Honda RA616H power unit, 2016

New F1 engine rules to be announced this month

F1 Fanatic Round-upPosted on | Author Keith Collantine

In the round-up: Formula One’s future engine rules will be confirmed by the end of the month.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Germany isn’t short of successful F1 drivers or teams, so why has its race struggled to attract a crowd recently?

It is not in doubt that in Germany there was a big decline in popularity after Schumacher first retired in 2006. A young German boy in a Red Bull winning championship after championship and Schumacher´s comeback in a Mercedes helped slow this trend down a bit but generally speaking the German public is tired of F1.

German people complain a lot about ticket prices. That is why German fathers rather take their kids to football matches than to the Hockenheimring.

Liberty Media is going in the right direction, especially with their increased social media activities aiming younger audiences. The show must be improved in order to attract new people to F1.

Schumacher Junior could boost things up if he will be able to compete.
@Banana88x

Happy birthday!

No F1 Fanatic birthdays today

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

122 comments on “New F1 engine rules to be announced this month”

  1. How do you solve F1’s engine problems? How do you keep it road-relevant enough to keep manufacturers interested, but approachable enough for newcomers to join?

    Eliminating turbocharging (noise, complexity) and opening up KERS development seems like a good route, but I’m no engineer. It doesnt get less complex from here unless you remove one component. Just spitballing — I like the idea of having interchangeable KERS units, so you have ICE supplier such as Ferrari and a KERS supplier such as BOSCH and constructors can sort of mix and match. …But you’d still have Mercedes/Ferrari/Renault doing their own KERS + ICE, and the inherent packaging and drivability advantages of a bespoke combination would be insurmountable by other teams. But Ross Brawn is smarter than me, so let’s see what happens.

    1. As far as I can see, looking four years down the road the only way to be relevant is making them more electric.

      The problem is they want to be relevant, and the pinnacle of technology, while pleasing fans with combustion and noise. They are two complete opposites. At some point F1 will need to decide whether it remains ‘the pinnacle’ or if it remains ‘pure’ (that is to say, roughly how it has been since it began). It can’t be both. But once electric cars become big, what’s next is autonomous cars. So whether F1 cars stop being the pinnacle now or later, it will have to at some point.

      F1 has historically been technologically advanced due to its presence on TV and in the media, which before the Internet became widespread, meant that F1 was a perfect showcase. Now all you need is a tweet and a video for large audiences to understand the advanced technology you have created. Furthermore, almost everything can be designed on a computer and simulated now, whereas years ago the best thing was to build it and test it, which F1 was sometimes suitable for. F1 has no longer got any reason to be road relevant, even for supercars.

      With the inventions of traction control, ABS, launch control, computer controlled suspension, and all the other driving aids which are banned in F1 (including active aerodynamics, barring a manually activated two-position rear wing), I believe F1 is already well in the direction of staying ‘pure’ and pleasing fans. Personally I’m more nostalgic and I believe this is the right way for them to go.

      They can still lead revolutionary technology in materials used (what’s next after carbon fibre?) and other departments such as live communication and television (or internet?) broadcasts.

      1. Agreed.
        IMO keep F1 the pinnacle of motorsport using solutions that represent a balance between the show and Car industry relevance for as long as combustion engines continue to be the main driver of the world’s cars. Then, when the time comes for the fossil fuels to stop being used, completely embrace FE and make it expand the industry technology boundaries, while keeping F1 at the pinnacle of speed as a “classic” fossil fuel energy competition without the weight of pushing the new electric technology and free to revisit the more appealing and visceral multi-cylinder petrol engines.

      2. Yes and if we were having this conversation 20 years ago and if manufacturers had been in f1 like they are now they would have been screeeaming (sic) for Diesels. So just before you jump into the love in that is the electric future. A word of caution.

    2. Unfortunately, I think the days of naturally aspirated engines in F1 are over.

    3. what is the problem with being more electric. The one thing manufacturers have not solved is to keep a battery charged and never needing to recharge. Hybrids drive on battery only up to a certain speed (i hope i’m correct).
      Electric cars drive all battery but can not drive as far. So the goal should be to find a way to keep a battery going non stop, keeping it cool without some major contraptions but also making it produce a ton of energy.
      So, for me the direction should
      maybe go 50% ICE and a 50% self charging, high output battery/KERS. It used to be 600-700hp and 120-175hp from battery.
      500hp ICE and 500hp battery/KERS.
      You still have noise from ICE but also get some road relevance Because nobody will want to recharge their car every single day and wait for it to happen.

      1. @us-brian, probably because the current fan base is skewed towards those who were watching F1 in the 1990’s, and because this isn’t the sort of technology that was around then, they don’t want it to come in now.

        1. @anon
          Here’s a proposal from someone who watched F1 in the 1990’s (and the 1980’s).

          -Drive the wheels by electric motor(s) only. Of course there’s kinectic energy recovery.
          -Motors are fed by a small battery pack.
          -A fossil fuel engine (this could be a 1.6 turbo) is used as range extender, only charging the batteries and never driving the wheels directly.
          -Maximise fuel amount and fuel flow.

          Immediate effects:
          -Since the engine is only charging the batteries, is pretty much a conventional, stand alone device. Anyone can build it. With or without ‘heat’ recovery, whatever you like/need. The electric components can come from a different munufacturer.
          -Getting the F1 engineers involved in battery and quick-charging technology seems exciting to me. The high pressure, high performence environment of F1 may accelerate devolpments in this area.
          -“Future-proof” drive line, see next. Also very road relevant, as more and more governments are planning bans on fossil fuel engines in the not too distant future.
          -Trick differentials can be replaced by 2 electric motors, each driving 1 rear wheel. No need for advanced gearboxes. There’s an immediate cost reduction.

          Future outlook:
          -You can gradually decrease the fuel amount (and flow) year-on-year, and increase the battery pack to advert/promote the shift to fully electric drivelines.
          -At some point the battery pack will be big enough to do qualifying runs on battery-only (without starting the fossil fuel engine). Then you need a quick-charging solution between runs, something the entire world may benefit from.
          -At some point the fossil fuel engine might replaced by a hydrogen fuel cell or go battery-only, whatever the future may bring.
          -We don’t need to look only at the companies-of-the-past (like Cosworth) for customer drive-line solutions. Many start-ups and companies from other fields can become F1 suppliers.
          -And so on…

          1. So long this came with changes to the aerodynamics to allow close genuine racing (to make up for the complete loss of sound), I’m all for it.

          2. @ Leo B nails it. Great post.

