Manufacturers ‘unimpressed’ with 2021 engine plan

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Mercedes Toto Wolff says none of the four engine manufacturers currently in Formula One are impressed with the new power unit rules planned for 2021.

Social media

Notable posts from Twitter, Instagram and more:

Comment of the day

A view on Kvyat’s F1 career from @alianora-la-canta:

I consider Kyvat unlucky to have been kept… …and hired too soon in the first place.

It would have been fairer on him if he had been dropped in Spain 2016 (as was transparently the intention) and helped to find a place elsewhere (be that in F1, elsewhere in the Red Bull empire or simply in a different seat in motor sport). That Toro Rosso didn’t want Kyvat was obvious. Franz Tost hates failure and this was hardly going to be an exception. Nobody else has ever made Toro Rosso work after getting into Franz’s bad graces, and Kyvat had done so via the last four races at Red Bull. The subsequent 18 months has simply been a lengthy, painful and inevitable goodbye, with no plausible chance of salvaging anything.

Not that hiring someone who’d taken three years to master Formula Renault-level racing, and was only one year beyond doing so, was exactly promising in the first place. I think I said at the time that if Kyvat succeeded in F1, it was a problem for F1’s claim to have the most talented drivers in the world (since it would suggest F1 was less difficult than GP2/F2 – no GP2/F2 team would hire someone with such a poor record unless they came with a lot of money). For a time, it looked like Kvyat would succeed anyway. With a more patient team, perhaps he could have done. But had Red Bull been a more patient team, Kyvat may never have had this problem in the first place, and we could be telling a completely different story.

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Narboza22, Rafael and G!

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

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.

66 comments on “Manufacturers ‘unimpressed’ with 2021 engine plan”

  1. LOL Of course Merc are not happy about the new change. They’ve got the best engine in the world and do will not like any change.

    It’s easy to throw darts at other’s work/plans. OK, Toto, tell us YOUR plan for cutting costs, increasing noise and keeping the current engine manufacturers on board. Oh, by the way, it also has to provide for closer racing and keep any one team from gaining a huge engine advantage that will last for 4-5 years and ruin the racing for all the other team’s fans. :)

    Full disclosure: I’m a total Merc/Lewis fan so I’m not picking at them at all. Just stating the obvious.

    1. Oh, by the way, it also has to provide for closer racing and keep any one team from gaining a huge engine advantage that will last for 4-5 years

      @daved I disagree, Any future engine formula should not be based on what will provide the best racing or stop any manufacturer from dominating, Thats just as bad as basing an engine formula on volume.

      Any future engine formula should be based solely on what provides the best performance & if any manufacturer gains an advantage then so be it because that is what F1 has always been about & the day it stops been about that is the day that is no longer the true F1.

      If you want performance equality & all that then go watch a spec series.

      1. Roger,
        I don’t want a spec series. I’m simply talking about the stated goals of the FIA. Some team ALWAYS gets clever and finds an advantage. It would just be nice if the gap didn’t last for 4-5 years at a time like Ferrari, Red Bull and then Merc did.

        As much as I loved watching Lewis win the world championships, it is more fun when he has to fight with others at the front. Just my opinion and preference. You can have yours. But don’t tell me to go watch spec series simply because we disagree.

        1. Here is an unpopular view, any changes to the present formula, which means a new engine is going to make it more likely that someone will get it right 1st time round than someone else. And further, if you say write the rules to equalise the performance, so no one gets to keep their advantage for long, is going to unleash a spending war. The very thing potentially new entrants into F1 fear will ruin them. That is the problem.

      2. Mate it’s never been about that, if it was they would have moved to gas turbines long ago. They would even be running 2 strokes and other wacky things, if it was all about performance. The rules have always had a lot of input from the big manufacturers.

    2. @daved It isn’t just Mercedes though, The article linked above also features quotes from Renault along similar lines & as I reported yesterday I was told that Honda & Ferrari also sided with Mercedes & Renault & were less than impressed with discussions in the Monday meeting.

      My comment from yesterday is here.

      OK, Toto, tell us YOUR plan for cutting costs, increasing noise and keeping the current engine manufacturers on board.

