Ecclestone wants to scrap 2014 engines because they don't sound good

It's all smoke and mirrors politicking.

Most likely (IMO) all that will happen is the new engine formula will be put back to 2015.

Because Mercedes are a huge company who have one of the most advanced engine development divisions. They have probably got the best engine currently in F1, and traditionally Renault have struggled with power.

There can really only be one 'prime' position. Primus is Latin for first. Mercedes, on paper at least, seem to have everything in place to exploit the regulations better than anyone else. Its not to say they will though.

Ferrari have forgotten more about building racing engines than Mercedes has ever known. The current Mercedes engine is the product of a small British specialist that they bought out. As for Renault, they traditionally had the most power. It is only recently that they seem to have been a bit behind, mainly due to not cheating as much as Ferrari and Mercedes over the engine freeze rules. And they still win more races and championships. I also recall that both Renault and Ferrari have built and raced 1.5 litre V6 turbos in F1. Mercedes haven't.

As for Bernie, i can only assume that this latest outbutrst is to obscure the failure of the Russian GP plan. Or something else. Or he just got bored and decided to be a troll, as is his way.

Someone help me out, is this Bernie listening to the new engine?

Someone help me out, is this Bernie listening to the new engine?

Nah. He would want to be paid for flying the Union Flag, and the UK couldn't afford it.

I am with Bernie on this. Not because of the sound, but I see the whole mini-turbo-engine affair as a stupid big money throwing exercise with no significant practical effect. Even more when the engine is built to very tight specs. No space for technological competition and advance.
They could equally unfreese the current engines for new technology in fuel combustion management, limit only the volume and put a cap on the fuel consumption and at the same time introduce the rules which encourage energy recovery and reuse solutions and technologies. Thus, most of the expenditure would go for those technologies in unison with the global trend of hybrid power.
The way rules for 2014 are now, they are stagnated. I think this is because no one has the balls to free up the rules in fear that one manufacturer may make a very successful start and dominate. But this is how competition works and who is afraid of wolves does not go in the mountain.

Most of the fans are also as shallow as Bernie and seem to not want the new engines either. I'm not sure why everyone wants F1 to forever stay with frozen V8's, the sound argument is not good enough.

If the new engines do get scrapped I'm pretty sure that's the end of Renault and Mercedes involvement in any form in F1. Maybe the teams and lower down would like it for the cost cutting, but the higher ups would probably just see F1 as now completely pointless and pull the plug, I know I would.

I'd expect lawsuits to follow too, you can't have these manufacturers investing so much into new technology only for it to be scrapped surely. It's nothing like the ridiculous split wing that they wanted to introduce.

F1 would deserve to die if the engines are scrapped, and then I hope Bernie finally gets what's coming to him.

F1 would deserve to die if the engines are scrapped, and then I hope Bernie finally gets what's coming to him.

There are many parallels to CART who took a long time to decide on a new engine format too.

By the time they did, all the manufacturers had already gone to the Indy 500 and they had no choice but to press on with detuned Cosworths V8 turbos for everybody, as CART headed to bankruptcy the first time (off the top of my head).

Rubbish. If Mercedes REALLY think that they're somehow going to Leapfrog teams because of a new engine formula they're most likely wrong - in fact, the greatest parity is achieved when there are NO rule changes...

And - as if anything Bernie says means anything, anyway...

Ross Brawn is a master at taking advantage of major changes.

A big regret in my life is not attending a Grand Prix live when V10s were still in use. The current engines sounded good live, but V10s would have been on another planet!

Whenever I watch races on TV, I always feel there is no true sense of speed, partly due to the engines sounding quite flat. I constantly watch pre-2006 videos and think wow... Why can't F1 cars always sound like this!

The V8 sounds "live" is quite different than in the TV feed, their microphone cut the high frequencies, I personal don't think that the difference between V10 is V8 is mega big (I heard them both live).

Edited by SealTheDiffuser, 29 September 2012 - 13:49.

Feel free to provide those links. But that was no different to the ground effects rules Patrick Head was working on last year, a group of engineers working to develop some basic rules but they were never written into the regulations nor did any team start developing them. The engines are happening. The change to V6's were made during the process of shaping the new rules, not because Bernie said something in public, and the electric pit lane is still in the rules as far as I know.