            This is the only future for F1. Bring it on! I guess since the engine is just generating electrical power various options are possible, turbine etc.

            I wonder though if this isn’t very close to Formula E’s roadmap. I think eventually there won’t be room for both series. Merger is inevitable.

            I’ve been following F1 for a long time and miss the head splitting noise trackside. But I accept that those days are over.

            #NoHalo

          3. Isn’t Leo’s suggestion just an F1 version of “Geoff” (the electric car created by old new Top Gear)?

          4. This one could be called… Er… Keith??

          5. Leo B Please go ruin formulaE instead… that sounds TERRIBLE, not a single line item in your plan sounds desirable.

        2. @us-brian The problem with being more electric is that we dont wanna see the F1 cars going around the track at road relevant speeds and sound levels.

        3. Yes there was and the 80s and 70s etc . They called them milk floats. Electric is old tech.

          its ‘faster horses’ : Henry Ford

    4. Guybrush Threepwood
      11th October 2017, 3:32

      All they need to do is make them run one engine mode for qual and race and many of these problems with the current engine regs will be solved.

      1. Stick to cartography.

    5. How do you keep it road-relevant enough to keep manufacturers interested,

      Eliminating turbocharging (noise, complexity)

      There is hardly a new road-car engine nowadays without a turbo!
      And those without typically make even less noise (i.e. electric cars).

      I do understand that people want the noise back (I fondly recall the deafening noise some years ago when cars started up at Albert Park), but I think those times are gone (unless we get electronically created crowd-pleaser-sounds).

      1. If you want noise, go check out Top Fuel Dragsters. That is utterly visceral. Especially at night when you can see the 6-10ft flames shooting from the exhaust.

        1. Or Monster Trucks. Plenty of action too

    6. Incontinent Boxing Tortoise Hero
      11th October 2017, 10:29

      I’m not so sure road relevance needs to be such a big thing any more. The future of road cars is electric, and Formula E takes care of that. I don’t really care about the noise thing – I for one have enjoyed being able to hear squealing tyres and the approval of the crowd for the first time in about 30 years. I’m all in favour of F1 being the height of racing technology, but if that means nobody wants to make engines for it, a balance will have to be struck somewhere.

      On the other hand, if an engine supply costs say 25m, and the budget of the least well off teams is around the 100m mark – is spending a quarter of your budget on a year’s worth of engines and ancillaries really so unreasonable? Would bringing the cost down to 5m really make any difference? They’ll all just spend the saved money elsewhere, and the have-nots will still be in perilous financial situations.

      Should a team that can’t keep it together be assisted to remain in F1? We may miss the presence of names like (the real) Lotus, Minardi, Tyrrell, Arrows and all the others that have disappeared over the years, but do we really want to resurrect the likes of Pacific GP, Andrea Moda and Maki too?

    7. Turbocharging is staying, this features on the vast majority of road-cars now, the issue has been around the MGU-H, heat recovery system. If this is dropped and twin turbo-charging included that reduces the cost and complexity barrier significantly for other parties to be interested (Cosworth lead consortium with non-manufacturer teams). The MGU-H also deadens the sound, I have been lucky enough to see and hear the Renault RS01 this year at Silverstone and Goodwood and it sounded great. Optimistic for the new regulations.

    8. I know this would kill the budget problems, but if you want to keep it relevant and the pinnacle of technology, don’t define the solution in the regulations. Open it up for the engineers to get creative. Make the regulation nothing more than a limit on the amount/type of fuel allowed, the size/capacity of the electric batteries, and the number or race weekends that it has to last. Who knows what different solutions we’d see then, some of which could work their way into regular cars over time.

  2. I can’t read that article until I get chance to translate it, but man am I expecting 31 October to be a very disappointing day

    1. It basically says it will be cheaper, simpler, noisier and achievable for private engine developers. It won’t be a V12 (like RBR was wishing for), but neither will it be space technology (which Merc, Renault and Porsche were hoping for). It is looking to be another V6 with two electric motors and many shared components producing more than 1000 hp. 4wd hybrid technology (like Le Mans) won’t be part of it to save costs and weight.

      The article further describes the aim of aerodynamic influences being reduced and improved faster decision making processes top down with less team input and more lead by Ross Brawns team.

      1. Sounds reasonable, I think I can live with it even though I hate the idea of standartized parts. Not changing rules to much to avoid the possible (and almost inevitable) domination of one team/manufacturer, while making the entry threshold lower. And keeping the most of amazing technology in!
        I really hope this works and new teams enter, both privateers and manifacturers.

      2. Looks pretty solid to me after reading it really. They are working on changing the approach to how to make the rules – presenting their proposal and then inviting teams (and presumably the FIA) to ask for changes, but those have to be motivated and explained.
        They will not have a round with people who largely don’t understand the technical stuff but do get the politics in desicion making to vote on things anymore. It will be based on solid proposals and arguments.

        As for the engines, the most important thing is that the rules should be more thought through. And yeah, the engines will be somewhat simpler to enable more companies to make them and end up with not that crazily expensive units. Also the approach to budget capping – gradually, with a “caretaker” installed at each team to keep a check on things – feels like one thought up by a person who knows how to avoid outside inspections.

  3. Sometimes, when Horner gives an statement, I am confused as to who he thinks he is speaking to… does he want to get a message across to Renault, to the FIA?

    In any case, I was glad when I heard Rosberg basically tell him to cut the BS on the Sky broadcast.

  4. Regarding LHs irritating behaviour, really ? OK, he wears questionable fashion, seems to prefer life in the US to the UK, likes a bit of bling and has all the toys needed to make nearly all teenaged boys and many older men green with envy, but if that irritates you maybe the fault is yours not LHs.

    1. Who the Hunt does he think he is enjoying his personal life.. ;)

    2. @hohum

      Indeed.

      George Harrison made a really interesting observation once. He said that around The Beatles, people forgot how to ‘act normal’. There seems to be a similar thing around Hamilton for some reason. He is a whole lot less ‘off the rails’ than most people would be in his situation, and yet the flak never really seems to end. It is rather bewildering.

    3. As far as race weekend he really isn’t different from the other drivers. He praises his team sometimes, sometimes gets angry…

      Funny Rolex is a banner sponsor. I can’t remember the last time somebody objected to a Rolex, or derided it as bling. But is it different than big diamond studs? Nah, not really. They are both prestige fasion items Just the identity associated with them is different.

      As to jetting around? He seems to be happy, or at least in the right mind to drive.

      His public positions don’t seem inherently hateful or otherwise out of bounds.

