Ferrari warns 2014 fuel limit could spoil racing

2014 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari’s head of engines Luca Marmorini says the team is concerned about the planned fuel flow limit which will come into force from next year.

The FIA confirmed on Thursday cars will have a maximum fuel limit of 100kg during races in 2014. Cars will also be limited to using no more than 100kg of fuel per hour and be fitted with an FIA fuel flow meter to ensure compliance.

“Ferrari feels this could be a danger,” said Marmorini. “We like Formula One to consider efficiency, but we don’t like Formula One to be a sport where you are cruising for 50% of the laps.”

Each manufacturer will only be allowed to homologate one engine design for 2014 to 2010. The FIA says changes will only be allowed “for installation, reliability or cost saving reasons”.

Marmorini expects the scope for alterations to the engine to decrease each year: “With a completely new power unit, some sort of development from the first to the second year has to be done.”

“The amount of modifications you can do will reduce each year, from a fair amount of modifications for the first year and then in the second and third years, the number of modifications will be reduced. By the third and fourth years we will come to a situation which is very similar to what we have right now.”

The maximum power units available per car during a season will decrease from eight to five, which Marmorini says will present a test of reliability:

“It will be difficult to run the season without issues, considering we are talking about four to five thousand kilometres per unit which is almost double what we are doing right now.”

Another challenge to keeping the unit reliable will be coping with the heat rejection of the turbocharger: “In most cases people will locate their turbos in the central rear part of the engine and therefore near the electronics and the temperatures can reach a 1,000C and that won’t be an easy matter to deal with. Managing temperatures will be one of the main areas we will have to work on.”

2014 F1 season

Browse all 2014 F1 season articles

Image © Ferrari/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.

88 comments on “Ferrari warns 2014 fuel limit could spoil racing”

  1. Traverse (@)
    2nd July 2013, 11:46

    I agree with Ferrari. If the FIA want to be more fuel efficient and/or conserve money, they could reduce the number of practice sessions to 2 or reduce the length of races (fewer laps).

    1. It’s called fuel EFFICIENCY for a reason

      1. Traverse (@)
        2nd July 2013, 12:03

        Efficiency can be countered with conservation. If implementing efficiency measures will hamper the quality of racing, then one alternative is to implement a conservative approach, i.e reduce the number of practice sessions etc…

        1. The push for efficiency has nothing to do with cutting the amount of fuel consumed at the track.

        2. I think the goal is not to use less fuel by F1, it’s to have F1 develop new technologies of fuel efficiency that can be applied to normal vehicles

        3. Could save a lot of fuel by just not racing at all if they are that worried about fuel consumption.

      2. It’s called RACING

      3. How much of F1’s money is subsidized? Is this a play for government money?

    2. @hellotraverse I think the crucial question is how far designers will go in reducing the amount of drag their cars create so they aren’t being penalised on fuel use.

      There is obviously a temptation for designers to pile on as much downforce as possible (increasing drag and fuel consumption) because that’s they way you get lap time and pole position.

      But if a team takes that too far and has to spend half the race going slowly to save fuel (as Marmorini says) they may be incapable of keeping their rivals behind. Those rivals might have built more efficient cars with less downforce that can be driven flat-out for longer.

      So I think there is potential for some variety and unpredictability in the racing. But I also think there will be one combination of variables which works best and one team will hit upon it and probably have a significant advantage.

      1. You can still go for a high downforce design as long as the bulk of the downforce comes from the diffuser because that downforce or ground effect is virtually drag free. You can then use your wings to trim to the optimum. Red Bull should be in the box seats.

        1. You’ve hit the nail on the head here! They keep forcing the teams to use a totally flat bottom and front and rear wings for 97% of the downforce. If you let them turn the car into an upside down “lifting body” then they could greatly reduce the wings and hence drag.
          The designers complain of how expensive it would be to re-design the floor…but they sure don’t seem to have any issues spending time and money on every millimeter of the rest of the car and incredible time/expense on the front wings and how they affect flow over the rest of the car….so I’m not buying that.
          They’re just afraid Adrian will kick their butt even worse if he’s given a free hand on aero on the entire car LOL

          The real advantage of doing this would be that passing could be easier. a lifting body is not nearly as susceptible to the airflow off the leading car as front wings are! We could actually have passing without having to resort to DRS!!!

