Ecclestone “anti, anti, anti, anti” 2013 engine rules

2013 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari 056

Bernie Ecclestone says he does not agree with F1’s planned change of engine formula in 2013.

He told journalists in Australia he is “anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula.”

F1 is moving to 1.6-litre, four-cylinder engines in 2013.

Ecclestone added: “We don’t need it and if it’s so important it’s the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing.”

According to Ecclestone only two thing are important in F1: “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.”

He said: “The rest of it is basically PR – it’s nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport.

“I’m sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I’m quite sure we’ll lose TV.

Ecclestone said he and FIA president Jean Todt were “at loggerheads” over the planned changes, saying:

“He’s not a promoter and he’s not selling Formula One to be honest.

“Jean and I are a little bit at loggerheads over this engine. I don’t see the reason for it.

“We had the KERS and this was supposed to solve the problem that Formula One is not green and now we’ve got something else.”

Image © Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

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.

169 comments on “Ecclestone “anti, anti, anti, anti” 2013 engine rules”

  1. Quardruple negative? So I g

    1. a double, double negative. Which means, I assume that he agrees with them!

      I completely disagree with Bernie. F1 should be a turbo formula in my opinion, preferably with a fixed amount of fuel. Who needs DRS and KERS when you can choose to turn the boost up/down etc?

      1. Yes, a double double negative, which means he is actually in favor of the 2013 rules. He is getting a little old isn’t him?

        1. Getting a bit on uncertainty in it will never hurt, just to make backing down a bit easier.

          I guess Bernie is gradually pulling all tricks to get FIA and FOTA seperated and fractioned before they jointly push down CVCs earnings next year.

    2. Yeah. That was supposed to say “So I guess he agrees?” I’m not sure what happened.

  2. Sp he’s for the 2013 rules?

  3. I think Bernie should stop hiding what he really thinks and actually open up :P

    1. I agree with Bernie on this one. F1 is not the place to go green. Smaller engines are not going to save the world.

  4. I think (as always) he paints a bit of an overly dramatic picture. As stated before, I’m not a fan of the new engines, but its not like this is the first engine regulation change and F1 is still here. I love the sound of the old Ferrari V12s, but its not like I stopped watching F1 when they were discontinued. If the racing is good, the brands are big, the drivers stay the stars and there is enough action, I doubt many casual viewers would even notice (the commentary on tv is louder anyway).

    Seems like Mr E and Mr T don’t get back to being friends anymore ..

    1. Of course he overdramaticizes it, but seeing how many other people make a dramatic point out of F1 having to be “green” I’m completely on his side.

      The sound IS important if you’ve ever been at a racetrack. I’ve been to the Oldtimer GP at the Nurburgring several times, and when they roll out the late 70’s F1 cars it melts your brain with joy.

      The racing action in WTCC is brilliant now and then as well. Still nobody gives a hoop.

      The attraction of Formula 1 to the broad audience has always been the speed and glamour. If F1 cars use souped up Miata engines, then a big portion of that goes missing.

      1. I agree Dennis. The sound of the cars is the thing that keeps you watching when we have races like Bahrain, Germany and Abu Dhabi 2010. And I don’t think you need to be at the circuit to enjoy the sound. I’ve been before and it’s absolutely amazing, but even on TV the sound of 24 screaming Formula 1 cars flying past the camera is like my ecstasy! Some people don’t like the noise, but Bernie has a point. Everyone associates Formula 1 with extremely loud and high revving engines. There are only three things that I think are absolutely imperative in F1’s survival, and those are the sound, the sight and the speed.

        I can’t imagine hearing an F1 car with only 4 cylinders, and I’m not sure I ever want to. For me, this is one of the worst things that can possibly happen to the sport. :(

        1. It depends. The old 1500hp BMW turbos were four cylinder 1.5 litre engines, based on BMW 2002 blocks if I remember correctly! The cylinder number is not the problem here. I said months ago that F1 would be better off simply allowing 1.5 or 1.6 litre turbos of any cylinder number, restricting power through boost pressure or fuel flow. Even Ferrari were excited by turbos when they were first used, so a V6, or even V8 turbo would work well.

          But to say a 4 cylinder engine would be rubbish is to ignore the fire-breathing BMWs – they were anything but boring…

          1. I will have to find a video of this BMW you speak of. But will the 2013 cars sound like this?

          2. I’ll have to find a video of one of this BMW engine you speak of. But will the 2013 F1 cars sound like this, do you know?

          3. I wonder where people get the idea from, that these new engines will be anything like the BMW engines of the past. Those were not built with the environment in mind.

            The new cars won’t rev as high, won’t spit flames, won’t have NEARLY as much power and will have to last longer than just one race distance.

            Comparing these new engine rules with the powertrains from the 80’s is a disgrace.

          4. Comparing these new engine rules with the powertrains from the 80′s is a disgrace.

            That’s not what I wanted to read. Now I have basically no faith whatsoever in this new four cylinder formula.

          5. That’s exactly right. The number of cylinders doesn’t have that much to do with how cool something sounds. Often it’s to do with the interaction of different elements running at different rates, in particular the firing order and the offset.

            A Renault R22 for example sounds ‘better’ (or more interesting) than other contemporary V10s because of it’s 113 degree offset instead of the standard 72. The 72s have a two tone sound because the firing order relative to other cycles in the engine is a direct multiple, whereas the 113 in order to fudge good balance has some unusual cycles which you can hear as three tones with the lower two at 2/5 and 3/5 the firing rate.

            Add a turbo and you have a whole stack of extra complexity to the sound being added. I think you have to wait and see… the straight 4s may very well sound thinner than the v8’s, but they might end up sounding more interesting.

        2. ‘but even on TV the sound of 24 screaming Formula 1 cars flying past the camera is like my ecstasy!’
          Couldn’t agree more! i’m quite dissapointed when it changed from V10 to V8 but V4??

          1. @llama You sound like the sort of person that could explain to me why the pre-2002 V10s seemed to have an unusual wailing sound as they drove off into the distance. It almost sounded like a cry or something! But the 2002-2005 engines were the best sounding things I think I’ve ever heard in my life.

