Honda RA616H power unit, 2016

FIA plans higher power, lower cost for next F1 engines

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: The FIA wants F1’s next engines to produce more power than the current ‘900-1000bhp’ units while costing less.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

Who else likes the sound of Formula One and IndyCar sharing a billing?

Man, I would love to see an IndyCar/F1 weekend at the same circuit, how cool would that be? And it would be major publicity in the US for F1.
@Maciek

There’s still time to join in this weekend’s Caption Competition – enter here now:

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Majormilou, Nico Savidge, Ripping Silk, Christopher and Nic Morley!

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

On this day in F1

Jack Brabham was born on this day in 1926.

Author information

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

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

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

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

  • 106 comments on “FIA plans higher power, lower cost for next F1 engines”

    1. So…you’re going to make the engines louder so everyone will shut the hell up. Got it. That’s all you had to say.

      1. I thought

        a desire to allow drivers to drive harder at all times

        was the best bit, although I’ve never been concerned about the noise. I’m more concerned with how much of the race the drivers can attack for, than how they sound while doing it, and if they can push closer to the limit for longer, I’d be happy.
        The only other big change I’d want to see is opening up the hybrid and battery systems so teams could harvest, store and use more energy. The advances in thermal efficiency over the last few years has been amazing (not sure why F1 hasn’t been shouting about that), it would be great to see them pass 50%, and give the drivers more power to play with. Although that probably won’t help make them cheaper, not that I believe they’ll ever become cheaper, they’ll probably just lower the cost cap for customer teams to save them a few £million a season.

        1. Yes, if they were trying to let the drivers race hard all the time, I think they’ve achieved that goal with the better tyres that don’t fall off after 10-12 laps. As for the fuel, most teams are not even filling up all the way anymore in ANY of the races. It’s simple math to calculate that the extra weight in the fuel costs you time and the engines are so efficient that they’re not going to get enough extra power by adding the extra fuel and gunning it to make up the extra weight over a race distance. That’s not me speculating, that is a fact based on what every team has said over the last 2 years.

          I TOTALLY agree with you on the hybrid bits. If they’re going to let them try to improve lap time now, why are they not letting them harvest more and improve the power output on the electric motors. It would be rather easy to add another ~33% from the specs they had laid out 2-3 years ago. Why not add another 60KW on the electric bits? That would easily put Mercedes and Ferrari well over the 1000bhp number that is so sexy to everyone. And with the wider tyres and higher downforce, they could even handle the torque better on acceleration. It would be fun to see and would do more for lap times than anything else they could do right now.

          1. I am with both of you there too @daved, @beneboy. The tyres seem to really make it possible to push. Now we need the drivers to just do that.

            And yes, let teams try to work on the hybrid elements to see how they can get even more energy out of that fuel! I think Formula E shows that this would be something that is interesting enough for many manufacturers AND F1 teams themselves, but also that the up front investments are not quite as limiting as those for the CE part of the engine. So it would potentially even bring in more interested parties.

        2. or get rid of the current fuel flow limits, remove the hybrid and let the teams explore the turbo boost and higher revs that are currently restricted.

          1. Yes and lets go living back in caves. Staying with this engine formula the costs becomes less every year. The best option thay could is unlimit harvesting and electric power deployment see what the engineers can do, this will subsequentialy make the cars more efficient leaving fuel to make more power . Rules should be 1.6 engine kers hers and fuel allowance limit , what you can do from it is in your hands 3cyl single turbo or v8 twinturbo. F1 is to showcase what is humanly and technologicaly possible. In that freedom you could get more road relevant tech. Most new small cars come with 1.6 4cyl turbo engines. Costs ar only a problem for costumers. Just set a max fixed price that can be asked for 1engine…

            1. Is that really all that F1 is for? I feel that most people, myself included, tend to morph F1 into what they need it to be to suit their argument

          2. Yeah and while we’re at It reintroduce front Engines, suits of armour and make the Teams set up shop in caves. But you’ll have to give up your phone and big flat telly if you insist on living in the past.

      2. you have no respect for motorsport fans. why do you think people love v8s in road cars? why do Harley Davidson riders like open pipes? why do people go to watch drag racing? why did people love the v12-v10 era of f1?? SOUND- it is an important aspect in the entertainment part of f1. not everyone is an armchair expert analyising every aspect of the front wing and working out what each flap does, there are others that just want to watch a good entertaining show… and that is visual and audio. get it yet?

        1. I don’t like V8 in cars, I like electric cars and believe me, I’m a real motorsport fan. The sound level of the cars have nothing to do with how good the racing is.

        2. I’m a motorsports fan and I didn’t find what he said disrespectful.

          Sure everyone wants to watch a good entertaining show, but the current hybrid engines is not the reason why the shows not entertaining.