This is a false representation of events. You are forgetting that the engines weren't even V6s in the first place. They were V4 engines but following criticism from Ecclestone this was changed to a V6 and in itself this change incurred additional costs for all of the manufacturers (even PURE which has now closed down). This is a well documented fact and proves the point that the 2014 regulations introduced by the FIA have ALREADY forced the manufacturers to spend money on something which will not be introduced after criticism from Ecclestone led to the FIA making changes. The same is true of the rev limit which increased from 12,000rpm to 15,000rpm and this was driven by criticism from Ecclestone and Ron Walker. Now Ecclestone is saying that the engines will not be introduced in 2014 and that he has Ferrari's support on it. Given that the FIA has admitted that manufacturers have already had to spend money on something which will never be introduced (the V4 engine) due to changes it made to the 2014 regulations it is obviously not a valid argument to say that the 2014 regulations could not be scrapped because the manufacturers would end up wasting money.

Edited by Tommorris747, 29 September 2012 - 18:17.

If car manufacturers don't want to be involved in the sport let them go, F1 can survive without them.

Yeah!

Who wants Honda, Mercedes, Renault, BMW when we can have Force India, Marussia, Caterham and HRT?!

Edited by morrino, 29 September 2012 - 18:24.

Yeah!

Who wants Honda, Mercedes, Renault, BMW when we can have Force India, Marussia, Caterham and HRT?!

And no engines in any of them.

but am sure the electric motors will sound all that much better ....

It's Bernie and Ferrari vs Mercedes and Renault.

Both Merc and Renault have said that they are pressing ahead with V6T development and will not stay in the sport if the V8's stay.

Can F1 survive with only one engine manufacturer?

It's Bernie and Ferrari vs Mercedes and Renault.

Both Merc and Renault have said that they are pressing ahead with V6T development and will not stay in the sport if the V8's stay.

Can F1 survive with only one engine manufacturer?

Ferrari + Cosworth is two;) But it is hard to imagine.

They will find a compromise. I expect the new engine to again be delayed even further. They should stick a mock up in an old car and do a demo run so the fans can at least hear what it might sound like. Afterall we're the ones that will be hearing it, i like deciding for myself, not being told by a circuit owner or F1 insider what i should like.

Ps i like the sound of the gp2 cars, if they revved a little higher they'd be magic! And if theyre so worrie about noise then just bring back v10's and make them more environmentally friendly!

I suspect that Bernie is trying to stick it to Craig Pollock and his P.U.R.E 2014 F1 Engine plans.
If he is worried about the noise they make he can hire this guy since they are planning for more electric powered cars in F1.

Bernie speaking some sense for a change..... I'm not at all looking foward to this "rice burner engines" era of F1 that will commence in 2014.

Bernie speaking some sense for a change..... I'm not at all looking foward to this "rice burner engines" era of F1 that will commence in 2014.

Don't worry. Ecclestone says it will not happen in 2014 and Ferrari is in support too. The FIA doesn't care if it the manufacturers spend money on engines which are never used. They admitted that the change from a V4 to a V6 (which followed Ecclestone's first criticism of these ridiculous regulations) led to the manufacturers wasting money. Now they will waste more money because the V6 engines will not be introduced. But fans will not have to suffer the sound and the teams will not have to pay more for new engines so it is a benefit overall. Hamilton has a problem though because he will be stuck with Mercedes in its current level of performance. As they say, them's the breaks!

This is a false representation of events. You are forgetting that the engines weren't even V6s in the first place. They were V4 engines but following criticism from Ecclestone this was changed to a V6 and in itself this change incurred additional costs for all of the manufacturers (even PURE which has now closed down). This is a well documented fact and proves the point that the 2014 regulations introduced by the FIA have ALREADY forced the manufacturers to spend money on something which will not be introduced after criticism from Ecclestone led to the FIA making changes. The same is true of the rev limit which increased from 12,000rpm to 15,000rpm and this was driven by criticism from Ecclestone and Ron Walker. Now Ecclestone is saying that the engines will not be introduced in 2014 and that he has Ferrari's support on it. Given that the FIA has admitted that manufacturers have already had to spend money on something which will never be introduced (the V4 engine) due to changes it made to the 2014 regulations it is obviously not a valid argument to say that the 2014 regulations could not be scrapped because the manufacturers would end up wasting money.