        3. Exactly.

          I can’t overstate the danger of going to a low-revving 4 cylinder turbo OR anything else that compromises the sound. I’ve taken people to live GP’s who couldn’t stand 5 minutes of F1 on TV, but after hearing F1 V8′s and V10′S live their eyes BULGED and they immediately became giddy like little children…it transformed them from indifferent to real fans in an INSTANT. It’s funny, when people hear the engines fire-up they instinctively break out into a little run before realizing they’re running and then slow to a self-conscious power walk. It’s hilarious. Trying to explain the experience of an F1 powerplant’s sound is futile. It must be experienced to be understood.

          Also, I cannot fully express how misguided this whole green craze is. What’s the point? Will ANYONE ever buy a car because a team improves it F1 mpg’s from 5mpg to 10mpg? Sorry, but those people aren’t F1 fans to begin with. It’s not F1′s job to promote green consciousness among the public either. It’s a fricking sport. Sure, be responsible and try to be environmentally friend where possible, but risk the character of the sport? No. Do you see the NFL or Manchester United risking their sport to promote green agendas? No!!!!!!!!!

          1. Joey Zyla (@)
            7th December 2012, 8:04

            It’s sound. It’s not important. Why do you even care?

    2. speed deamon
      19th March 2011, 17:42

      The whole point here is you are talking of the pinnacle of motorsports you dont want to put in 4 cylinder engines in these machines i dont know how it will sound but i have a very good feeling it’s not going to sound like the older ones.
      The FIA is only a governing body and they are suppose to make sure that all of them are within the rules that is their real job why the h*** do they have to go reducing engine size trying to make it a more greener sport i mean please so what next we run around with electric engines which make no noise at all…
      this is also going to considrably increase costs as evry time you change rules money has to be spent reseaching and developing a cutting edge component they have been tightening the rules so much that this is becoming horrible to say the least please leave the rules the way they are for god’s sake…

  5. I might for the first time ever agree with him. V12’s please!

    1. V12 engines are impractical. They’re heavy and they’re excessive when teams are trying to cut down weight. They’re also notoriously fiddly and prone to breakages.

      1. You forgot awesome.

        1. You don’t just bolt four extra cylinders on and go faster. It doesn’t work that way. There’s a reason why teams ran V8 engines when they were given the choice between V8s and V10s.

          V12s are not awesome. They’re excessive and they’re heavy and the power gained is not worth the increase in weight or difficulty.

          1. Oh yes they are. The very definition of awesomness! And if they are trickier to get right, so what? F1 as the pinnacle of motorsport can deal with it. They were more prone to breakages only because there was just 1 team(Ferrari) actively developing them. But make them mandatory for all teams and you’ll see the problems ironed out in no time. After all, every supercar manufacturer on the planet has V12 engines that do not pose any problems, so why can’t it be done in F1?

            And you cannot substitute the V12 F1 engine noise for anything. I know it sounds like a cliche, but V12 shriek reverbates inside your very bones, it shudders the essense of your being, touches your soul, etc-all is true. It’s the sound of pure extacy. The V8 sound is pale in comparison, and the very notion of the pinnacle of motorsport running on straight-4 engines of essentially the same type as the engine in the Fiat Bravo or VW Golf makes my heart sink. It also offends me deeply. And somehow I’m sure it’s not just me…

          2. Completely starting from 0 with small displacement turbo engines is not worth it either. So there.

            I rather have V12’s for the sake of sound, than an upscale Miata engine with a turbo.

            And the reason F1 has to decide how many cylinders the engines HAVE to have is beyond me, anyway.

          3. The teams were forced to run V8s instead of V10s because Mosley thought ghey could just slice off 2 cylinders making the engines cheaper. For your information a V8 is much more difficult to balance than a V10 and the engines are also forced to use a smaller v angle which further worsens the balance problem.

          4. the problem here is that becoause the limited number of engines, they don’t rev as high, and they lack in power.
            If they allowed the turbos to rev, and produce power like in the old days, i wouldn’t mind. The sound was good then, and it would be good in 2013.

          5. @Montreal95 and others.
            PM is perfectly right here. Ferrari went from V12 to V10 because it offered them a better, faster solution. Their V12 offered better power, but was also heavier and guzzled fuel, so the car was heavier and needed a bigger fuel tank. When they were running V10, Ford (cosworth) was already changing to a better optimized V8.

            Those in line 4 cylinder engines will be pretty far from production engines. Them producing about 500-650 hp will make them quite something to behold and they will sound pretty good i would expect.

            Certainly better than the farthing Renault we got on track now, and the coughing McLaren.

          6. DeadManWoking
            18th March 2011, 10:08

            The new cars won’t rev as high

            If they allowed the turbos to rev, and produce power like in the old days

            The 1980’s BMW turbos only revved to 11-12,000 rpm just as the 2013 engines will.

          7. Just repeating the phrase ‘souped up Miata engine’ over and over doesn’t mean you ‘win’ the argument. If the more cylinders an engine has means it is ‘better’, why is everyone saying that V12’s are the ideal? Why not V16’s or W16’s?

            I suspect the answer is “because I remember V12’s and through my rose-tinted glasses they were much better than any new suggestion someone else comes up with”.

            A genuine question; is it an American thing to be obsessed with cylinder numbers? I don’t know anyone in Britain who is so hung up on this and thinks that people won’t watch a formula with fewer cylinders – it isn’t like the cars have it written on the side.

            And the noise thing can be easily remedied for those too fickle to enjoy watching something that sounds different to what they are used to. My grandfather was deaf but it didn’t stop him loving watching F1.

          8. There’s nothing wrong with souped-up Miata engines – I own one. :D

            But I happen to think that a small V6 is the right way to go…

          9. @ BasCB: Ferrari were forced to go from V12 to V10 engines, because of the rule change between 1994 and 1995 that banned 3.5 litre engines. In 1994 Ferrari engine was by far the most powerful in F1. However the cut down to 3 litre took off some of the power while doing nothing for the V12’s bigger fuel consumption, so at the moment of the rule change, the Renault became the unqestionably the best engine, while nbefore they were tied overall. IN THOSE CONDITIONS there was no point with continuing with V12, but I’m sure that after 16 years there is a solution to make 3-litre V12 more economical and reliable.

            And I cant understand why they must be inline four turbos. Why don’t have V6 turbos? I don’t want F1 to be as close as they can be to the car I drive at home(of course with 600bhp +150hp KERS is not the same, thats why I’ve added “as close as”, so what’s the point?). In fact I want F1 to be as far from my day to day experience as possible, it’s part of what makes F1 exciting.