      There are proposals which came from current manufacturer’s in one of the articles.

      1. @gt-racer

        Thanks for the link and the perspective. I can see that. I’d also hate to see it become a spec series! I was just hoping to see things a bit more balanced. This year has been more fun for me to watch than the last 3 years where the question was “will Lewis win or will Nico win?”.

        Liberty is going to want to improve the show to grow the brand and the sport. The teams, of course, are not going to like being hemmed in while they seek advantage and show off their tech. They want to mainly get rid of the MGU-H to try and increase noise because they’re not going to get rid of the turbos….so that’s the next best thing.

        I’ve NEVER cared about the noise, but listening to the screaming from some F1 fans, you’d think the FIA were clubbing baby seals and killing kittens while mugging Santa Claus. Many swear they won’t watch it or go to races because it’s quiet now. I just went to Austin, along with 250,000 others and we all seemed to survive the experience just fine. :)

        As for the manufacturers claiming the MGU-H is needed for the road going hybrids….it’s been 4 years and I haven’t seen anything other than a single Merc concept even talking about it. I’m skeptical on that front.

        1. @daved Apart from the Project 1, right?

          1. @ fluxsource

            Yes, that is the only one that I’m aware of at this time. I haven’t seen any other applications of “direct use of F1 tech” since the 2014 regs came into play. I’d love to see some pointers if other have as it’s cool when the theory works and it shows up on the streets. :)

        2. @daved, there are a number of turbocharger manufacturers who have been applying technology derived from that to developing new electrically operated turbochargers, and I believe that Mercedes is already fitting electric turbochargers to the latest iteration of their M256 series engine.

          1. Anon,

            I think that “electric turbochargers” are a different beast and have been around for a while. They essentially use electricity from *any* source to “pre spin” the turbo and avoid the lag.

            The difference being that with the newer F1 tech, that electricity is derived directly from the MGU-H.

            At least that’s my understanding. But I see plenty of articles that seem to blur the line or at least use grammar that leaves the actual reality in doubt. LOL

        3. I think the Audi SQ7 has a Valeo system and the new Mercedes engine generation will have a similar BorgWarner system. Apparantly the hold up is that a seperate 48 volt system is needed to ensure the effectiveness of the MGU-H / e-Turbo.

          1. Leo,
            Thanks for the reference. I googled it and I think it’s similar to what I told “Anon” above. That is an electric turbo which is not really the same thing….but rather part of the equation.

            The difference being that the electricity can come from any source and it’s used to “pre spin” the turbo and eliminate turbo lag.
            With F1, the electricity is *captured* as part of the exhaust energy within the MGU-H unit.

            This energy is then used to either spin the electric turbine up or even go back into the general KERS battery is the difference.

    3. You are right, though the proposition does makes little sense financially and brings up a further gimmick problem to racing, the ability to save battery for several laps, which will only be used to make the lead cars even stronger.

      1. Michael Brown (@)
        4th November 2017, 17:59

        @peartree How so? There’s no rules telling drivers where they can and cannot use it, like DRS. Drivers already store battery as it is anyway.

        1. @mbr-9 Currently the car deploys as it’s pre-programmed, the driver selects which modes he’ll use and what these modes mean is pre determined as pit box telemetry is banned and has been this way for some time. Making the driver trigger their deployment is going to, as every gimmick is exploited beyond it’s intention, what’s going to happen is that the car in the lead is going to make use of this extra deployment and the ability to control it’s use in order to sustain the lead as catching up and following a car is hard enough, as generally good cars qualify well, this measure is going to further difficult anyone racing up the field and it’s also going to promote a further focus on qualifying pace. In short it’s a lot like the refuelling ban in the old engines, RB use to under fuel their cars significantly in order to start well and gap their opponents in order to create a buffer and then control the pace from there, these days is not as much of a factor as it once was because cars are more critical on fuel and also because the peak fuel consumption was limited so the lead cars wouldn’t exploit it.

