Start, Melbourne, 2011

Ecclestone says 2013 engines could put fans off

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone warns again over F1’s planned engine rules change.


Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

Bernie Ecclestone not happy with the sound of ??green? engines (The Times, subscription required)

“It is a big part of the appeal, part of the thing that makes us different. If the fans don?t buy tickets, the promoters lose money and we will lose a few races.” He could always charge them less.

Watch an exclusive clip from Senna (The Guardian)

Short clip from “Senna” focusing on the 1990 Suzuka collision.

Post mortem on the Malaysian penalties (Joe Saward)

“The FIA is not being inconsistent, but rather trying to establish limits that will create consistency in the new world of DRS and KERS. This is important to avoid dangerous wheel-over-wheel accidents. The drivers and teams are very keen to know the limits and both teams strongly urged the FIA to create clear guidelines during the hearings after the race in Kuala Lumpur.” It is frankly ridiculous – yet depressingly true to form – that the FIA would choose to change its interpretation on matters as important as this and then not make the information public knowledge.

Don’t question my loyalty! Hamilton hits back at rumours he’s ready to quit McLaren (Daily Mail)

“I have always enjoyed racing here and would like to continue but you also, at the end of the year, have to assess what position you are in and what happened.”

Di Resta takes praise in his stride (BBC)

“I’d like some more points. I’d like some nice cars but there is plenty of time later in life for that, so I’ll take some more points.”

Williams still deciding on new exhaust (Williams)

Rubens B arrichello: “They seemed to lose a little bit of performance towards the end of the last session though which means we’ll have to work hard to evaluate them properly. We need to go through the data to see whether we will keep to this plan or go back to the original one.”

Chinese Grand Prix – Conference 2 (FIA)

Paddy Lowe (McLaren): “I think that quite honestly, our ambitions exceed our ability to deliver, so fairly late on, through the winter testing, we realised we needed to regroup and consider a different design, something that we would actually know how to make and get on the car reliably. I think it?s also worth pointing out that the car was desperately unreliable, actually, through the tests in February but not all as a consequence of this subject that we?re talking about, so we had a range of issues which we fortunately managed to sort out.”

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

Comment of the day

Oliver picks up on one of the stories from practice that didn’t get much attention:

HRT finding their feet steadily. They about level with Virgin right now perhaps a tenth faster. But as they cover more miles I expect them to be ahead by the time they get to Europe

From the forum

Some interesting takes on F1 circuit alternations.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to AndrewTanner and SoLiD!

On this day in F1

And happy birthday to Paul di Resta who turns 25 today!

Image ?? Red Bull/Getty images

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 51 comments on “Ecclestone says 2013 engines could put fans off”

    1. Happy birthday Andrew, SoLiD and Paul!

      The FIA is not being inconsistent, but rather trying to establish limits that will create consistency in the new world of DRS and KERS.

      1: We had KERS in 2009
      2: DRS wasn’t a factor in either of the penalties
      3: It hasn’t been consistent even within the season.

      1. PS: I’ve heard people say they watch F1 for the start, the crashes, or even just because it’s on and it’s Sunday. Never has anyone mentioned the noise as a priority

        We all know the issue is a pawn in your political game with Todt, Bernie. Try thinking of some more plausible arguments if you don’t want people to see through them.

        1. As a fan, frankly it sickens me to see Bernie try and claim us for his side of a political battle. F1 isn’t about the number of cylinders. It’s about the speed, handling of the cars, skill of the drivers, and great racing. If all of those things are present, the number of cylinders and sound of the engines is irrelevant.

          …and if Bernie does lose some races it’s because of the extortionate prices he demands of the promoters to help line his own pockets (with gold leaf), not because of the number of cylinders the engines have.

          1. I very much agree with what you write here US_Peter.

          2. Agree – as time goes on it could be exactly the opposite. I recall seeing the engine designer of the Audi Le Mans engines say that noise is a form of energy, so if an engine makes a lot of noise, it’s a clear indication that it’s badly designed.

      2. Yeah, Happy birthday to Andrew Tanner, I know you were looking forward to it!

        And the same to SoLiD and Paul di Resta off course!