            Now, I don’t know when you last attended a Grand Prix, but I was at Spa 2009 and I thought the Renault, and espesially Mercedes sounded great! The only engine I didn’t like was the Toyota(by far the most quiet) and they’re gone now.

          10. Dear Rob,

            I’m neither american, nor am I obsessed with many cylinders. And the problem is not the 4-banger itself, but that F1 is basically running engines small displacement engines that could come from an F3 car.

            I also don’t want to “win” an argument. I would like to state my opinion. Thank you very much. Also, I own an MX-5 myself, among other cars… Just to get things into perspective.

            Limiting the engines to a certain point was necessary to cut costs. But we arrived at a point, where these new engine rules will cost a bunchload of money so that the treehuggers can calm down.

            You are right, that the average viewer will probably see no difference. So why change the engines at all? I am also puzzled by this sudden interest in the fuel consumption of F1 cars. I want to bet that 99 of 100 people have no idea about the fuel consumption of an F1, or of a race car in general for that matter.

          11. Why specify the engine configuration at all if you are genuinely interested in *developing* a more environmentally friendly formula.

            The real solution would be to limit the amount of fuel that could be used in a race to something small, and let the teams work out how to use that to complete the race as fast as possible.

            And for goodness sake, take the limits on KERS off. Let the teams develop that to the nth degree.

            If they want to run solar panels then let them do that too. Let them do anything they like to get the car going fast without consuming much fuel.

    2. I have almost never agreed with Ecclestone in the past, but this time I’m with him too,Victor. The average racing career of a driver starts with karting, and after all there is in between, he wants to get a seat in F1. But should F1 adopt the 4-cyl engines, it would almost take this driver back to where he started. If I were a car racer today, I would start looking into MotoGP, and not F1 anymore.

  6. “anti, anti, anti, anti moving into this small turbo four formula.”

    Does that even make sense?

    1. As with much of what Mr E says; no it does not! He really is getting to old for his job, he needs to move on!

    2. Anti Engines – Against it
      Anti, anti Engines – Supports it
      Anti, anti, anti Engines – Against it
      Anti, anti, anti, anti Engines – Supports it

      So literally speaking, what Bernie said supports the proposed 4cylinder turbo engine, however, I suspect he was using the language technique of ‘repetition’ to enforce an aggressive stance on the issue.

      1. You ain’t not having no idea about no gangsta slang, yo.

      2. Maybe he was anti every one of the cylinders?

        1. yeah 4 anti for 4 cylinder does make scene :)

        2. Exactly, he would go directly to a EV series with big speaker boxes to amplify the sounds of a nice recorded V12 8)

      3. The irony of having 4 antis in there to symbolize those 4 cylinders, LOL.

  7. As has been pointed out my Mr. Saward elsewhere, F1 was hardly struggling in the 1980’s was it?

  8. Bernie must be losing his touch because he’s given away what this is really all about: politics.

    Max and Bernie were close allies, dictators from the same pod. Todt, for his few faults, is not of the same ilk. All this is pointing to some deeper issue and I suspect it’s the one of who controls F1. The negotiations over the new Concorde Agreement are expected to be quite explosive as Bernie, CVC and FOM face a tough fight to retain their share of the spoils and you can bet Todt will be on the side of F1 rather than the money.

    Bernie doesn’t really think people will turn off because there’s less noise. He’s frightened his own voice won’t make as much noise in the future of F1.

    1. Agree, this is purely yet another negotiating ploy from Ecclestone. Proof is that he says the TV companies will loose interest, which is obviously completely false because the broadcasters mute the engine sounds anyway.

      1. The sound of the engines is indeed compressed/limited and what not, to make sure it’s hearable and at the same time agreeable. If they didn’t do that, you would have a very distorted noise coming from your TV.

        That they make the sound good for your home Television set doesn’t mean that it is a very important aspect of watching a race.

        Bernie has a point, however the size and number of cylinders don’t matter so much , but the rev limit (only 12000) does.

        Having said that, it is clear that this is about politics. He only wants to echo Luca di Montezemolo, because that’s the guy he has lured with a big bag of money in the past.

        1. Yep. It’s clearly a political struggle. What I wanna know is why anyone still listens when garbage starts flowing from Bernie’s mouth like a clogged toilet. Maybe Todt will give him the giant metaphorical plunger in the next Concorde Agreement and get his pipes flowing smoothly again.

    2. Fully agree with what you say. Bernie is just trying everything he can to get to seperate the FOTA teams and the FIA and have a bargaining position.

  9. “it’s the sort of thing that should be in saloon car racing.” and? you also find V8’s in saloon racing, they just have twice, maybe 3 times the seize of what the F1 engines have in displacement. F1 needs to go forward, not backwards. And i think that moving from V10, down to V8, and then a displacement seize down again (if i remember correctly). Is going backwards.

    I will even go as far as stating that in these times, any engine that is NOT turbocharged is old fashion. The only thing Turbo engines have less of compared to normally aspirated engines is noise and in some cases drive ability. I don’t like that the power will go down so much, but for me turbo engines is definitely the way forward. The only better solution, i can think of, is to move back to the V10 engines but i don’t see that happening.

  10. complete agree with him, next Todt will want them to run on electric to please the earth hugger’s. Wanted Todt get the topdog post cause he was running against that politician thwat but now getting a bit fed up with some his decisions.

  11. What was wrong with the sound of the 1.5 liter BMW 4 cylinder turbo of the eighties? I have heard it for real attending Grand Prix. And these engines gave 1000+ horsepower so I don’t see a real problem here.

    Besides, the F1 needs to go greener if it still wants to be the pinnacle of motorsports in 10+ years. The Le Mans Series is going greener (with hybrid engines) and is attracting the attention of car manufacturers which left Formula 1 (Toyota, Honda), so I think that is the way to go.

    And KERS does not make F1 greener, the way it is used. It is used as a supplement (power boost) and not as a replacement of fossil fuel. Only when it is used as a replacement (like the Toyota Prius hybrid car) it will make the F1 greener than it is today.

    1. They used 6-cylinder turbos in the 80s, not 4.

      1. And in some cases… 4. Use the googles.

      2. HounslowBusGarage
        17th March 2011, 20:26

        Brabham BT 50 in 1981 had a 4 pot BMW engine.