    4. In another article it was explained that removing the MGU-H would basically require that a new engine be designed and developed. Renault and Red Bull feel that the proposed engine rules will require they invest in developing a new engine which is also a cost that new manufacturers are unlikely to want to take on.
      This is a fundamental issue with F1 rule changes, those who have invested a lot of money in the current rules are then being asked to throw that investment away and pour money into something new. Which is not an easy thing to do for a company that has to be viable and profitable. If as Renault and RB state, the proposed engine rules will require a new engine be developed, then I think the FIA and Liberty should go from a blank slate rather than making it look like they are building on what is already in place.

    5. Well, so far, the FIA’s cost-cutting measures have led to the most expensive engine in the history of F1.

      Well done, FIA!

      Now they want the engine manufacturers to change the centerpiece of the existing engine design– even Renault thinks it’s a bad idea. A 1.6L doing 18k RPM is going to be… entertaining. Making it last the 32 races that the FIA will be insisting on by 2021 will make it even more expensive.

      Personally, I say go with a 2.0L V6, variable turbo, 850 HP engine limit, 150 HP equivalent KERS with driver’s choice, keep the fuel flow formula but drop the fuel flow cap, bring back refueling, and require the engine to last 4 race weekends. Penalty for using an extra engine or transmission is 4 grid spots.

      On the aero side, allow underbody diffuser a la IndyCar with a maximum specified volume, limit the number of front wing elements, and bring back dynamic suspension. If possible, eliminate DRS.

      Finally, give everyone who finishes a race a point, but keep current qualifying format– it rocks. :)

    6. what we out to be told is, how come and since when does the F1 commercial rights holders (and not the owners of F1) have a right to change or make the engine rules and regulations?

  2. That article on McLaren’s third pedal from 1997 is very much worth reading. Lots of interesting insight on one of the last displays of inventiveness in F1. Made me remember the fuzz, I was very little and I didn’t understand much, so I remember thinking (a Ferrari fan myself) that they were cheating. Now I think how utterly brilliant that was.

    1. I miss those days of innovation. Some of those innovations were brilliant and had a place in F1 but others, like the ‘78 Brabham Fancar and the McLaren with that third pedal was just ridiculous.

      1. The fancar might have been seen as out of place when it was introduced but the job it did very inexpensively is now done by ever more complicated and vastly expensive ( wind tunnel etc) wings and widgets. The fancar worked just as well when it was following right on the tail of another car as it did 2 seconds back, with hindsight, the reality is that the fan was the right way to go and the wing was the wrong way to go. @mfreire

    2. Agreed – a great read!

  3. It’s interesting that Joe Saward mentions the Spanish Grand Prix as being under threat. Unless I am comparitively living under a rock, I expected to see many articles about that already, but I haven’t. The way things are going in Catalonia I would not at all be surprised if pretty much all international racing events at the Catalunya circuit (F1, MotoGP, the 24 Hours GT race, etc) are cancelled. And Catalunya is a circuit I will not be missing.

    1. If I am right in believing the Spanish Grand Prix is part funded by the Spanish government then it’s not unreasonable to suggest that it could be cancelled. However, one would have thought that having the Spanish Grand Prix in Catalonia would be a great way for the Spanish government to reinforce their message. Obviously that could all depend on what happens now.

      Having said all that, it’s unlikely to see it cancelled given the contracts that are in place. Bahrain in 2011 was only just cancelled with all the issues going on, and a year later they went despite the situation not having changed that much (if my understanding is correct).

  4. What does the Mexican GP promoter mean when he says “they are closer together”?
    He certainly can’t be referring to the distance between Montreal and Austin (3100km) versus Austin and Mexico City (1500km)?

    1. @mtlracer it’s not very clear, but I think he means Montreal and Austin are closer together than Montreal and Mexico City

    2. As @strontium mentions, the Mexical promotor is pointing out that Montral and Texas (the solution he’s suggesting) are closer together than Montral and Mexico (the solution Epstein is pushing for) @mtlracer

    3. Austin and Mexico City will be much more than 1500km if you have to go around the wall ;)

  5. Much has been done to the Argentine economy since Macri took over

    Yeah, “much has been done” in favour of CEOs and the powerful… He can go to hell, but he likes the rich, so he’s probably very much involved with F1 returning here. I for one won’t be attending, and I doubt a lot of people can afford it. People will still make the effort because they love F1 but it’s just another way to eek more money from the working class.