      What’s the big deal?

    4. Maybe they meant behavior like getting in a snit and posting telemetry on Twitter. The motor sports magazines I read are British and all have taken him to task over the years for his demeanor when things aren’t going well for him. F1 Magazine had a cover story on him headlined “Why It Is Wrong to Hate This Man.” The negative reactions to him can’t all be based on jealousy.

      1. A single slip 5 years ago during the midst of a stressful title battle that McLaren threw away with reliability and amateurish operational problems.

        Hardly dams him as a person.

        The moments when Hamilton does let his frustrations through aren’t unique amongst any competitive driver other than perhaps Bottas.

    5. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
      11th October 2017, 8:49

      @hohum

      but if that irritates you maybe the fault is yours not LHs

      The right-wing press has a massive hang-up with Hamilton. He recently appeared on the Graham Norton show with Mel Brooks (it’s probably on youtube now), the next day the lots of the papers reported that Mel Brooks had punched him and the Telegraph stated: “He should stay away from Talk Shows and stick to what he’s good at”. But if you search for “Lewis Hamilton Graham Norton” on youtube you can see that he’s terrific on these shows, bantering with the other guests and having fun.

      I find the attitude of sections of the public/press towards him very weird, they just seem really angry that he refuses to conform to their narrow sense of ‘proper’ behaviour. It’s little wonder he likes the US so much.

      1. Sorry to be picky, but it was the Jonathon Ross show!

        1. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
          11th October 2017, 9:45

          @nemo87 You’re right! Well, he’s great on Graham Norton too! I only watch these programmes if I see that an F1 driver is on.

      2. Incontinent Boxing Tortoise Hero
        11th October 2017, 10:41

        Now why would right-wingers possibly have a problem with a chap like Lewis sending out a message to those who look up to him that you can achieve anything if you strive hard enough for it, that you shouldn’t let traditional social barriers and other people’s preconceptions stand in your way and that you can be successful? I can’t understand it.

        1. I suppose I’m right wing and Lewis is my favourite driver. So…..

    6. I’ll be a Lewis’ fan only once he’ll wear the prancing horse. However, I really think that as long as he’s able to be this focused and strong on track he can walk around with a parrot on his shoulder if he likes. Lifestyle can be questioned only if it interferes with performance: ok, he looks more like a rapper than a driver but he’s polite, well mannered and most importantly he’s fast and rarely makes mistakes.

      1. @m-bagattini Having grown up following Hill, Button and Hamilton, I’ve always considered Ferrari as the “enemy” to me (in the most respectful, sporting way possible!!) but part of me would love for Lewis to end up at Ferrari at some point, so I know what it’s like to root for the prancing horses. Okay, in terms of strategy and reliability they might infuriate their fans from time to time but it can’t get much worse than Lewis’ McLaren days (namely 2012), surely??

        1. @ninjenius when it’s 10 years in a row, trust me, it gets a lot more infuriating

    7. It is because he is black. This is the hidden subliminal and unconscious racism that abounds today. A black person is more annoying when they do annoying things. They are simply held to a different and harsher standards than Caucasians. And before this is derided and rejected out of hand, it is most most black people experience.

      And if anyone wants to claim that the first black driver in F1 has never be subjected to subliminal racism at any point in his career in a predominantly white sport, you need to get our head out of the sand more often.

      And of course, Lewis is BLACK – no matter the attempts to claim isn’t because he is “mixed race”

      Point is, until someone can reasonably explain why Lewis gets more flak than others who do the same, or even worse, this is the best explanation – no matter how “unreasonable” it seems.

      Let us look at some of the reasons given:

      – He wears “bling”
      – He has questionable fashion sense
      – He hangs out with celebs
      – He is a demanding diva
      – He lives a jet set lifestyle
      – He makes (some)music
      – He tweeted telemetry
      – He throws his team under the bus frequently
      – He lied to the stewards almost 10 years ago (when his team told him to)
      – He was beaten by Button (over 3 years) – well, this one is quite laughable.

      *Please add more as you see fit.

      Now tell me, is ANY of this enough (on their own or together) to hate someone so much? Or polarize opinion so vehemently? To subject to constant criticism – NO MATTER WHAT THEY DO?

      I shall be waiting.

      1. Add to the list:

        – Says this crowd is amazing
        – Is always at fault for collisions
        – Needs his team mate to move out of the way

        etc etc

        I totally get the point you’re making, it’s very odd he attracts so much negativity.

      2. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
        11th October 2017, 12:55

        @kbdavies well said. Unfortunately a similar discussion calling it what is is was recently removed on here and I get that it’s an uneasy subject that we don’t want to devolve into a motorsport.com comments section but the double standards held to Lewis are outrageous.

        Furthermore and even on here, you get some commenters spewing the most vile hatred which is clearly irrational and based upon more than ‘liegate’ or ‘telemetry gate’ – it’s clear.

        The fact of the matter is, Lewis is an amazing racing driver, a philanthropist, cares more for the fans at the circuit getting their money’s worth than most drivers and perhaps most rarely in modern F1, A CHARACTER. F1 will be a poorer place when he hangs up his helmet.

        1. @kbdavies I’m sure I must be missing something from the British media, which would be understandable as I’m here in Canada, but I do not see whatsoever where colour comes into it other than on the fringe by truly prejudice people. ‘Hate someone so much’…’polarize opinion so vehemently’…’It is because he is black’…

          And from @offdutyrockstar ‘spewing the most vile hatred…’

          Really? I think the tone of your comments is what is really outrageous and fails to acknowledge that if there is such vileness toward LH it is by the vast vast minority of people, who can’t substantiate their claims with anything other than pure prejudice.

          I think for the vast majority of F1 followers, they may pick LH apart for his ‘foibles’ but that’s much more so because he is beating their favourite driver, and that’s frustrating to them. Just look at the much worse rhetoric toward SV this year and tell me colour has anything to do with it.

          Let me set the record straight for myself as I am ‘famously’ anti-LH around here. With respect to colour let me just say as a WASP having grown up in northern Ontario, I miss Prince so so much as a huge fan, having first seen him on his Purple Rain tour, and am currently loving Kendrick Lamar and Chance the Rapper. Can’t stand Kanye West.