        1. Was Bernie running Brabham at the time?

          1. Exactly, maybe he lost his hearing from those engines?

    2. F1 won’t be the pinnacle of motorsports, when they limit basically everything about the engines to make the sport “green.”

      1. If the cars still lap circuits faster than any other racing cars, then by definition F1 will still be the pinnacle of motorsports.

      2. Motor racing was born out of car development. If the formula is not a test bed then it isn’t the pinnacle of motor racing.

  12. Why doesn’t F1 switch to Methanol Petrol or Diesel engines if it wants to become green.

    1. Because burning Diesel is about as green as lighting up the rainforrest.

  13. F1 is the fastest sport in the world. If an f1 car with a smaller engine than my dads vw passat then it’s going to sound a bit rubbish. for once I agree with bernie

    1. F1 teams have been required to use 2.4-litre V8 engines since 2006.

      my old truck is a 4lt V8, im driving a formula, yeaaah! (satrcastic tone)

      1. It’s not an F150 by any chance?? :P

        1. lmao that would be hilarious!

  14. “only two thing are important in F1: “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.” ”

    that’s very disrespectful comment from someone in Ecclestone’s position!

    1. I think thats the far more important part of what he’s saying.

      Who cares that bernies doesnt like the new engine format.

      What I care about is that bernie clearly still thinks F1 revolves solely around Ferrari! Thats a pretty outrageous statement to be making, can’t the other teams being too happy reading that.

      1. It’s pretty insulting and disrespectful of him, but that’s exactly what I expect of Bernie.

        1. ….and exactly why he said it… as with nearly everything that comes out of his mouth its all PR to get people talking

      2. Truth hurts, doesn’t it?!

        I’m kidding.

  15. Bernie is right. F1 is supposed to be cutting costs. Developing an brand new engine will be very costly. If it aint broke. Don’t fix it.

    Also bernie is right once again with the econess. The cars engines themselves only make up a small percentage of the total emissions of the whole of f1. The cars are just an easy target because they are the only things that are seen by the public. Maybe different regulations for the trucks that carry everything about may be a better idea

    1. Exactly. It’s all PR anyway, so why not start a huge campaign to reduce emissions with the logistics and freight? And I agree on your fist point. F1 is almost exactly where it needs to be as far as technology and power. All it needs is the occasional tweaking of the rules to keep it fresh. I would be happy if F1 cars were running the same engines as they are now in 50 years time, as long as it doesn’t mean switching to these horrible things. This engine thing is going to hurt me deeply, but the day F1 goes electric is the day I give it up forever. Its such a shame, especially considering how unnecessary this is. All the other rule changes serve a (some sort of) purpose, but this one is only to appease the minority of the world who think F1 is not green enough. Go Bernie!

      1. i agree 100%.

    2. Ferrari is the only team on the grid that produces its own engines (Renault isn’t Renault anymore). Therefore the budget for developing these new engines will not come out of F1, but the car (engine) manufacturers. They will foot the bill, because it is ultimately they who will benefit when the technology is transferred to their road cars.

      It’s not a cost issue, this is a convenient fallacy.

      1. Agree 100%

        1. Who are we all 100% agreeing with? :P

          1. Myself ;-)

            Icthyes in my case.

      2. What about Mercedes?

        1. Yeah, Mercedes uses Ilmor if I’m not mistaken, not the ‘real’ Mercedes R&D.

          1. I know this is an amazingly late response, but Mercedes bought that section of Ilmor which produced the F1 engines and took it over themselves a long time ago. Ilmor still exists but is no longer involved in F1.

  16. Ive never been into this `Green Agenda` balderdash, if it was the case we would be designing nuclear powered engines as this is the new green agenda that Friends of the Earth are blindly agreeing too as a replacement for fossil fuels, even though CO2 rises after the temperature rises, and theres been a decade of cooling, but thats for other forums.

  17. Why 4 cylinder.
    Why not go with a turbocharged V-6, or flat-6.

    1. I suppose because most ordinary road cars use inline-4s?

      1. There are a lot of 3 cylinder diesels as well!

      2. but why does F1 have to reflect ordinary cars? what on earth does F1 have anything to do with ordinary little shopping 4 cylinder granny cars? Answer is nothing. No matter what the politics say, F1 is never going to influence global warming in any way. Road cars are road cars, F1 cars are F1 cars. Simple and final fact.

        Back to the sound. Sound is important in motorsport as traditionally it has been one of the primary factors for attracting the audience to the sport and keeping the audience excited throughout. Is the 12,000rpm 4 cylinder going to generate enough excitement? I’m sure you’ll be able to hear it, but not as much as in the past. In the past (not so much now, but its still not too bad), you not only had to wear earplugs but also brace yourself from the mere vibrations that emanated from the car, because your whole body was f shaking from the noise! That is F1!

        1. what on earth does F1 have anything to do with ordinary little shopping 4 cylinder granny cars?
          Nothing, and it still won’t, how many 4cyl granny cars do you know with 600+ BHP revving to 12,000rpm.

  18. Fred Schechter
    17th March 2011, 19:50

    ….. and this is why I voted Bernie off of the island..

    Seriously, an acoustic engineer can’t make 950hp sounds awesome coming out of a smaller displacement engine? I find that ridiculous!

    Bernie,, please grow up.

  19. Talking out of his backside.

  20. I think too many people are beginning to worry to much on what the cars will sound like and think more about what the sports supposed to be, and thats how damn fast the cars can go.

    Seriously, the extreme majority of people watch F1 on TV, sound means little on this medium (with commentry going on) and going to F1 is probably out of a large% of peoples price range or not in their country. Yes, its nice that they are loud and boomy, but if the racing isnt effected then I dont mind so much what engines they use as long as (i repeat) the racing isnt effected.

    Bernie wants to sell tickets and TV revenue, thats fine, but most people watch F1 for more then what sounds they make. If he wanted to have descided this, he should have bought the FIA ;)

    1. I agree – previously people have complained that the lack of overtaking, the politics and bitching, and erratic stewarding decisions were ruining F1.

      Suddenly the engine rules are changing and everyone now says that it wasn’t any of those things, but the fact that the engines don’t sound like Motorhead playing a concert on an asteriod crashing into the Sun!

