Start, Canadian Grand Prix, 1996, Circuit Gilles Villeneuve, Montreal

Reviving old engine format is the “wrong strategy” for F1

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

In the round-up: Toto Wolff has argued against Formula One adopting ‘retro’ engine rules.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

This was my favourite of your entries for last weekend’s Caption Competition:

Lance Stroll, Stoffel Vandoorne, Hungaroring, 2017

Vandoorne and Stroll quietly draw out their game to avoid the awkwardness at the ping-pong table
RP (@Slotopen)

Thanks to everyone who joined in, especially Mashiat, Hugh, PorscheF1, Hzh and Andre Furtado who also came up with great captions.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to F1George, Dan_The_Mclaren_Fan and Kirill!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

  • Alan Jones scored his first win – and the only victory for Shadow – in the Austrian Grand Prix today in 1977

86 comments on “Reviving old engine format is the “wrong strategy” for F1”

  1. Yes Romain, that was a great last lap to finish a great race, what F1 has to be if it is to regain its crown.

    1. Not only the last lap, the whole race was great. At the beginning, most important riders were racing in pack, very close to each other, just like a 125cc race. The race started with a team on a different tyre strategy: Ducati chose a two level softer compound that the rest of the teams. Lorenzo led the pack for the first half of the race, but fell to 4th due to tyre wear. Dovicioso, on the other hand, managed his softer compound to make them last to the end. Yamaha riders failed to make turn 1 in two different laps so they fell to the back of the pack. Meanwhile, Marquez and Dovi had great moves, overtaking each other several times, while Pedrosa came close in 3rd as they fought for 1st position. With 5 laps to go, it was clear that Marquez and Dovi will fight for the win. It seemed that Marquez had a better pace, but he did two mistakes at turn 1 and 3 letting Dovi to take the lead. Last lap started with Dovi leading with Marquez close but not enough to attempt overtaking. Marquez had been quicker the whole race in the middle and last sectors, so he was really close to Dovi with only two corners left. He risked not only his race but also Dovi’s in the last corner by overtaking him briefly, but it was Dovi who finally took the win.

    2. Agreed. Started watching MotoGP a bit more seriously this year. Great racing start to finish and the egos are nothing compared to F1 drivers.

  2. Here is a case for aurally impressive engines: For the longest time, included in the price of a ticket, the fan got a full symphony orchestra to listen to during the race. Without that, some of the ticket’s value is removed while paying the same price.

    1. I disagree. I found the new engines to be more of a “symphony orchestra” than the old ones, which I consider to be more of a heavy metal band: loud, screaming, but without many subtleties or variations. They just howled at you. It wasn’t a very nice sound at all!

      By contrast, the new ones deliver a depth, variations between manufacturers, and a much nicer sound.

      If you consider the old V8s to be a symphony orchestra, I doubt you know much about music.

      1. It’s called engine noise, because it’s just that: noise. It’s not music at all. Renault once tried to play their national anthem on the V10 engine. It sounded horrible.

      2. I think you’re taking the orchestra comparision a bit far…

      3. @drmouse I personally don’t care about the one way or the other. The dislike for the new engines however is a very real thing that cannot be discounted and I am trying to give it an examination and find out why.

        1. *don’t care about the sound*

      4. Maybe using the example of “symphony” was a bad comparison but, I understood his analogy and he is correct. If you can’t understand that then maybe you are deaf and sound doesn’t matter to you.

    2. @mrmuffins Instead they now get a lesson in subtlety, social interaction (because you can talk to the person next to you & they can hear you, to boot) AND a science lesson, if you like.

      VALUE FOR MONEY ASSURED!

    3. Well, the Merlin engine used in Spitfires is the bestest sounding engine ever so therefore that should be used in all F1 cars.

      When will you people understand and accept that the look and sound of an F1 car is a by product of making the thing go as fast as possible within the rules?

      If it was faster to have a 200db engine noise then so be it but it makes no difference at all the the prospect of winning a race or scoring points.

      Just stop with the demands to change the rules of the formula just to get the old engine sound back please!