          When LH was first made known to me as a young up and comer under Mac’s wing I thought…cool. It was really not until he said in 2011 that he let off-track distractions cost him on the track that I thought that was terrible for the team and the sponsors to hear, who had spent hundreds of millions on him to pay him a fortune and offer him the equipment to do what he loves and get rich and famous doing so. I still believe that was the beginning of the end for him at Mac. When he left Mac and signed with Merc I could just feel it through and through that Brawn’s opinion at the time…’as a driver you want to be with a manufacturer based team for the new era’…rang true, and my comments around here defended LH for making the right decision, when many said he should stay at Mac. I thought it was time LH leave the nest and the baggage behind, and I thought it was exactly the right move.

          My real issue with LH really came from his sense of entitlement after sealing up the WDC in the US in 2015. It went to his head, and of course last year with his constantly throwing the team under the bus was a pure example of that entitlement and for me a complete turnoff. This year has only been different because he has not been challenged nearly in the same way within the team of course, and by SV only on the track occasionally, and with nowhere near any of the psychological stuff that was going on between him and Nico. This season has been a relative cakewalk for LH, or else he wouldn’t be sounding ‘more focused’ or ‘more mature’ or ‘ more at peace’ than he has been.

          I’m absolutely fine with LH winning this year’s WDC, lol like we have any say in it, and it is just too bad it has been so anticlimactic, but that’s racing for you. I just don’t like LH’s underlying attitude so I’m not a fan. And… ‘driving like a god?’ Sorry but no, that’s not true either. He’s driving the WCC winning car, as almost all WDC’s need, with much less challenge than his other two WDCs at Mercedes.

          I’ve had almost nothing to complain about with his driving other than him doing things to Nico like driving him wide and off the track and claiming understeer, expecting that we would pity him for that when in fact that was a result of him over cooking the corner. Relatively little things like that. LH is an absolute angel on the track compared to the likes of MS who was truly a polarizing character but much more to do with on-track behaviour than off-track. I couldn’t care less what colour of skin LH has, nor what he does in his personal life except when it has taken away from all that so many people provide him in F1, and I can’t get behind his general attitude, and I acknowledge his talent behind the wheel.

          1. @robbie It’s easier to call you a racist than consider your views on his actions, dating back to 2 years ago at most, way more recent than what @kbdavies provided.

          2. @robbie, I find it interesting that you did not invoke a similar comment about Vettel having the WCC winning car in the earlier parts of this season when it was Vettel who was leading the WDC and Ferrari were leading the WCC.

            Equally, with regards to your comment about him driving the WCC winning car, is the W08 is actually the best car, or is it a case of Ferrari’s drivers sometimes letting down the team and recent reliability problems skewing the results?

            After all, Kimi has been facing repeated criticism for multiple years for underperforming quite badly against his team mates, and when you look at his statistics when compared to the other drivers in the top half of the grid, he is one of the poorer drivers. When you compare the relative points hauls of those drivers to their team mates, only Verstappen ranks lower (and then only barely so) – and that is mainly due to Verstappen’s unusually high retirement rate this season.

            Kimi has, for a number of reasons, been failing to score as many points as you would expect him to when you compare him to, say, Bottas, or even to what Kimi was able to achieve back in 2016. If Kimi had been managing to do as well as Bottas has been relative to Hamilton then, if you were to go back to the Italian GP – before the recent reliability problems and crashes threw the results askew – you would have expected Kimi to be on closer to 190 points and Ferrari on closer to 420 points (i.e. you would have expected them to be close to level on points with Mercedes).

            Even recently, the large gap in the points table is mainly because Ferrari and their drivers have thrown away a lot of points – even if you went fairly conservative and said that Ferrari could have picked up just 3rd and 4th place in recent races, that’s still at least 80 points they’d have lost out on (and, in reality, they probably could have expected to score more whilst simultaneously cutting the number of points that Mercedes could have scored).

          3. @anon Fair comment. I wasn’t highlighting SV and Ferrari because that wasn’t really the focus of the discussion, and earlier in the season when they led the WCC and WDC, those results were nowhere near guaranteed to be how it would end up, with so much season to go. Safe to say now Mercedes has locked up both Championships.

            Of course you are right that some of Ferrari’s lagging numbers in the WCC is down to KR’s ‘laggard’ performance, but Bottas has had his struggles and concern over that has been expressed by TW. So VB, after a great start, has become a bit of a ‘laggard’ there too.

            I take results at the end of the season as he one’s to go by. And Mercedes will have by quite a margin the WCC. Even if SV rallies for some wins, that won’t be enough because LH is going to get serious points too. Mercedes will have the WCC by quite a large margin, I predict. Average things out and the WDC always has the WCC car, or a very close second. This years Ferrari will not end up being a close second, but a distant one. So while it may be true that at times SV has been a concern for LH, and LH’s car has been a diva, averaged out over all 4 drivers at Mercedes and Ferrari over the whole season, the Mercedes will be hands down the overall best car.

          4. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
            12th October 2017, 9:32

            And from @offdutyrockstar ‘spewing the most vile hatred…’

            Really? I think the tone of your comments is what is really outrageous and fails to acknowledge that if there is such vileness toward LH it is by the vast vast minority of people, who can’t substantiate their claims with anything other than pure prejudice.

            @robbie I wasnt referring to you.

            I was referring to the chap in the article relating to Lewis equalling Schumacher’s records by 2020 at the current rate who said that he would rather shoot himself than see that happen amongst other unsavoury comments. That thread was removed.

          5. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
            12th October 2017, 9:39

            Just look at the much worse rhetoric toward SV this year and tell me colour has anything to do with it.

            The rhetoric aimed at SV is 9/10 for his driving.

            The rhetoric aimed at Lewis is at LEAST 50% aimed at his fashion sense, his accent, who he associates with, what he does in his spare time, his tattoos, the fact he ‘looks like a rapper’ etc.

            You cannot say Seb received anywhere near the amount of cultural objection that Lewis does.

      3. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        11th October 2017, 13:55

        Very good comment indeed @kbdavies. I’ve thought for a long time people’s issues with Lewis is cultural taste. Let’s face it this is a white middle/upper class sport.

        1. Being the best always attracts love & hate, people will just make up their own reasons to pick either of the options. There is no science behind it (or maybe there is).

          1. Can’t fall back on race when explaining the hate for Schumacher, Alonso, and Vettel, can they?

          2. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
            11th October 2017, 18:27

            Yes often the same thing, we don’t like the German enemy or the fiery Spanish arrogance. We always love those calm Finns though @mbr-9

            We have a mould and if you don’t fit it you’re unpopular

            (Can I just add this is a tongue in cheek comment and not how I personally feel at all lol)

      4. @kbdavies “Hidden subliminal and unconscious racism.” Are you a mind reader? In fact, the racism that exists today comes largely from people like you who bring race into conversations that have nothing to do with race and by using stereotypes as proof.