    I still mantain, F1 doesn’t belong here right now.

    1. It’s just funny how news are reported internationally with help from the local media “hiding” or “changing” the reality when there are people losing jobs, companies closing while some very influential and rich people benefit massively. Sad… I hope that you guys read about our situation and don’t believe what’s posted everywhere. Things look as bright as in the 90s when F1 also returned… and then what happened? we lost it all, and more too.

    2. I don’t know anything about the Argentine situation, but I can say that as far as advertising goes, F1 is actually pretty cheap for the great exposure it can give, if it is done really well. Malaysia was a real backwater before F1 put it in front of millions of eyeballs as a modern well put together country (true or not, it doesn’t matter), and who ever heard of Adelaide if it wasn’t for their F1 stint, and that was over 20 years ago! True that honest local fans couldn’t afford to go, but if it could be shown to help Argentina say “we’re back”, whether that is true or not… that would be a good thing for the economy.

      1. I think what our Argentine friend is complaining about is that the money (potentially) been spent on returning f1 to the country should be spent on other more important things. This after all is public money, been used to subsidise a rich sport which generates billions £ income a year. If we (most of us I think) in Britain don’t want public money been spent on a rich man’s sport, imagine how Argentinians would feel.

    3. I get your point there @fer-no65, but usually the idea is to bring in F1 not to have the local people pay for tickets, but to boost tourist numbers from foreign visitors (and to boost the image of the place – see Singapore – for business).

      In that sense, it should bring extra economic activity that help everyone (although undoubtedly some are going to benefit more than others)

  6. New engine rules suck. Simple as that. Rev limit, removing mguk or mguh or what ever the bloody thing is called. None of this crap is road relevant. F1 needs a complete overhaul the cars look pathetic they weigh more then most small hatches, the engines sound terrible, there is to much down force, they cannot follow each other. Its a joke. Fix f1 is simple.
    1. Maximum down force any car can generate is 1000kilos. This can be measured simply by looking at wind tunnel results. I don’t care how its achieved just there is to be a max. Make it a mechanical formula
    2. Tyres compounds are limited to 3. Soft / medium / hard. 1 sec pace difference per compound. Mechanical grip to dominate.
    3. Horsepower. 1000hp. 800hp naturally aspirated motor. V4/6/8 teams can choose. Must be naturally aspirated. Guaranteed noise high revs to achieve power turbo motors wont do this. 200hp to come from KERS renewable every lap or can accumulate up to 300hp for overtaking.
    4. No halo. Drivers that want it can leave the sport.
    5. Standard brakes/wiring harness/cockpits. No tricky suspension systems just good old fashion dampers/springs etc etc.
    6. Engines must be able to start with a push of a button. Not a computer system.

    Keep it simple. We care about the races dont care about the technology. I watch f1 for hamilton, alonso, vetell, riccardo, verstappen. The racing is important. If merc dont like it they can leave likewise ferrari and Renault.

    1. We care about the races dont care about the technology

      Please don’t assume you speak for everyone. A big part of F1 for me (and a good few others I know) had always been the technical developments. The current engine formula is amazing to see (and hear, at a track) and seeing the amazing tech developed is a fundamental part of the whole F1 experience (again, for me)

      1. Completely agree. Anyone pining after naturally aspirated ‘monsters’ would do well to check out the formula thunder 5000 cars currently in development; they are loud, look ‘cool’, but for me lack the exotic sophistication at the heart of F1, and I would hate to see it taken in that direction.

    2. You forgot H pattern gearbox

      1. Well done Phil. I see you have had mushrooms for breakfast, there can be no other explanation. The technology race is well over 50% of my interest in F1 and so I suspect it is for a good portion of the fanbase. I have zero interest in spec series sealed motors and a rapidly declining interest in behemoth NA V motors like NASCAR. The current F1 engine noise in the flesh is so interesting and it is also simple to decipher manufacturers from each other, which wasn’t necessarily the case in the ‘wall-of-noise’ V8 era which to me, was ear damage personified. The higher the revs the lower the character to my ears. As regards the attitude of the current engine manufacturers, I believe they want to keep the playing field tilted to discourage new (independent) engine manufacturers from spoiling their party.