So... still no links as to how much CDG cost the teams?

He's said nothing of the sort by the way. He's made a criticism, and you can bet the amount of money teams spent on CDG that it has some ulterior motive, putting pressure on another party, in some completely different negotiation. That's how he works.

Mercedes in its current level of performance. As they say, them's the breaks!

The engine isn't the problem with the Mercedes team anyhow though?

Will they really give McLaren and Force India B-spec engines, when the obligation for works and customer engines to be identical (as homologated) is removed from the regulations. Would they really be wise to slow down McLaren on purpose!?

I kinda agree with Bernie. Keep the current engines (lower the revs and fuel flow) and go serial hybrid.

I'd love to see them drive pitlane and formation lap on electric only.

The engine isn't the problem with the Mercedes team anyhow though?

Will they really give McLaren and Force India B-spec engines, when the obligation for works and customer engines to be identical (as homologated) is removed from the regulations. Would they really be wise to slow down McLaren on purpose!?

They would be wise to do it but Brawn's already confirmed the engines are identical.

Don't worry. Ecclestone says it will not happen in 2014 and Ferrari is in support too.

Exactly if the promoter and the most important team in the sport don't want it, it probably won't happen.
I'd expect them to postpone the switch to V6 engines 1 or 2 years

This is a false representation of events. You are forgetting that the engines weren't even V6s in the first place. They were V4 engines but following criticism from Ecclestone this was changed to a V6 and in itself this change incurred additional costs for all of the manufacturers (even PURE which has now closed down). This is a well documented fact and proves the point that the 2014 regulations introduced by the FIA have ALREADY forced the manufacturers to spend money on something which will not be introduced after criticism from Ecclestone led to the FIA making changes. The same is true of the rev limit which increased from 12,000rpm to 15,000rpm and this was driven by criticism from Ecclestone and Ron Walker. Now Ecclestone is saying that the engines will not be introduced in 2014 and that he has Ferrari's support on it. Given that the FIA has admitted that manufacturers have already had to spend money on something which will never be introduced (the V4 engine) due to changes it made to the 2014 regulations it is obviously not a valid argument to say that the 2014 regulations could not be scrapped because the manufacturers would end up wasting money.

You are forgetting that there is a direct correlation between the costs to change/abort a development program and how advanced it already is. The V4s were announced in 2010 and changed to V6s a year later - i don't think they ever even left the concept phase, so it didn't really cost the manufacturers much money. The V6s however are already running on test benches as has been confirmed by Ferrari and hinted at by Merc. That's just not comparable.

The sound is all important. It's the first impression a person has of F1 at the track. It precedes the car, it announces it's arrival.

We lost a good bit from the V10s.

1) the V8's are not quite as loud.
2) they're not as strong: when they're upshifting they don't sound as aggressive. The V10's sounded like angry cyborg death machines. That is cool.
3) we've lost the ultra-high end revving. Let them run higher; not only is it NOVEL, an important aspect to F1, but the wider pitch range was, again, more impressive.

Anyone that rubbishes these aspects are being insular. You've never noted your fellow F1 fans that surround you *headed to the track*, an *at the track*, who are grinning and shouting at each other BECAUSE OF THE IMPRESSIVENESS OF THE SOUND.


We don't care if someone else finds no glee in this. I find it hard to imagine a "car guy" that isn't thrilled by the *sound* of a car. The V10 F1 cars ruled.

A 1.6l V6 cannot be the same by default. Just by nature of being more efficient with the turbo, you're subtracting energy from the exhaust - it can't be as loud. Factor in much less displacement, again it can't be as loud. Just the fact that there is a turbo interrupting the exhaust changes it.

V6 turbos make no sense on any level. The average road car doesn't use a V6, doesn't use a turbo, won't use a turbo, and is headed towards being all electric. Make electric wide open energy, technology and engineering wise - THAT makes sense. Otherwise it's just another EXPENSIVE boondoggle.