      Th with are are far bigger problems to sort out in F1 such as the financial situation that has lead to pay drivers and only 10 teams with only 2 of those teams able to field a race winning car for the past several years. That is more important, by any measure, than the bloody sound that the engine makes.

      Please can we just drop this once and for all.

    4. having to wear earplugs is not fun,

      they are only loud because its outdated technology

      I get so tired of the constant yammering about noise, must be the same people who in motoGP keep going on and on about how much better the 2-tact engines used to be.

      why do you watch F1 if you don’t like progress, there must be some historic racing series somewhere?

      1. Progress? Haven’t the human race evolved beyond this petty thing called competition.. Racing a transportation device… Sounds like silly childplay really doesn’t it

    5. Would a twin turbo V6 be louder than the current engines? I thought that the turbos acted as silencers.

    6. Jones F1 career was almost over after having a fight with surtee’s and was planning to go to the USA …then Jones got a lucky break winning the austrian gp on a wet and drying track with Hunt and andretti blowing engines in front of him.. but he got noticed and cemented his career, a career which he said himself he was lucky to have, without connections, money or sponsors , just a nobody from oz.

  3. Those 3.5L engines from ’89 to ’94 were the best sounding F1 engines ever (aside from the Matra V12 and the BRM V16). Those engines did not rev nearly as high as their 3.0 V10 and 2.4L V8, but quite honestly combustion engines in 30 years will sadly be a thing of the past. Some of us will be telling our grandchildren in 40 or 50 years what it was like to watch F1 cars or really any kind of racing cars with combustion engines race around a track (hopefully shows like Goodwood or Pebble Beach will still be going then)

    1. mfreire, it says something about some of those engines though that the only way that Ligier could be convince to use the Matra V12 was when the French government was paying him to use it. Didn’t Stewart, when he once tested a car fitted with the Matra V12, quip that “It has a great exhaust note because that’s where all the power has gone”?

      Equally, it is also perhaps telling that you bring up the BRM V16 – another engine famed for its sound, but also famed for being notoriously difficult to drive (with even some of the greats of the sport, such as Moss, finding both it and the car it was in so wayward that he called it utterly disgraceful) and with a reliability record that makes the current Honda power unit look brilliant by comparison.

      1. In essence the problem with the current engine is the reliability and the fuel flow restrictions and amounts.

        We are here for the racing not for who makes a car that is reliable on the road.

        Let em use an engine per race, unlimited fuel flow and maintain like a 100-150kg amount of fuel. The engines and tactics will be like we have never seen before, economical when ahead, crazy shouting high rev v6 turbo hybrids in overtaking and quali. Running low on fuel being a real fun part of the game, not being able to up rev.

      2. One particularly big problem with the BRM V16 was that it wasn’t developed properly up until about 1953 and it had a centrifugal supercharger, which doesn’t allow the engine to pick up cleanly at low revs (hence why the IndyCars of the day used them), which a Roots supercharger, which all the big continental automotive firms that participated in GP racing used for their cars, does do. The BRM V16 was an amazing engineering feat, unfortunately they brought it out too soon and it wasn’t really raceworthy until 1953, 2 years after the F1 regs had changed.

  4. I don’t really get all this moaning about the old engines. I actually don’t mind the current engines as long as I hear them at the track. Having said that if I had a choice between watching current spec cars with the current engines or the same cars (chassis wise) with the V12 or V10 engines… I for sure would choose the later. It’s not like they can’t just keep most of the technology that is there now and just change the PU component to more exciting one.

    1. I’ve seen videos shot on fans’ phones that capture the sound better than professional coverage can do. It’s been three years since the V6s have been introduced to F1 and these broadcasters have not bothered to mix the audio to better bring out the sound for these engines. It’s like 70% commentary and 30% engine now. Hardly engaging.

      1. You have to be at the track to hear the difference, I went to the Williams 40th celebration at Silverstone, the difference between the older cars and the post 2014 ones was night and day.

        I had no strong feelings on the issue before having been an armchair fan only, but after hearing it first hand I can understand the complaints.