        2. I don’t think there is much scope for exhaust blown diffusers next year as i think the exhaust location is quite different

      2. team often run the weekend with different engine map i think. Quali, race and wet.

      3. Traverse (@)
        2nd July 2013, 16:51

        The problem with the 2014 fuel regs is they will encourage the reduction of expansive innovation by concentrating the bulk of design on one aspect of the car’s performance. Teams will prioritise the development of component that increase the fuel efficiency, to the detriment of components and upgrades that improve raw speed, with the focus on winning at the slowest pace possibly – expect more races like the cruise-fest that was Monaco 2013 as the focus would be on endurance rather than out-right speed.

        All of this “let’s save the planet” nonsense is taking over rational thought, which (the majority of the time) results in silly decisions being made without the overall effects being fully considered. We’ve moved from V12’s to V8’s, next year it’ll be 1.6 litre V6 engines – maybe one day we’ll have a 0 litre V-nothing and drivers will push their cars around the track, that’ll be the height of fuel efficiency! :)

        Don’t get me wrong, I respect the drive for improved efficiency (even if the word is now getting on my man-boobs!), I just don’t want it to become the main focus of what is the premier racing formula. For me, speed must be paramount! Besides, there are plenty of other aspects of F1 that could be reined in a bit to save money, such as not forcing race tracks that have perfectly sufficient pit/paddock facilities to rebuilt at a ridiculous cost, a cost that is then passed down to the good old F1 racegoer (I’m looking at you Silverstone!).

    3. @hellotraverse Instead of complaining, Ferrari could also see this as a challenge to make the most fuel efficient engine. Anyone can create an engine that outputs a ginormous amount of BHP, but it’s a great challenge to do so while still maintaining fuel efficiency. Formula 1 prides itself to be the pinnacle of motorsport; well, let’s see it happen then.

      1. Yes but his point is you don’t get there right out of the box. It’s an iterative process where you start with something then continually improve it until you get where you want to be, but the rules will not permit that process.

        1. @velocityboy True, it takes time to develop, but the maximum fuel rate is the target they need to hit. There’s no minimum power spec; they will simply have to build an engine which gives the maximum power you can reasonably get from that fuel flow limit with the added technology. I mean, that’s the challenge isn’t it. There’s no point in building an engine that can run at 800bhp but only for ten laps then needs to be turned down to 500 to make sure you don’t run out of fuel. You’re better off building something with an average amount of power, that’ll allow the driver to actually drive as hard as they can in the race.

          I agree that it’s stupid not to allow continual development, but then you’ll just end up with scary sums of money being spent by the top people, and everyone else being disadvantaged. That’s why they stopped it in the first place. Plus let’s face it, these engines have been on the cards for several years already. If the teams and Ecclestone could have stopped their pathetic little squabbles and thought about the bigger picture,t hey could have got the engine formula set years ago, giving them plenty of time to develop the technology to a mature level before it ever hit the race track. The fact they haven’t is simply a result of their own inability to come to an agreement. As usual in F1…

      2. Unfortunately the pinnacle of Motorsport usually come with the best performances best drivers and best tracks, in the case of the NEW f1 those factors are slowly but surely disappearing so the SHOW can be more accessible to new markets and SALE more stuff…. Long gone are the days of different engines configurations and when be a good driver would still guarantee you a seat. Let s race a bunch of hybrids a bit slower…. Would it still be fun?

    4. @hellotraverse You miss the point entirely.

      If the FIA want to be more fuel efficient and/or conserve money, they could reduce the number of practice sessions to 2 or reduce the length of races (fewer laps).

      The point isn’t to just burn less fuel during the race. The point is to create an engineering challenge for the teams and for the engine providers. The point is to open the door for new, innovative ideas. To shift the focus from aero development to other areas.

      I think guys at Ferrari know that their argument is bogus. Racing and fuel efficiency are not mutually exclusive, and it might be the key to some new, exciting and road relevant technologies. They know the amount of fuel and they know their job. That job is to create a racing car, not a cruiser. To create a car that goes around the track as fast as possible. We will only see cars “cruising 50% of the time” if teams fail, and if they fail they’ll become back-markers. That’s what they’re afraid of. Personally, I love this uncertainty.