        Icthyes, who are you arguing with? Did you really read the article. According to it all the teams asked for a clear line to be drawn about what is and is not allowed. And both McLaren and Ferrari wanted that explicitly in these cases.

        DRS combined with KERS is a factor because of large differences in end of straight speeds between cars.

        Not that I think the penalties were fine, nor that the FIA did a great job of telling everyone.

      3. Great Icthyes! You rule!

      4. New engine regs are a rubbish idea and the sound is a big part of the appeal of F1. And those who say the exhaust may be “tuned” to make the cars sound good have lost the plot as well. A tuned exhaust sound is artificial just like a DRS induced overtake. I’ll compare it to making love to a ladyboy… looks like a woman, acts like a woman, sounds like a woman but at the end of the day you know your making love to a man.

        Why must we have a green F1 I really hope it does not happen.

        1. It seems that everyone with Bernie on this issue are forgetting the fact that we used to have 1.5 litre turbos in F1 before.

          1. Indeed, of particular note was the 4-cylinder 1.5 litre turbocharged Brabham BT50 – yes the same Brabham that was owned and operated by Bernie Ecclestone.

            Moncao 1982 – Patrese

            1. More information about the BMW engine.

    2. paul sainsbury
      16th April 2011, 0:15

      I am totally with Bernie on this one, for a change…………..

      F1 should NOT be ‘green’ or ‘road-relevant’. Just the opposite. We don’t insist that tennis players go about their careers solely for the purposes of improving racket technology, do we?

      And I don’t accept it has to change to survive, not one bit. We all the know the deal with basically one long-haul flight doing more damage than a season of F1 racing.

      we already have lost V8’s, V10’s, etc etc, this would be disastrous, having weedy little four pots…….

      1. The only thing that will make them “weedy” is the restrictions the FIA will put on them. BMW showed in the past there is nothing weedy about four cylinders.

        If we can have the same power (which the FIA will always be tempted to reduce for some stupid reason) but for less fuel (so the cars will be lighter and faster, hopefully), what’s the big deal? Personally I can’t wait to hear those turbos through my own speakers and not an internet conenction, earphones and 30 years’s old recording technology.

        1. Sorry to spam the comments, but we haven’t lost the V8s yet either, it’s what we have right now.

          And if racket technology was fundamental to our way of life, yes, tennis would be geared towards that more than it is now.

          I think the engines should be far more open with fuel amount (and safety) the only consideration. But this is hardly going to be worse than what we already have.

          1. Agreed. As long as the power is similar to current levels, I don’t get what everyone is freaking out about. Not to mention that wiith the aero changes set to take effect the racing is likely going to be better than we’ve seen in ages, with slipstreaming far more effective than it’s been in recent years, due to “dirty air.”

            1. I just hope overall downforce isn’t reduced much as a result.

            2. Ground effects + turbocharged flat-4s. Interesting combination.

      2. TheGreatCornholio
        16th April 2011, 1:46

        I’m with you on lamenting the loss of great sounding engines, particularly as i was lucky to enough to start watching F1 during the V12 years. BUT, if F1 ceases to be relevant to road car technological development, as it will be from 2013, it will no longer be attractive to car manufacturers and would cease to exist shortly thereafter. I happen to think they’ll sound better than most people imagine (fingers crossed).

        1. It is certainly a good thing for F1 to filter technology down to the road, but this will almost always happen in some ways. I’m just not sue whether forcing it is a good idea.

          Le Mans was traditionally more geared towards developing road-relevent technologies, and while prototypes exist perhaps F1 doesn’t need to be so concerned with being green. An F1 engine is incredibly fuel efficient as it is anyway- in terms of performance extracted from a certain amount of fuel- and has to be to avoid carrying more fuel weight.

          If F1 can have a role it probably should, but not at the expense of the speed or spectacle. This should be the focus. Of course, if their was no engine freeze then even with the current formula more manufacturers might be interested because although their expenses would increase so would the chance of significant technological developments and the manufacturers role would become more important.