          So here’s two my question to you…

          1- Say we had loud screaming V12/10/8s engines and big grippy tires, but the races are still processional and cars still can’t follow closely or pass due to the heavy turbulence, would still be happy because the cars had the engines and sounds louder?

          2- what if they retained the current PU’s and we had races every weekend like what we saw in Bahrain 2014 up & down the grid, would you be happy?

          1. Couldn’t agree more.

            Sound is a problem because races aren’t good. As soon as we have good races week in week out, no one will care about it.

            Other thing that I don’t understand is. If F1 has screaming engines you will have to wear ear plugs at the track. More noise just to muffle it? What’s the point?

            1. People who have been to the races says the engines are very loud. However the reason why that doesn’t resonate through the tele, is purely down to the positioning of the trackside mics.

              Personally, I don’t have a problem with the sound and I know people would’ve not noticed them had the racing been better. Who noticed them in Bahrain 2014? Who noticed it when Seb won in Singapore 2015? Who noticed it when the Red Bulls were duking it out in Malaysia last year? No one. But the moment we have a few drab and boring races, we start to hear what I believe is just pure nonsense.

              They talk about the engines being too complicated and not fit for purpose… really? If we consider the amount of work that one PU has to do over a race weekend compared to when teams had one engine for practice, one for qualifying and one for the race, these hybrids a bloody brilliant!!!

              But this is what happens when the sports previous overlord starts to thrash his own product. As the original post mentions, whys no one talking about how efficient they are? Mercedes I believe is very close to achieving a 50% efficiency ratio (that’s if they haven’t already). But people are stuck in there ways and refuse to move with the winds of change.

              If the PU’s are too complicated, then what about the suspension? What about the gearboxes?

              The PU’s are being used as a scapegoat by everyone because the action on track is very poor. You want to change that? Then reduce the dependency on aero, simplify the front wings, give them better tires, you do that, then surely things will improve.

              Oh and instead of listening to engineers, how about getting the drivers input before making all these rule changes? I mean, they’re the one strapped into these things, so they’re the ones more qualified to say what they’d like to improve the racing.

          2. Kgn11, I have to agree that, if anybody is being disrespectful here, it is kpcart for lashing out at the original poster.

            A lot of the time, it feels that what people want is an idealised version of what they thought that F1 was like in their childhood, even though what they seem to be chasing is a fantasy.

        3. That’s ok.

          Lots of other stuff for you to watch instead.

          Why come on here moaning about our stuff?

      3. I totally agree. Today’s F1 cars sound perfect. You can watch F1 live without hearing protection and the sound level is very pleasing.

      4. Todt said current engines are to complex and expensive but no rwturn to v10 or v12. Somethings got to give. This hybrid tech is complex and expensive. Wonder what a 3 litte v12 reving to 20000 rpm could achieve nowadays?

        Hybrid was to attract manufacturers but still only have 4 like the end of the v8 days. Renault and Honda wanted the current tech but I bet they would not mind going back to old style engines as they have not looked great in this era. They have scratched the hybrid itch now they can go back and use formula e for the electric bit.

        1. They are complicated because of the rules restricting them on what they can and cannot do. Just let manufacturers develop the sort of hybrid they want instead of mandating certain parameters for combustion and eletric. Keep the total fuel amount if they feel it is necessary but give them some freedom. One day we might see total elitric cars, or hydrogen or whatever works best.

        2. Wonder what a 3 litte v12 reving to 20000 rpm could achieve nowadays?

          With or without refueling?

          1. Without like the early 90’s. I am playing devils advocat because I like the current engines. The previous V8’s sounded awful all noise no quality. V10’s and V12’s were great but given v8 or current emgines I would take the current engines.

    2. That would be great if IndyCar and F1 had races at the same weekend at the same circuit; and it would have to happen at COTA or Indianapolis; there aren’t any other circuits over here that have the required FIA Grade 1 status. Watkins Glen, VIR, Road America, Sonoma, Daytona, Homestead-Miami, Road Atlanta, Laguna Seca, Sonoma or Long Beach couldn’t do that.

      1. Or Montreal or the AHR. IndyCar does not have any races in Mexico, so…

    3. So, Lance Stroll is the Donald Trump of racing now? “People hate me because I’m so great and they’re jealous”. “Just because my daddy is super rich and bought me everything is no reason for people to hate me”. “I’m the best driver, with the best instincts….oh yeah and I have HUGE hands”. LMAO!!!

      No Lance, people hate you because you’ve been on track about 10 times this year and already had 4 crashes. It’s like Maldanado and Trump had a love child = Delusional little rich boy who crashes all the time.

      1. Only been one race and he’s crashed four times, unbelievable. Watch his onboard footage in Australia and watch how he hacks at the steering wheel even on the straights. He’s basically petrified when out on track.

