FIA confirms 1.6-litre engines for 2013

2013 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

The 2.4-litre engines used since 2006 will be scrapped

The FIA has confirmed a reduction in F1 engine capacity for 2013.

The World Motor Sport Council met today to approve the changes to the engine rules.

F1 teams have been required to use 2.4-litre V8 engines since 2006. There will be replaced by 1.6-litre, four-cylinder units.

The number of engines each driver may use per season will also be reduced.

A statement released by the FIA said:

The WMSC approved the introduction of a new specification engine from 2013, underlining the FIA’s commitment to improving sustainability and addressing the needs of the automotive industry.

Following dialogue with the engine manufacturers and experts in this field, the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm.

The engines will deliver a 35% reduction in fuel consumption and will feature extensive energy management and energy recovery systems, while maintaining current levels of performance.

In 2013, five engines will be permitted per driver, but each year after that the limit will be four.

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.

108 comments on “FIA confirms 1.6-litre engines for 2013”

  1. Renault introduced them and now they’ve gone and packed it in

    1. Yes, it is rather sad. On the other hand their engine is still around, and I would guess this is one reason to keep the engine in F1 – maybe they will even use some of the money for the F1 team to invest in a great package for the new regulations. I certainly hope so.

      1. on James Allens site, he responded to a question of mine, commenting that Renault was one of the main parties to push forward the 1.6 turbo engines for 2013. It would appear that as far as engine supplying goes, their in it for the long haul.

  2. Excellent! The only part of that I don’t really like is that there’s still a rev limit, but you can’t have it all!

    1. Forgive my ignorance, but what will change, if the engines will maintain

      current levels of performance.


      1. The amount of fuel they use getting the performance…

        I.e lighter faster cars. Sweet.

        1. also the weight of the engine will be reduced…

          Am I being stupid or does it not state that they can be turbo charged? is the “high pressure gasoline up to 500 bar” meaning they can be charged or is that roughly what happens with the normally aspirated engines?

          1. The Turbocharger is what highly pressurises the gasoline in a turbocharged engine. Normal aspiration has normal fuel pressure.

            It’s what makes the turbo a turbo baby, wooo!

          2. Wait, not it’s not, my bad. It’s the air that is pressurised, not the fuel.

          3. @ ajokay- I thought turbocharging was using exhaust gas to turn a motor which increase the power? or something like that…?

          4. Turbocharging is using the exhaust gas to turn essentially an air compressor, which is used to compress new inflowing air. More O2 molecules in the cylinder = more fuel can be added = a bigger bang = more power.

          5. I’m not sure anymore, but they appear to be using Direct Injection technology similar to the common rail system found on most car diesel engines. The curious reference to injection pressure rather than combustion chamber pressure tipped me off.

            See .

    2. With refueling banned, I don’t understand why they can’t just say to the teams– “Here is 20 gallons of fuel, we don’t care what lump you use to get there, we’ll see you at the checkered flag.”

      What would be sweeter still would be for KERS to be unleashed instead of being carried in its limited form as a token “green initiative.” Let it go unlimited(except for battery size) and you would see some actual development that could trickle down to production cars.

      1. That sounds like fun. Both ideas. All kinds of strategies would mix up the racing. Burn fuel early or late to match or to counteract tyre wear. Go for max. KERS or none. Different engine notes depending on the number of cylinders, boost etc. Might bring back James Hunt’s mobile chicanes though.

        Why limit the battery size?

        1. Yeah, I don’t know why I threw that in there. Battery size would take care of itself on a F1 car… I guess I was trying to think of how to let development loose on KERS without it turning into some kind of spending race between the teams.

          1. A spending race could be the downside. Maybe make every engine manufacturer supply at least 3 teams. Limit the number of engines/year. But that takes away the fun of the free-for-all.

      2. I’d like to see this. Get the teams to be inventive on ways to maximise fuel efficiency. Might even have some benefit to engines in road cars too.