This would be the most brilliant thing Bernie has done for F1 if he gets this concept across to the FIA and teams. The promoters are right: I'm not very motivated to go see weaker, softer, less aggressive sounding F1 cars at a track in 2014. That's half the live experience, are they going to cut tickets prices in half?

You are forgetting that there is a direct correlation between the costs to change/abort a development program and how advanced it already is. The V4s were announced in 2010 and changed to V6s a year later - i don't think they ever even left the concept phase, so it didn't really cost the manufacturers much money. The V6s however are already running on test benches as has been confirmed by Ferrari and hinted at by Merc. That's just not comparable.

You are missing my point which is that the regulations for 2014 have already changed as a result of Bernie's criticism and this led to the manufacturers spending money on an engine which will not be used. The FIA even publicly admitted that the manufacturers wasted money on developing an engine (the V4) which will not be used and this change came as a result of Bernie's criticism, just like the change in the rpm limit. This directly disproves the idea that the FIA will not ditch the 2014 engines purely because the the manufacturers have already invested into them which is what @Fastcake said. The manufacturers had already invested into the V4 engines but this didn't stop the FIA ditching them following Ecclestone's criticism. This is why (@stanga) there is no need to continue talking about the CDG wing. As soon as I remembered that the FIA's changes to the 2014 engine regulations have already cost the manufacturers money following criticism from Ecclestone there was no point in discussing further how much changes to old regulations have cost the teams.

I kinda agree with Bernie. Keep the current engines (lower the revs and fuel flow) and go serial hybrid.

I'd love to see them drive pitlane and formation lap on electric only.

Why?

The sound is all important. It's the first impression a person has of F1 at the track. It precedes the car, it announces it's arrival.

We lost a good bit from the V10s.

1) the V8's are not quite as loud.
2) they're not as strong: when they're upshifting they don't sound as aggressive. The V10's sounded like angry cyborg death machines. That is cool.
3) we've lost the ultra-high end revving. Let them run higher; not only is it NOVEL, an important aspect to F1, but the wider pitch range was, again, more impressive.

Anyone that rubbishes these aspects are being insular. You've never noted your fellow F1 fans that surround you *headed to the track*, an *at the track*, who are grinning and shouting at each other BECAUSE OF THE IMPRESSIVENESS OF THE SOUND.


We don't care if someone else finds no glee in this. I find it hard to imagine a "car guy" that isn't thrilled by the *sound* of a car. The V10 F1 cars ruled.

A 1.6l V6 cannot be the same by default. Just by nature of being more efficient with the turbo, you're subtracting energy from the exhaust - it can't be as loud. Factor in much less displacement, again it can't be as loud. Just the fact that there is a turbo interrupting the exhaust changes it.

V6 turbos make no sense on any level. The average road car doesn't use a V6, doesn't use a turbo, won't use a turbo, and is headed towards being all electric. Make electric wide open energy, technology and engineering wise - THAT makes sense. Otherwise it's just another EXPENSIVE boondoggle.


This would be the most brilliant thing Bernie has done for F1 if he gets this concept across to the FIA and teams. The promoters are right: I'm not very motivated to go see weaker, softer, less aggressive sounding F1 cars at a track in 2014. That's half the live experience, are they going to cut tickets prices in half?

All of this, 100%

What about the engine sounds in Turbo era in 1980's?

What about the engine sounds in Turbo era in 1980's?

The rhetorical question you probably want to ask is if spectators left when the whole grid had gone to turbos - they obviously didn't. There's no need to be guessing how the cars will sound, as the only major difference is that the 80s V6's were biturbos and the 2014 ones will be single turbo's. Youtube is yours to explore.

You are missing my point which is that the regulations for 2014 have already changed as a result of Bernie's criticism and this led to the manufacturers spending money on an engine which will not be used. The FIA even publicly admitted that the manufacturers wasted money on developing an engine (the V4) which will not be used and this change came as a result of Bernie's criticism, just like the change in the rpm limit. This directly disproves the idea that the FIA will not ditch the 2014 engines purely because the the manufacturers have already invested into them which is what @Fastcake said. The manufacturers had already invested into the V4 engines but this didn't stop the FIA ditching them following Ecclestone's criticism. This is why (@stanga) there is no need to continue talking about the CDG wing. As soon as I remembered that the FIA's changes to the 2014 engine regulations have already cost the manufacturers money following criticism from Ecclestone there was no point in discussing further how much changes to old regulations have cost the teams.