      2. Except that’s not what he’s saying, he’s answering a question about other drivers that haven’t made it to F1 yet.

        Obviously people who are not in Formula 1 are trying to find excuses why they are not in Formula 1… So for sure the drivers in Formula 1 have respect for each other, we know what it takes to arrive here and that obviously the drivers, who are not here, most of the time will find a way to find a reason not to be here.
        So it’s normal. I don’t think I need to spell it for you, but thats the way it is.
        Because you always going to find jealous people and people that don’t like you for the wrong reasons and that’s the way it is.

        So it looks more like a reply to a direct question that’s been clickbaited into a headline by the sub editor, rather than a comment about criticism from some fans.
        I think it’s always a good idea to wait at least a season before judging a driver, I’ve seen plenty of rookies making lots of mistakes early on, only to become decent drivers. Lance may have a rich Dad, but he’s still had to win his titles on the track, and earn his Super Licence, and while Williams certainly need the money, I can’t see them putting a driver in the car if they think he’s not good enough to be there.

        1. OK, that’s fair enough…it was kind of a baited question.

          But the fact remains that his father was able to make sure that he had more money to spend on equipment and team and everything he’d need to have every advantage at every level. He may even be a decent driver but we can’t tell as he’s always had a bit of an advantage or at least as much of one as you can have in spec series.

          His driving to date has been terrible. It may be early nerves, but he’s not showing the signs of a great young driver who simply drives the wheels off finding the limits their first year or two. It’s more like his nerves make him choke and make mistakes. Just my opinion at this point, but I’m not impressed so far and think there are other drivers who deserved the seat more than he does.

          1. So for sure the drivers in Formula 1 have respect for each other, we know what it takes to arrive here

            But thats just it with him… his dad’s money is the reason he made it into F1. His dad’s money is also the reason he always had the best material in the Jr formula. In F3 he was the only one who had his car benig run in a windtunnel and who had private tests run for him.

            Heck, even prior to this season his dad hired the entire Sepang circuit and had the Williams 2014 car + crew flown to Malaysia for a private test for his son…. Lance is not primarily in F1 because he did the hard part. He’s there primarily because of his dad.

            Now he has to prove himself and so far it isn’t going great. It might get better though.

            1. He was also testing in Barcelona over the Christmas holidays. If memory serves me correctly, he tested at 8-10 of the current circuits.

            2. JeffreyJ, do you have a credible and verifiable source for those claims?

              It seems that, as time goes by, the list of claims about Stroll and his Formula 3 days become ever larger and more elaborate, to the point where I have to question their veracity.

              Firstly it was just claims that Williams engineers were helping him set up his suspension, then it grew into claims that they were then manufacturing aero shrouds for his suspension and now it has grown to claims that the entire car was being put into a wind tunnel (especially as there are aspects of that claim which I am not convinced about).

              It does seem to be snowballing rather rapidly, yet whilst I’ve seen posters repeat those claims, I’ve never seen anybody link to the source of those claims or provide evidence to support their argument. It’s just that, at times, it feels like those same comments are being circulated amongst fans who want those claims to be true because it would fit their perception of Stroll, rather than questioning whether the story is actually likely to be true.

              (Please note, I don’t mean this to be a personal criticism of yourself – it’s just that you happened to behave similarly to a number of other posters here).

            3. @anon16 Yes I have a source for that:

              Auto Motor Und Sport http://www.auto-motor-und-sport.de/formel-1/lance-stroll-2017-bei-williams-das-vorbereitungsprogramm-778169.html

              His dad bought the F3 Prema Power team (already the top team in the series), had it run in the windtunnel for many hours (F3 doesn’t use windtunnels at all normally), he was the #1 driver in the team which means his teamates were forced to share their setup info etc and weren’t allowed to ovetake him.

              His dad failed to buy the Sauber F1 team and bought his son a $35m seat at williams. Then he paid for a test crew of 20 williams employees and 5 mercedes employees to test at various circuits.

              There’s more out there on this but tbh I don’t feel like spending time to search stuff for you that you can easily find yourself as well.

        2. Thing is – they aren’t jealous of your achievements, your talent, your abilities or anything else that is relevant to you being a good F1 driver.

          They are simply jealous that having worked twice as hard and despite being twice as good, you get the seat because daddy paid for it.

    4. Future of Power units/engine:
      Should FIA ditch the hybrid or retain it?

      In my opinion, retain the turbo engines, remove all Ers and battery. Introduce Variable geometry turbo and add 2 more cylinder.
      We can have a 2.4 litre V8 turbo with KERS. probably produce more than 1000hp.

      1. Ohhhh. KERS and no battery. Tell me more!

      2. I think the FIA should simplify things and just ensure all the cars use the same fuel flow restrictions, and try to keep the same engine count as now (4 per year), and leave the actual power unit configuration and size to the team. Or maybe they could give a range of options and again leave the actual configuration to the teams. For example Toyota produced a 2.4 litre powered hybrid system for some racing series a few years ago, which might have F1 potential, so why couldn’t the FIA open up the engine size range to say 1.6 litres through to 2.4 litres? If the fuel flow restrictions are the same then the power output from the engine should be almost the same.