        1. No, it comes largely from people like you who pretend it doesn’t exist.

          1. I didn’t realize that judging people on their actions instead of their race is racism.

            I never denied racism exists but go ahead and put words in my mouth, please.

          2. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
            12th October 2017, 9:35

            And people who pretend it doesn’t exist are almost always white, so who are you to insist something we experience day in day out in insidious ways doesn’t exist?

            It’s because of people insisting it doesn’t exist that we have a right wing nutcase in the oval office putting millions of lives worldwide at risk.

        2. And sometimes people are just being racist. It happens. Hamilton can move on.

        3. @mbr-9 I largely agree with that. It isn’t always the case, but as somebody who sometimes criticises Hamilton amongst other drivers, I feel personally insulted that anybody might attribute my comments to racism. I always justify what I have to say with facts or opinions about his driving or actions. His race never occurred to me until it was brought up on here. I recall this was brought up (by the same person?) a while ago too. I am quite disgusted at the number of people who have just accused others of being racist.

          All highly successful people, in sport, business, or anything, get an audience of love and of hate, as was correctly said above. Hamilton is no exception

          @robbie you make a very good comment

          1. His race never occurred to me until it was brought up on here.

            What kind of ridiculous comment is this? Whilst you may delude yourself into believing this, it doesn’t fool anyone. How can you claim that the racial identity of someone you can see, has never occurred to you? What level of duplicity does it take to utter such a statement?

            It is like seeing a black Ferrari, but claim all you saw was a Ferrari, and it never occurred to you that it was black.

            Of course, you can claim his race was never a CONSIDERATION in your criticism. That is a different thing entirely. However, your initial comment just sounds silly.

          2. @strontium Well said and thank you.

          3. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
            12th October 2017, 9:45

            @strontium don’t get it twisted. Noone is saying EVERY person who raises ANY objection to Lewis is racist, what @kbdavies is referring to is the repeated objection to his lifestyle, dress sense and the rest which if you go on a Twitter post by Scuderia Ferrari or last year Nico Rosberg is inundated by comments which you cannot attribute to anything other than a distain for black culture.

            If anything, the comments section on F1F is largely free of such individuals but F1F does not represent the overall casual F1 fanbase, not by a mile and @kbdavies comment is in reference to that.

      5. Nobody who goes to races has a problem with Lewis. The racism thing is typical internet specualtion from borderline trolls.

      6. @kbdavies, yep, I feel sad about this kind of thing, but it does seem that his “being different”, i.e. being black is at the root of a lot of the critisizm.

        I do cringe sometimes when he complains – I think he last did that when Rosberg was winning, although there were one or two times this year where he almost got there again before the summer (not a fan of his reasoning for going vegan either, but not a big issue) – but every time I see him interacting with fans, with an audience, doing a more casual interview (nice one with Serena) or just at a festival enjoying things, he just comes over as a thoroughly nice, polite, bright and happy guy.

        Sure, we can all be evious of how good he is in a car, and how rich and popular he has become. But compared to many other rich people in this world, he has earned it and carries himself well enough.

  5. Regarding the new engines i hope they don’t equalize the engines. There is no point in having multiple manufactures if the engines are the same, the only way the engines should be the same if it is gained by development, not by force to satisfy a drinks team.

    1. @ldg95 Agree, Nothing in F1 should ever be equalized.

      If a team or manufacturer finds something that gives them an advantage then it should be left upto the rest to catch up & if they can’t then tough.

      If you want equality then go watch one of the many spec series.

    2. Would that be McLaren Milk or Honda Hooch?

  6. Keep the engines as is, but dump the fuel flow restrictions so less efficient engines can flow more to make up for the deficit. Simple.

    1. This is a sensible suggestion, someone needs to listen to this. It’s interesting because there is a price to pay in weight and volume of the extra fuel for the teams who can’t make a more efficient PU. If they can use the extra fuel to generate more power it’s an interesting trade-off.

    2. Very good points, John & thedolphins

    3. I’m not sure I agree.

      Mercedes have made a power unit capable of over 50% thermal efficiency. This is absolutely unheard of and makes their car now efficient than an electric car (looking at a normal countries electricity generation and delivery systems).

      The reason they have done that is that it was the only way to increase power, which is what they really want. For a set fuel flow, increasing power is only possible by increasing fuel efficiency. We would not have seen this revolutionary development without the fuel flow limit.

      Now, when it comes to the new regs we have a conundrum. There are many competing demands which need to be balanced. Personally, I hate the idea of making it a step back from the current amazing technology, but I also understand the need for cost controls and encouraging new entrants (with the possibility of being competitive). I don’t know how to solve it, but I expect a backwards step :( and a simplified engine, maybe eliminating the MGU-H. This would be interesting from a spectator’s view, with turbo lag back making the car now difficult to drive, but it would be sad to see from an engineering perspective.

    4. Disagree. Keeping the fuel flow rates variable will see teams use pace in spurts and fuel management for most of the race. It will somehow get back to fuel saving racing, which was absolutely horrible for the sport.

    5. The AMG Project One F1 road car has virtually all the gubbins of an F1 drive train with a lower rev limit and a 2.4m€ price. Even allowing 2m€ for the drive train, 4 engines ( a seasons worth) would cost 8m€. Make 2m€ the fixed selling price for all makers.
      Costs would tumble immediately.

    6. No, Fuel Flow restrictions have nothing to do with anything.
      Its is just assumed that reduced fuel flow somehow limits the performance of the car and makes it less interesting.
      How many lap records have been broken this year?

      Regardless of fuel flow, the teams will only carry they amount of fuel that will get them to the end of the race as fast as possible. Even if they doubled the fuel flow limits it just means they have to carry more fuel, they cannot physically burn more fuel at a faster rate without carrying more.
      More fuel adds weight and slows the car down and increases tyre wear, and you end up taking longer to get the end,

      Ok they may be able to use the extra fuel to boost performance for short periods, but they will have to compensate later.

      Like it or not the vast majority of motor racing involves some form of fuel saving due that balance over weight and performance.

      As drmouse (@drmouse) mentions the performance is gained through efficiency not burning more fuel. Ironically being more efficient uses less fuel for the same power output as you don’t need to use higher fuel flow rates which reduces the amount they need to carry for the race resulting in an even faster car.

