New engine rules show F1 is listening to fans – Brawn

2021 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula One’s planned engine changes for 2021 show the sport has paid attention to feedback from fans, according to Ross Brawn.

“The 2021 power unit is an example of the future way the FIA as regulators, F1 as commercial right holders, the teams and the manufacturers as stakeholders will work together for the common good of the sport,” said Brawn, F1’s managing director for motorsports.

“The proposal presented today was the outcome of a series of meeting which took place during 2017 with the current teams participating in the FIA Formula One World Championship and the manufacturers who showed their interest to be part of the pinnacle of motor sport.”

“Also, we’ve carefully listened to what the fans think about the current PU and what they would like to see in the near future with the objective to define a set of regulations which will provide a powertrain that is simpler, cheaper and noisier and will create the conditions to facilitate new manufacturers to enter Formula One as powertrain suppliers and to reach a more levelled field in the sport.”

Formula One’s current generation of V6 hybrid turbo power units, introduced in 2014, face criticism from some for being quieter than the previous normally aspirated V8s. From 2021 the MGU-H energy recovery systems will be removed and the rev limit of the engines will be increased, which should mean they make more noise.

“The new F1 has the target to be the world’s leading global sports competition married to state of the art technology,” said Brawn. “To excite, engage, and awe fans of all ages but to do so in a sustainable manner. We believe that the future power unit will achieve this.”

2017 F1 season

Browse all 2017 F1 season articles

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.

77 comments on “New engine rules show F1 is listening to fans – Brawn”

  1. Obviously it’s a compromise, but I don’t think there are many fans who will be too chuffed with the 2021 engines.

    1. I haven’t been bothered whatsoever about the noise, nor would I object to them being louder, but it is the size of the dirty air effect that I hope and expect them to address in the coming seasons.

      1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
        31st October 2017, 17:02

        I agree about dirty air @robbie I have every faith that is high on Ross’ agenda, he’s spoke about it enough, which will then hopefully progress into dropping DRS. Prob be a fair while off hearing proposals though.

        1. Michael Brown (@)
          31st October 2017, 17:57

          @rdotquestionmark In addition, drivers will have manual deployment of energy which can be saved up over multiple laps. I hope that will lead to them dropping DRS.

          1. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
            31st October 2017, 19:12

            I hoped that was a little clue too @mbr-9

          2. So you would be happy with dropping DRS, a system that allows a speed increase at the push of a button, with a stored energy system that would allow an increase in speed at the push of a button?

            That makes no sense at all, however if you don´t want any ¨Artificial¨ speed boosts to help overtaking, remember why they introduced the damned things in the first place, there was no overtaking.

            If DRS goes or even one of the energy recovery / battery systems go then it is back to little no no over taking because these cars are like aircraft in their aero dynamics and designed to go very fast, not over take each other in dirty air.

            The only way out of it is to give the designers a big incentive to not depend on cars designed for qualifying and leading from the front. If cars were designed to follow closely and be in over taking battles for much of the race then of course it we would see more of it.

            Perhaps a qualifying shake up is actually what is needed after all, anything that incentives cars designed for overtaking is worth looking at.

            At the moment, the tracks, the rules, the engines, the bloody tyres they all lead towards a car being designed to shift air around, not a car designed for fighting other cars.

          3. “So you would be happy with dropping DRS, a system that allows a speed increase at the push of a button, with a stored energy system that would allow an increase in speed at the push of a button?”

            Like the system which allows them to increase speed at the push of a pedal?

        2. My fear here is that a leading car out in front will save and use this energy to stay in front, while the fighting pack use up all theirs just trying to catch up!

          1. This is why DRS is a great idea!
            Everyone seems to have forgotten the pre-DRS days when there was virtually NO overtaking!!!

      2. It might be. However, that’s largely an artefact of aero regulations, which can be nailed down considerably closer to the time than engine regulations. Watch this space.

      3. joe pineapples
        1st November 2017, 14:21


    2. Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
      31st October 2017, 16:54

      I think if they went back to normally aspirated it would annoy a lot of fans who want to see progression (not to mention manufacturers). If they stayed the same that would annoy the rest of the fans and not bring in new manufacturers or close up the competition. I really believe this is the best all round compromise.