  2. Each manufacturer will only be allowed to homologate one engine design for 2014 to 2010.

    What exactly are the rules on engine development, are no changes for performance reasons allowed after the first race of 2014? And with fuel economy playing a crucial role, what about developments that makes the engine more efficient?

  3. Isn’t it more to do with the maximum fuel flow limit, that will force teams to run very lean for a significant proportion of each race?

    1. @magnificent-geoffrey It’s probably both and will vary from circuit to circuit.

      1. @keithcollantine Would it not be possible to vary the fuel flow rate depending on where you are on the track. I may be way off here, but the ECU could be engineered to turn off cylinders or reduce fuel flow rate in slower corners where max power is not required. Just thinking of some road cars which adjust their engine function when below a specific speed or cruising.

  4. Or the drivers could pedal the cars like kiddie karts.

    Bring back the racing!!

    1. Lucas Wilson (@full-throttle-f1)
      2nd July 2013, 12:24

      I think that the karts would monster the F1 cars that are trying to preserve their tyres.

    2. So agree, between this and this yeat tyres I´m feeling a little mad at F1 for putting itself in this situation

      1. Looks like Webber will be in a faster car than F1 next year!

  5. Setting the engines on a very lean mix does imply drivers cruising around. They can very well still be racing and pushing, even though his engine is turned down.

    1. – their engines are –

    2. petebaldwin (@)
      2nd July 2013, 12:54

      @matthijs – it all depends. If the engines simply get turned down, it could add extra strategic elements into the race. I know that teams already have systems that can monitor revs to work out what other teams are doing with engines so the FIA should make this something that is visable to spectators via the on-screen graphics.

      If it’s just a case of the drivers having to lift and any information on engine setting hidden, we’ll just be looking at cars and drivers operating at 50% for most of the race and I can’t see how that ties in with what F1 is all about.

  6. Ferrari make a fair point here to be honest. I think the added efficiency of the new engines in terms of reduced capacity plus turbos and ERS is a sensible progressive idea, and one that has encouraged a huge name back to the sport in the form of Honda. But the idea of the drivers running at 50% of the engines output for half the race to meet the fuel restrictions runs very close to the coasting around we’ve seen on this years troublesome tyres from Pirelli. I think the efficiency savings would be great enough with the factors above; but give the engines enough fuel to run at least to the levels they currently are.
    Fuel saving, and turbo boost for that matter, are not new in F1, but if there is a situation where drivers aren’t pushing we have evidence from this season, it leaves the drivers, teams, commentators and fans all unhappy with the results.

  7. Chris (@tophercheese21)
    2nd July 2013, 12:02

    While it presents a huge engineering challenge for the teams, I can’t help by but feel that Formula 1 regulations coming into place for 2014 are too radically different and too restrictive, to the detriment of the sport.

  8. If they tyres for next year are as fragile as this year’s, coupled with the increased need for fuel efficiency, as well as longer lifespan for the engines, we could have a season where drivers are creeping around in high speed Fabrege eggs. Could we see the end of each race be reduced to a procession as all drivers will need to nurse their tyres while also saving fuel? Hardly the pinnacle of motorsport if this is its future.

      1. Haha wow! I’d never even heard of that until your comment. Something to avoid most definitely!

    1. Tyres most likely wont be anywhere near as fragile as they have been this year, as Hembery said in one of the Friday press conferences (cant remember which race’s). They don’t know how the new cars will be in terms of degradation and stuff so they (whoever the supplier is next year) will almost certainly have to take a conservative approach as the compounds will have to be decided by September if I recall correctly and they simply don’t have enough data.

      On the other hand, in the light of recent events and discussion I wouldn’t be surprised if they would be going into more conservative direction next year either way.

      1. petebaldwin (@)
        2nd July 2013, 13:03

        @tmekt – after this season, Pirelli will make Bridgestone look like huge risk takers! Pirelli’s reputation is in tatters because they followed FIA instructions to make less durable tyres but weren’t allowed the time to test them. Obviously following that, they have made several bad calls that have made everything worse but the initial situation was at best, not entirely their own fault!

        I wouldnt’ expect more than 2 stops at any race next year and a much more conservative tyre structure which will eliminate tyre faliures.