  7. Are we going to get the last two races prediction points any time soon? We are 2 races behind and I’d love to know where I lay. Also on the new PU I hope it’s a step in the right direction but I hold little hope of smart moves with the FIA

    1. You got 9 pts for Suzuka. I downloaded the table to check as I thought I’d done well this week … but had BOT & RAI in the wrong positions :-(

      1. 7 pts Malaysia, you’ve gained 2 pts on abcmarco …. but lost a place to @omarr-pepper so are down to third.

  8. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
    11th October 2017, 7:54

    I think Massa uses the blue flag rules to his advantage without breaking the rules which is a smart thing to do. He tries to loose as little time as possible, but never holds drivers up for long enough to get a penalty. I think he knows what he is allowed to do and personally, I thin it is good thing to do if he doesn’t want to affect his own race as much. Just because of this doesn’t mean he should retire. In that case, Alonso certainly shoud retire as he clearly did do something wrong as he got a penalty. But I don’t think this. At the moment, I just think blue flags affect drivers at the back too much. They are still often fighting for championship points which with some drivers are more likely to change their position in the championship much more than Hamilton. Just think if Hamilton had a problem and then was lapped. Should he then back off every time he gets a blue flag? It often is the case that lapped drivers can sometimes be quicker than the leaders if they have just pitted and it would be a total waste of the lapped drivers time if they had to pull over at this point. I remember this happening with Haryanto in Spain 2016. He had just pitted and was about to be lapped. But he was getting blue flags and was pulling away from the leaders. Even though his gap was increasing over several laps, he was still getting blue flags. So he had to pull over and ruining his race against the drivers at the back of the feild. If this is when these teams are fighting for points and that is a rare thing, then these blue flag rules often affect these teams much more than the leading drivers in top teams. I often wish these rules would be reconsidered.

    1. @thegianthogweed, If they are actually faster, then backmarkers can unlap themselves though.

      That’s what Kubica did in that infamous 2008 Brazil race after he ended up a lap down due to a pit stop. At some point he felt the need to barge past Hamilton. Shoving Hamilton off the racing line and causing him to also lose a place to Vettel. Effectively costing Hamilton the championship for a few laps.

      1. @patrickl
        Sorry, but no. Just no. Kubica had completed the pass before the corner, there was nothing stopping Hamilton from taking the racing line, he simply outdrove himself. Calling that ‘shoving’ is just way off.

        Oh, and I would never have thought that the 2008 Brazilian GP would be called ‘infamous’ by anyone, ever. You live and learn, I guess.

        1. Clearly yes. If anything havign to duck out of the way and coping with a huge loss of downforce in the wake of another car is what made him slide off.

          1. @patrickl Well, my hopes weren’t high, but I was definitely not expecting a completely new explanation/excuse.

  9. First time I think I’ve ever agreed with Helmut Marko. Bye bye Massa, time to go. (Although I think that time was when you left Ferrari, possibly even a bit sooner).

    1. @tonyyeb, Massa did nothing wrong though. Alonso did. Alonso held up Hamilton for almost a whole lap, which is what cost Hamilton his lead over Verstappen. Alonso got a penalty for this and rightly so.

      So the only reason that Verstappen was in reach of Hamilton all of a sudden was BECAUSE of a backmarker. How Marko can then go on to complain that it was a backmarker that cost Verstappen the win is beyond me.

      Perhaps it’s Marko who should consider retiring if he has such a lack of insight in what actually goes on during the race.

      1. @patrickl I wasn’t referring to the blue flags incident in Suzuka. I just meant the sentiment that Massa retires. I have no issue with how quickly he let people through or got between the leaders etc. He is far from his best with many better drivers deserving of a chance. Even Lance Stroll is looking good in comparison to him…. LANCE STROLL! Lol!

        1. I think Massa or not Massa argument I am surprised no one recognises that is time for Helmut to retire as well, he is 74 and he is not a team founder after all…

        2. @tonyyeb,

          Yes, I’m talking about the same incident. Did Massa get some sort of Penalty for delaying that overtake for 2 corners? No he didn’t and he didn’t deserve one either. He got out of the way as quickly as he could.

          Did Alonso get a penalty for delaying Hamilton for almost a whole lap tight before that Massa “incident”? Yes he did and rightly so.

          The point is that Hamilton lost over to 2 seconds behind Alonso which allowed Verstappen to suddenly close up in the last two laps. Verstappen didn’t have more pace than Hamilton as Marko claims. They were quite evenly matched until Alonso got in the way.

          Massa cost Verstappen maybe a few tenths. So for Marko to attack Massa over this as if Massa prevented an attack from a Verstappen is just absurd.

          If anything Marko should protest against Alonso for holding up Hamilton so much. Of course he wont do that because he doesn’t see reality. He only has his own annoying agenda. It really is time he retired a decade ago.

          1. @patrickl Ok, I get you. What I’m saying is REGARDLESS of this incident, Marko is right that Massa should retire. Nothing to do with this, just because his time is done. Williams need a driver with genuine pace, not just a safe pair of hands. I don’t care whether Helmut Marko retires. As I hinted at in my original comment, I don’t usually agree with what he says, so I couldn’t give two hoots about him. What I care about is a race seat, in a decent midfield team (recently a race win challenging team) being wasted by a driver who is well past his best.

          2. Ben Rowe (@thegianthogweed)
            11th October 2017, 16:47

            @tonyyeb
            It isn’t up to Marco and he doesn’t know him that well. Williams clearly value Massa enough to be concidering him as one of the drivers for next year. They need at leased one of their drivers to be a safe pair of hands like him. Maybe his feedback is really helpful to the team. In this area, he”ll quite possibly be better than mosst other drivers on the grid.

            About his performance this year, I don’t think you have been watching close enough. He”’s very likely missed well over 40 points due to bad luck which would very likely place him above both Force India drivers in the championship. He has also made less obvious mistakes during the races compared to many drivers that we concider to be really good at times. Wehrlein, Sainz, Verstappen, Vettel, and quite a few other drivers have made more costly mistakes than Massa. Massa hasn’t had many great performances, but hardly any bad ones either.

            Lance Stroll is starting to look decent and he certainly is also looking like he’ll be able to get better over time. But there has barely been a full weekend this year where he has looked better than Massa. I think Massa is looking in better shape than he was last year and is good enough for at least one more year with Williams. His performance in the first half of the season was certainly good, but he had so much bad luck with reliability and being involved in incidents that were out of his control. A little similar to Verstappen. His performnce in Baku was great. Not so good in qualifying, but in the race, on 2 restarts, he nearly got past Vettel. He was much quicker than Stroll this day and will have certainly managed 2nd ore a slight posibility offf a win with the biggest gap between wins ever recorded in F1 I think. Stroll did really well, But wasn’t as good as Massa as Massa pulled away every restart until he had his issue.