        1. @drycrust, you are probably thinking of Toyota’s WEC campaign, although Toyota have only introduced that engine recently (in their 2016 Toyota TS050).

          Equally, why are you assuming that the power output of the engine would remain unchanged if you increased the engine capacity? Are you assuming that the efficiency of the engine and the combustion process would remain unaltered despite significantly altering the shape of the combustion chamber?

        2. Except the two extra cylinders (with all their associated valvetrain parts) would have additional frictional losses and additional weight over a V6 – so why would anyone do that? If you were to open up the regs, you might end up with a 2.4 litre twin-turbo V-twin 2-stroke diesel. It’s simpler, cheaper, lighter and highly fuel efficient, so it could be the perfect choice. Of course, some people wouldn’t like the exhaust sound…

    5. Considering the apparent animosity that there used to be between Mark Webber and Sebastian Vettel, it’s good hearing this type of statement.

      As a former team mate to Vettel, he know how he drIves and how he thinks, the statement itself is perhaps one of the more telling factors that the Ferrari is a potential winning car this season. Time I am sure will tell…

      1. I don’t know how Webber knows of Vettel’s driving when driving an noncompetitive car. He has been VET’s teammate only when they had competitive cars.

        1. Beginning of 2012

          1. Beginning of 2012……

            Really? I’d say check the results for the opening rounds of the season. And in truth, no one team dominanted the beginning of that season.

            1. What does one team dominating or not have to do with another team being competitive or not? The fact is the RB8 was not as competitive as the RB6, RB7 or RB9 at the beginning of the season.

        2. But of course, you know everything about Vettel’s driving in an uncompetitive car having never been a part of Vettel’s team ever.

      2. @maddme, I had the impression from the reports at the time and Webber’s subsequent autobiography that he didn’t have that bad a relationship with Vettel per se. It was more that he had a poor relationship with Marko, and at times Marko seemed to be using Vettel as a way of getting to Webber (as well as being pretty unashamedly biased in Vettel’s favour).

    6. …..FIA plans higher power, lower cost for next F1 engines….

      Here we go again.

      1. To be fair. The V6T hybrids were introduced because the FIA wanted F1 to look more eco friendly. Yes they also wanted them to cost less than the V8’s but that wasn’t the main target.

    7. The problem with having F1/Indycar race on the same circuit over the same weekend is that it would highlight the fact that Indycar’s are quite a bit slower than F1.

      The issue with that is that Indycar is trying to push itself as a top category with high performance, Fast cars (Hence why they were looking at going after the IMS speed records). Putting them up against cars that are going to be significantly faster & really highlight the areas where Indycars are lacking will do nothing to help Indycar.

      It’s a similar reason why you don’t see Formula E race on existing circuit layouts, They don’t want a laptime/performance comparison to be possible as it would highlight how slow those cars are compared to existing categories that it’s trying to be seen as above (F3 for example). They could easily run the full Monaco & Long Beach circuit layouts but don’t as they would be significantly slower than what F1/F2 & Indycar/Indy Lights do at those circuits so they run modified shortened layouts where performance comparisons are difficult.

      1. Theres no illusion that Formula E cars are fast. They have modified track layouts which favors their energyharvest and easens the burden on the engine so they can get away with using only two cars per race to get to the finishline.

        1. @rethla
          They may not be that fast, but they certainly looked fast around Mexico just now. In some of the shots they looked faster than F1 does at a lot of circuits, and also quite exciting. When the wife (her only interest in motorsport is Jenson Button, actually just his face and bottom) looked up from her book she commented that it was an unusually exciting F1 race.
          I think that’s a good reason for using the layouts they do use, they’re well suited to the cars, and help them look faster to the inexperienced viewer.
          The speed itself doesn’t bother me, tonight’s race was much more exciting and interesting than anything F1 has delivered since returning to Mexico, and the series is getting better all the time. And as you say, those who know are under no illusion that they are really fast.

          1. I’ve noticed from the few FE races I’ve seen that the tracks, generally being inner city street circuits, are not very wide. Many Indycar street circuits are also narrow, creating the illusion of speed.

          2. @beneboy FE is like watching junior football. Sure its going fast back and forth and looks exiting for newcomers but thats because neither of the teams can play and the ball is just bouncing randomly with people chasing after it.

            1. You only watch La Liga and hate EPL?

            2. @ruliemaulana i dont watch football but i thought you brits wouldnt understand an hockeyreference so i winged it.

            3. @rethla
              In that case, F1 is like Serie A, loads of overpaid and underperforming stars wasting too much time trying to con the referee instead of playing to win, and very little of interest on show to attract casual fans.