      2. @mbr-9 I like to think that was an intentional play by Bernie to make a point about the engines and Carey/Brawn/Bratches haven’t had a chance to change it yet, given they have bigger fish to fry.

        After all, if they could boost the aural experience by adjusting a few microphones, that’s gotta be a plus!

        1. @optimaximal Well he isn’t a fan of the current engines, right? Let the theories commence.

          Just to add to my previous post, i really enjoy finding a video of the current cars without commentary and turn the volume up. They are nice to listen to but apparently we need David Croft to drown out the engines.

          I hear splitting the exhaust will make the engines sound louder? A better solution than that silly megaphone exhaust they tried in 2014.

    2. I think I’ll miss for sure is engine variety. There used to be V8s, V10s, V12s, and all sounded differently. Since the engine freeze in 2007-2009 they have been sounding practically the same (of course BMW’s and Honda’s withdrawal makes me wonder).
      I think if they allowed variety today, there would probably be more manufacturers, not just more sound.

  5. I spent part of my evening watching youtube reviews of battery powered chainsaws and lawnmowers. I didn’t even realise such things existed or could work for any sustained period of time but they worked just as well as petrol variants. These weren’t prototypes either. They are commercially available and affordable products running off battery packs similar to what would come with a cordless drill.

    Everyone thinks internal combustion won’t die until it is banned in 25 or so years but with the breakneck pace of investment and development in energy storage F1 could be a total anachronism within 10 years. Look how much things have changed since 2007.

    F1 may need to go even more hardcore on energy recovery if it is to hang on to the manufacturers.

    1. @spawinte couldn’t agree more. I would even say less than 10 years. In the motorsport world, just look at the manufacturer rush to Formula E. I think the whole FIA Formula series, starting from Formula 4 or 3, going all the way up to F2 and F1 needs a complete and coherent strategy rethink. Internal combustion engines might not go out so soon, but they do have a “deadline”, at least for the average mass consumer. I don’t see Electric or any alternative energy substituting Diesel for the Heavy Duty engines for Trucks, or commercial Navigation and aviation, but certainly for the regular “car”, motorcycle or SUV, the internal combustion engine as we know it will indeed fade in the next 10-20 years.

      Formula 1 and motorsport in general, specially the Formulas, need to be linked with relevant, future oriented and cutting edge technology. The best machines in the world with the best drivers in the world.

      As for the sound… I think its important. But I would think there will be a sound design department in every team if racing goes into electric mode. You might call this artificial, but the sound can be a component that helps a driver identify gear changes, limits, problems on a car. In an electric car, a sound designer could implement sound design to increase performance with the relationship between the driver and the car- and also with the audience, giving them an “aural reference”of what the car is doing and performing- which is what we get from the old engines: we know when the car is on the power, shifting up, down, etc.

      Exciting, and changing times!

      1. Anthony Blears
        14th August 2017, 4:10

        Exciting times indeed. In case you’re not aware, Tesla is close to testing fully autonomous electric trucks already.

      2. @sergio-perez, with regards to trucks and heavy goods vehicles, Musk has stated that Tesla are due to launch a prototype semi truck in September, and has already begun negotiations over potential test locations. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-tesla-truck-autonomous-idUSKBN1AP2GD

        There is already a sizeable market in the mining and construction sector for electric vehicles, so the possibility of an electric semi truck doesn’t seem that far fetched by comparison.

      3. @sergio-perez

        I don’t see Electric or any alternative energy substituting Diesel for the Heavy Duty engines for Trucks, or commercial Navigation and aviation

        As Anthony says, there’s already extensive research into both electrifying trucks and also developing fully-autonomous driving systems for them. Rather than full electrification, what’s more likely is they’ll move to a hybrid electric powertrain with the diesel engine being retained for power generation, with AI doing most of the actual driving to ensure the best mileage.

        This is where F1 will likely end up, up until FE’s battery tech finally manages to surpass it for range per joule of energy.

    2. I agree technology moves quickly the current proposal for the 2021 engine might need a rethink, because it’s a step in the wrong direction.

