) said on 13th August 2013, 12:45

      It’s more like telling a US basketball player to drink only 1 gallon of Gatorade per week instead of the 4 or 5 he could. Or asking Usain Bolt to stick to a reasonable food budget per week.

    • PeterH said on 13th August 2013, 19:01

      fuel limitations didn’t hurt the group c world sportscars in the 80s, in fact through the group c days sportscar racing grew in popularity.
      nobody ever once complained about the fuel limitations making it ‘not a motor race’.

      you say it contradicts the very definition of a motor race, but what is the definition of a motor race?
      nobody ever said a motor race has to be about unrestricted fuel use, in fact there has been plenty of instances through its history where motor races have included limitations with regards to fuel.

  3. Laminator (@laminator) said on 13th August 2013, 11:07

    One interesting thing to note, is that the 2014 turbo engines will have a longer stroke than the current engines. Even with the 15000 rpm rev limit, the piston speed in the V6 (25.85mps) would be higher than the V8 (23.88mps). Thus in relation to the engine geometry the lower rev limit in the 2014 is not unduly conservative.

  4. Metallion (@metallion) said on 13th August 2013, 12:04

    Damn, they’ve removed the explanation of how “standard” engines and turbo engines work from the CNN article. Fortunately, they didn’t rob their readers of the knowledge of how turbo engines can grip onto steep angles.

  5. MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 12:26

    I don’t see why next year the cars would be any more likely to run out of fuel than they are this year. The engine formula is built around maximising efficiency, absolutely, but there’s no restriction on the size of the fuel tank. There are only two reasons why you’d see them running out of fuel:
    1 – The teams under-fuel the car as they do now, in order to minimise weight, but try to pinch too much and end up running out
    2 – the engine ends up being more thirsty than the teams anticipated, meaning that they have an embarrassing ‘virgin gp’ style situation where the fuel capacity of the car isn’t sufficient for the car to complete the race.

    In regards to point two, this is very very unlikely. Never before has so much attention been given to the fuel requirements of the engines. They will have been bench tested to within an inch of their lives, and they will have calculated down to the millilitre how much fuel the engine will use under all the conditions you’re likely to see. They have specifically developed technology which makes the measurement of fuel flow more accurate than it has ever been. So to suggest that they won’t understand how much fuel the engines will use is nonsense. They’ll have a much better idea than they ever have before.

    Regarding point 1, this is very possible. But no more so than is currently the case. And even in that situation, the teams will have more control via fuel maps and boost settings in order to conserve fuel. It’ll be less “lift and coast please Lewis” and more “fuel mix 5 please Lewis” – the driver should be able to drive the car flat out, but at a reduced power level. Maybe this would be an issue for a few drivers at the start of the season, but I think it won’t take long for the teams to work out how far they can push it without harming the overall pace. The main thing is that I don’t think it’s at all likely that we’ll see many instances of drivers actually running out of fuel before the end of the race. And if they do, it’ll be because the teams tried too hard to gain an advantage by underfuelling the car, rather than some inherent problem with the technical regulations.

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th August 2013, 13:58

      I do think there’s a slightly bigger chance at the start of next year (just as there was at the start of 2010) because of some uncertainties that remain @mazdachris.
      But otherwise I agree with you that teams are still as likely to make a gamble on fuel, and ask their driver to just manage with lower power during part of the race if their gamble does not pay off.

    • BJ (@beejis60) said on 13th August 2013, 15:06

      I too agree here. Far too many people are being far to dramatic about this apparent “end of the world” scenario. I think it has something to do with the long breaks between races that let our minds wonder…

    • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 13th August 2013, 15:24

      @mazdachris, I agree with the point you are making, however

      but there’s no restriction on the size of the fuel tank

      I thought there was a restriction that teams can only put in 100 litres of fuel for a GP. So although teams will rarely run out of fuel, the question will be how rich they can run the engine during the GP. If running at 95% power for 305km (does anybody have any idea how closely to the limit the engines are currently run?) requires e.g. 115 litres, then drivers will have to run very lean for very long, in addition to specializing their driving style towards saving fuel, in the same manner that for the past three years their driving has been about making the tyres work and last.

      • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 15:39

        @adrianmorse There are two restrictions directly related to fuel – firstly that the maximum fuel flow at full throttle can’t exceed 100kg of fuel per hour, and secondly that you can’t use more than 100kg of fuel during the race. But that doesn’t mean that you can’t put more than 100kg into the car, just that you can’t use more than that. Inevitably you’ll end up putting in a safety margin I’d have thought, and potentially take a penalty if you had no choice but to go over.

        But I doubt this will even be an issue. Currently they’re using about 150kg of fuel for a race, and that’s slightly underfuelled for flat-out racing. In reality that’s always going to be the case – it makes more sense to underfuel the car and carry a lighter car through the race – the car ends up faster by doing this than by carrying the extra weight and going flat out. This is perhaps something people lose sight of when they see drivers moaning about going slowly – they are actually going faster by doing this. While it may seem counter-intuitive, they don’t save fuel because there are restrictions or because they are too tight to pay for a whole tank, they do it because it makes the car faster for the whole race duration.

        Anyway, this mean that the cars will be allowed to use about two thirds the fuel they’re allowed to use now. The figures for the engines suggests that the engines themselves will be about 35% more efficient than they are currently. So on that basis there’s no danger of them running out of fuel on the basis of the rules not allowing them to run enough. 100kg of fuel will likely be to take into account the circuits with the highest fuel demands, meaning most races should come in well under that. Then you also need to factor in the fact that at the start of the race they’ll be carrying at least 50kg less fuel than they will be currently, which means the cars will be quite a lot quicker as a result, and more efficient over the duration of the race.