    8. I think it would be a shame for F1 to move away from the current engine format because volume aside the current power units are fantastic bits of kit & are far more interesting from a technical perspective than what we had before.

      I’d much rather they find ways to improve aspects of what we have rather than throwing it all away & going back to what we had before just because they make more noise.

      Although to be perfectly honest I think i’m at the point where i’m not sure I really care what they do anymore.

      1. I agree.
        I think they would be better off the remove the restrictions on power-deployment, intake rates, etc, etc. Keep the 105kg/race limit, but let the teams use the fuel (and ERS) any way they see fit.

    9. Another major change in 4 years or so? They don’t learn, do they? “Lower costs ” will never be achieved if they keep changing the formula over and over again. Leave the engines alone, let them evolve. The regulations in the v10 era hardly changed in more than a decade, the same with the V8s. And it worked fine, all manufacturers were competitive by the end of each era.

      Change can be good. But constant change isn’t.

    10. Neil (@neilosjames)
      2nd April 2017, 1:25

      Mr Stroll, I feel no shame in admitting I’m jealous of anyone whose parents can afford multiple full seasons of junior karting, moves up the ladder into proper single-seaters, etc. So that covers everyone in F1 right now.

      But I don’t sit here taking the mickey out of most of them, rolling my eyes and being irked that they’re on the grid at all, because they (again, most of them) have proved beyond doubt they deserve to be there. Do the same, and you’ll be able to tick me and many other people off that long list of critics.

      (Although, maybe I’m slightly more jealous of people whose fathers buy them the best F3 team, ensure they’re the No.1 and rope in F1 engineers to help them out, so I’ll always hate you just a tiny, tiny bit, even if you turn out as good as Senna)

      1. IMO life is too short to go around hating people…

    11. Michael Brown (@)
      2nd April 2017, 2:14

      Remember when the 2014 engines were supposed to cut costs? I remember.

      RIP Caterham. Press F to pay respects.

      1. @mbr-9, in the case of Caterham, it is worth noting that when Kolles was asked to help the team out, he complained that Fernandes had been running the team as if he had been a manufacturer team, but trying to do it on the budget of a tail end team. In other words, there was a serious mismatch between Fernandes’s ambitions and what resources the team actually had to achieve those ambitions, resulting in overspending and inefficient management of resources.

        In some ways, in later years Fernandes treated the team as an extension of his airline business – for example, the sponsorship deal that he brokered with General Electric was his way of getting a discount on a new engine lease deal for Air Asia, and indeed quite a few of the sponsors that appeared on the car were other aviation specialists that agreed to a discount in component prices in return for being given advertising space on his cars.

        1. Tony Fernandes tried to run before he could walk. He thought about all the airy fairy stuff like young driver programs and 5 years down the line but he forgot sbout the nuts and bolts of the business. Similar to what he’s done at QPR

    12. With the most interesting thing in F1 at the moment being the result, Liberty have to realise that watching a race or highlights when you already know the result is not an exciting prospect. If a large audience is going to tune in after the fact then they are going to want to see cars racing in close proximity like the bikes do in MotoGP, and they are not going to want to see positions changing only in the pits, Toto might be holding his breath during the pit stop but l’m just frustrated by seeing the one on one battles end due to different strategies.

    13. Andy (@andybantam)
      2nd April 2017, 3:28

      So, the FIA call a meeting.

      Key people of the industry get out of bed and turn up.

      The outcome of which is that the future power units will be better in everyway than the current units.

      As opposed to what? A PU that’s interior in some way?

      The thing that worries me the bullet point detailing an agreement to consider the noise an engine makes. The old engines, the V10 say, sounded like they did because that’s how they sounded. The noise was a byproduct of the energy generated when a spark plug ignites a compressed mixture of air and fuel.

      The same thing is happening now but the tiny V6 engine is much more efficient. To make it louder is to, essentially, make it less efficient. This is at odds with the current development path. So, any increase in noise will be purely artificial. It’s there for the show, for us, the punters. Crafted, analysed, developed and approved, for us.

      There’s a subtle difference between something being loud by accident and something being loud because the volume got turned up. And that, for me, is the whole point.

      1. F1 needs to choose: are we primarily here to entertainment ór are we a primarily a experimental a high pressure cooker-lab for technological development?

        The later is why Ferrari wants to get involved in Formula E for example. That’s all fine but to me F1 is about entertaining us on a sunday afternoon. That’s also more or less the core business of Liberty.

        Moreover, the earo development of the cars has more to do with the aeronautic industry than road cars, so it’s really only the engines that are relevant for car manufactures.

        If F1 goes with cheat standardized N/A engines with a KERS system for ‘push to pass’ and gets consumer brands involved for advertisement it will be fine I recon.

    14. The best april’s fool is either Alonso retiring, it effectively made me skip a beat and the first news on the round up.