      Personally I must admit when trackside the sound was a big thing for me so I’m pleased they’re trying to resolve that in a non artificial manner without just going backwards to old technology. I’m also pleased this may close up competition and bring in some new manufacturers potentially.

      1. I am not so sure if these changes are enough to close up the competition. Every change in F1 results in winners and losers. I think it will still be very difficult for a newcomer to match Merc and Ferrari who have used about 75% of the new engine for years now. Seems like a hell of a catching up to do.
        But the devil is in the detail, so let’s wait and see what these details will bring us in the comming year.

        1. @mosquito We will see engine performance start to converge from next year. The Ferrari is already close enough enough to Mercedes in performance, next year they should nail reliability, although that was certainly there in the 1st half of the season. Renault probably 2019, but I expect them to be competitive enough in 2018. As for Honda who knows!!

          Point being, evolving the PU design for 2021 rather than radically overhauling should result in closer performance between the manufacturers in comparison to the radical 2014 changes when only Mercedes had got to grips with the design.

          1. Honda are definitely improving, what if they won the final GP this year???

      2. The thing is that this change is a terrible compromise. If they want to be road relevant then go fully electric as that is where all cars will be in a few years. If you want to be cheap then go full ICE as the complexity of the hybrid systems is costly.

        This is neither cheap or road relevant…

        1. Hybrid cars are here to stay for a while, why would Honda have entered the sport and other manufacturers indicate they are interested in entering with updated hybrid PU regulations? The manufacturer actions speak volumes here – they are clearly comfortable with hybrid technology, I have not heard any rumours of requests for a 100% ICE regulation from manufacturers.

          1. I am not talking about what the manufacturers want. I am merely stating that messing around with hybrid tech is neither road relevant going forward or cheap like an ICE engine.

    3. @strontium speak for yourself. This is as good as could be expected to be honest. Dropping the MGU-H that nobody but Mercedes could get working reliably, manual KERS that you can save up over a number of laps. Higher rev limit which could well be utilised contrary to opinion on here if coupled with an easing of the fuel flow limits. I’m quite happy with all that. We were never going to get an N/A V12

      1. I’m not speaking for myself, I’m commenting from an onlooking perspective.

        Don’t forget, F1Fanatic doesn’t really represent the average casual fan.

        1. @strontium the casual fan bizarrely seems to prefer the sound of the cars now I kid you not. I am part of the organisation team for corporate events for the Abu Dhabi GP each year and people who know next to nothing about F1 seem to be sticking around trackside noticeably more than they used to.

          1. digitalrurouni
            1st November 2017, 13:09

            I don’t mind the sound honestly now that I am used to it.

  2. I think if we can reach a point where 90% of fans don’t really care one way or the other about engines, we’re in the right place.

    1. @Neil Whether or not I agree with your point, that would be a major sea change for F1, which has always had a very strong commitment, focus and fan interest in it being the the pinnacle of racing technology. Personally, I think that’s been at the expense of the focus on the drivers and that’s hurt F1, IMO. But I think F1 can and should have both.

    2. @neilosjames, I doubt that will ever see a large proportion of the fans being happy – we have seen how large sections of the fan base will moan about how things are not like the old days and, no matter how hard you try to change things to appeal to them, those changes can never live up to the idealised fantasy of what they want the past to be (not what it actually was).

      Meanwhile, those who were more interested in the technical side seem to be disappointed that the sport seems to be regressing in an attempt to appease those who constantly bang on about how loud the cars are, whilst those fans in turn will continue to shriek even louder than the engines that they want to put back into the cars.

      1. ANON, Bah, humbug, the late 1960s had engines of 6, 8, 12, 16 cylinders, no one chose their engine because they liked the sound, they chose the engine that worked best in their chassis, then in the 70s we had 4 and 6 wheelers, wings and fans. Safety issues aside there was far more technical interest for the fan. Yes, yes, I know we ended up with the Cosworth V8 dominating, but a lot of that homogenisation was due to more and more prescriptive rules designed for profit to facilitate Bernie taking 50% of the profit with the other 50% distributed between the teams to keep them alive.