        I can’t think of a single reason why Pirelli would take any risks and create a tyre that won’t last atleast half a race distance.

      2. Yeah, I guess considering the events of last weekend there will be a push for longer lasting, more conservative tyres. I wouldn’t be at all surprised however to see Bernie or some other entity controlling the sport to demand that Pirelli take another swing at artifically degrading tyres somewhere down the line so as to improve/spice up the “show”.

        All I want is the best drivers in bleeding-edge machinery, without contrived gimmicks or restraints. The tyres of the past few seasons I’ll accept as almost necessary, as could DRS in moderation. I just fear the pendulum on all of this may swing too far and really damage the sport.

  9. If they’re only allowed 5 engines per season I can already see by that by race 6 or 7 every team will be getting a grid penalty for using more than 5 engines. So how is that a saving?

  10. Formula 1 will rule itself into extinction – mark my words. This is a supposed to be a sport for God’s sake; not a R&D exercise for manufacturing companies.
    WHY do F1 engines have to be relevant to road cars? Drag racers are NOT relevant to road car, nor are rally cars (though they are “based” on them). Why the need to drive fuel efficiency in a sport that is based on racing? And is is limiting fuel use the best way to achieve this? Or course max rpm WILL suffer, speed WILL down. The fuel deficit will have to cost something.
    Is this madness or what? Do you see sprinters trying to conserve the most enegy whilst running as fast as they can in order to break a world record?? Or tennis players attempting to use the least energy expenditure to serve up an ace? Even boxers are vehemently criticised when they dance around not fighting as they try to conserve enegy. A sport is supposed to test limits, and bring out extraodinary performances. This TAKES energy, and attempting to conserve this energy simply undermines the original goal. Madness.

  11. The answer really lies in a well engineered cars running a very highly developed adaptive engine management system. The drivers could easily be able to push the car flat out, while the engine management is carefully metering the ERS, turbo, and fuel use to give the maximum efficiency, while operating within the maximum fuel flow parameters. If the technology is doing all of that behind the scenes, then it doesn’t matter one bit to the spectator who will simply see a car being pushed flat out. It doesn’t imply lift and coast, it simply means that the engines won’t be operating at peak power for the whole race. But then, they don’t at the moment anyway, it’s just that because the engine management is currently very basic, in order to save fuel they have to ask the driver to drive around the problem, rather than letting the management sort it out.

    And of course, an engine management system like that would be directly applicable to road cars, so the scope for development is massive.

  12. Cars aren’t running at 100% all the time now either.
    But, to be able to assess this message from Ferrari, we’d need to know the points from Honda, Mercedes and Renault as well. If they don’t share this comment, it could be Ferrari that’s in trouble.
    But on the other hand, this message could well be an attempt to make the other engine suppliers show their hand by commenting on it.

    1. If they don’t share this comment, it could be Ferrari that’s in trouble.

      That’s exactly what I thought at first, to be honest I don’t think next year we will see a 2011-style domination from one team, but I do expect an engine to be uncompetitive compared with the other two.

    2. Exactly, Ferrari are worried about this yet were defending the decision to retain these tyres which definitely don’t allow drivers to push for the race distance? Hypocrites.

  13. The amount of fuel used by the cars on track is a drop in the bucket compared to what it takes to get the teams to and from the venues. Aircraft, motor homes, trucks, etc. use vastly more fuel than the race cars. This is all sleight of hand to distract attention from reality.

    1. @henslayer

      I really don’t understand why people make comments like this. The push for greener engines has nothing to do with making the sport of F1 less demanding of the world’s resources. It’s about driving forward technology. Motorsport has always been the place from which development leaks down to road cars. Some of the technology required to make these engines work literally didn’t exist when the engine formula was proposed, and yet the technology which has been developed can be used by auto manufacturers the world over to improve the efficiency of their engines. It’s about F1 reclaiming its spot as the pinnacle of engineering excellence, and getting away from an engine formula which is decades out of date. Yes, aircraft, motor homes, trucks, etc, use vastly more fuel than the race cars. But thanks to the technology being developed in F1 right now, all of those modes of transport can become more efficient in the future. Because nowhere outside of motorsport is there the resource, the engineering talent, and the sheer desire to push the envelope as far as it can possibly go.