The rule change already made from I4s to V6s is not making further changes more but less likely. One change is in the limits of credibility, two is not, as the pressure to keep what has been promised has grown with the first change.

(Note that I'm not arguing for turbos, just pointing out the fact.)

Will Bernie's prison cell be close enough to Hockenheim for him to hear the engines?

As if these sounded good. Last decent sounding engines were unrestricted 2006 v8. Not that I care about sound too much but that argument he used is crap, as current engines are lame.

What about the engine sounds in Turbo era in 1980's?

I was a baby back then but judging by videos and some people comments, they're really nice.






You've to be deaf to say that sounds bad.

Current shitty and frozen V8s just sound loud. But "loud" is not equal to good. Its just and annoying and loud noise. No comparisson to previous V10s.

You are missing my point which is that the regulations for 2014 have already changed as a result of Bernie's criticism and this led to the manufacturers spending money on an engine which will not be used. The FIA even publicly admitted that the manufacturers wasted money on developing an engine (the V4) which will not be used and this change came as a result of Bernie's criticism, just like the change in the rpm limit. This directly disproves the idea that the FIA will not ditch the 2014 engines purely because the the manufacturers have already invested into them which is what @Fastcake said. The manufacturers had already invested into the V4 engines but this didn't stop the FIA ditching them following Ecclestone's criticism. This is why (@stanga) there is no need to continue talking about the CDG wing. As soon as I remembered that the FIA's changes to the 2014 engine regulations have already cost the manufacturers money following criticism from Ecclestone there was no point in discussing further how much changes to old regulations have cost the teams.

And you are missing my point that the fact that engine regs have already changed resulting in the manufacturers losing some money doesn't mean anything in this situation because the amount of money involved back then was pretty much insignificant to what's at stake now. It is not a comparable situation.

Also, it was not just Bernie going Hulk on FIA that changed the engine regs to V6s. Pretty much everyone apart from Mosley and Renault (and PURE of course) was against the I4s and there was also widespread agreement that the engines should be more powerful and rev higher. The V6 was not Bernie's doing, but the best compromise the manufacturers could find after Ferrari opposed the I4.

Of course the new engine formula could be axed one year before its introduction. But that needs more than just Bernie&Ferrari. The majority of manufacturers/teams would need to agree* on this - and therefore accept losing money - and while i'm unsure of Mercedes, i can't imagine Renault agreeing to any further delays after their comments last year.

Guess we can only wait and see though.

*) Unless there have been some major changes in the new Concorde Agreement. I remember reading that FIA went against the teams with the I4 arguing that the current Concorde only runs through 2012 and therefore doesn't have an impact on 2013 rule-making.

Edited by dau, 30 September 2012 - 19:37.

I kinda agree with Bernie. Keep the current engines (lower the revs and fuel flow) and go serial hybrid.

I'd love to see them drive pitlane and formation lap on electric only.

How on earth would they heat the tires and brakes on electric power only? Please use your head before posting.

Edited to add that the whole point of the warm up lap is also to heat the engine and get all the fluids running through and you go and say run it on electric only. Brilliant!

Edited by schumimercamg, 30 September 2012 - 19:34.

Did any one hear the Opel Calibra DTM? That had a V6 and revved to something like 13,000 rpm. I think F1 engine should remain unchanged in the interest of being that special sound that should only come from an F1 car.

The sound is all important. It's the first impression a person has of F1 at the track. It precedes the car, it announces it's arrival.

We lost a good bit from the V10s.

1) the V8's are not quite as loud.
2) they're not as strong: when they're upshifting they don't sound as aggressive. The V10's sounded like angry cyborg death machines. That is cool.
3) we've lost the ultra-high end revving. Let them run higher; not only is it NOVEL, an important aspect to F1, but the wider pitch range was, again, more impressive.

Anyone that rubbishes these aspects are being insular. You've never noted your fellow F1 fans that surround you *headed to the track*, an *at the track*, who are grinning and shouting at each other BECAUSE OF THE IMPRESSIVENESS OF THE SOUND.