        1. @hohum, and you demonstrate exactly my point that there will always be those who state that the past was always better and the sport cannot ever live up to your idealised image of the past.

          1. @anon. Agreed. I only started watching F1 regularly in the 80’s but even since then the racing has improved for the better. Verstappen’s little romp away at the front this past weekend is a very rare thing these days and even that race would be considered “close” in comparison to the 50, 60s, 70s and 80s average winning margins.
            A picture paints a thousands words…
            F1 has always been a tech AND driver competition, but historically it was far more biased towards the tech (and reliability) by allowing more design freedom to the detriment of competition and sport. Tightening the design parameters has made the racing closer and the driver far more important. That’s a good thing in my book.

      2. “I doubt that will ever see a large proportion of the fans being happy”

        Amen to that. Especially:
        “those changes can never live up to the idealised fantasy of what they want the past to be (not what it actually was)”

    3. Go watch NASCAR or IndyCar.

      I watch F1 for the ridiculously advanced technology, and the idea of 20 guys playing chess at 200 mph.

      The fact that Mercedes is approaching 50% thermal efficiency on their engines should be worth a nobel prize, but most people don’t even know what that means.

      1. VROOM VROOM


      2. The thing is though, for the last 4 seasons (including this one) it hasn’t been 20 drivers playing chess at 200mph, it’s been 2 for the most part and the rest attempting to catch up in a era where their hands are restricted on what they can do. This season we had 4 drivers playing chess at 200mph, but, again due to ridiculous low limits of components allowed, any minor PU modifications are needed to be very restricted.

        The way things are going with the current PU regulation is that Mercedes will be dominant for the next 3 seasons as the PU component restrictions get tighter each season. This is supposed to be F1, the absolute pinnacle of Motorsport, where drivers should be able to push the limits, not needing to lift and coast due to fuel restrictions or other endurance related tasks…

        1. not needing to lift and coast due to fuel restrictions or other endurance related tasks…

          You do realise that lift-and-coast has always been a part of motorsport, don’t you?

          At most races now, they don’t have to lift and coast due to fuel restrictions, but due to the fact that the team have under-fueled the car. This is because not having enough fuel to get to the end of the race flat out is a faster strategy. The weight saved at the start makes up for the lift-and-coast required if there is no safety car or other pace-reducing event.

          There are few events now where the teams use the full 100kg (except McLaren, of course).

  3. Why raising the review limit to 18000! Now it is 15000, they seldom reach 13000 nowadays. This will only work if they write a rule for mandatory minimal revs before they can change Gear.. Or they will never go higher then needed

    1. I too thought that was a silly rule change, but when you think about it this might actually be a good rule change.
      Mercedes are reporting they are converting something like 50% of the energy in the fuel into actual engine power. As I understand it, getting more efficiency means using higher compression ratios, higher compression ratios require leaner fuel – air mix to inhibit pre-ignition, higher fuel-air ratios mean more RPMs become available before hitting the fuel flow limit. Hence this rule change. The corollary is, of course, nothing is ever simple, especially in F1.
      Really it is just future proofing this area. It gives engine manufacturers more options and paths of development they can go down.

  4. They say they’re listening to the fans, as if it’s a good thing. You’ll never please everyone, so best put your head down and figure out what’s the best course for the future. People who are spending 15 minutes per days thinking about F1 should be taken seriously when considering the future course of the sport.

    That said, it doesn’t mean they should do everything opposite, but they’d know even without the fans moaning that they need to allow closer racing somehow and provide more consistent stewarding. Although, judging by the way the things look at the moment, seems no amount of fan moaning nor logical thinking will make them actually provide the rules which allow closer racing, nor will they give us more consistent stewarding…

      People who are spending 15 minutes per days thinking about F1 should NOT be taken seriously when considering the future course of the sport.