  21. If they ease the restrictions so that engines can once again run to 1000bhp and they sound good then I don’t care on the formula. More engine development is needed though!

  22. “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.”

    Excuse me while I die a little inside.

    1. May I join you.

      I actually think more people would watch F1 if Ferrari left the scene in favor for some of the bigger manufacturers. Bring back Toyota BMW and Honda. Lure in Mazda, VW and Ford too and ban those poor red wannabes and then let the true party begin.

      And… the noise will always be there – no matter how many cyls they use.

  23. who cares f1 about being green
    if the rule changes went ahead id probably stop going to races becasue there will be no noise

    i completely agree with bernie
    NOONE CARES ABOUT F1 being green

    and f1 is going back to the 80s in 2013 so
    basically i agree with bernie because F1 will lose ALOT of viewers and i mean ALOT.
    and i also agree with mcmercslr

  24. According to Ecclestone only two thing are important in F1: “One is Ferrari and second is the noise.”

    Anyone still think Bernie is the right man to be running formula 1?

    1. Well, i wont hide the fact (and im going to half quote the man here) that im ‘anti, anti, anti’ Ecclestone.

  25. So he is anti small turbocharged engines, but for shortcuts and artificial rain…I’d comment, but I’m just shaking my head at the man!

  26. Nobody made up any Ferrari conspiracy theories in the comments yet? I’m shocked! :)

    1. It would hardly be a conspiracy, when it’s said so in such an upfront way.

      It was one of the reasons I wanted a breakaway series a few years ago sans Ferrari (before the latest threat, a few years before). Not because I wanted to see them gone but just to prove that they weren’t as critical as they maintained they were in financial negotiations. F1 would be lesser without them, but it would survive.

  27. One is Ferrari and second is the noise

    lets be honest, that’s very true.

    1. He is correct, first thing people think of when you say f1 is “NEEEEEEEEOWWWWWW!” and the second is Ferrari.

    2. I can see why he considers Ferrari important.

      But the majority of F1 viewership occurs through television and that gives little sense of the noise at all. I expect the new engines will sound fine I think Ecclestone’s just having a whinge.

      1. ‘that gives little sense of the noise at all’
        Sorry Keith just being curious where do you find that, is there any data etc showing that? :)

        1. Try standing next to an F1 car when it’s revving, then watching the same thing on TV.

          1. Totally agree, TV sound is suppressed to hell (and you surround sound can’t even produce the same level of output), so unless you are at the race it make absolutely zero different if the db level drops by 5dbs

          2. Sorry Keith, misunderstanding here i thought you said majority of tv viewers doesn’t care about the noise at all, my bad.
            I been to F1 race before it’s different i know especially the sound when the cars shift down there is a big bang where we don’t really catch that on TV. But for the sound on tv i think we could hear the difference as well although not the same as on track, in my opinion V10 sounds more racey and has higher pitched, V8 sounds good too but just too tame. If the engine does go smaller again i just hope the characteristic of F1 sound doesn’t go badly even on TV.

          3. Ah that clears that up!

      2. The problem I have is that i’ve never been to an F1 race in person to experience the atmosphere and the SOUND! I just hope that i’ll have enough money to go to a race before they destroy the noise with these pathetic engines!

        1. I guess you should wait to see/hear it before you call something ‘pathetic’. For me it’s always too easy to judge something before it really happens.

  28. Guilherme Teixeira
    17th March 2011, 23:26

    “The rest of it is basically PR – it’s nothing in the world to do with Formula One. These changes are going to be terribly costly to the sport.”

    Yeah, sure, it’s going to be terribly costly to the sport to attract brands like Volkswagen, Honda, Hyundai and possibly others who might be interest in the new engine regulations. It’s going to be terribly costly to change the status quo of engine power, to introduce new technologies and to be more ‘green’ at the same time…

    I’m sure it’s not going to be costly to F1 as a sport, but to FOM, I wouldn’t say the same…

  29. V8, V10, V12

    V8 sounds good, V10 sounds perfect, V12 sounds like a multiple orgasm.

    lets just have them all, F1 going ‘green’ is not going to save the planet, so lets have some screaming engines while we’re here please.

    1. you only live once!! (I do realise this is a completely ignorant and selfish attitude with regards to the future of the planet, but im sure the F1 cars thmselves make up such a small proportion of emmissions that what we really need to be changing is road cars and such like transportation!)

    2. 4 – sounds terrible
      6 – sounds acceptable
      V6 – sounds acceptable
      V8 – sounds good
      V10 – sounds perfect
      V12 – sounds unbelievable!


      1. Good scale you should really make a presentation to The FIA.
        Bernie’s version of that scale would be:
        4 – Going to loose alot of money
        6 – loose some money
        V6 – still loose some mone
        V8 – Profits stay the same
        V10 – Make more money
        V12 – Make a hell of alot of moneys!!!!!!!!!!!

        The FIA should make all decisions based on this type of scale.

        1. Haha! Brilliant! I must admit, I agree entirely! Sound is as important as speed, as far as I’m concerned.

  30. I’m with Bernie. And I never thought I’d type that on a public forum. “Going green” and making Formula 1 “more relevant”? Rubbish. Jetting several 1000 tons of equipment and people around the world to ever further flung places isn’t the basis of a “green” sport. And why does F1 need to be relevant? When has it ever been relevant? Surely that’s why we like it, the escapism from the humdrum of our own motoring? Otherwise we might as well take our deckchairs to our local roundabout and watch the diesel Golfs going round and round.

    1. It seems to me that the argument about ‘going green’ is only ever made by those against the new regs to use as a stick to beat it.

      These new engines could potentially attract more manufacturers to the sport because of the increased relevance to production cars, which means teams can buy engines more cheaply due to increased competition and teams like HRT could be set up and get a decent engine while devoting more of their budget to building a better chassis.

  31. I agree these rules suck. F1 cars should be v10 as far as im concerned. I dont want to watch a 4cylinder go kart going around a track that sounds like a edge trimmers or a petrol blower.

    The smartest rule to introduce is keep the existing V8 engines. Why spend money if you dont have to. Most teams would be happy to keep the current V8’s.

    FIA has no idea, even with TODT running it. This rule change will never happen, I bet 2012 will be the last year of f1 under CVC control. The teams will start there own series, bernie and the FIA cannot stop it. The can even call it f1 if they choose it.