    15. I dont agree. Lower power, higher costs please.

      Or just give everyone the Honda engine.

      1. I was just going to say the same.

        FIA planning for higher-power less-expensive engines for the future.

        Like they would plan otherwise…

      2. Honda for everyone ? You really want 8 laps races ? :D

    16. In the US, Formula 1 is shown on NBCSN, which is in the borderline between Pay TV and free-to-air. While it’s not one of the basic channels, you can get NBCSN on lower-tier cable plans. For cord-cutters, Sling TV offers NBCSN along with a bunch of other basic cable channels like CNN and NBC, and some sports channel like Fox Sports 1 and 2, for just 25$/month, a pretty good deal given the general income here. It also has UniMas, which I believe shows the races live, uncut, in Spanish. NBCUniversal also offers a few races on NBC and CNBC, which is available at a low cost to many people. Compared to many other sports, F1 is not that expensive to follow here.

      But as a fan, I would kill for better coverage like that of Sky F1. There are just too many commercial breaks, some in crucial race moments, and the commentators take too much time promoting other sports shown on the channel. There are no pre-show or post-show, no interview of significant figures, and the commentators make a lot of mistakes. NBC even cut to commercial break during the national anthem of our one and only home race in Austin (which is a big deal if you look at how Americans react to the Super Bowl national anthem ceremony). On the contrary, none of my friends would actually pay to watch F1, because currently it’s “not a thing” in the US.

      So I think Liberty should sell 2 versions of F1 broadcasting rights, perhaps one that would prohibit channels from doing pre-shows and post-shows (although I do not know if that’s legally possible) and/or put in official F1 commercials (from Fly Emirates, Heineken, etc.) during races, and one “premium” stream. The cheaper option should be available to the mass public, and the premium version should require some commitments from die-hard fans.

    17. I think they should run F1 at the Daytona road circuit like the Daytona 24 hours, and on the same billing have the indycars run the oval.

      1. Yeah something like that makes sense. As they’d be on different tracks it wouldn’t make Indycar look slower and much more exciting exciting when compared to F1.

    18. My two cents on the engine have been the same since 2014. The new hybrid engines are quieter and a pleasure when taking you young kids to an event. I introduced my daughters to F1 live races in 2010 and the then 5 years old was confused about the excessive noise. The new engines brought relief and have become noisier since 2014 but are still quiet enough for a decent family friendly event with parents not worrying about hearing loss for their kids.

      The other strong point to keeping the hybrid engines is the push to have races in urban settings, giving the public more convenience at races and attracting new fans. Having very noisy cars running races in many cities will not sit well with residents and city noise bylaws.

      I enjoyed the very loud V8 engines but am in love with the friendly convenience and technology that the newer engines are pushing.

    19. Michael Brown (@)
      2nd April 2017, 6:28

      Talking about noise again, huh.

      The cars sound better on fan video than they do on official broadcast. This is because of the broadcasters’ mixing, which they still have not bothered to change since 2014. As a result Brundle and Croft almost always obscure the engine sound with their voices.

    20. FIA plans higher power, lower cost for next F1 engines

      This is a step backwards.

      People complaining about the (lack of) noise are a vocal minority and the cost of the current engines wouldn’t be a problem if the revenue generated in F1 was distributed more equally.

      1. @paeschli So you think VWs reluctancy to enter F1 and Renaults/Hondas struggles with getting an up to speed engine is down to uneven distrubution of the prize money?
        Interesting.

        1. @rethla, cynically, I would say it was more because the ACO effectively allowed VW to do what they wanted in the WEC – even Audi implicitly admitted that the ACO sometimes bent the rules in their favour in the past.

        2. I am against a balance of performance but maybe the FIA could give target performance figures to new manufacturers to prevent the Honda issue. Basically provide loose info based off the best engines with torque curves and power curves but adjusted by a percentage variance for new engines manufacturers in their 1st year so they have a rough idea where they should be rather than turning up and being way off the pace.

        3. @rethla No I think Renaults/Hondas struggles with getting an up to speed engine is down to sheer incompetence. Renault only started to get somewhat decent after they hired Mario Illien (but only after Red Bull insisted they do so for several months).

          The biggest problem with the current engines is the cost for the customer teams, which wouldn’t be a problem if money was distributed in a fair manner.

    21. Stroll isn’t wrong. I’m incredibly jealous. I’d love a billionaire father. I’d love to win junior formulae due to money. I’d love to be driving an F1 car. I’d love to have the F1 life. I’d love his pigheaded assurance that talent got him there. And I’d love it if people kept making excuses for my poor performance. Yeah. I’m definitely jealous.

      But Lance, your head is firmly in the sand.

      1. Summed it up perfectly. I imagine 99% of the world are jealous that everything has been handed to him.

        I’d respect him a lot more if he said “yeah it was all handed to me but let me show you how quick I am.”