  5. I’m convinced that the need to “hear” power is innate, and as the engines become less powerful sounding, the fan-base will shrink. I purposely didn’t write “quieter” since the Audi LM diesels were relatively quiet, but they still sounded powerful.

    When all F1 cars have the same weak engine sounds, the enjoyment drops. And when we eventually get to all-electric, with only a few tire squeaks and high-pitched motor wind-up toy sounds, I’m switching to watching paint dry for my dose of drama and excitement.

    1. “When all F1 cars have the same weak engine sounds, the enjoyment drops”

      Here’s an experiment.
      Find a video of a motor race where many different drivers are dicing for and exchanging places lap after lap (it probably wont be F1) Then watch with the sound turned down. Does the racing still look exciting?

  6. last thing f1 should do is to listen to the fans.

    the vocal majority usually has no clue, this or the exhaust mic being a prime example. The main difference in sound between the V8s and V6s is the pitch (lower RPMs)

    1. last thing f1 should do is to listen to the fans.


      1. I doubt Liberty is listening to the ‘vast majority that has no clue.’ When it comes to noise for example, there seems to be just as much of a split in opinion on that amongst the very F1 insiders (FIA, FOM, teams, crew, drivers) as there is amongst the fans, a large percentage that do actually have a clue, I would sugggest.

        I confidently trust that Brawn and Liberty aren’t being led down some garden path by fans that can barely bring themselves to tune in.

    2. The pitch can cause problems (especially combined with timbre changes).

  7. Seems to me that some people want their cake and eat it
    at the same time ( another really strange English saying….
    ….yeah, I know ! ) What I mean is that some people
    understand the need for engine development progress,
    but still yearn for the screaming V10 days. Yes they
    really did make your body vibrate as they screamed past
    but with the best will in the world they were screaming

    The big money manufacturers are all struggling with their
    balance sheets ( well….nearly all of them are ! ).
    They have to convince their shareholders and buyers that
    putting money into F1 development is good for their future
    vehicle development. And we should never forget that the
    prime component of early highly successful F1 teams was a bog
    standard US 8/10 cylinder Detroit production line engine block !
    Costin/Duckworth ( and others) worked their magic to turn them
    into gold-standard F1 legends.

    Money is very tight in car manufacturing these days. And no one
    can possibly suggest that the current F1 field is bursting at the
    seams with dozens of teams fighting to get into the sport and
    onto the grid. These are lean times in anybody’s language.

    So some people now want to chuck away the sharp end
    development technology we now have in F1 ? The idea,
    in these tough days, is daylight madness. F1 must stay at
    the sharpest end of all engine development to ensure it has
    a real future. To do anything else in these tough days would
    destroy this fabulous sport.

    1. nd we should never forget that the
      prime component of early highly successful F1 teams was a bog
      standard US 8/10 cylinder Detroit production line engine block

      Why do you say that? As far as I can see/read, Costin and Duckworth designed the engine from scratch with development and funding from Ford as a Ford project. What stock block do you think it was developed from? Also, what was the Detroit 8/10 cylinder engine you mention?

    2. @loen, Good comment but factually wrong on Cosworth, the only detroit engine block F1 used was the GM alloy 3.5 L block (de-stroked to 3.L and fitted with OHC heads by Repco an Australian auto-parts company) conceived and used by Brabham very successfully in 66 and 67, the Cosworth engine was the full factory support, designed and built from scratch realisation of that concept, only the money came from Detroit.

      1. Cosworth received a one off grant of !00,000.00 Pounds Stirling from Ford UK via discussions between Colin Chapman and Stuart Turner, Dearborn were not involved as Turner was the Ford UK or Ford Europe (either or maybe both) CEO.
        As far as Ford were concerned their involvement in F1 ceased until the mid 1990s when the took on the Stewart operation.
        Technically speaking the Ford name was associated with Cosworth and the Turbo V6, later with the 3.5 N/A V8 during the first few years of that formula.
        Of course the sound matters, the Matra V12 and almost any Ferrari V12 were epic, a DFV at full cry is unforgettable, while every power unit from the turbo era (even the humble Zakspeed!) made the ground shake.
        The last decent F1 powerplant with a satisfying aural footprint remains the 1995 Ferrari V12.
        I’m older than dirt so I have had the pleasure of enjoying real F1 racing foe many decades.