      I would propose a driveline like this: electric motors driving the wheels, fed from a small battery pack. The battery pack is charged by a petrol-burning range extender (let’s a 1.6 liter V6 turbo engine) with a set maximum amount of fuel.

      The future development path then becomes very clear: increase the electric energy while lowering the fossil fuel part. When batteries become better/lighter the set amount of fuel can be lowered gradually. At some point the petrol engine might be replaced by something like an hydrogen fuel cell, if that’s ever going to work. Or if promising concepts like the solid-state battery become avaialble, the range extender could disappear all together.

      1. I’m not sure if wheel-mounted electric motors will ever become feasible for open-wheel racing?

        1. I don’t say they should be wheel mounted, they can be inboard as well. But an electric motor for each wheel would render the trick differentials obsolete.

    3. Spawinte (@spawinte)
      “Everyone thinks internal combustion won’t die until it is banned in 25 or so years but with the breakneck pace of investment and development in energy storage F1 could be a total anachronism within 10 years.

      You make a valid case, but since we are talking sports – there is more to it. Look, you could argue that riding a bicycle is an anachronism, since we have cars and motorcycles. And it is indeed. Hey, running is an anachronism compared to anything else!
      So why do we still want to know and watch how fast a man can run 43km (a marathon) if we are able to cover that distance within minutes in a car/train/plane?

      Why do we still have all of those sport dysciplines that use anachronic technology, like archery, fencing, cycling, horse riding etc. or ones in which you achieve a goal using redundant physical means, like weightlifting (we have fork-lifts and cranes), bare-eye target shooting (we have laser targeting devices) etc.?

      In 25 years from now, motorsport may just disattach itself from the utility car world by keeping to combustion engines, just like horse-riding/horse polo etc. disattached themself 100 years ago from the reality of progressing technology that swaped horse carriages for cars.

      After all, the moment we all use only self-driving cars, the idea of racing cars will become disattached from the general world, and therefore anachronic, as well.

      But I’m sure motorsport will go on. And if it still uses roaring combustion engines, it will only make it more attractive.

  6. I agree that going back to v10s, 8s is not something that would be smart. BUT to get the engines to sound louder, would removing the turbo be enough? I don’t like the noise of the engines. At least from what i have heard ( not live) on youtube or tv. I watched ric interview on nbcsn at the last GP and i thought to myself….. what kind of race going on? Thinking it was a porsche race or so. But it was the F1 race. I was dull sounding and honestly very depressing. Then there was the youtube video of fans at the recent test and watching kibica come by. Very dull. Now the last time i watched a live race at the circuit as 2013 at Austin. I read often that people complained they were unable to hear themselves talk back then, but why would you want to. Its like someone wanting to talk at the movies. There is plenty of time to talk after the race. I do agree that the broadcastes turn the volume down. But how much better could it be witht he current engines.
    This is what i say sounds awesome.

    There has to be a way to make them sound like that, be super efficient and harness energy.

    1. That’s a magical sound, sure. But physics isn’t many people’s strong point it seems… Sound is wasted energy.

      They’re trying to race with 1000bhp on very little fuel, they need to harness as much energy as possible, so of course they’re quieter.

      1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        14th August 2017, 13:13

        @sham
        The engines will still be creating similar decibels of sound from the internal combustion engine, it’s just that we don’t hear it as the noise is muffled through the turbo etc. A gun with a silencer on isn’t more efficient because it doesn’t ‘waste sound.’

        1. @rdotquestionmark

          They’re trying to race with 1000bhp on very little fuel, they need to harness as much energy as possible, so of course they’re quieter.

          through the turbo

          exactly.

          1. @rdotquestionmark without the turbo, they would produce absurdly little power by F1 standards and use more fuel.

            You want the efficiency? You put up with lower volume.

            I, for one, don’t mind the noise – I enjoy the technical mastery of getting almost 1000bhp from a 1.6 with the fuel flow they’re allowed as much as I enjoy the spectacle.