    3. Well personally I don’t think your ideas go nearly far enough.

      1 – Get rid of all wings, downforce, streamlining, in fact bodywork of any kind. No downforce, no aerodynamics. After all, aerodynamics are for people who can’t build engines.
      2 – Limit tyre width to 3 and 3/8th inches (I’ll have none of this modern metric crap, thank you very much) – cross-ply only.
      3 – At least 3000 horsepower, from naturally aspirated two cylinder engines powered by coal-water slurry. One exhaust pipe per cylinder, must be oriented vertically, with a standardised, FIA-mandated rain flap available during wet weather sessions. Pushrods only, no overhead camshafts. Engines to be front-mounted, driving the rear wheels via a direct-drive with no gearbox.
      4 – total ban on all safety gear, including (but not limited to) – fireproof overalls, helmets, HANS devices, gloves, goggles, seat belts, fire extinguishers, etc. Drivers must wear loose cotton overalls – one pair to be retained throughout the entirety of a driver’s career. Flat cap may be worn, but angle and radius of the peak must be within carefully defined limits in order not to act as an aerodynamic aid. If you don’t want to die, don’t crash. It’s that simple.
      5 – Drum brakes all round, operated by a hand-lever in the cockpit. Hand lever to be made of a softwood to allow for flex and reduce driver-feel. These are meant to be the best drivers in the world, let’s let them show it!
      6 – Engines must be hand cranked to start. Drivers are not allowed assistance from mechanics for any of the following: Starting the engine, changing tyres, refuelling, adjusting the choke or the A/F ratio. Additionally no radios of any sort. Pit boards to be replaced with semaphore flags.

      I think we also need to make the cars look better and make the drivers seem more heroic (though only within a very narrowly-defined, regressive definition of heroism)

      7 – All sponsorship to be banned, other than that which comes from alcohol or tobacco companies. After all, it’s well known that these are literally the only liveries which have ever looked good on race cars. Actually maybe an exception could be Gulf oil, but only if they sponsor Porsche or Aston Martin. In order to keep the sponsors happy, there needs to be as much smoking as possible. Drivers must smoke at least one packet of 20 cigarettes between the start of the race and the time the last-placed car finishes. 5 cigarettes must be smoked by the driver during each pit stop (he’ll have plenty of time because he has to change his own wheels and refuel, without the aid of power/air tools). Podium champagne to be replaced with podium pipes. Instead of spraying champagne, they can spit chewing tobacco.

      8 – Tracks are too safe and sanitised. Firstly, all runoff areas should be replaced with rough, uneven, uncut grass. Secondly, the grass should be liberally oiled, and sprinkled with caltrops. Third, the grass should be no wider than 3 yards from the edge of the track, and bordered entirely with concrete walls, the surfaces of which should be embedded with barbed wire and broken glass. Also, the only flag should be the chequered flag, which should be waved at the start and the end of the race, by a man standing in the middle of the fastest part of the track, ideally wearing a flat cap and smoking a pipe. The race will not be stopped at any point, for any reason.

      9 – Bring the spectators closer to the action. Get rid of all catch fences around the track, and get rid of marshals and designated seating areas. Just build up steep slopes of dirt which drop to the edge of the circuit. Spectators can stand wherever they like, even on the track. Also, in order to allay any complaints about noise, ear defenders will be strictly banned from the circuit. Free packs of cigarettes to be given to every spectator.

      Those are just a few of my thoughts on how we could take sensible, basic measures to bring the excitement back to the sport. I think this would see sponsors and manufacturers flock to the sport, with record crowds at every venue.

      1. @mazdachris I’m not quite sure but I think I detect a modicum of sarcasm. Could be just me though.

        1. @robbie, whoat! Here I thought it all made perfect sense.

      2. @mazdachris – I hope this is a joke. No radios? No RADIOS? How will the drivers keep up with the latest in popular music? There’s a thought; if no radios, require 33rpm vinyl record players for in-car entertainment. It’s the wave of the future.

        1. Well when you think of it, the new tires will be much narrower anyway, so why not use albums for tires (there’s already a hole in the middle for the axle and wheel nut) and that way when they pit to change albums they’re killing two birds with one stone, and saving costs too. Genius!