  8. Hard for me to get excited by a set of rules more than 3 years away.

  9. – Higher pitched sound
    – Simpler=higher chance of engine manufacturer parity
    – cheaper=higher chance of team parity & lower entry demands for new engine manufacturers
    – Hybrid technoligy = not reverting to yester-year which is good
    – More (visible) control for drivers = adds to the tactics and therefor suspense during the race

    Apart from keeping the turbo (Which takes away from the sound) and no clarity over the fuel flow (which influences the revs the engine will use for effeciency and therefor the sound as well) this set of regulations ticks a lot of boxes. I’m quite pleased as a fan I must say. Good job F1!

    1. Higher pitched sound

      Back in the day when I went to superbike races, the high-pitched scream of the Japanese 4 cylinders was dismissed by most of my fellow spectators as noise, while the low rumble of the Ducati twins was greeted with much enthusiasm.

      Must we conclude from this that F1 fans like the exact opposite of superbike fans, or should we assume that the appreciation of a certain sound has little to do with the sound itself and much more with several other subjective elements (like brand preference, history, etc)?

      1. Either is possible.

      2. I think in the Superbike context its the association of the noise. I actually always preferred 4 cylinder screamers as a sound but generally preferred the riders on the twins (which to my ears sound like high revving tractors). Likewise, my first close up experience of an F1 car was Jean Alesi screaming down Starkey’s Straight in a V12 Ferrari – I’ve never been the same since! As a result, give me a high revving engine that makes my heart palpitate over a low revving one, any day of the week. Would I feel differently if that first experience had been a hybrid turbo V6, I just don’t know.
        It’s largely irrelevant though as normally aspirated is not the way of the future and F1 can’t afford to dwell in the more glorious bits of its past.

      3. Good point about superbikes and even today, the most exciting motogp racing is the moto3 category. However, these single 250s, which sound like a tractor, replaced screaming 125 two-strokes. The racing has never been better but the sound is terrible, and that is a far better thing than the reverse.

    2. “Higher pitch sound” – Muffled by the paywall.
      “Simpler” – not in F1 it isn’t.
      “Cheaper” – nope, not in F1. Nothing is cheap in F1.
      “Hybrid technology” – They’re taking away the MGU-H, which is the best bit.

  10. What worries me is that by 2021, F1 will still have virtually the same engines we have now, but with even more influence from petrol power since they are dropping one hibrid element. They have said nothing about fuel flow and capacity allowed, but I doubt that’s road relevant, given the rate of development in the all-electric Formula E and how many manufacturers have put their resources there.

    2021 is a long way but in terms of how the world is evolving, it’s right around the corner. Not that I’m in favour of electric cars, I think they’ll never be as exciting as petrol powered, but they claimed “road relevance” right at the beginning of the communication so that must be a huge influence in the decision.

    We’ve seen what happened with WEC… 3 of the last 4 manufacturers to enter LMP1 are now fully commited with Formula E because these sort of solutions aren’t “relevant” for them given what they spent on them. I hope F1’s idea works, but… um… don’t see it happening. Afterall we only got Honda with this regs.

    1. I think that this is the crucial point @fer-no65

      because these sort of solutions aren’t “relevant” for them given what they spent on them

      The most expensive part of the engine was/is the MGU-H part, so eliminating that makes it a lot cheaper, and the hope is that that will change the balance of usefull knowledge gained to money needed to have a solid engine.

      We will see how it works – as Keith mentions, the pointer for that is the amount of new manufacturers willing to enter.

    2. Apart from Ferrari I’d rather see private teams than manufacturers anyway tbh.

      Manufacturer teams come and go as they please. They demand the rules to their liking as they are in F1 and then leave as soon as it makes more sense marketing-wise to do something else (see BMW, Honda, Toyota, Jaguar, Ford and even Renault and Mercedes in the past)

      Private teams are propper race teams that are there for the sport first and are a marketing platform to their sponsors second. Those sponsors also come and go but they don’t wreck the sport.