    22. It’s not the engine volume that’s the problem. It’s the nature of the sound. There are plenty of quieter and lower revving road cars that sound so much better than F1 cars.

      F1 cars now have this lazy, unstressed tone to them despite revving at what would be stratospheric levels by road car standards. It’s not that they’re quiet or low revving, because there are road cars that sound glorious at lower levels. They just don’t sound angry or like they’re working hard.

      1. That’s because an F1 engine uses the exhaust gasses to a greater efficiency instead of just ketting them out via exhaust pipes. It’s basically waisted energy what you here coming out of a massarati

        1. A road car has a back box/muffler on it cutting out far more volume than an F1 turbo.

          And there are turbo road cars with both on, but the engines manage to make a tone that sounds aggressive when they’re run out.

          I suspect it’s cam profile related. I drive an S2000 and that sounds really sedate when you only use about 6k of the rev range compared to a normal engine sounding like you’re strangling it. It only comes on song once you’re on its VTEC cams.

    23. Why are the FIA talking about engines? Engines are not the problem, noise is not a problem.

      On the other hand, too much aero is a huge problem, sort that out first, it’s going to ruin this season. Listen to the drivers and do something based on facts rather than responding to the few fans who still miss getting hearing damage from a wailing, inefficient naturally aspirated gas guzzler.

    24. (Todt) was very pleased with the process, and the fact that so many different stakeholders were able to agree

      They furthermore supported world peace and the end of famine in Africa ;)
      @CaptainObvious

    25. For all those debating the FTA/pay-tv issue, do spare a thought for us Indians. We are a market that F1 wants to enter, but to watch F1 we need to subscribe to HD packages as the sport is telecast only in High-Definition. Its important to note that most F1 fans are college students who do not have HD subscription. Whats more, the broadcaster has 4 SD channels where F1 can be telecast, yet F1 is telecast only on HD!

    26. What engine format would the manufacturers land on if you gave them just the fuel flow and fuel amount limits now? Would it be a V6? Would it be less than 1.6L, more? Turbos, Superchargers? What would it rev to?

      A lot of people say we should get rid of ERS, but that is the most road relevant part of the engine, the part that can see the most development, maybe as viewers we just need to have a way to see what it is actually doing?

      The amount they are limited to on recovery per lap is 4MJ, over the race distance at Australia that’s enough to provide electricity to the average house for over a week. Is that not impressive?

      1. RicoNosberg, actually, what most people don’t realise is that the energy recovery is effectively unlimited – the MGU-K cannot recover more than 2MJ directly, but the MGU-H is unlimited and can freely transfer energy from itself to the MGU-K. That is why, in the off season, Ferrari were talking about their energy recovery systems recovering 6MJ per lap.

        With regards to what the manufacturers would do if they were given just the fuel flow and fuel amount limits, the answer is that they would probably do what they are doing now – comparatively low capacity V configuration turbocharged engines, although they would probably design them to rev to a lower rev limit (much as what we are seeing now in the WEC).

    27. We all do respect here in the United States , I’d give my right nut to stop having to watch various streaming online websites for a $800 package for all the races, pre-races, practices 1,2,3 , pre shows etc and NOT having with ZERO commercials . The onboard cameras , full SkyTV package I would honestly kill for , instead of I have settle for someone else’s feed. I want to have the at OPTION to pay $$$$$ for full package elite, platinum package, gold, and silver packages a like with regards to Formula 1 . By having a tier system , in the same way you can have different types of seating the same should be applied for watching the TV. Also, here in the united states we have these things called payment plans etc etc. Though I can not speak for any other country in the world, in the United States the SkyTV full HD everything package makes any other sport on TV jealous.

      Here in the United States till the arrival of Circuit of the Americas track in 2012 we had “SPEEDTV” it would broadcast at arbitrary times and would have an insane amount of commercials . Now we have comcast sports , again Formula1 always the bottom of pile priority as to the viewing times…..2 hours max race and then it gets cutoff.

      I want the UK SKY experience . please please take my god damn money

    28. My idea for engines. Power parity.

      Engines have to be dyno tested at the start of the season and the engine configuration is locked in for the rest of the season. Engines are allowed up to 1000hp, but any configuration and capacity is allowed. An engine manufacturer can come in and reasonably cheaply design an engine to make 1000hp, and can have cars with their engines at the front, which encourages manufacturers to stay.

      Development will be focussed on improving overall efficiency and packaging. Fuel efficiency is one of the goals of the sport in becoming more environmentally conscious, so there is alignment between these goals and those of the engineers.

      You won’t have teams doomed to be backmarkers for several years because their engine supplier can’t squeeze as much power out of their unit. Any team with a decent chassis should do well.