            Stroll is looking closer to massa now, but certainly not better. Stroll is decent and has potential to improve. While I think Massa won’t get any better, he is still good and his experience helps. I think he is a better option for Williams than Di Resta or Kubica. Neither of these drivers have any good recent experience of these new hybrid era cars since 2014 compared to Massa. Di Resta was never that impressive when he was in F1 and while Kubica was very good, he has been out for so long that I very much doubt he will come back and instantly be better than Massa.

            It looks like Williams will go for one of these 3. Between Di Resta and Kubica, I’d say Di Resta would be the better choise as he’s more recently been in the sport, is younger and has already been the reserve driver as well as actually playinng that role on one recent occation. But I still think Massa is the better option. Just my opinion.

        3. Lance Stroll is looking good in comparison to Massa? According to whom? There’s that Azerbaijan GP, where he scored a lucky podium that accounts for (almost) as many points as the 15 other races he’s taken part in. And there’s the qualifying for the Italian GP. The rest of the season is best described as a thrashing: Second-most one-sided qualifying duel after the Renault duo, average qualifying gap of 0.634 seconds (or over 0.7 if the Monza qualifying is excluded as an outlier), Stroll has finished 6 out of his 16 races in the points, incidentally, 6 is also the number of times Massa hasn’t scored any points, and that’s including two innocent DNFs and one DNS.

          Stroll looks good? I’d call that a creative view.

  10. Horner’s mendacity is truly astounding. His constant victim mindset is tiring, to say the least.

    He is on record as saying ALL the engines have a qualifying mode, but Renault is a few tenths down on Ferrari and Mercedes. In the article, he also claims they were running the same mode qualifying and the race – yet Max was “bang on Lewis’s gearbox” when they allowed him to have a go.

    If this was true, it would mean the Renault engine is now suddenly on par with Mercedes – something he contradicted himself in the article.

    1. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
      11th October 2017, 12:21

      @kbdavies I always skip over Horner interviews because he doesn’t seem concerned with the difference between truth and fiction, it’s all about getting a message across. Obviously, he doesn’t just tell whoppers all the time, but it’s nearly impossible to determine which parts of the story are true and which are not. It’s a waste of time listening to him.

      I made the mistake of listening to a post-race interview recently where he claimed Ricciardo was losing half a second per lap with a gearbox issue and was lucky just to finish the race – but in all the post race interviews Ricciardo seemed ignorant of this. The race reports which followed mentioned the problem beginning on laps 5-6, then a couple of days later Ricciardo comments that he did have a problem, but it didn’t affect his race! If you can unpick the truth from that lot you’re a better man than me!

  11. I hope common sense wins and the hybrids are gone. This road relevance non-sense has no racing purpose except to guarantee mercedes and ferrari keep winning. Hybrid is not even new tech. Toyota prius came out in 1997 which is 20 years ago. By being road relevant f1 puts itself into the past because any technology you see in a road car is not cutting edge for a race car.

    These engine regulations have been massive failure in every possible way. The championship has become total snoozefest with mercedes winning everything. The factory engine manufacturer teams like mercedes and ferrari are in position where they have total domination and with customer engines they can choose who comes 3rd, 4th and 5th. All the while the cars are obese with race starting weight way over 800kg, sound worse than lawn mower and cost so much that the midfield literally needs to spend big portion of their money just to get a 2nd rate engine from someone who think they are slow enough to be sold one. And the worst part about the new engines is the electronics. The driver is not in control anymore when the computer decides how much power you are given in different corners. This is 1000x worse than traction control.

    If mimicking road cars is the only goal for f1 then fully electric is the only option. Is that a good goal? No. I think this crazyness about the engines have already done massive damage to f1. F1 needs to move away with the engine being the primary tech show piece in the car. Instead of more expensive more horrible sounding more boring more fuel efficient toyota prius engines why not make the engine sound great and make it so that you don’t need to be a mercedes or ferrari factory to afford to win in f1? Make the other bits on the car more exciting. Add movable wings, active suspension and put more focus into truly making f1 green instead of just trying to look like it is. This is the kind of tech that levels the playing field instead of putting all the power into the hands of big car manufacturers.

    The new engines needs to be cheaper, sound better, make the cars 100kg lighter and be more equal so we see more teams fighting for the wins. Mercedes and ferrari will fight this to tooth and nail but hopefully they lose. Because if they win it is going to be other another 5 years of total ferrari/mercedes domination. After that time period how many teams are left? What’s point to participate as a grid filler when the top 2 teams hold all the cards. All you have left to fight for is positions 5-8 against teams like redbull and mclaren who outspend you 10 to 1 and can barely get a podium once in a while. After the end of that tunnel will teams like haas, force india, sauber and red bull be in f1 anymore? There is nothing for them on offer except to lose.

    1. Pat Ruadh (@fullcoursecaution)
      11th October 2017, 15:51

      Well said

    2. Yup. How about for the new regs we go with 3.0 liter V-8s and a manual gearbox. I know, we can pull out the molds, dies and jigs for the Cosworth DFV and get Hewland to build the gearboxes. Total cost for the drivetrain would be perhaps £750,000 per car per season.

      1. May as well go for more liters and supercharger

    3. For the life of me, i cannot comprehend the desire for all this “road relevance” nonsense in Formula 1. It is a sport (and entertainment) for God’s sake!

      The cars being hybrid or electric have no value to the sport – except for manufacturer who want to use F1 as a testing bed and research for their future projects.

      Is there a drive to make Boxing more relevant to street fighting?? Or make the NBA more relevant to streetball? Is there a drive by FIFA to make football more similar to 5 a side?? We should stop all this madness now.

      If people want a sport and spectacle, the further it is away from what they experience in normal life, the better it is for them. So bring back the screaming, high revving, ear shaking, bone vibrating V10’s. And let them uses as much fuel as they want.

      It is ONLY 20 odd races a year. Make it a damn spectacle, and not some namby pamby politically correct sport/ entertainment. Even WWW has wrestlers pumped full of steroids!

      1. “Is there a drive by FIFA to make football more similar to 5 a side?? We should stop all this madness now.”

        I think there is actually. There are proposels to cut the games down to 30 minutes per half and have no time wasting.