  32. 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?

    1. it’s about promoting and developing greener tech, not about the actual CO2 produced by the cars or the circus that move them around the globe.

  33. James Williams
    18th March 2011, 0:52

    Finally, Bernie says something that I agree with!

    Formula 1 will sound like crap with 4 cylinder engines.

  34. Engine displacement and the number of cylinders doesn’t really bother me too much. What does bother me a bit are rev limits. I’d love to hear a turbo 4 screaming at 20,000 Rpms, maybe more.

    Maybe another bother for me is what I see as a move towards a spec F1 engine, and of course one can easily argue that current engines are so close in power that it’s really the aero effects of the car that really make the difference. So why not use a spec engine?

    “It’s just not F1” would be my answer.

  35. For once Bernie says something I agree with.
    Its the sound that does it for me.
    During the Mansell years, I tried watching Indycar, I could hear the sounds of earth movers but could see smaller cars moving fast. Always made me want to throw up as my mind couldn’t cope with my ears telling me one thing and my eyes telling another.
    When you hear an F1 engine revving you can’t help but have a big grin on your face. You know there is some very serious argument going on between those cylinders and they are being very vocal about it.

    This is F1’s last true identity. There is almost something spiritual about the wail of these engines. You won’t find it anywhere else and once F1 loses it, F1 will be finished. No one will immediately notice F1 is dead, as it will be a gradual death. When the lights go out you wonder what happened to the music.

  36. i think quiet engines is good.. we might
    have more street circuits

    1. and all you will hear is … 1) squueeeeeaaaaak.. and 2) whooooooooosh….

      first being the tyres squeaking due to forces exerted on the road, and second was the car going pass

  37. I just wish they change the regulations on the engine to simply:

    You have 20000MJ of engery to use per car for the whole weekend, including free practice, quali and the race. You can split this as you choose.

    You may use any fuel source (petrol, diesel, hydrogen, wood, electricity).

    You may use any engine design that complies to safety regs.

    Then we’d see some innovation, and some difference between the teams! Way more interesting! Ferrari can go back to their V12s, Toyota (if they come back) could go hybrid or full electric. Everyone would be happy. We’d have screaming V12s, gas turbines, who knows what else, and it could be as road relevant as the teams want. Everyone would be happy!

    (btw 20000MJ is very approximately equivalent to 500 litres of petrol)

    1. every car would be electric under these regs

  38. Finally a man with common sense.

  39. I disagree with Bernie and the rest of the doomsayers.
    I see the move to four cylinder engines not relevant for the sake of “going green” (that’s just a nice soundbyte) but for becoming more relevant to road cars you or I could actually own. Small displacement turbocharged engines are the future for fossil fuel passenger cars, and racing technology always trickles down to road cars. Do you think we would have seen half of the awesome turbo road cars of the 80’s and early 90’s if it wasn’t for engine development through racing, whether F1, rally, or other series?

    I think the benefits outweigh the downsides, including reduced engine noise and the lower RPM formula. Turbo engines are fundamentally quieter because they’re muffled by the turbo.

    And I really wish the engines were specced to 18k or 19k RPM as there are currently. Although, the lower RPM limit will let the engines be more drivable, with more torque at lower RPM’s. If the tiny engines made peak power at 20k RPM, their torque curve at low RPM’s would be seriously compromised.

    1. Agreed. If nothing else, the drivetrain technology of an F1 car should be able to trickle down to road cars. And as much as it pains me to say this, small capacity turbo engines really are the future of road cars for the next decade at least.

      It would’ve been better if the FIA had freed up the actual configuration of the engine instead of freezing it as an inline-4. I would’ve loved to see a modern take on the BRM V16 turbo. But I’m quite satisfied with 1.6 litres. In any case the new engines will produce over 500 bhp without KERS. That’s still quite amazing.

  40. i think four cylinder turbo engines are perfect, there should be more of KERS and finite amount of fuel available for the race…. and engines should be free to develop within certain parameters.

    1. The KERS shouldn’t have a limit? it’s a green technology they should have unlimited amount of KERS during then race.

  41. Dingle Dell
    18th March 2011, 5:33

    Keith, typo error on first line:

    ‘Bernie Ecclestone says he is does not agree…’

    LOL at the ‘he IS does not agree’ :p

    Way to go, bring back V10, V12!

    1. Fixed it, thanks.

  42. ” “I’m sure the promoters will lose a big audience and I’m quite sure we’ll lose TV.” that’s what Bernie is afraid of,he isn’t thinking about engine noise. No people watching F1 on TV he will lose TV rights.

  43. When Spa closes down because of noise levels, how many of you would be happy that the V10s were brought back? Yeh, I didn’t think so.

    If all you care about is noise, go watch Superleague Formula, if it’s critical to what makes something the pinnacle of sport.

    Seriously, every time something like this comes around, be it the engine noise, power, level of technology involved in the sport, better alternatives to F1 in this respect already exist. It’s all there already! F1 doesn’t have to have the best of all these things to make it the best, what makes it the best is the combination of all these things coupled with the best single-seater drivers in the world. It reminds me of whenever they change anything on facebook, people moan for ages but 3 weeks down the line they’re still there and the world hasn’t ended.

    1. COTD… I like the Analogy

    2. COTD for me too.

    3. In the same vain, why can’t F1 cars be built like saloon cars and have 4doors and plenty of space for KERS. A single seater that has no relation to road cars if of little value.

      F1 needs to have the best of all things, because there are other racing formula that cater to every other need.

      Facebook has become a tool for communication for those people who use it,hence they need a comfortable environment they can work in efficiently and not have to fight. F1 on the other hand is of no relevance apart from being entertainment, but for a very few it is a research tool of questionable output.

      From the entertainment perspective, all aspects of modern day F1 combine to give the excitement level it currently does. For you the sound of a free revving engine is of no relevance, for others it is everything.

      If I’m having a nap and I hear the sound of a Ford Focus revving past, I won’t be bothered, but when I hear the sound of an F1 engine revving at the limit, I immediately wake up. GP2 doesn’t give me that same feeling, neither does Indycar or any other category of 4wheel racing.

      So while you see a race weekend as some speed and and hi profile drivers. I see it as an orchestra at high speed.