            Was the noise of the old cars great? sure – but times move on and F1 can either move with them or become utterly irrelevant and therefore obsolete as the manufacturer base moves into things that will make them money.

            At the moment, hybrid is the way for F1… But make no mistake, when petrol road cars are declining – ICE powered racing cars will too.

          2. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
            16th August 2017, 13:07

            @sham Yes I agree. I would like a nicer tone to the engine but not artificially, let’s just see where technology takes us.

    2. Remove the Turbo and you lose a chunk of horsepower – it baffles the noise because the exhaust flow is driving the air compression system.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turbocharger

  7. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    14th August 2017, 4:18

    It’s because it creates more emotion with the noise and the revs.

    “So can we create a hybrid engine that has that noise, has the revs and has that appeal? The manufacturers involved in F1 know that that’s a key element.”

    That’s an important quote from Brawn because it shows that they’re continuing to look into methods of making the current engines louder. If I remember correctly, both Martin Brundle and Ted Kravitz have observed (or heard) that the current engines are only marginally quieter than the V8’s in terms of outright Decibel readings, but, because of the lower rev range, they have a duller tone as opposed to the shrill shriek of the V8’s, which gives you the impression that they’re substantially quieter, when in fact they’re not.

    That said, I’d still like to see them open up the revs more. Let them rev out to 18,000 RPM again. They’ll sound louder and will likely evoke the old sounds of F1 to some of these fans that seem to think that the sound is the most important aspect of F1. It goes against the engine regulations in terms of reliability to some degree, but the restrictive power unit rules are becoming absurd now and is something that needs to be dialled back as teams are still producing 5-6 engines anyway.

    1. @tophercheese21 Opening up the rev range won’t make a jot of difference as long as the fuel-flow regulations apply and the engines are turbo charged.

      The drivers shift up at 11-12k rpm (despite the engines revving up to 15k at the moment) because the engine is simply not delivering as much power as if they shifted up because turbo-charged engines deliver the majority of their power in the lower rev-ranges (as opposed to naturally aspirated engines which deliver across their power band, so can be taken up to the red-line).

      If they keep running up to 15k (and beyond) then the engine is just wasting fuel for no purpose other than to generate noise – great for the fans (if you go for that sort of thing) but hardly a great idea when your car runs out of fuel towards the end of the race or gets disqualified for breaking the fuel flow limits.

  8. It is almost finny to hear toto complain about f1 going back to 80s and 90s when he himself was totally happy that f1 was going back to 80s turbos when the hybrids came. Plus it is blatantly obvious he wants to keep the hybrids because mercedes has the best engines. Going back to real racing engines might give chance for ferrari, renault or honda to make something better. Better try to keep the status quo, eh toto?

    Trying to please the engine manufacturer’s is highly dangerous game. Any of the manufacturers could leave at any time they want (see bmw and toyota) and they don’t care about the sport at all. They either want an engine solution that gives them a performance advantage over the other teams or they want something they can use in their marketing to pretend to be green.

    I mean let’s face it. The racing has been awful ever since the hybrids. 2014, 2015 and 2016 it was a two car series. Now it is 4 car series. Or 3.5. Only big manufacturers can compete. If you are ferrari or mercedes you must love these engine regs. Effortless podium in every race and 50% of the time you win. No fear of having to compete against the riffraff of the midfield teams. Even red bull and mclaren have been totally neutered. If you are mercedes or ferrari you could not ask more. And as long as the engine regs stay like this there will be no change.

    And nobody is wanting the 80s or 90s engines back. A mid 2000s engine with 2020 technology is still the fastest type of engine you can put into any racing car. There is still a lot to be done with the concept and it won’t bankcrupt the midfield with insane costs and it won’t neuter the midfield+redbull+mclaren into poor engine deals and allow effortless manufacturer domination which is simply bought with money instead of ingenuity. Worst case for mercedes, it might even equalize the competition. Something they have fought against at every turn, at every meeting.

    1. @socksolid ”The racing has been awful ever since the hybrids” – I can’t agree with this too much as to be entirely honest the quality of racing wasn’t really any better before the current V6 turbos came to the sport. I also don’t agree with your claim that these aren’t ”real racing engines”. I’m perfectly fine with the current engine formula.