We don't care if someone else finds no glee in this. I find it hard to imagine a "car guy" that isn't thrilled by the *sound* of a car. The V10 F1 cars ruled.

A 1.6l V6 cannot be the same by default. Just by nature of being more efficient with the turbo, you're subtracting energy from the exhaust - it can't be as loud. Factor in much less displacement, again it can't be as loud. Just the fact that there is a turbo interrupting the exhaust changes it.

V6 turbos make no sense on any level. The average road car doesn't use a V6, doesn't use a turbo, won't use a turbo, and is headed towards being all electric. Make electric wide open energy, technology and engineering wise - THAT makes sense. Otherwise it's just another EXPENSIVE boondoggle.


This would be the most brilliant thing Bernie has done for F1 if he gets this concept across to the FIA and teams. The promoters are right: I'm not very motivated to go see weaker, softer, less aggressive sounding F1 cars at a track in 2014. That's half the live experience, are they going to cut tickets prices in half?

Completely agree.

The rule change already made from I4s to V6s is not making further changes more but less likely. One change is in the limits of credibility, two is not, as the pressure to keep what has been promised has grown with the first change.

(Note that I'm not arguing for turbos, just pointing out the fact.)

It's not a matter of credibility but practicality. From what it says in the article, Ecclestone is arguing that the new engines would endanger F1 because they would cost more (another article says three times as much as the current units) for teams to buy. This would affect all of the teams which buy in engines and there are far more of them than there are manufacturer teams. Marussia is talking about this very point in the latest James Allen podcast.

It is worth adding that the manufacturers have accounted for the money spent on developing V6 engines already so they are not going to go out of business simply because the engines are never introduced. In contrast, the teams which buy in engines have to look forward to the prospect of 3x increased costs so their owners may choose not to continue in F1 as a result of this. Times change and in recent years the economy has worsened. This explains why Ecclestone is now saying that the engines should be scrapped completely and why he is also arguing for a budget cap today too.

BTW, you can equally make the argument that one change involving wasted money sets a precedent for a second rather than making a second less likely. In this case there has already been two changes (the rpm limit increase being the second) which sets even more precedent. It is much more logical to say that if there had never been a change then making one is less likely than staying with what has been agreed. However, this is most certainly not the case with the 2014 regulations...

Guess we can only wait and see though.

Absolutely. Let's see who is right on this one. Unfortunately it won't be Mercedes and Lewis

It is certainly not just Bernie and Ferrari as you will see from this:
http://www.jamesalle...ound-the-world/

You are missing my point which is that the regulations for 2014 have already changed as a result of Bernie's criticism and this led to the manufacturers spending money on an engine which will not be used. The FIA even publicly admitted that the manufacturers wasted money on developing an engine (the V4) which will not be used and this change came as a result of Bernie's criticism, just like the change in the rpm limit. This directly disproves the idea that the FIA will not ditch the 2014 engines purely because the the manufacturers have already invested into them which is what @Fastcake said. The manufacturers had already invested into the V4 engines but this didn't stop the FIA ditching them following Ecclestone's criticism. This is why (@stanga) there is no need to continue talking about the CDG wing. As soon as I remembered that the FIA's changes to the 2014 engine regulations have already cost the manufacturers money following criticism from Ecclestone there was no point in discussing further how much changes to old regulations have cost the teams.

So you can't back up your original assertions about the FIA costing manufacturers money by changing their mind on CDG wings, and now you seem to be suggesting that the 4 cylinder to 6 cylinder change also cost an unspecified amount of money. I'm assuming that's based on the book of hard facts that documents the expenses incurred in the CDG development?

So you can't back up your original assertions about the FIA costing manufacturers money by changing their mind on CDG wings, and now you seem to be suggesting that the 4 cylinder to 6 cylinder change also cost an unspecified amount of money. I'm assuming that's based on the book of hard facts that documents the expenses incurred in the CDG development?

Are you denying that the FIA admitted that all five manufacturers which worked on the V4 engine faced additional costs due to it deciding to switch to the V6? If you are denying this then you are not talking about events in the real world.