  44. I agree with Bernie on this one, a great deal of the attraction of F1 is the sound.

    As for engine regs, I think they should be opened up completely, with an air restrictor in place to limit power to around about 950bhp. Configuration, RPM and displacement will be open, even allowing rotaries would spice things up a bit…might get Mazda involved.
    Since power will be pretty equal, the focus will be on efficiency for it’s weight saving gains.
    Alternatively, teams might run engines which fit with their manufacturers brand. Ferrari might opt for a V12 just to be awesome, which could help them sell cars. Mercedes might choose a larger displacement V8 to give a characteristic thunderous bellow. Renault might go for a turbo 4-cyl.

    Someone will build the modern equivalent Cosworth DFV for small teams to use, keeping costs low for those who are skint, while allowing the big guns to play.

    If all teams end up going for the same engine, we’ll know that from an engineering standpoint, it will be the optimal combination, and the sound it produces will be reflective of it. Remember, the sound of an F1 car is not particularly beautiful without the subtext of sheer power.

  45. Superleague cars run V12, 4.2 litre, 12,000rpm, 750bhp engines. Why don’t we watch those?

    1. Well I don’t because it’s a cynical attempt at spoon-feeding motor sport to football fans. As someone who finds a racing car exciting when it’s not painted in a football strip I find it all rather patronising.

      A V12 engine isn’t going to change that.

      1. It may be cynical and patronising. But if Jean Todt goes ahead with his ‘green’ strategy, who’s being cynical and patronising then?

        JT: Here yer arrr children, zis eez wert yer wernt!

        1. Todt isn’t telling us that this is what we want, he is saying that this is what the FIA want. He isn’t pretending that it is going to save the world, he thinks it can benefit various different people who have a stake in the sport.

          So to answer your question; not cynical or patronising at all.

  46. I disagree and I agree.

    I disagree in that I am fascinated over the planned 2013 changes, for the first time in a long time we will have competition in engine development. Not only that, but it will be into new greener technologies.

    On the other hand, I agree with him. F1 should not try to hard to be green, it’s not necessary, and I think it sends the sport in the wrong direction. F1, is spectacle, the noise, the atmosphere, commentary gets significantly better when they are focussing on the things that make the spectacle, rather than the things that take away from it.

    To be honest, I agree with him more than I disagree with him. For F1’s sake, it must not be bogged down in trivial gadgety things like being green, and must focus on the spectacle. Which, when it comes down to it, is F1.

    I am excited about F1 in 2013, but I do not want to hear the word green.

    1. To be honest, I agree with him more than I disagree with him. For F1′s sake, it must not be bogged down in trivial gadgety things like being green, and must focus on the spectacle. Which, when it comes down to it, is F1.

      But bernie lost sight on the spectacle of the racing a while back.

      I dont go to races to watch the magnificent pitlanes and hotels going over the circuit. And that is Bernies F1.

      1. And I agree with you as well. :D

  47. Rare for me to say this but… I agree with Bernie. The cars themselves account for under 1% of the teams’ emissions in a year. Making the cars more green is nothing more than a PR stunt and it might indeed make more sense in saloon car racing where more of the teams emissions do come from the actual racing.

    From Williams’ ‘Spark Report’ it is clear that the majority of F1 emissions come from electricity in the factories. Why don’t they just put in a rule saying something like 40% of all electricity used by an F1 team factory must be from a renewable source and then let the cars continue to be loud and exciting.

  48. Yes. It’s the wind tunnels and the stuff that goes on at the factories that eats up most of the energy. What actually happens on the track is just the tip of the iceberg.

  49. I’m in the minority here, but I am sick of hearing Ecclestone mouthing off about how the FIA are not the promoters, and he knows best.

    I’d rather leave the formula in the hands of Patrick Head and Rory Byrne who are working on putting together the 2013 regs, than Bernie I’m afraid.

    Apparently they are working to reduce the reliance around not being able to follow each other through corners, and if that happens the racing will be better, and people will tune in to watch. Ground effect etc.

    I don’t agree with wasting a whole load of money on a new engine formula as well personally, but has the racing been any less good moving from V12s to V10s to V8s. I dont believe it has.

    Its not like we’ll be tuning in or watching live and hearing Renault clio engines running around. They will sound nothing like a roadcar.

    I watch F1 for the racing, both live and on TV, to see the best racers in the world.

    If Bernie wants something to look into if he has spare time, he may want to try looking into why 80% of the new GPs he has been touting have turned out dreadfully boring races, despite a pretty huge budget.

    Thank goodness for someone like Shell coming in and helping the Spa GP. No doubt bernie would be touting that race as well to the highest bidder.

    If he wants to throw stones at a good man like Jean Todt, he may wish to remember that he is sitting in a rather large and very plush greenhouse.

  50. Patrick Head has something of a vested interest in ‘green’ technology, does he not.

    I can’t help but think that F1 is just some kind of big business pretending to be a sport. But that would be rather cynical of me, wouldn’t it?

    1. But that would be rather cynical of me, wouldn’t it?

      Yes it would ;-)

  51. The “green” thing is a diversion and misses the point. Everyone knows that the racing on the track isn’t a big contributor to F1’s entire carbon footprint. Everyone knows that the change from 2.4l V8s to 1.6l, four-cylinder turbos will have as much of an effect on F1’s carbon emissions as, I don’t know, painting a big green stripe on some of the tyres. Putting the “green” label on the regulations placates some of the more hard-of-thinking environmentalists and gives the climate change deniers something to seethe over. But it misses the point.

    The 2013 engine regulations allow for innovation in a way that we haven’t seen in F1 for years. Rather than spending millions tinkering with a few aerodynamic parts, teams will now be free to develop innovative and exciting technical solutions to the challenges presented by the new regulations. Technical freedom is what many of us have been clamouring for for years, and now it’s arriving people are shouting it down just because it comes with a big green sticker on it.

    Years ago Max Mosley proposed a new set of engine regulations: teams would be free to develop whatever engine they wished, but would only have a certain, fixed amount of fuel to use. That would have placed the emphasis on engine efficiency as well as performance, which would have given F1 the image it’s looking for as well as making for an exciting technical challenge. Sadly this, as one of Mosley’s better ideas, was never implemented. But I think these new engine regulations will be pretty interesting as well.