      1. @mazdachris

        There’s a name for what you’re looking for – pixie dust. It’s a bit too much, naive even, to expect any meaningful breakthrough on combustion engines 130 years after they came into existence simply because a single sport have to go around with less fuel flow. Specially with all the electronics modern engines have also to power… hell, subcompact cars from 50 years ago are matched by today’s offerings on fuel consumption. The only thing I could think of is lighter, more resistant materials – but then again, cars are getting heavier.

      2. Oh really? Then why are they going to freeze development of the new engines (phased in over time of course)? If they had true interest in innovation the teams would be free to make their power trains better year on year as long as they stayed within the rules. This is just lip service from a bunch of people that ride around in supercharged V12 Bentley limousines.

  14. F1 goes from bad to worse. My heart is in GP2

    1. @jeff1s What, with all the unnecessary crashes??

      1. @wsrgo F1, with all the unnecessary politics! After 18 years watching every race from 2am to 11pm, I’m sometimes fed up with F1, even though I can’t wait for another GP.

        I love the racing combat in GP2/3, of course there are mistakes, drivers are learning. But the action is great and there is no dirty tricks there.

        1. Traverse (@)
          2nd July 2013, 21:25


      2. @wsrgo Have you seen the last race…? I still can’t figure out how were those 4 tire explosions necessary. I’m almost grateful that happened, as the race was pretty boring until rubber started flying around (which is really sad, actually).

        1. @theseeker Actually I had an exam, so I missed the last race. Of course, I got to know later on what happened.

  15. I know its a different formula, But back in the 80s when the Group C regulations were introduced for the World Sportscar Championship which included fuel usage restrictions a lot of people were calling it the death of sportscar racing & that drivers woudl have to run slowly watching fuel all race.

    However Group C ended up becoming the most popular era for sportscar racing & it was when the regulations changed to 3.5ltr N/A V10 engine’s with no fuel restrictions that it began to decline.

    Pretty sure the Indycar’s also have fuel flow restrictions this year & that hasn’t hurt the racing at all, Its better than its ever been.

  16. keith, do you have a time machine to turn 2014 back to 2010??

    1. Id go back another 20 years or so….

      1. 60 years if you’d ask me

        1. @andae23 Na, too many drivers were dying around that time. I wouldn’t want to turn on the tv for fear of seeing a death…

  17. I wonder what Christian Horner thinks about this? I’d expect him to know better than Ferrari’s engine boffin.

    1. @tomsk Er..why exactly?

    2. Ferrari just worry they will not able to overtake Renault powered Cars anymore.

  18. With the reduction of fuel consumption, there is also a proposal to increase the KERS capacity isn’t? We will anyway see a huge difference in the speed trap from next year.

    Keith, do we expect to see a reduction in the # of laps for tracks such as Bahrain or Spa?

  19. Can’t help but feel that there should be a maximum fuel load limit, but no minimum, and any fuel you opt to not use comes off your minimum car weight restrictions. Meaning – yes you can choose to use less fuel, if your engine is capable of being efficient enough to get to the end of the race, you reap the rewards of a lighter car.

    1. I don’t believe there is any minimum fuel level. In fact, teams get in trouble when they anticipate a wet race because they put in less fuel knowing the average speed would be slower. If it surprises them and dries out, you’ll start hearing the panicked radio transmissions to the drivers like: “Lewis, we need you to conserve fuel!” LOL Happens all the time.

      1. Yeah, so they could have afforded to keep a little room in the higher end with the maximum instead of the 100kg, 120 or something, so that the changes weren’t so drastic?

  20. Is everyone at Ferrari called Luca?

  21. “but we don’t like Formula One to be a sport where you are cruising for 50% of the laps.”
    A bit late for that, I believe. It sounds really stupid to me that the pinnacle of motor racing is worried about fuel consumption. I also find it ridiculous that the cars today are slower than the cars 10 years ago (in a sport that should be constantly improving), even with KERS, DRS the controversial Pirelli tires. And now, FIA wants to make the cars just a bit slower…At this rate, F1 cars will be competing in the Tour the France until 2030, probably having trouble getting past those damn bikes.
    Why dosen’t FIA just let the teams use some V12’s, add the ERS unit, allow multiple tires suppliers, draw up some decent regulations, allow testing, allow in-race refueling, encourage R&D, encourage inovations and let the hippies and the bakers worry about fuel consumption or high costs…? (Or at least 2-3 of those)
    (FIA must be short for Frustration Ingenuity Agency)

    1. Actually, you might have noticed that Lewis got the all time lap record at Sliverstone last weekend on his pole setting lap.
      You’re confusing the whining of the teams with reality. If you’ll go back and look at the all time record laps for most tracks, you’ll see that they are within a second of those times this year and starting to surpass them. Had they stayed with the 2013 regulations for another year, I think they would have found enough improvements to break records at most tracks.