The rev limit kills the sound, and these will sound terrible if rev limited further! Gp2 cars will sound better

Are you denying that the FIA admitted that all five manufacturers which worked on the V4 engine faced additional costs due to it deciding to switch to the V6? If you are denying this then you are not talking about events in the real world.

If they had to buy some more biscuits because of an extra meeting to discuss this switch to the V6, that would amount to extra costs in your world. You said incremental costs amounting to millions... substantiate it please.

You couldn't do it for CDG wings, and I'm starting to doubt you can do it for this switch from 4-cylinder to 6-cylinder.

If they had to buy some more biscuits because of an extra meeting to discuss this switch to the V6, that would amount to extra costs in your world. You said incremental costs amounting to millions... substantiate it please.

You couldn't do it for CDG wings, and I'm starting to doubt you can do it for this switch from 4-cylinder to 6-cylinder.

I have got concrete proof, straight from the FIA, that the manufacturers have already incurred additional costs on developing V4 engines which will not be used. At the same time, I have got proof, straight from the most recent Mercedes financial statements, that total costs and research and development expenses at its F1 engine department went down over the past two years.

The conclusion from this is that Mercedes' engine costs have not gone up from developing the V6 engine (so it cannot be said to have wasted money when the engines are cancelled) but, according to the FIA, Mercedes wasted money by developing a V4. This contradicts the false theory that the manufacturers would lose money when the V6 is formally ditched and it also proves my point that they have wasted money already on the switch from the V4.

I will happily provide the links to this once you confirm whether you are denying that the FIA admitted that all five manufacturers which worked on the V4 engine faced additional costs due to it deciding to switch to the V6. I am not going to discuss the CDG wing because then you will say that this doesn't prove anything about amounts spent on changes to the current regs. And it doesn't. The FIA admitted publicly that its change from the V4 to the V6 led to the manufacturers incurring additional costs and this followed criticism from Ecclestone. It defeats the theory that FIA would not change the regs if it means that the manufacturers end up wasting money.

The rev limit kills the sound, and these will sound terrible if rev limited further! Gp2 cars will sound better

Not only that, I believe it was Vergne on Windsor's _the Flying Lap_ that said it wasn't that much of a difference in feel power wise going to an F1 car, just the brakes.

I fully understand the safety factor of going beyond 210 or so being "not a good idea", but how *fast* they get there is another issue. Why not let them have as much hp as they can create, give them wider tires - increase the hysteresis in a corner by making the acceleration off a turn that much greater? Despite "no traction control" it's been a lonnnnng time since I've seen someone have any difficulty accelerating.

Go to a dragstrip - you can *see* the difference between a 750hp car and a 1,000 hp car of the same weight take off. I say give them enough tire to lift the front wheels. <g> Laugh - but that would be seriously cool, would it not?

It's entertainment; it HAS TO BE ENTERTAINING ON A VISCERAL LEVEL.

The LMP diesel Audis sound neat. If I walked out to my mailbox and heard something like that zip by it would make my day, almost. At the track - the Corvettes sound like **** frakking RACE CARS. Those diesel Audis literally sneak up to you. Yes, that's neat in itself - but it's not *thrilling*.

Same old story: I still remember hearing an F1 car for the first time, from inside a bus *on the way* to the track at Indy. 900+ hp on grooved tires sounded much more "caged animal", trying to get loose, than the V8s. That combination of precision and ferocity was special.

Wait, Ima gonna let you finish, but...

Another thing:

for many years, since the 90's, the metrics of F1 was always "astounding to more astounding". IMO that is the main part of the technical allure of it, the mechanical gestalt.

Then, we're told V10s are too exotic. Two way telemetry too technical. 19,000 rpm too high. Thanks to doofus "engineering" via the F1 Working Group, we have cars that have broke-looking noses, wheelbarrow looking rear wings, squared off end plates, let's make Hockenheim shorter, and they're talking about having sprint-car style roll cages instead of modern looking canopies.

F1 is going backwards, it's like there is an invisible hand belonging to ... I don't know, a poodle breeder, or maybe a crochet club running FOM. Bring back V10 alien-battle-droid-monsters-a-mile-away sound!

I want to scrap Ecclestone because his opinion are not good.

Edited by Mauseri, 30 September 2012 - 22:28.