      3. Thanks for this, incredibly funny. I’m cracking up in my cubicle at work during my lunch break here, and I think my colleagues are wondering what’s going on. Comment of the YEAR.

  7. So far these new engine rules follow the standard “FIA new rule announcement” template.

    FIA/rights holder consults teams on rule changes
    FIA makes big announcement of all-singing, all-dancing new rules
    Some/most/all teams say “we didn’t ask for this”/”we don’t like this”/”this won’t work”
    Rule change is heavily watered down, doesn’t work well anyway and results in everyone moaning till the next rinse & repeat.

    It’s been happening for years. Maybe this time is different…but it’s not looking great so far.

  8. It would make zero difference whether the Mexican GP took place at a different time of year than the US GP or at the same time as it has been so far. First of all the distance between Austin and Mexico City is a massive 1,213.62 km by air which is greater than the distance between Spa and Monza, for example, and also greater than the distance between Hockenheim and Hungaroring, but no one is complaining about the scheduling of those races. Furthermore, it’s also more or less the same as the distance between Montreal and Indianapolis that were scheduled on subsequent weekends from 2004 to 2007, but no one complained. But regardless of the travelling distance, as long as the Mexicans have their own race they will always go to that instead regardless of the scheduling of their GP and the US GP. The only way Austin could achieve the same amount of Mexican attendees as before 2015 is if Mexico would lose its race altogether again, but until that happens, the situation won’t change even if Mexico was moved to a different time of year or vice versa. The return of the Mexican GP two years ago alone meant that Austin would lose attendees from that country regardless of the scheduling of these two races. Also, it wouldn’t be the best idea to put the Mexican GP after Canada as it’s rainy at that time of year as is stated in the article. Moving Austin to June would be a bit too risky temperature-wise as it can get unpleasantly hot at that time of year, so wouldn’t really be worth it.

  9. The OEMs are “unimpressed” with the concept that they could be beaten by a Cosworth or AER engine, or be beaten by the likes of a Force India or Williams.

    1. Yeah, hahaha ofcourse they object. But this is an absolute necessity to enable new entrants. Can anyone shed some light on the voting/ruling going forward with this. Is this a when FOM and FIA close the ranks, it is a done deal? Like 1/3 teams, 1/3 FOM, 1/3 FIA?

    2. Hahaha cosworth. Yeah sure! Their v8 engine was so bad Williams dumped them inside a season. You’re delusional if you think these engine changes will do that. Bosworth don’t have the money to compete with Mercedes, renault, Ferrari or honda.

      1. Well, I’m not sure about Honda ;-)

  10. tgu (@thegrapeunwashed)
    2nd November 2017, 9:39

    I don’t feel qualified to say whether the engine changes are an improvement or not, but if Audio say they’re promising then it bodes well for more manufacturers entering the sport. What interests me is aero changes which will allow cars to follow one another (and hopefully do away with DRS!), and of course a fairer distribution of money – hopefully we’re hear about these soon.

      1. I completely agree with this @thegrapeunwashd

  11. COTD is factually inaccurate and also makes no sense.
    Kvyat did two years of Formula Renault, not three. He also did the same length as Carlos Sainz and subsequently thrashed him in GP3. If your point is that he was promoted too soon I can sort of understand your point. But on his junior career it is both wrong and unfair.

    1. @hahostolze Daniil Kyvat did Formula Renault 2.0 in 2010, 2011 and 2012. It might not have been his primary series on all three occasions (the first season, he did Formula Renault’s winter series followed by Formula BMW and non-clashing main-series Formula Renault 2.0), but he was there throughout that time, which spanned three years, and the other series he was doing at that time were at approximately the same level.

      GP3 (and some F3) came the year afterwards, in 2013. Granted that it was rather more successful, but a GP2 team would have had no way to know whether to expect that Daniil or the one from the years prior, hence not a risk that would have been taken without a fairly large amount of money to support the promotion. Perhaps it seems a strict viewpoint, but Daniil really needed 2014 to be another year in the GP3/F3 tier (presumably F3, as he hadn’t done a full season of it yet and it was going to be unusually strong due to Verstappen and co’s arrival) or done a “half-step” promotion to Formula Renault 3.5 Series (which by that point was descending from its zenith of being GP2’s equal). Not go to GP2, let alone F1.