        1. But does anybody actually watch racing for either of these things?

    3. Dan I think I’ll add to my list of dislikes is that the teams will be limited to 5 engines per season by 2013 and possibly 4 after 2013. I’ve nothing against 4 pot engines, I just don’t like the way the FIA is doing it.

  3. I hope they will still sound good. I couldnt stand quiet F1 cars the noise is half the spectacle

    1. They are going to sound like Indy cars! :-(
      It sucks that F1 can’t be ALL it can be. gone are the good old days when you could make as much power as you wanted from a 3L engine.

      1. I don’t know if I will be able to continue watching if they are only putting out 12 000 RPM. That will sound awful I think. Not F1 at all. If they do sound like Indy cars then that’ll be terrible, because 90% of the reason I don’t bother watching them is because the monotonous drone of the cars is enough to drive me to the point of insanity, so I watch F1. But maybe not for much longer. It seems all this nonsense about the environment is even ruining F1. :(

        1. It seems all this nonsense about the environment is even ruining F1.

          My thoughts exactly. And all this “road relevance” talk is gettin annoying now.

          F1 cars are not road cars.

          My car doesn’t have slick tyres or big wings or a KERS button or anything like that.

          It is a 02 Mazda 323, will do 75 ish at a push and you can’t go faster than that legally on the road anyway so thats not that important. It has all weather tyres a radio electric windows and all thast sort of stuff because thats what road cars are supposed to have.

          To me, racing cars are supposed to have big screaming engines, not motors from a hairdryer like my car has.

          If Jean Todt happens to be a reader on here, can we please not dilute F1 down anymore? Everytime someone comes up with something innovative i.e. double diffuser, f-duct etc., they go and ban it.

          The teams should be allowed to develop their cars freely. Maybe the budget cap wasn’t such a bad idea after all….

  4. Good move. Good for the sport.

    12K rpm is pretty low, but there will be a lot of boost. The lowered consumption will also hopefully slim down and shorten the cars by shrinking the fuel tanks; they are growing more bus-like all the time now.

    Passenger cars are moving toward smaller displacement, direct injection, turbos, and myriad recovery systems, and this gives F1 a chance to be out front technically in powerplants relevant to the road for the first time in 20 years.

  5. The drivers will have to make their own engine noises.
    Fortunately they’re pretty good at it…

    I hope the drone of a GP3 or F2 race isn’t the future sound of F1. Gordon Kirby had a lovely expression for it: “Bumblebee racing”

    1. Haha wonderful video!!

    2. haha i dont think massa quite got the point of that!

      1. sounded like he was slowing down to let alonso pass

    3. With the turbos maybe they’ll sound like good old group B rally cars with the pops and whirs of the turbos…yum:

      1. What made F1 stand out was its ability to produce so much power from NA engines. Its sad that they are changing…..
        What do Indy cars run these days?

    4. Love it. Perhaps each car should have a speaker on the back playing a recording of the associated driver making engine noises.

  6. 500bar?!


    Shame about the cylinder restrictions, no 1.6l V16’s :(

    1. Yeah but that’s the pressure in the fuel injection system, not the resulting cylinder pressure. It just means the fuel gets squirted in REALLY quickly!

    2. Usual lack of clarity in the FIA communication, par for the course, I presume it is supposed to be unlimited turbo pressure, (5 or 6 bar perhaps) and using maximum fuel-flow rates and the rev-limit to keep things under control.

      Who knows?

      5 race engines, that’ll be kinda tedious, and as per usual won’t save a single penny.

      1. I doubt cylinder pressure will be that high. The infamous BMW F1 turbo ran 5.5bar in qualifying trim to produce 1200hp. More details on .

        It’s odd they’re measuring it by the “fuel squirt” pressure, almost like the common rail of a diesel engine. Everyone else measures it by combustion chamber pressure which is far lower.

  7. Can anyone tell me how much power will they produce? Haven’t the FIA did anything on aerodynamics to reduce turbulence?