      1. After a long period of not-so-exciting races, the racing improved dramaticly with the introduction of DRS, high-degradation tyres and (K)ERS. The change to hybrid engines had little effect on that, other then pushing one team far ahead.
        This season there’s much more competition at the sharp end of the grid, but the races have been very poor/unexciting, because of the long-life tyres and the revised aero-regulations.

    2. @socksolid – are you implying that turbos are “1980’s” therefore old fashioned? Turbochargers are virtually free horsepower and while there are ICE’s their use will only increase now that there is software & hardware to control them. I absolutely hated the V8’s and could only last 20 minutes or so before running for cover. From a pure health & safety aspect it can’t have been good for the ears, especially young children. I remember my first visits (of many) to F1 races in the ’70’s and coming away with ringing in my ears for days and then having a similar experience with the later V10’s & V8’s. I am now clinically deaf and I wonder how many thousands of people there are like me around. We cottoned on to ear plugs a little too late and it was really no fun wearing them either. The current engines could be a bit louder sure but they sound fine to me. Your ears will thank you!

      1. @baron, I recall Davidson once talking about the impact that the engine noise had on his hearing, and it was pretty severe – his hearing has now degraded to that of a man in his late 60’s to early 70’s. Murray Walker, similarly, has spent years battling with the hearing damage that he suffers from too.

        That said, I’ve seen some fans openly saying that they would be happy for people to be deaf or suffering from tinnitus so long as they get their shrieking loud engine note back.

        1. To be fair hearing protection was a thing nobody cared about in the 60s and 70s. I’d guess even in the 90s people were not wearing hearing protection even though it has been part of every rock concert to wear earplugs.

          As for davidson’s claim about hearing loss I’d not put it all on F1. All racing cars are loud and used to be. His kart probably produced enough loud noise to hurt his hearing. Same thing with his F3 car. Also it could have been that in the 90s and even in 2000s the hearing protection radio headsets were either too expensive or ran out of frequencies so everybody could not wear them. And teams needed to start their engines and run them so someone somewhere in the pitlane was always revving their engine. Which creates unexpected loud noise.

          Nothing that can not be fixed with modern tech. We have ear protection that automatically activates as loud noises are detected. Only issue with loud engine sound I can think of is the high sound levels in the pits when a tv crew is trying to record an interview.

    3. @socksolid I can’t see where you got that Wolff is complaining about anything. I can’t agree with most of what you are saying.

    4. real racing engines

      @socksolid Mint?

  9. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
    14th August 2017, 6:36

    Ahh gutted I missed caption comp. Mine would have been:

    Stoffel: Wow Lance how did you get so good at this so quickly?

    Lance: My Dad bought be a 2014 spec table to practice on

    1. @rdotquestionmark clear winner!
      Oh and I’ve just cracked the code of what rdotqustionmark is, I like…

      1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        14th August 2017, 11:44

        Ha thanks @unicron2002

        Big Williams fan and they had R.? on their cars at the first race I ever attended (BGP 1997) because of tobacco advertising ban. Villeneuve won, Williams 100th victory and one very happy 11 year old.

        1. Lol I used an R.? 1/18 die cast car to remove those and put on the proper Rothman’s decals. I eventually got it signed by JV along with the 1/18 Player’s CART car that I did the same thing on.

          1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
            14th August 2017, 13:54

            Ha brilliant

  10. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
    14th August 2017, 6:42

    Just a more exciting engine note is all we need. Would it be possible that the removal of MGU-H may achieve a less muffled sound?

    Overall I agree, learning from the past is essential but making backward steps is rarely a good idea.

    1. No – the MGU – H has no affect on the sound of the PU.

      Actually given part of its job is to spin up the turbo (as opposed to being a brake and generating electricity) to avoid lag, it could be argued it assists with noise.

      I wonder what Honda think of its potential removal? The unique developments and the future used of that single component is one of the main reasons they returned.