        What I’m getting at is that only under the most extreme conditions would you be likely to see them getting marginal with the 100kg limit. In all likelihood the true figure will be safely below this, and the only danger of them running out of fuel or having to use extreme fuel saving measures will be exactly what it is at the moment – teams trying to pinch too much time by running the car as light as possible by underfuelling. Which is why I can’t see why there would be any more likelihood of it next year than there will be this year. Less, in fact, since the cars will be carrying technology which will be far more accurate at measuring how much fuel the car is using, meaning that they can play closer to the margins with a greater degree of accuracy – reducing the likelihood of stupid mistakes.

        • AdrianMorse (@adrianmorse) said on 13th August 2013, 15:48

          @mazdachris, I hope you are right, and that the 100kg limit will not be too marginal. One thing though, will the minimum weight of the cars for next year not be significantly increased, in which case they will not actually be much lighter with a full tank of fuel?

          • MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 15:59

            Yes, sorry I mean quicker relative to the current amount of fuel if it was to be put into a 2014 car. The point being that there is less difference between a fully fueled car and a car running on empty, meaning that pinching off, say, three laps of fuel is less beneficial and so there’s less incentive to do it.

            At the end of the day, I’m sure they’ll have done their maths when working out these restrictions. It’ll be based on the current levels adjusted down to take into account a reasonable improvement in fuel economy – in this case about a third. Which is totally in line with what we expect the engines will be capable of, allied with more advanced options in terms of using fuel maps and boost levels.

            I think the two things people are worried about are drivers running out of fuel, and drivers having to coast around not using the performance of the cars. Neither or these things should be more likely next year than they are this year, unless the engine manufacturers have spectacularly failed to meet the technical challenges they’ve been given.

      • Dave (@raceprouk) said on 13th August 2013, 15:50

        There is no limit to the size of the tank, at least none I could find in the latest published regs.

  6. Chris (@tophercheese21) said on 13th August 2013, 12:52

    The best cure for a hangover is…
    DR: Keep drinking…

    Hell yeah it is!

  7. MazdaChris (@mazdachris) said on 13th August 2013, 13:25

    Interestingly, I think that’s the third F1 championship winning team to be commemorated on a Renault road car. The others being Williams and the factory Renault F1 team. Any others?

  8. Hatebreeder (@hatebreeder) said on 13th August 2013, 17:12

    They should call it Formula Mileage…

  9. GT Racer (@gt-racer) said on 13th August 2013, 19:23

    Think its easy to forget that teams been marginal on fuel & having to get drivers to slow down to save fuel & even instances of drivers running out of fuel during the race isn’t new.

    Its happened throughout F1′s history & I can think of a couple races where we did see at least 1 driver running out of fuel, Back when that did used to happen every now & again fans never used to complain about it because it was just considered part of the sport.

    I recall Imola 1985 where 3-4 cars ran out of fuel late in the race which led to the lead changing a couple times, Prost eventually won but also ran out of fuel just after the line. Back then it was considered an exciting end to the race.
    Senna ran out of fuel at Silverstone in both 1991 & 1993 as McLaren were pushing the limits trying to compete with the Williams, Again fans didn’t complain.

    Point been that I think we have all become used to a specific type of racing, Especially through the refueling-era where running out of fuel was not an issue & where there was suddenly a lot of pit stops.
    There was resistance to refueling been banned & a reduction in pit stops in 2010 because many young fans had simply grew up with refueling/pit stops, Many of the older fans who remember F1 Pre-94 welcomed the return to pit strategy taking the back seat in favor of the on-track racing.

    The tyre management & potential fuel saving where drivers are not at 100% all race are new to young fans, There used to something very different & so often whine about it. The older fans appreciate F1 going back to how it used to be, Drivers having to manage tyres & drive sensibly to manage the car where there now having to think rather than just throw the cars around on the limit.

    Same with the engines, Fans have got used to loud V10/V8′s so are resistant to the change to potentially quieter V6 Turbos.
    However I welcome the return of engines with a lot of low end torque which will make drivers have to think about stepping on the gas too hard because thats what we used to have.
    The engines never used to be current levels of loud up until the late 90s, Even early V10′s were quieter & nobody complained about them not sounding right.

    To end, All the doom & gloom about next year is unwarranted. F1 will still be F1, The engines will sound like race engines, the racing will be of F1 quality & the drivers will be challenged so that the best still rise to the top.
    I welcome & am looking forward to F1 2014, It can’t come soon enough!

    • BasCB (@bascb) said on 13th August 2013, 19:40

      as McLaren were pushing the limits trying to compete with the Williams

      – exactly. Teams are trying to run as little fuel as they can, and taking a gamble at a little bit more if they see a reasonable chance at either a SC, rain or just gamble on pulling off a bit of fuel saving later in the race to try and get that tenth over the others. Its all part of the competition.

    • andae23 (@andae23) said on 13th August 2013, 21:03

      I welcome & am looking forward to F1 2014, It can’t come soon enough!

      Same here! Though for me it’s more the case of wanting 2013 to be over…

  10. Libellula (@ladyf1fanatic) said on 13th August 2013, 20:25

    Dear Toto Wolff, Mercedes better work hard this time than ever, dig up and find the damn golden key ASAP… F1 fans demand a thrilling second part of season! Light up the 2013 championship.
    Come on!

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.