    3. “electric cars, I think they’ll never be as exciting as petrol powered,”

      *This* is the problem exposed. People into the noise of their gas powered cars have no idea where proper exhilaration is to be found. It’s simply a condtioning from a young age . IMO if you get a kick out of a forgiving road car due to the noise, the gear changing and “vroom vroom” you’re emotionally shallow. There are not many roads in the world that will bring out proper exhilaration from a car, let you get on the limit where cornering exit speeds are important. One of them is the Nurburgring Nordschleife, suddenly you’re on the edge, the noise is irrelevant.

      Have a test drive in a pukka race Kart or motorcycle. All of the exhilaration comes from grip, g-force, moving your balance across the seat of the bike *off the power* , brutal breaking forces, the feeling of carrying speed through corners. Get some superpower to remove the engine from the vehicle mid corner, in the above vehicles you lose nothing at all from the feeling. IMO the smoother the vehicle the better for exhilaration (i.e lack of vibration) It doesn’t matter how the vehicle is powered once you get to that level.

      Note on youtube all of the videos worshipping noise are on slow streets, then get to the Nurburgring videos, suddenly nobody is talking about or cares less about the nosie of the vehicle.
      Those videos of small VW hatchbacks beating Ferraris would look just as exhilaring being pulled by an Ox, let alone a torquey electric motor.

      1. If that’s the criteria, then I confess, I’m emotionally shallow.
        I completely agree with you about what makes something exhilarating if I’m riding/driving it, and would never rule out driving a fun electric car for that reason, but when I’m watching racing I want as many of my senses stimulated as possible which means I want “VROOM VROOM” instead of a sound that’s reminiscent of an electric screwdriver.

  11. The FIA is run by Monty Python and Formula 1 is his circus.

  12. Not sure which fans he’s talking about… engines sound fine to me…

  13. F1 Management is certainly NOT listening to the fans as stated in the title of this article.

    Many F1 fans want to go back to the days of V8, V10 and V12 normally aspirated engines with high RPM limits of up to 20,000 RPM and engine capacities of 3.0 to 3.5 litres and 250 litre petrol tank capacity so the drivers can really RACE each other without have to worry about fuel management.

    F1 is the top tier racing formula and not some rubbish low level formula so……


    1. @abc

      The teams have always under fuels their cars and drivers have always lifted and coasted, fuel saving is not a new thing.

      Fuel is heavy so they never fill them up all the way.

    2. Michael (@freelittlebirds)
      2nd November 2017, 14:38

      I’m not sure about that – I think F1’s technologies should have an impact on everyday cars. If they can find ways to make engines more efficient (use less gas to go at the same speed), then they should be doing that. Hybrid technologies are probably the best compromise between short distance and long distance driving if they can become affordable and manufactured in volume. F1 is the perfect place for manufacturers and other companies like brake manufacturers to test the limits and develop these technologies.

      I’m surprised how difficult it has been for the teams to maximize those technologies but I think it’s something we should accept as a compromise.

  14. F1 has always been a ‘formula’ race series, that is a set of rules defines what you can and cant do, it didn’t and has never said, must be transferable to a Honda Civic. F1 lost relevance to road cars before I started watching- probably after the 2nd world war, once they stopped using pre-war cars, grand prix cars lost road relevance.

    Anyone who spouts ‘road relevance’ is just regurgitating what the manufacturers want – journalist, websites and fan’s – all seem to be stuck in this road relevance nonsense. They (manufacturers) will up sticks and move to Formula E the second it suits them. Does no one get that??!!

    And 3 years is way too long a period for the manufacturers to get their teeth and money stuck into the rule change. Let them up the revs 3000rpm next season, if they can.

    Its a mess of fan appeasement and manufacturer toadying, with fans in the middle watching a car that got pole struggle past a guy in 19th. Go see what Indy is doing with wings & venturi’s in 2018 and tell me that isn’t half of the answer already

    1. Fair enough but at the same time I haven’t heard anything to indicate they aren’t going to also address the overwhelming dirty air effect too. I would think that will also be a work in progress but when it comes to engines/pu’s they need to give manufacturers a much bigger time window than they do for aero changes which can go by the season, hence we’re hearing about the engines now.