          This isn’t very focused, I’m not for or against the new engines, just rambling about the issues. Maybe introducing turbos- regardless of engine size- is a good thing cos it provides the chance for them to be developed more, but as long as the regulations allow the cars to be as fast as they are now and there is no engine freeze- otherwise the turbos will be developed once and then never touched again, completely negating the reason they were brought in.

          1. Le Mans and F1 were never about being road-relevant. They developed those technologies because it made their cars faster. That they were beneficial for road cars was just a nice side effect for some.

            1. I agree about F1, but even if Le Mans wasn’t intended to be road relevent, by being an endurance event through the night it was always going to be. I may be wrong but I believe headlight technology owes a lot to Le Mans, and disc brakes were first used successfully on Jaguar C-types I think.

    3. During last weeks Speed broadcast if true Steve Matchett’s info about KERS made my eyes roll, evidently during one race the battery gets so hot it ‘boils’ and has to be thrown away afterward.
      So much for ‘green’ technology.
      Can anyone confirm this?

      1. As Ferdinand Porsche famously said, “The perfect race car crosses the finish line in first place and then falls to pieces.”

        Any component lasting longer than a single race is over-engineered for the task at hand. Of course nowadays the rules and agreements go some way to prevent teams from achieving this goal in the name of ‘cost saving’ but that doesn’t stop them applying it beyond those confines.

        No regular car owner would even think about buying a car with an engine that’s designed to die after just 10 hours running. But that’s where we currently stand on the relentless search for performance vs cost.

        The sport itself may not be green but the innovations born and refined within it most certainly are. It’s this technical contribution that arguably leverages an enormous net gain in efficiency, cost and safety across the automotive industry (and beyond) with every passing year.

        1. “The perfect race car crosses the finish line in first place and then falls to pieces.”

          I love that quote!

          1. “The perfect race car crosses the finish line in first place and then falls to pieces.”

            Fisichella’s 2003 Jordan!

    4. that’s why i plan to see my first gp before 2013! i dont wanna miss the sound! shame that green thought is taking over what is essentially a non-green sport.

      1. You better hurry! I was lucky enough in 1995 to hear the V10’s and Ferrai’s amazing V12. Wish we could go back to those days! The V8’s now are still not too bad, great sound, and loud. And for anyone who thinks F1 is not about the sound, go to a race and watch all the supporting races, then watch the F1 and tell me its not about the sound! Nothing on earth sounds like an F1 car! And that’s the way it should stay! As much as I hate Bernie, he is right on this one.

        1. Lots of people who saw the original turbos have said they preferred the sound back then.

          I’m all for personal preference, but give it a chance. Seems a lot of people have just made their mind up and convinced themselves already.

    5. Bernie says “Speak up, lad!”

    6. paul sainsbury
      16th April 2011, 1:05

      Sorry, I meant to say we have lost V12’s, not V8’s.

      My mistake.

    7. paul sainsbury
      16th April 2011, 1:10

      Sorry, I meant to say we have lost V12’s, not V8’s.

      My mistake.

      I think anyone who has been to a GP will understand why the sound is so important, perhaps some of you could back me up on this. To me is is most of what makes F1 so amazing.

      1. Ermmmm…. maybe V12s and V10s

      2. If I had it my way I would have the engines reving beyond 20,000RPM, and free to develop 1000BHP!. The fact that they mess with F1 so much now is why it will never be as good as the old days. When the restrictions were simple, and teams were free to develop the engines and cars the way they wanted! F1 now is just a chess game that the FIA sets the rules for.

        1. 1000 BHP, all in the name of safety…
          i agree that engineers should be given more freedom, but raw power isn’t what makes the difference for the show. In the 70s, the legendary DFV produced less than 500 BHP, and yet today that era is recalled as one of the best for F1 (except for – obviously – the high death toll of the decade).

    8. Guilherme (@the_philosopher)
      16th April 2011, 1:19

      Someone should tell Bernie that many more fans are put away by a) the dull races held in circuits he pushed so hard to get into the callendar, like Abu Dhabi and Valencia, b) the ticket prices, which is consequence of the absurd fees he and CVC charges the promoters with and c) the political bickering that every now and then happens in F1 and of which he himself is a big part of.