    According to my knowledge 2010 spec engine consume 1.4-1.5 litre of fuel per kilometer.With 35% efficiency they will travel 1.902 kilometer per litre so they will carry less fuel with them & with using less engine they will too consume less money.Have they stated how many gear box they will use?

      1. Thanks for the link.

      2. so only 4 gearboxes next year; no one should have a fresh one for Brazil on 27th November

  8. I’m eagerly anticipating the new Mclaren supercar powered by an in-house 1.6l 4 cylinder turbo, so the same engine, tweaked and powered up for F1 can be used to make Mclaren a proper manufacturer factory team!!

    1. What Mclaren supercar is this with a 1.6 litre engine? The MP4-12C has a 3.8 litre turbocharged V8.

      1. Oh, they haven’t announced any, nor are there any publicly released plans for a new engine in the 12C, I’m just suggesting that if Mclaren are serious about having their own engine in 2013 they will probable produce a similar engine for use in the MP4 12C.

        Are teams allowed to build new spec engines, and put them in previous F1 car models to test them during a pre 2013 season?

        1. McLaren won’t build any cars with a 650bhp 1.6 turbo any time soon.

          The requirements of road cars and race cars are different.

          1. McLaren live for F1! I’m quite sure they want to build their own engine to race in F1 so they do not have to rely on a third party.

  9. Can anyone point out where it mentions forced injection?

    I think they’re talking about 1.6litre 4cylinder normally asperated engines with direct injection.

    1. Have changed the references to turbos to avoid confusion. As you say, let’s see what the final regs say.

    2. “the power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm”

      “high pressure gasoline injection” is the term you’re looking for.

      1. That means direct injection and the fuel pressure, nothing to do with forced induction of air.

      2. Jarred Walmsley
        10th December 2010, 19:57

        Nope, turbo charging uses exhaust gases, not pressuring the fuel, so not quite sure what that is supposed to be.

  10. Flibster says:December 10, 2010 at 4:14 pm
    Can anyone point out where it mentions forced injection?

    I think they’re talking about 1.6litre 4cylinder normally asperated engines with direct injection.

    I think you may be on to something here Flibster. I do’nt see the words forced inductions or turbo anywhere. Will need to defer to the official and complete specs to be sure. Wouldn’t that be a thing though? 1.6L NA 4’s at 12K RPM’s Bumblebee deluxe. The Civic tuners wo’nt have anything on F1 any longer. Honda might actually want back in as their entire “tuner” world was based on 1.6L NA engines with VTEC.

    1. Shame Mazda can’t use a 1.6 litre wankel engine – the one in the RX-8 will do 12000rpm with just the rev limiter adjusted.

      Would be great to have different engine technologies back in F1.

      IIRC the last time we had anything remarkably different was the gas turbine in the Lotus 56.

      1. a wankel engine would be very different to current engines; either do very well or fail miserably

  11. I’m a bit concerned there’s been no mention of the fuel regulations. Honda’s race dominating turbo engines ran a nasty combination of 84% toluene and 16% n-heptane to meet the octane regs but not have the fuel detonate (re: knock) in the cylinder at the 2.5 bar or more pressure they were running.

    How are they proposing to solve that issue with “pump” fuel?

  12. Assuming these engines are going to be turbocharged, a lot of naysayers are in for a shock, sound and power-wise. What will be interesting to see is the level of standardisation. Assuming the manufacturers are allowed to choose their own turbochargers and size them as per their own needs, the first year is going to be a huge lottery for a team that is going to run away in the first leg of the championship.

    The sound is going to be orgasmic and 12000 RPM of F1 engineering is going to easily push the power figures above 800-900 bhp unless FIA set a maximum limit.

    Limiting the amount of boost they can run would be a pointless way to try and cap the power as the manufacturers can simply opt for a bigger turbo/turbos that will flow more air at the same pressure. Hopefully the FIA get the regs written in properly or we’re going to be in for a lot of mudslinging among the teams.