    1. I’m still pretty undecided on the rev limits but I absolutely 100% agree with you :P This really hurts as well but for me this is COTD.

    2. DeadManWoking
      18th March 2011, 11:52

      We haven’t yet seen enough of the 2013 engine regs to know how much innovation will be allowed. All we know for now is that they will be 1.6L inline 4’s with single-stage turbos (with the possibility of 2-stage in the future) and high pressure direct injection. We don’t yet know what else will or will not be allowed. Current engine regs only allow relatively low-tech spec engines with all sorts of restrictions on: weight and center of gravity, bore size and spacing, valves, camshafts, pistons, connecting rods, crankshafts and the height of their CofG relative to the car, fuel systems, electrical systems, the use of exotic alloys and materials and much more. The use of direct injection, variable geometry inlet systems, variable geometry exhaust systems, variable valve timing and variable valve lift systems and intake charge cooling (most of which are on cars I currently own and all are available on current road cars) are banned outright.
      I hope that when we see the actual regs they will at least allow F1 engines to use tech that is now commonplace on road cars.

      1. @Red Andy Good point. I’ll ease off a bit and wait until I hear one. But if they sound terrible, I’ll be angry again! :P

        @DeadManWoking All very interesting. So basically, there’s absolutely no way we will know what they sound like until someone actually develops one?

  52. For me personally I would be really looking forward to the 2013 season if it wasn’t for the proposed engine changes.

    Ever since I was a little kid (6 or 7) I still remember watching f1 and just loving that whine of the cars. My Dad said I even would try and do impersonations of the cars, running around making high pitched whining sounds :)

    Even with all the engine changes over the past years at least the essence of the high revving banshee screams has remained and for me it’s an integral part in F1’s identity. Sure, I think the 2013 cars will still sound great.I love the sound of turbos just as much as any other bloke,but they just wont sound like F1’s :(

  53. I agree with Bernie.

  54. Anti anti anti ecology, but not at all anti the undemocratic and violent regime in Bahrain its seems. Bernie and jackie Stewart grovelling around dictators on a grid in the barren dessert…its a picture of the future which will kill F1. He is now so out of touch its bringing the sport into disrepute….and then there is the mater of CVC and its deals.

  55. However true that there is no direct environmental effect of F1 going greener there is certainly a very practical advantage: The manufacturers will be forced to develop engine technology that is much closer to road car applications which will potentially attract more major manufacturers to the sport. Though I love to hear the V12’s of the past we have to remember that F1 is just as much about the pinnacle of engineering as it is about racing. As it is evident in road cars the future is not for V8’s as modern engines of smaller and smaller volume can outrun the larger ones of the past. F1 has to be dynamic and very progressive in order to stay ahead and to keep attracting viewers and racing with dinosaur engines is not the way to go.

    Imagine if the engine development was made absolutely free of regulations. Do you seriously think that anyone would race with heavy, complicated, gas gussling and unreliable V12 engines given todays technology and tracks? No, obviously everyone would aim for the smallest and lightest super charged engine possible because modern technology would allow more than plenty of power in that format and this is exactly what the progress in F1 should reflect!

  56. The sooner that Dinosaur becomes extinct the better, if we’re really lucky he’ll take all the other dinosaurs with him who bemoan every step forwards in cutting-edge technology.
    V10 this, V12 that. Stop living in the past, commercial relevance and applications is the main driving force now.

    You have 2 options when dealing with progress:
    1. Embrace it and find ways to bend it to your will.
    2. Resist it and become crushed beneath it.

    I want to see more KERS, hybrids, 3rd gen biofuels and hyper efficiency.

    And as a Motorsport Engineering student I’m perfectly poised to embrace this glorious future!

    Bye Dinosaurs!

    1. Why are you not keen to see KERS and other green technology in Touring Cars, or DTM, after all those are much more closer to road cars and there is a direct relationship between Touring car racing and commercial relevance.
      As far as I’m concerned if you are watching F1 you are following the wrong sport to further your motorsport career.

  57. As long as it’s same for all – who cares which type of engines they use?

    Is it lame to run 4 cyls in F1? Yes ok, but how cool is it to run 13″ wheels? People will get used to anyting as long as the sport remains a fair competition between the best.

    What Bernie says in media never makes any sense. He only opens his mouth to gain medias’ attention and thus promote the F1 brand.

    The sound is not an argument. As long as they don’t use silencers – there will always be tremendous noice – and that’s basically what people want. The tone of it is irrellevant.

  58. I reached this five-years old discussion after following a link from a recent tire rule change article, and after reading all the comments I am amazed at how prescient most of them were, especially regarding the “beautiful noise”, and the effect the recent lack of that noise has had on many F1 fans.

    I’m equally amazed that many F1 fans can’t see the importance of great-sounding F1 engines, whether they be 4, 8, 10, or 12 cylinders. Maybe it’s a generational thing, considering that I’m an old guy, whose very first introduction to the sweet, sexy sounds of motor-racing came from vinyl recordings of the Sebring 12 hour by Riverside Records, and the Isle of Man TT races, via Sound Stories. I played those records until they wore-out, and I can still recite most of the (sparse, fortunately) dialogue. And I can still recall every wonderful exhaust note of the Ferrari 12s at Sebring, and the Moto Guzzi V8 at the TT, along with all the other great engines.

    I shudder to think of an audio recording of some modern electric-motored beast quietly whizzing by, as fast, or faster, than any internal combustion engine racer, but who really cares how quick it is if you can’t hear it and feel it in your bones? Lightning flashes are certainly spectacular, but what makes them dramatic – and wonderfully scary – is the thunder-clap.

    As far as the number of allowed cylinders goes, I would enjoy seeing no restrictions for a few years, just to see how it works out. The weight-saving benefits of modern materials might even entice some to use V12s. Turbocharging and supercharging would be allowed, with a displacement restriction. No fuel restriction, and no fuel stop restrictions. Refuel if you must, or not. Drop the “forced degradation” of tires. This would probably scare-off some tire manufacturers, but let’s see what happens.

    Yeah, I know; … I need to increase my meds. But wouldn’t it be great to see “real” racing for a change? With variety, and wonderful noise? Some will say that such a formula would bring on domination by one team, but that’s what we have now, even with all the supposed “field-leveling” rules trickiness.

Comments are closed.