      1. Pretty much sums it all up succinctly right there. COTD!

    9. Ecclestone says 2013 engines could put fans off

      The engine debate is a none issue, they may sound different from todays V8’s but they certainly won’t sound or perform anything like road car engines as people fear.

      It’s the FIA’s incessant manipulation that will continue to be the biggest reason fans switch off.

      1. If a souped up

      2. If a souped up 100cc scooter with an after market muffler, passing down the road, can wake me up at night, I doubt the F1 4-pot engines will be anything but loud.
        Anyone knows how the new 1.6lt turbo WRC cars sound like?

    10. Williams F1!
      16th April 2011, 2:23

      New exhaust, old exhaust, please just try to make it to the end of the Race tomorrow guys!!!

      No brain explosions if you are running fast Rubens.
      Stay on the track Maldonado.

      1. Doing terribly at the moment, very very underwhelming.

    11. Happy birthday to AndrewTanner & and SoLiD.

    12. F1 going green is all hype and trying to project it – is false right to the core.

      You want green F1, please use only one track for the 19 races. Transporting the circus to each venue pollutes the air much much more than the race itself.

      I watch F1 primarily for the cutting edge loudness and speed. Then comes the design of the cars followed by the liveries. The racers of course plays a huge part.

      4 cylinders turbo equates to ‘count all the bees in the hive’ No way will it sound like the present V8s.

      Also noticed the volume of the engines this year is much louder at Sepang. Nice.

      1. Again, going ‘green’ in F1 is not about making the sport itself greener!

        It’s about how the technology will influence road cars.

        As it stands, 1.6 turbos are more relevant than 2.4 V8s.

        Also, we already had small displacement turbos in F1. Can’t remember anyone complaining about them.

    13. I think Bernie needs to keep quiet, sick of him banging on about it now.

      Thanks for the birthday messages folks :D

    14. I dont agree with Bernie on much but Im with him 100% on this, Jezn Todt is losing sight of what F1 actually is.
      Anyone who says the sound doesnt matter that much…well I cant take them seriously as an F1 fan. Only if you have been to Grand Prix’s are you really qualified to comment.
      If you could choose an engine formula what would it be?
      I’d have V10’s return restricted to 16000rpm, similar to the mid 90’s. This was my favourite era for noise.
      Anyone who thinks these 1.6 v4’s will sound good are going to be in for a big shock when the 2013 season starts.

      If you want an idea how they will sound just watch GP3, they sound rubbish!

    15. I agree, if the cars sound rubbish (like GP3) then most of the reason of actually attending a GP is gone. You might as well stay at home and watch on TV for the better views.

      I agree that the 80’s turbos sounded ok, but they were still V6’s etcand i am also fearing the new engines will sound like a modern take on a racing turbo aka GP3. I dont usually agree with Bernie but on this occasion i am 100% with him. I wont go to GP’s or watch as much on TV even if the engines arent ear piercing and high revving, thats what gets you into F1 as a kid when you first watch it, its what immediately makes it different to any form of sport.

    16. I’ve never thought that Bernie’s critics against the new engines are real, and coming from his heart. Wasn’t Bernie one day the boss of BMW Brabham when they had a V4 turbocharged engine (with maximum revs close to 10 000), and didn’t it have a nice sound back then?

      1. Roughly the same rpm per cylinder to 2006 with the Cosworth and Mercedes V8 (about 20,000rpm peak)

    17. people keep going on about the bmw turbo from the 80’s but it didnt sound that great, none of the cars did in the 80’s. They even sounded better in thge 70’s in my opinion.

      Its a shame they didnt freeze the V10’s instead of the V8’s

    18. F1 mnemonics:

      BERNIE = Bridgestone, entertaining! Really? No :( ingenuity ensues (Rule changes to spice up action, enter Pirelli)

      SPAIN = So Pirelli are in? Nice! (their tyres have encouraged more pitstops and more unpredictable racing)

      CHINA = Cars have inaugurated new aids (KERS and DRS)

      TURKEY = To upset Robert Kubica every year (his rally crash in February)

    Comments are closed.