    1. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the press release says nothing about forced induction engines (and there’s no way you can run 500 bars of turbo boost. 500 bars is only for the fuel injection system. The best they could get in the ’80s was about 5.5 bar of turbo boost)

      That said, there must be some sort of forced induction. There’s no way an engine with half the cylinders, 2/3rd the capacity and a rev limit that’s 2/3rd of the current engines can make the same amount of power without forced induction or an exotic new fuel.

      And you’re not seriously saying that a 4 cylinder engine at lower revs can make as exciting a sound as a V8 at higher revs, are you?

      1. I do know that there’s no way they can run 500 bars of boost. I build turbocharged race engines creating over 400 hp myself. And naturally aspirated 4 cylinder motors with individual throttle bodies like superbikes/F1 engines.

        A turbocharged 4 cylinder engine at 11,000 revs will sound a lot more throaty than a naturally aspirated V8 running at 17,000 revs. Been around naturally aspirated 14,000 RPM motors and turbocharged 8000 RPM motors. The turbocharged motors sound as good as the 14,000 RPM NA motors.

        1. I agree. They might not be as loud, or howl like banshees, but they’ll definitely be a lot throatier and meaner sounding. It’ll be a different sound, not better, not worse, just different.

          1. Then again, Burnout sounds like someone who has won a lot of keyboard wars. I bet he knows what these engines are going to sound like even before an F1 engineer has put pen to paper and planned out the specs.

          2. Didn’t mean to sound like a douche there. But I will miss the banshee howling. Hope someone builds a 2013 spec engine soon enough so we know for sure what they’ll sound like.

  13. My immediate worry is whats that going to sound like…

    deisel lemans cars? with big turbo whines and electricity batteries like hoovers and scalextric ??

    1. Ever heard a flat-4 porsche engine? No danger of them not sounding good!!

      (Hell, even my ex’s Citreon Picasso sounded half decent when the exhaust fell off!!)

      1. We’ll see if I can get a good revving sound out of my Mum’s 4 cylinder Chevrolet once I start learning in January. :D

      2. Subaru flat 4s sound really wild. Imagine one at 12K RPM!

        1. Jarred Walmsley
          10th December 2010, 20:02

          Oooh, now that would be awesome, I vote that in 2013, we have Subaru and Porsche entering highly tuned flat-4’s in F1. With turbo’s they would sound awesome.

          1. so far we know nothing about the alignment so in theory there could be straight 4s, V4s and Boxer 4s on the grid in ’13. they all sound very different!

            If they do use turbos, teams will adopt variable veins (used in WRC) which results in virtually no lag and a wall of torque from zero revs. To achieve the same BHP at 6000 less revs than the NA units, the engines will have considerably more torque overall. This can only mean that pirelli are going to have to develop special rear tires, otherwise they will be shredded in a few laps. I for one expect the 2013 cars to be harder to drive, bringing the focus back to driver skill.

    2. Hey! :)

  14. These 1.6L turbo cars are going to be a handful in wet conditions.

    1. I hope they will be!

  15. I am quite concerned about limitation on the about of engines. The units will be designed to last longer but if in 2013 you have even one engine failure on a new engine you may end up with a massive problem in the final races. Also with the new calendars having 20+ races it seems we should see them get at least 5 if not 6 long term per season.


    Here’s a view from Silverstone Arena Grandstand of a supercar race, these cars have turbos and produce a beautiful low thrumming sound, imagine F1 cars will have a louder version of this, probably slightly higher too. Truth be told V8 F1’s are too high pitched for me, they need their voices broken….. again.

    A cyl Ferrari? Unheard of.

  17. Instead of 4 mpg, the cars might get 5 mpg!

    1. MouseNightshirt
      11th December 2010, 2:50

      25% improvement, not bad! :D

  18. I would have liked the option for v6 turbos too, so we get some variation and I also dislike the rev cap, they should limit fuel load instead of rev’s. c’est la vie.

  19. Five engines? Whoa – pinnacle of motorsport!

    Also, why impose a rev limit? if teams want to rev it to 15,000, and potentially suffer the consequences, let them do it!