      1. @daved. Lewis now holds the pole lap record at Silverstone and the new lap record was set by Mark Webber, also during last weekend’s race. That’s because the cars now run on a new track layout, quite different from that in the early 2000’s, due to the large changes done in 2010.
        Let’s talk about those lap records a bit (official records; those set during races). Best time on Albert Park is 1:24.125, set by Schumacher in 2004, while the 2013 best lap was 1:29.274, set by race winner Kimi Räikkönen…that’s over 5 seconds apart. Another example: at Circuit de Catalunya the lap record is Räikkönen’s 1:21.670, from 2008, while this year’s fastest lap was set by Esteban Gutierrez, at 1:26.217. Sure, we may find some circuit where this difference is around 2 seconds, like Monaco, but the length of the circuit is also important.
        I know the 2004 cars were so fast due to the permissive rules and the constant development of the tires (as the tires war was still on back then) and the V10 engines. But, by now, I thought those lap records would be smashed, along with the top speed records. If FIA would allow real R&D and innovations, today’s cars could do (maybe) 380 km/h (without flying off the track, of course) while lapping any circuit a few seconds faster then F1 cars did 10 years ago. I believe you understand my frustration. I am for progress, but what’s planned right now for F1 seems more like regress.

        1. I agree with you about them allowing R&D to make things better, but quite disagree with you on lap times. For example, you mention Albert Park…the Pole record there was set in 2011 by Vettel and I’ll look at that over any 2013 race lap records.
          Why? Because during the 2013 season, teams spend their laps “looking after tires”, not racing all out. The drivers will tell you that they’re not remotely going all out on race laps now. The only time they go full out is with a worn set of tires on their in-lap before they box and get a fresh set of rubber. And seeing as those laps are on worn tires and they don’t cross the start finish line…we don’t even know how fast they’re going.
          But again, I’ll 100% agree with you about them allowing innovation. Imagine if they let them use DRS anywhere they wanted, allowed double diffusers, allowed shaped floors rather than flat floors for down force? Imagine if they allowed them to use as much KERS as they wanted instead of putting limits on it. Let the teams decide the best tradeoff between KERS weight vs. power and energy storage.
          I now they have to trade off between cost and R&D which makes F1 the “most advanced racing machines on the planet” but right now, they’ve got the formula wrong in my opinion.

          1. @daved. It seems we’ve agreed somehow. My point wasn’t that today’s cars are simply slower than the cars 10 years ago, but that today’s cars could be faster. If the teams would be allowed to do proper R&D and bring innovations and if the engine suppliers would be allowed to develop their engines (I still don’t get why FIA keeps freezing engine development), maybe things would be different. Your conclusion is my original point, the formula is wrong right now and it might be more wrong, from 2014 on.

        2. I see your point…I think we’re in “violent agreement” then. :-)

          I’m responding here rather than to your last comment so it will alert you that I posted a response.

  22. Fuel limit is one of my most anticipated changes. I’m just a bit disillusioned that it doesn’t go hand in hand with more open engine regulations, like in endurance sportcar’s FIA WEC rulebook.

    1. Completely agree.

  23. Sergey Martyn
    2nd July 2013, 20:31

    Does Bernie show the signs of dementia or want to make the sport regulated more strictly than North Korea food rationing?
    Why bother with half measures like fuel liimits?
    Impose the speed limits, give the radars, whistles and bobby’s hats to stewards and ask Pirelli to make tyres which blow at 50 mph.
    Replace carbon fibre chassis by recycled plastic bottles, but again this is a half measure!
    Just replace the fans of racing by housewives and you can regulate the “sport” with whatever stupidity that comes to mind – traffic lights, stop signs and speed cushions.
    It’s time to either become a housewive or quit watching F1 after 21 years.