  11. Hey, what I want back is the Can-Am series. 600 cubic inch, all aluminum, fuel injected engines and, virtually no rules. Look it up on You Tube. I’ve never heard more magnificent engines. I think Granatelli’s turbines at Indy come a close second though.
    Yeah, I’m “old”. So what? You have no idea of the wonderful things you have missed.

  12. Fully agreed with Wolff and Brawn. The hybrid technology is here to stay to some extent at least.

  13. Harry Dymond
    14th August 2017, 9:20

    Yes it would mean so I hope I get it right back on it but I’m still waiting to hear the message you can say about my new job please let it know that the article has a great time for the article that I think it should not work as well and it should have a better version than a great idea for it as it seems that you can see that it should have to do more to do so you should not know the idea came article and the idea is not the only way for it ato s how the game has to do you with yotime ur in a time and time of time anaggravation d you should be a greatidea of your life to your family aschild a you should not know that

    1. Well, that’s easy for YOU to say….

    2. Is this Google’s A.I. chatbot experiment in disguise spewing jibberish again?

      1. No; I fell asleep whilst looking at the comments in bed on my phone, and my hand resting on the screen somehow activated the comment box and then the keyboard predictive text just generated a random sequence of words and posted it!

        I’ve asked Keith to delete it but he’s probably got more important things to do!

        @baron, your comment made me LOL :-)

    3. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      14th August 2017, 13:56

      Has to be COTD!!!

      1. Lol that’s hilarious.

  14. So, 2021 engine regulations…

    Brawn is quite spot on:
    -Engine does not need to be V8.
    -Power to weight ratio needs to improve.
    -Fan amazement is more important than technological relevance.

    I can imagine many many potential Hybrid solutions. Turbos, etc etc.

    I would prefer performance to be capped by maximum output and fuel flow and minimum weight. Then go at it, V8, I4, I5, V6, 3l V10, 1l V4, single turbo, twin turbo, batteries yes, ERS if you want yes if you don’t want it no…

    I would much prefeer to see Honda and Renault do I4 engines, that is their road relevant configuration… and for Mercedes and Ferrari it must be V6+… Not long before we see a V6 Ferrari on the road in a California near you.

    But to drive down cost, performance needs to be equalized.

    Right now maybe engine maker needs to pay say 50 million € for 1% power increase. Same increase could be found by simply allowing 1% higher fuel flow, to equalize performance and improve the show.

    Would it really be bad if we had equal engine performances?

    1. @jureo Why is engine performance a special area? If we’re equalising engine performance, why not chassis/aero performance? If you’re going to force performance equalisation in a particular area, why not in every area?

      Additionally, if you’re going to have all engines with the same performance, why would any engine manufacturer be interested? “Come and invest millions in a sport where your contribution will make zero difference”. Sure fire way to kill F1.

      1. Good thinking equalise chassis performance aswell.

        Ideally we would have equally performing cars accross the grid, some with stronger engine and others with stronger aero package. Overall similar laptime.

        Otherwise we will never see anything but 1-2 teams dominating the sport for another 10 years.

        1. @jureo, so what you want to do is to tear up a sizeable chunk of the history of the sport to turn it into a glorified version of GP2?

          Equally, even if you went down the route of a completely spec series, that wouldn’t necessarily mean that the sport isn’t still dominated by a few small teams. If you look over at the Indycar series, although they officially became a mostly standard spec series in 2011, they were effectively a standard spec series from 2008 – and yet only a handful of teams (mainly Penske and Chip Ganassi right now) still tend to win most races.

  15. What I personally would like to see in F1 is:

    – less front wing dependency for downforce / better following
    – lighter cars / better weight to power ratio
    – less driver support from team
    – refueling
    – Dutch GP :-)
    – More noise

    To me the sound is not the most urgent issue to be solved

    1. @anunak if you want to see worse racing and less overtaking then by all means bring refueling back.

      refueling was awful then & it would be just as awful now, its totally not needed as it it would do is make racing worse, overtaking less, drivers having less input & cars sitting stationary more.

      racing was better with more overtaking on track before refueling & after refueling, all the stats show this as does teams/fia research into refueling from the other year…. it should never be brought back!