  20. Get real you guys, these engines will not be turbos. A 1.6 turbo engine with 500 bar boost would self destruct before it got out of the garage. This must be a fuel injection pressure but even that is not as high as a road going TDCi diesel. These will be GDi engines like that used in some Ferrari California’s, some Porsche 997’s and the Jaguar/Land-Rover AJ-V8. Pretty boring stuff by comparison with Turbos

    1. Jarred Walmsley
      10th December 2010, 20:05

      Umm, the 500 bar boost is the fuel injection, they will be turbo’s otherwise they would not get anywhere near enough power, the turbo will most likely run about 6-9 bar. The 1980’s were 5.5 bar and I assume turbo technology has advanced significantly and will be able to supply more boost

  21. Latest F1 Rule: 3 tyres per race weekend!

  22. Even though it wasnt included in the WMSC statement i can’t imagine a low displacement engine not being a turbocharged one. It will be an interesting combination of high pressure direct injection fuel and high pressure induction. 5 engines going down to 4 i’m not crazy about although low revving they should in theory last longer anyway.

    the whole thing with the revs is elementary as to get an increase in RPM you need more, smaller cylinders. Lower conrod weight and lenght = faster and higher revs.

    And those concerned with the sound, fear not! Just youtube anything from the turbo era and IMO they sound a hell of a lot nicer!

  23. With new engine rules in 2013 I wouldn’t be very surprised if quite a few drivers use more than 5 engines during the season.

    1. And anybody of the title contenders having an engine failure at any point of the season is most likely to be out of the championshiop, since the penalty of losing one engine is very high.

      I must admit i’m anything but optimistic about published changes.

      1. Hadn’t thought of that, but you’re right. Each engine will account for MUCH more of the season percentage-wise, so reliability will be paramount.

  24. The 500 BAR is the pressure of the fuel injectors—not the turbos.

  25. I don’t like any limitation in F1,…every limitation regarding engine numbers, engine rpm, horse-power, engine volume,…is retarded.
    This is F1, and its not supposed to be a cheep sport. I don’t want to “go green”, I want to see real racing.
    1,5 l engine is for F3 cars, they are ridiculing F1.
    In 10 years we are going to have 1 l engines and other stupid limitations.
    The Moto GP will have a bigger engine than F1 in a couple of years,..
    If they worry about the environment let them use special exhausts that lower the CO2 emission,..

  26. I don’t understand the bad rap the new regulations are getting. Sure, we’re going from 2.4-litre V8s to four-cylinder 1.6-litre units, and reves have effectively been halved from what they currently are – but they’ll still be producing the same power poutput as the current generation of engines. Does no-one else find that impressive? I mean, isn’t this what Formula 1 is all about: cutting-edge technology rather than simply bolting on a few extra cylinders?

    Horsepower isn’t the only way to improve a car’s speed. A smaller engine is a lighter engine, so the car’s power-to-weight ratio will change. Likewise, it will be easier to optimise weight balance and centre of gravity because even if the cars need balast to achieve minimum weight, the teams will be able to place that ballast more effectively. And then there’s regenerative power devices like KERS and talk of ground effects coming back for 2013. If anything, the 2013 cars will be faster than the current ones.

    1. I totally agree with you PM.
      I find this step quite impressive too. I can’t wait to see the lap times with this engines !
      Roll on 2013, all of that sounds pretty exciting !

    2. Ok so what you’re saying is that you would allow an 500cc engine in an F1 car in 2015, in, lets say, 10 years an 100cc engine,..and later an electric engine?! And much later a solar charged battery engine?
      I like classic V8 and V10 engines,..they can make them to have less CO2 emission and to spend much less fuel that is no problem I guess..

      1. And you are making me choose between a Mini (1.6l F1 car) and an Aston Martin (3.0l F1 car),…
        Just imagine getting into a F1 car and you feel the engine ripping your spine,..and an engine that sounds like a Toyota Prius,..