      For the manufacturers, they can experiment with new technologies or build engines which suit their brand. Mercedes may want a high capacity V8 with a thunderous exhaust like their AMG road cars, Ferrari might want something high revving, Renault may want 4 cylinder turbos. Others may join in because their involvement will be noticeable beyond a sticker on the air intake cowling.

      The sound will be a variety of engine noises. Being able to identify a car by ear would bring delight to many fans.

      1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        2nd April 2017, 13:42

        I’ve been writing to Charlie Whiting saying pretty much what you have. This is cotd.

      2. And how are you going to govern that power parity?
        Will you sample every litre of fuel? What about boost pressure? What about weight?
        This would be the fastest way to get the sport killed.

    29. So many changes, so little progress. Sums up the sad state the sport is in.

    30. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
      2nd April 2017, 13:40

      I think we should just forget the environmentally friendly stuff and move to a great sounding big block v8 outputting masses of power. Would sound epic. The manufacturers can put an f1 stamp on it. Leave the green credentials to Formula E.

    31. All this moaning about engines being too expensive and silent is getting old fast.
      I like the sound of these new PU’s better than the V8 whine where you had to plug your ears and couldn’t have a conversation trackside. I like the fact that these PU’s are high tech, and reaching a level where they can last 5 race weekends. OK, they are complicated, and expensive to develop, but once the developement slows down, which eventually will happen, prices will come down, and needing only 4 units a season could end up being cheaper.
      If cost and weight reducing is a key area, they should go for a 4 cylinder inline ICE, but other than that…

      1. Agreed. FIA should have mandated what essentially amounts to a spec engine. All manufacturers should have originally worked together to create a reference design. This would have dramatically reduced costs, increased rate of development and produced closer racing. Admittedly, that’s a 20/20 hindsight suggestion since we didn’t know before 2014 that there would be such a massive gap between Mercedes and everyone else, nor that Honda would struggle like a pupil that should be held back a year or two!

        Going backwards, getting rid of amazing technlogy that increases thermal efficiency to around a previously unheard of 50% is not the way to go. I feel that F1 is relecting Brexit with about half the fans looking back to a nostalgic but profligate era that can’t be replicated, and the other half wanting to move on to a brighter technological future. Perhaps F1 will have to split too.

      2. Where I live the races were placed behind the Pay Wall in the V10 era. F1 drove off thousands of fans proving the sound of the engine has nothing to do with most fans leaving. The sound of the engines isn’t the reason why people don’t watch races, it might be part of the reason, but I don’t see it as being the main reason.

    32. Dear Lance Stroll:
      Put all your jealous critics to shame.
      Go out there and perform!

    33. The formula one science experiment is over if nobody watches.

      To be replaced by a Motorsport that knows it’s a show, where success is measured in TV ratings, not real-world applicability.

      Most people, as F1 ratings have shown us, want bigger, louder, extremererer…big impressive numbers, I mean. 2,000 HP!!! Crazy weight to power ratios.

      Labratories are boring. Give me speed!!!

    34. TBPF, the mind boggles a bit that the arguments here are actually that F1 should have less advanced power units than some road cars, and that sound really matters to the 99.9% who watch F1 on TV..

      It seems that the same illogical thinking that created the 2017 change where all that mattered was that only ‘real men’ could drive F1 cars.

      I get it if the reason is to make it affordable for a third party PU provider to enter, but the arguments used are rubbish IMO.

    35. FIA plans higher power, lower cost for next F1 engines

      Haha! April Foo-…. Wait. They’re serious?

      1. Thanks, you brightened my day.

    36. Can F1 really afford to abandon free-to-air TV?

      Where I live F1 isn’t on Free to Air TV, the fans in this country were considered expendable, F1 considered its fans to be an asset worth selling, so they did, and now, apart from the occasional fan like me, no one really cares about F1. I don’t know if the recently retired Media Rights executive was aware of it, but he should be pleased to know his retirement wasn’t even mentioned on the top radio station’s sports news. He didn’t want people here to follow F1 racing, and he got his wish. People simply didn’t recognise any names associated with F1, just like they don’t associate the brands that advertise via F1 with premier motor racing. Consequently the corporates have reduced the amount they are prepared to pay, so while on the one hand there is more money from the TV rights, there is less money for the teams and the race tracks from the Corporates wanting brand recognition. So the corporates pay other sports to get their brand recognition.
      If F1 went to Free to Air coverage then, yes, there would be less TV rights payout, but there would be more money going to the teams and the race tracks from the corporates wanting brand recognition.
      Liberty are wanting to introduce some sort of handicap system to make sure racing is more equal across the grid, but another way of doing that is to provide more equal income levels.
      Maybe the teams will get less money overall, but provided it is the same for all teams I don’t see that as a bad thing.

    Leave a Reply

    Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

    All comments are moderated. See the Comment Policy and FAQ for more.
    If the person you're replying to is a registered user you can notify them of your reply using '@username'.