    1. I’m really annoyed, you are making me defend Bernie. This time it is not Bernie (he wants all engine development frozen forever with what we have now) to blame but entirely the FIAsco.

  24. I think we need to stop pretending to live in a world in which only the MOST EXTREME OF ALL DESIGNS is considered to be valid racing. If F1 regulations changed the sport in to a pinewood derby, F1 drivers would be just as competitive about winning in that formula as this one.

    These regulations are the perfect engineering challenge: You can build any engine you want so long as it’s a 1.6L 90 degree V6, it has a turbo and an ERS system, and it consumes no more than X amount of fuel. Go.

    Racing has always, and will always, involve strategy, luck and conservation in some form or another. I’ve railed against the tires, and I know that sounds like hypocrisy, but the problem with the tires is that Pirelli are effectively competing against the teams, for the good of the sport. I find this extremely frustrating. I find it more frustrating that they don’t seem to be especially good at it. The tires and mandated, they lord over the sport.

    When the manufacturers are turned loose to solve an engineering problem with their own tools/resources, in competition with the other teams, we should be standing up an applauding them because that’s what being “the pinnacle” of motorsport is all about. Not how much gas your engine can inhale.

    1. Sergey Martyn
      2nd July 2013, 22:02

      we should be standing up an applauding them because that’s what being “the pinnacle” of motorsport is all about.

      All the probems (engineering and many others) are solved and people applaud:

      regulations are the perfect engineering challenge: You can build any engine you want so long as it’s a 1.6L

      This reminds me Ford T:
      “Any customer can have a car painted any colour that he wants so long as it is black. ”
      but for me who lived half of my life behind the Iron Curtain, it reminds some other regulations and challenges – you can vote for any party as long as it is Soviet Communist Party, you can voice any opinion as long as it is approved by Soviet censorship etc.

      IMHO the true engineering challenge is when there are less regulations and restrictions.
      AND THEN if some 1.6L turbo David will beat 5.0L V12 Goliath on track it will make MUCH more impact on people than North Korea style uniformity with FIA flow meters and other handcuffs.

      As they wrote in Soviet newspapers:

      Long last the new restrictions and regulations!
      Prolonged and standing ovation, deafening and enthusiastic applause!

      1. Bravo Sergey, if the amount and rate of fuel burned is the limiting factor why do we need any other restriction let alone a vitual one-design such as these rules dictate. How long before a single manufacturer supplies identical unbranded complete engine assemblies to all teams, which is what MadMax Mosely wanted all along.

  25. If you go back and look at all the predictions of doom and gloom when F1 went from V12s and V10s to V8’s, it was the same whining about how the cars would be slower, the racing would be no good, the fans would all leave, the world was ending and the apocalypse was upon us.
    Well, none of that materialized and the end of the world won’t happen this time either. You can’t ignore that an extra 120kW and the instant torque from an electric motor and 10 times the energy storage…you can have that boost for over 30 seconds a lap instead of 7 seconds! This not your father’s KERS. LOL

    1. It’s not about lap-times, it’s about being able to build a better engine than any-one else.

  26. “Cruising” is guaranteed.

    The TR allow a maximum of 100 kilos of fuel mass flow per hour.
    The fuel tank only can hold 100 kilos of fuel.

    You do the math. How much full-throttle racing can you expect from a 100-kilo fuel tank when the ECU will deliver 100 kilos/hour at full throttle?

  27. It looks like Ferrari are not in very good position with the engine development. Renault already presented theirs, if it’s not just a model. Given that Ferrari and Mercedes are the only teams that make their own engines they have a bigger job ahead.

    1. It’s not about Ferrari being worried about their engine, given how tight the specifications are the engines will be virtually identical in design and potential power, Briggs and Stratton could build one.

      1. The engine may be restricted but the KERS will be more powerful and at least for the 2014 season the team that get the engine-KERS combination right will be at the front. Probably similar to the year when KERS was introduced and some teams had a better solution than others. Red Bull had issues with their KERS for a long time.

  28. Keith, I would be very interested in reading a very personal article from you where you give us your opinions on the current shape of F1 and the planned changes to come in the next couple of years. What do you like? What don’t you like? What would you change if you had carte blanche?

Comments are closed.