    3. Jarred Walmsley
      11th December 2010, 7:02

      Very true, I don’t mind the new regs as long as they allow any cylinder configuration, but I do think that maybe 2.0L V6’s would have been a good first step then to the 1.6L 4 cylinders, just to slowly get us used to them, but I think the loophole in the new regs that allows for any configuration could see some exciting new engines, as we could have traditional V4’s, straight fours and if VW group enter flat-4’s. It could make it very exciting,as the different config could allow for better weight distribution etc..

      1. Will the power-to-weight ratio really change? I assume the minimum weight of the cars will still be around what it is today.

        Btw has there been any word on the orientation of the cylinders? It should be interesting to see a grid of flat-4s, straight-4s and V4s!

    4. Exactly. We are getting more agile cars, so that is really something to look forward to.

  27. I can easily say that the 2013 cars will be significantly faster than this years cars.

    If you want sound go to a symphony.

  28. Not convinced personally. Making Formula 1 more ‘relevant’ and ‘green’ is a ridiculous notion; how can an engine designed for the mileage of five races be anything to do with the cars we drive year in, year out? Formula 1 is supposed to be beyond all that.

    I hope the full regs will allow at least some flexibility in bore/stroke and cylinder configuration. They will sound rubbish though.


    What’s everyone think of ’13 F1 engine regs? 1600cc Turbo & KERS electric motor together producing over 700bhp – same speeds 35% less fuel!!

    Sounds like Cosworth are excited!

  30. I’m a simple chap, but I think this announcement has the terrible reek of greenwash. Let me explain:

    In road cars, smaller but turbocharged engines are ideal. My girlfriend’s car is a 1.4 155bhp turbo. When tootling along it uses not very much fuel, and when you put your foot down, it has the power you want.

    But in F1, you have your foot to the floor [i]all the time[/i].

    The power output of an engine is directly related to how much fuel-and air mixture you are burning at any given time. So a 4 litre normally aspirated engine at wide-open throttle produces the same power as a 1-litre one at wide-open throttle with a turbo (and fuelling) that means there is four times the concentration of fuel/air mixture in the cylinder (i.e the same amount as would have been in the MA 4-litre).

    So in F1 the economy in terms of miles per gallon won’t actually be any better than any other engine of XXXbhp!

  31. CarsVsChildren
    11th December 2010, 0:11

    @LewisC you might very well be right, however I guess the green credentials f1 are hoping to gain actually come from the use of hybrid Kers systems.

    The 1.6 l engine helps on two levels. Firstly it is likely to be lighter and smaller helping with weight distribution.

    Secondly it will provide manufacturers with a justifiable reason to go f1 racing. The majority of the worlds car makers make a 1.5-1.8l engine. It gives those with an f1 engine a huge marketing edge to be able to use the “with f1 technology” marketing tagline.

    Finally it is true that racing improves the breed. I would love to be able to purchase a RELIABLE 1.6l lightweight turbo powered sports car with 250bhp that does 5.5l/100km. F1 engine makers will be able to use what they learn in terms of reliability and fuel conservation on their road cars. F1 development of carbon fibre is far far in advance of any other use of the material. Including military, I see no reason this will be any different for engines. This is great for the environment, drivers and f1.

  32. F1 is officially finished, each year the cars get slower, uglier and sound worse

    they might as well give the drivers go-karts to drive, they’re pretty fuel efficient and low on emmisions

    soon everyone will be watchin GP2

  33. i just wanted to voice out my personal longing to see F1 uses 3.6L V12 engines, or, if it must use twin-turbos then 1.8L V6 twinturbos with abundant torque and let the power exceed 1000bhp without traction control. interesting to see the drivers try to tame the cars…

    well just saying…

  34. I for one am really excited by this! As much as F1 is a competition of speed it’s also a measure of engineering, teamwork and getting the absolute most in the face of both mechanical and aerodynamic limitations. The FIA aren’t silly enough to purposefully reduce the spectacle…you don’t operate one of the most lucrative sports in the world by imposing limitations to the detriment of the pinnacle of motorsport. They know what they’re doing.