      1. This is true but why are we announcing stuff for 2021 now? Aero is the main culprit but its behind the agenda for what we do in 4 seasons time?

        The honeymoon period is still with Liberty & Brawn but lets not pretend the sport isn’t anything other than an unholy mess at the moment. I speak as a fan, obviously but also an optimist. If I want a fix of f1, I have to go and watch stuff from the 90s. That cant be right

        1. I hear you. I just think for anyone making engines, currently or potentially as a new entrant, they need to know that kind of info now, such is the complexity and are the costs, whereas aero stuff can be chipped away at season by season.

          I am full of optimism with Brawn/Liberty, but I also feel they are not going away too far from their aero addiction. There is just too much speed to be gained with it, unfortunately particularly in clean air. I think they know some tricks as to how to maintain some downforce while having it be somewhat less damaging for the car in dirty air, and Brawn has indicated that he wants to take a proper approach to getting there, not knee-jerk, so that it isn’t just a case of the big teams having the resources to react more quickly, leaving the smaller teams straggling behind as usual. I envision changes to wings regs, more ground effects, and continued work on the tires (like getting rid of the finicky prime operating temp windows) as ways to give drivers more time and confidence while behind another car, to close in and make a pass, sans DRS. Even to actually see a driver hound another for some laps rather than just falling back to the conventional 2 seconds behind to conserve tires, would be great. I just think the aero changes can be blended in by the season, whereas engine changes are much more complex and expensive to implement, and done too quickly could see another team on a 4 or 5 year run…not what they seem to want, as Brawn just called it ‘tedious.’

    2. +1
      Nothing will be done to have Hamilton, Alonso, Vettel, Riccairdo, Verstappen all dicing for places and producing a different winner each week until fans vote with their feet.
      The truth is fans are still attracted to the glamour and the fact F1 is technically superior. F1 being up its own a##e actually seems to work in its favour. People still tune it. They seem to be emotionally attached it being ther ‘pinnacle’ of motorsport. Hence the outcry about quieter cars. People have taken it personally because they are emotionally involved. Note I’m not talking about passion like you get with team sports.

  15. Jason Blankenship
    1st November 2017, 13:32

    RPM’s are irrelevant when the fuel flow is what causes them to run less than the max right now. Are they adjusting fuel flow requirements to let them hit 18k RPM?

  16. People that want the noise go on about it all of the time. People who are happy just keep quiet.

    Witness the poll result of the Max Shortcut Penalty. There was a mad outcry from those who think cutting that corner was fine and it gave the impression that everyone else thought so too if the number of posts for Max were counted………..the poll showed otherwise.

  17. It’s sad to see engine technology actually going backwards in F1.

    1. Jason Blankenship
      1st November 2017, 14:07

      This is F1 racing, not Eco Tourism, and all this hybrid stuff is fine in small doses, but motor racing doesn’t need to have it be a part of it.

      1. “motor racing doesn’t need to have it be a part of it”

        F1 is all about money, it wants the big money of the big manufacturers and the money generated by association.
        Other (noisier) motorsports are losing fans by the hoards.
        I wonder what the magic ingredient is.

        Cycling seems to be a growth sport (and hobby) events such as Cyclocross, Down Hil mountain biking and BMX are all exciting to watch with no noise. More courses are apperaring and more fans are taking part in cycling in one way or other. There are many other hobbies and expensive toys for people to play with these days. I really don’t think younger generations are being attracted to or finding themselves emotionally involved in pastimes with loud noise.

  18. If this sort of change bring in another couple (or more) engine makers then it should be applauded.

    Its only scribblings on a fag packet at the moment and many toys will be thrown around in the next 12 months to change the initial thoughts, but its not a bad start. Especially welcome is Mercedes scepticism.

    Even more toys are likely to be in orbit once the amended prize distribution and bonuses start being discussed.
    2018 is not going to be a good year for toys.

Comments are closed.