        “Many people are very frustrated that a typical 90-minute match has fewer than 60 minutes of effective (actual) playing time (EPT) i.e. when the ball is in play,” Ifab said in the document. “The strategy proposes measures to reduce time-wasting and ‘speed up’ the game.”

    4. Who, pray tell is going to pay to develop and supply power units which Ferrari, Mercedes, and Renault, never mind Honda, believe to be the future of their product lines for their road car businesses. They are in F1 to make good headlines and sell more cars. If this was the early 70’s or 80’s, when F1 costs were not as astronomical as they are now, the cosworths of this world might have stood a chance, but not now. The formula 1 to be announced will simply dumb down the hybrid specs and standardise some parts to keep costs under control. So yes, I agree with you that the road relevance thing is a red herring, but the manufacturers are supplying all the power units on the grid, and by and large the sport will have to dance to they wims, unfortunately.

      1. Manufacturers are doing f1 because it is good pr for them. It sells cars. Not because f1 is a good tech development platform. Road cars don’t have engines with fuel flow limits, rev to 15k and be constantly accelerating from 100kmh to 300kmh only to stop from 300kmh to 100kmh 10 seconds later. Even merc used their truck engine r&d division to help with their f1 engine. The direction of technology innovations is from trucks and suvs into f1, not the other way around.

        It is difficult to find a good solution. Merc and ferrari want to keep things as they are because they are winning. F1 as a sport wants to portray the image of being in the front row in technological innovation (even when it is not there in reality). There are engine manufacturers willing to jump in regardless of what platform you choose. The problem is keeping the manufacturers in as a team.

        What makes that a problem is that mercedes has invested a lot of money into f1 and if the engine rules changes they may stop winning. They are now getting easy wins and nobody is a threat so in the end they might rather quit than be forced to compete. In f1 the teams will use the tech rulebook as a hammer if they have an advantage and mercedes is strong in the engine regs that they can basically wield the engine rule book as a nuclear bomb. Do this and we keep winning. Don’t do this and we leave.

        How much this applies to renault, ferrari or honda is anybody’s guess.

    5. @socksolid +1. The days of developing technology are also over for F1, as there are now so many other ways to do this, mainly though software

  12. RBR and STR bosses need to stop insulting other drivers. It was comical at first but now it is very embarrassing and shows a general lack of class.

    1. F Truth (@offdutyrockstar)
      11th October 2017, 13:09

      I have to agree. It further attracts from the ‘Gladiators’ when their parents are on the phone to the Headmaster. Seriously uncool.

    2. Agree 100%. It sounds like they are insulting teams as well, questioning their ability to choose their drivers.

  13. I’ll be really disappointed if the engines are a step back. The current regs have produced engines that are phenomenally efficient, massively powerful from a small displacement, and are getting drivers to work harder to drive the car. I personally think it would be a shame to go back to something “dumb” regardless of the sound – F1 is about racing, not a decibel level competition.

    As for the arguments that the engine should be less important – they tried that. What happened was a massive reliance on aero, that go so ridiculous that cars stopped being able to follow each other – a problem we still have to live with today. I’m not sure what the solution is, but I’m pretty sure that sticking your head in the sand and putting engines that are barely better than museum pieces in these cars is not it.

    1. @fluxsource I agree.

      I have never had an issue with the current engines, I find the technology fascinating & think the levels of power & efficiency there now producing given the smaller capacity & fuel limits is amazing.

      Changing a formula just because some think noise is all important has always been a ridiculous argument to me because for me the engine formula in F1 should purely be about technology & performance. Taking steps back to a potentially less interesting formula just to make things louder is the wrong move.

      1. The trouble with the loud cars of the past is that it dominated the entertainment by dominating our attention and masked the actual lack of action all those years.
        Watching live at an event, after the first few laps you can be forgiven for sometimes thinking it’s Friday or Saturday. At least with the quietier cars you can now discuss what’s *not* going on with those around you, not that was something anyone wished for.

  14. Agree 100%. It sounds like they are insulting teams as well, questioning their ability to choose their drivers.

  15. Engine rules.. Yeeha. I just wish for them to go at it.

    Limit minimum weight, materials used and fuel flow/fuel type. After that anything goes… 1.6l quad turbo v16 with ERS? No problem… 3L inline3 wih no Kers? No problem.

    Start with 1100hp and raise power 50 every year.

    Then lets see what they come up with.. And finally balance performance.

  16. I don’t think even the genius of Stephen Hawking can fix Williams, not as long as they are relegated to rent-a-ride status for the sons of billionaires.

  17. My thoughts are with the De Villota family today. losing a loved one is horrible and anniversaries are hard.

  18. Marko seems to be forgetting that Alonso holding up Hamilton is what gave Verstappen a chance at the “exciting finish” he talks about.

    1. Johnny Fartpants
      11th October 2017, 22:50

      Apparently it doesn’t just give you wings, but also selective amnesia and cognitive dissonance. And diabetes.

  19. Rules and regulations often spoil the fun in all aspects of life and constantly changing them has done F1 no favours. F1 has come a long way safety wise, but the next set of rules arn’t going to work or compete for entertainment to new generations. it’s time to start taking an ‘anything goes’ type of attitude to car and engine design, just with boundaries.

    Is F1 really the leader in technology though? Their machines and processes mostly come from other industries. The machines and materials they go through is obscene. At the end of it the driver gets the most recognition anyway then disproportionately wealthy.
    Our road cars might be super comfortable and safer yet they still don’t really last that long. we are just being suckered in then sqeezed for cash.
    At least if you go Drag racing or watch Monster trucks you come away knowing you’ve been entertained with no premise that what you’ve paid for somehow serves a purpose or does us favours somewhere down the line.

  20. It’s no doubt the future will be all electric, however will Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes and there competitors now all ditch the V8’s, V10’s and V12’s they use in favour of the current F1 technology overnight? Do their customers no longer want the larger displacement gorgeous sounding engines which they have been used to for so long?

    I would like to see the return of the soundtrack to F1 when cars sounded as fast as they looked. I miss getting about a mile away from the track a having the hairs on the back of my neck lift as i am a little late for free practice one.

    Most of the developments made over the last few years could have been developed with larger cylinder engines and a slightly larger fuel allocation. Items like the Mgu-h which has unclaimed amounts of benefit against it hugely off putting investment requirements and the (very impressive) resulting turbo which i cannot see being cost effective or beneficial in installing it in the average mans car, now or ever.

    I am sure if the teams were given extra fuel would be able to produce the performance they have now without turbos and Mgu-h’s, and further develop fuel saving technology that could even more benefit the lower amount cylinder engines they are developing.

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'.