  35. Although i am a hard liner when it comes to F1 being a free for all unrestricted open wheel racing series… i have to accept the reality of things.

    the 1.6 Turbocharged I4 is the best solution. but why the rev limit? if anything is cool about F1 is the fact that they rev the engines so much they practically have their own gravity field…and 12,000rpm? will they be allowing a rotary solution if someone comes up with it? the possibilities are endless but they will surely come to nothing as Fota would have sat down and tied all the loose ends.

  36. CarsVsChildren
    12th December 2010, 8:24

    @damonsmedley: you are a glass half empty kinda guy aren’t you.

    Same power as now, more innovation possible, and the chance for more manufacturers, and the sheep will think it’s green and get off f1s back.

    Sounds good to me.

  37. This “green” engine spec is not meaningful. The cars shouldn’t be “green” F1 should be carbon neutral. Formula One should build Solar and/or Wind power at the tracks. Most tracks arent used 90% of the year. Huge open spaces with just grass or sand. If just Bahrain, Abu Dabi and Spanish GP had solar arrays they would generate enough energy to more than make up for carbon output for every race weekend.
    We must accept some engine changes so manufacturers see a technical benefit from racing. Since all auto companies are turning to turbos for emissions its reasonable. KERS as many teams said really has no technology transfer because daily driving just to slow to generate meaningful power. The rev limit reduction is just plain wrong. The high revs have become a signature for F1. The sound as well as the staggering differential to road cars enhances F1 technical prowess. A sport bike motorcycle that almost anyone can afford makes 10,000 to 12,000 rpm. It is such a devaluation of the sport. Do we want F1 drivers in 2013 saying the cars are slow for them? We want drivers to be on the limit not sunday drive compfortable

  38. These rules will do one thing and one thing only for me. Remove my attention from the Sport. I have watched F1 since i was 6 years old. I have always loved the sound of the engines. But thats going to change. They have totally lost the concept of the sport.

    HUGE powerfull engines in cars that cannot handle it. I spoke to a pro race driver, he thinks this is a really great change for F1. I have spoken to my friends that watch F1. They are almost sure they wont care for the sport anymore. They watch for the sound.

    Now i watch for the sound, and the racing, but the sound plays a damn big role, i didnt buy a surround system to listen to a 4 cylinder F1. 4cylinder belong on Bikes, and they should rev at insanely high revs, like moto GP.

    In my point of view, from the spectators point of view, FIA have found their gun, pointed it down, and said hey, why not, feels great to shoot myself in the foot.

    This year was by far the best year of F1 i have seen in many many many years. I shall sit back and really enjoy the next to years of F1, from there on, i think i’ll go invent a new sport, maybe i should call it Ultra Formula. If you cant afford the it, get out. We wont change the rules and cap you budgets ever season. :P

    Oh well, was great to have F1 for this time being. Farewell..

  39. formula one is supposed to be about the best drivers and the fast cars on the plant i disagree with any regulations that prevent this from being the case unless it makes formula one unsafe. It was bad enough to stop things like turbos, v10 engines and other aerodynamic triumphs but this four cylinder engine rule is a step too far the pursuit of speed has suffered enough! also as far as I’m concerned formula shouldn’t give a damn about being “green” it should only be about speed, competition and racing!
    Think about how f1 legends would feel e.g. Aytron senna etc who were all about speed.

  40. First off… we are talking about 24 cars. What impact will that make on the rest of the world’s consumption? Zero.

    So what’s the point? I wonder what these things are going to sound like? A weed whipper?

  41. Okay i’m understand all of that. But i’m still confuse why “they” had to banned Turbochargers in 1989?

  42. 500 bar was relating to fuel pressure. You would need connecting rods a foot thick and a cylinder head welded to the block to withstand those kinds of boost pressures. 500 bar sounds too high current Bosch competition systems run around 120 bar. Peak turbo boost in the 1.5 litre days was around 6 or 7 bar. Hot road cars run around 2 to 3 bar.

Comments are closed.