    2. @anunaki I agree with your first two points, but not with the rest, especially refuelling.

    3. I assume he included refueling as a means to make the cars smaller and lighter. I’m a strategy geek so I find more pit options interesting, although with F1 length pit stops, as opposed to GT stops with limited mechanics, I find refueling to be perhaps unnecessarily dangerous.

      1. yeah, refueling makes cars lighter and gives more strategy options

        most important are the top 2 indeed, and a Dutch GP would be just epic

  16. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
    14th August 2017, 13:08

    Look at the liveries and cars in that main picture. Fantastic looking grid. 🤤

  17. 9-1 to Stroll?

  18. We have FE now! Let the manufacturers have the freedom to put whatever motor they would like in their F1 cars. They mite even go back to a normally aspirated motor. Who knows, but reviving the old engines isn’t as silly as what everyone thinks

    1. Wee Jock Poo-Pong McPlop
      16th August 2017, 1:32

      It’d certainly be interesting to see what they came up with. Perhaps with non-specific limits like maximum (and/or minimum) weight, or highest permissible price to supply to customer teams. I suspect the armchair fans (those who tune in for 10 minutes per race and demand the rules are changed so they get to see a hundred foregone-conclusion gimmick-assisted overtakes in that time no matter how easy and therefore uninteresting such overtakes are) would soon get upset if such a non-formula were to lead to somebody producing an engine several seconds a lap faster than anyone else’s though.

  19. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of auto racing and as such it should present all of the components of the top of the mountain -including the sound.
    Auto racing in all of its manifestations has a component of thrilling sound which matches the power of the cars and should reflect the strain on the driver and the vehicles.
    In baseball one hears the crack of the bat when a player ” gets all of it” and “launches a ball into the stands . Its part of the trill of a home run .
    In drag racing there is the deafening roar and the shake of the ground. They speak of the raw power on display.
    In football one can hear the crash of the pads when a defender and ball-carrier collide.
    Sound is important and helps convey what is happening.
    There was a time when F1 had a unique and identifying sound .. A marvelous noise that told us the cars engine was turning so fast that it made a sound unlike any in motor sport .Not the thunder of the drag strip but, an edge found nowhere else . Like the highs of a great rock or pop singer . Something that took us to the threshold of pain but, with meaning and purpose .It spoke of a controlled violence not to be found anywhere else . It was the high pitched scream of a V12 .
    There are still sites on youtube where one can go simply to listen to and compare the sounds of great engines . That is how much car and auto race fans love the sound of an engine .
    The fact that the big multi-national car makers would like to offset their expenses by using the F1 circuit as a development ground should not concern us. That is NOT what the sport should be about, in fact I would like to see the playing field changed so that less financially advantaged but,true car lovers can compete with the well-heeled giants who have the means to out spend privateers and small concerns.
    Do you think it is a coincidence that Mercedes has dominated the hybrid-era ? Only such a large company could spend billions and a decade in development to come up with the PU they built( no one individual came up with the split-turbo, that was created by a well educated and well paid staff -emphasis on staff).
    Make auto racing better by making it today’s version of what it was at its peak .
    There is nothing like a normally aspirated engine and good auto engineers and developers can make one as good as any multi-national firm ,not so with a hybrid PU , the software and component interaction in todays hybrid PU’s takes a team -like the 1,500 person team at Brackley .
    Further, and also important is the sound .A race car should sound like a race car and an F1 car should sound like one -it should scream and let us hear the strain of the revs as the driver pushes the engine to its limit .When it come to putting into a sound the controlled violence of racing a V8 does it better than a turbo V6 and a hybrid PU barely does it at all but, if F1 is the best then it should have the best sound and the best sound I ever heard was a V12 .
    Bring it back ,make it even better than before and use all we have learned but, don’t be hampered by the wants of road car manufacturing and don’t limit the F1 circuit to what is best financially for multi-national car manufactures – give us a 21st century V12

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.