      In retrospect, Renault World Series 3.5 was probably the best of those moves. Antonio Felix da Costa was ready for promotion from there to F1, Sainz could have stayed in GP3 to have a second go at the title and Verstappen could show his thing in F3 (Red Bull was surely interested in him even if it didn’t make the move until Mercedes threatened to steal him from under their nose).

  12. Well i’ve got my heart set on Day of the Dead and Mexican GP 2018 so Bobby needs to nip that suggestion in the bud! ;)

  13. I can see why the manufacturers are not thrilled with the new engine regs. It’s obvious that the aim from the new regs is to standardize the competition engine wise. Removing the MGU-H (Mercedes diamond element) and imposing more strict limits on the Turbo, two main crucial elements of the whole PU performance tends to reduce the gaps between engine manufacturers since there is no huge gains that can be made in the rest of the PU elements…
    I can see a return to the late V8 years where engines were frozen and was all about chassis…. I can expect Christian Horner to be the first to cheer for the new regs !!!
    I really hope that Mercedes/Ferrari will veto this new nonsense.

  14. In other news the Queen expresses reservations about the UK becoming a republic.

    They said it all with a straight face as well !

  15. Im not impressed either.. I like the RPM limit rised but having less engine units per season and even tighter fuel rules is just countering it all too badly, they will be driving like grandmas again to save fuel, to save engines, just same old. Everytime they can, it will be “change to grandma mode”

  16. That fiddle-brake article is incredible. What a genius solution from McLaren, one that I had no idea existed. I only really started following at the tail end of ’06, so I didn’t know about that.

  17. Manufactures. No matter what the motorsport, no matter what the league, once you let them in, you have the haves and the have nots. Once you let them dictate the rules, you now just have the haves.

  18. Michael Brown (@)
    2nd November 2017, 19:01

    The extra brake pedal article is a great and insightful read. It’s personally one of my favourite F1 innovations for its creativity. I also learned that it was easily installed on Hakkinen’s car because he used a paddle clutch, but Coulthard still used a pedal clutch. At one point he ended up with four pedals!

  19. It would be interesting to know what the current manufacturers plans for cutting costs, increasing noise and keeping the current engine manufacturers on board are, if following their input to this process, it seems they are not at all pleased.

    It seems to me that the engine suppliers wanted all of these things but when something different is proposed they all reject the general thrust of the ideas straight away. What they really seem to want is to keep things more or less the same so that they don’t have to spend any more creating new designs. Maybe this is the best thing though as over time advantages created by rule changes seem to diminish.

    What their reaction does not address is the problems this change is supposed to solve and the perception that the current engine spec is too expensive to develop/improve and does not provide competitive racing. So it seems like a catch 22 situation which the FIA cannot easily resolve.

  20. Everytime there is a fundamental change to the engine rules, 1 engine dominates and all the others play (very expensive) catch-up, these engines are not perfect but they have seen some rapid advancements in PU technology which are just beginning to arrive on a street near you. The FIA is apparently just as political and just as useless as our governments.

  21. The new engine regs see to be fairly unimpressive and IMO have completely missed the mark in terms of:

    1) ensuring an ongoing interest and supply from current suppliers.
    2) encouraging new suppliers into F1
    3) encouraging new innovations for what is supposed to be the pinnacle of technology.

    I’m not sure why they can’t just set some parameters (e.g. 60% maximum power can come from a naturally aspirated source with the remainder being hybrid) and just let the manufacturers decide how they achieve that.

    What’s wrong with one manufacturer electing to invest in MGUH in a big way, and another electing to use turbos and MGUK technology as their “option” of choice.
    Same with cylinder configurations etc – set a maximum “capacity” – leave it to the manufacturers to decide how many cylinders.

    Then we’d truly see some innovation and probably see some independent manufacturers actually take an interest.

    Good one FIA – bring in new rules that don’t seem to hold any interest from anyone.

Comments are closed.