Four-cylinder engines in F1 'pathetic'

[CNR]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05012011/23/di-montezemolo-four-cylinder-engines-f1-pathetic.html


Ferrari (http://www.motorsportforums.com/formula-1/ferrari.html) President Luca di Montezemolo has slated F1’s new four-cylinder engine regulations for 2013 and beyond as ‘a bit pathetic’ – and has called upon his rival team bosses to back his efforts to delay the 1.6-litre, turbocharged unit’s introduction


but for what is supposed to be the pinnacle of international motor racing, di Montezemolo argues that the latest move is a step too far and of little genuine relevance to the automotive industry.
We are not going to build four-cylinder engines for our road cars just because we now need them for F1


some one remind this moron that Ferrari is 90% owned by Fiat

[Chindog34]

Stupidest move ever by F1, pinnacle of motorsport running tiny four cylinders excellent idea!

[Dr.Phibes]

Stupidest move ever by F1, pinnacle of motorsport running tiny four cylinders excellent idea!

Current engines : Displacement of 0.3 litres per cylinder
New gen : Displacement of 0.4 litres per cylinder


Just sayin'....

[555-04Q2]

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/05012011/23/di-montezemolo-four-cylinder-engines-f1-pathetic.html





some one remind this moron that Ferrari is 90% owned by Fiat

For once he is right. F1 with 4 cylinder engines would be a complete joke. I have accepted the stupid rule changes so far that have stunted the performance capabilities of F1 cars over the years. But if F1 goes to 4 cylinder engines, I will vote my dissaproval by using the red button on my TV remote :down:

If I wanted to watch an eco-friendly racing series I would watch greyhound racing.

[ShiftingGears]

I just want the engines furiously powerful, without this engine freeze or rev limiter rubbish. Noone was complaining about 4-cylinder engines being wimpy last time they were in F1.

[555-04Q2]

I just want the engines furiously powerful, without this engine freeze or rev limiter rubbish. Noone was complaining about 4-cylinder engines being wimpy last time they were in F1.

The problem is this would be the start of the end of F1 as we know it. They are trying to make it an eco-friendly series. We already have stupid rules making teams design engines that have to last 3 or 4 races as though F1 is an endurance race etc etc

I don't like the way F1 is heading :mad:

[Easy Drifter]

HMMMMMMMM! Flat 4's
V4's
W4's.
Could be interesting or more likely a flop.
Too many FIA members who are more interested in PR than real racing.
The demented midget has been quiet on this front.
If he sees it as a real threat to F1 things will change.

[Rollo]

I just want the engines furiously powerful, without this engine freeze or rev limiter rubbish. Noone was complaining about 4-cylinder engines being wimpy last time they were in F1.

At Zeltweg, down the long straight to the Bosch Kurve, the car was throwing out 1400 bhp and just kept on pushing - you felt like you were sitting on a rocket.
- Gerhard Berger (speaking in 2007) on the B186.

Figures of 1750bhp have been thrown about for the M12/13, which is simpy phenomenal.

Besides which, why is di Montezemolo complaining about building four-cylinder engines for F1 just because the road cars don't need them? Ferrari was perfectly happy to build 1.5L V6s in the 1980s, 3L V10s in the 2000s and 2.4L V8s in 2010, and none of them were in road cars.

Ferrari will build engines according to the rules, just like they always have and will do. Does Mr di Montezemolo think that he's Mr Jong Il or something?

[V12]

http://grandprixinsider.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/ascari_1953.jpg

Was technically an F2 car to be fair, mind.

[nigelred5]

The 4cylinder turbos were making approx 1500bhp at around 11k with 1980's materials and technology. With today's technology I'm certain they could far exceed that output @ a 12K rev limit, if allowed to, which of course they won't be.

It kind of reminds me of the comparison of older cars and today's cars. My car in 1981 got high 30's-40 mpg with carburetors and breaker point ignition and were plenty comfortable and fully equipped. Now I have to buy a roller skate of a car that feels like it's a lunchbox, complete with plastic and styrofoam bumpers, all sorts of computers, electronic ignition, VVT, etc, etc etc. and I'm supposed to be excited when they can't get out of ther own way and struggle to get 30-32 mpg. WTF happened there? shouldn't I be making about 500 hp and getting over 100mpg with all that so called "technology".

[mstillhere]

For once he is right. F1 with 4 cylinder engines would be a complete joke. I have accepted the stupid rule changes so far that have stunted the performance capabilities of F1 cars over the years. But if F1 goes to 4 cylinder engines, I will vote my dissaproval by using the red button on my TV remote :down:

If I wanted to watch an eco-friendly racing series I would watch greyhound racing.

I completely agree

[mstillhere]

At Zeltweg, down the long straight to the Bosch Kurve, the car was throwing out 1400 bhp and just kept on pushing - you felt like you were sitting on a rocket.
- Gerhard Berger (speaking in 2007) on the B186.

Figures of 1750bhp have been thrown about for the M12/13, which is simpy phenomenal.

Besides which, why is di Montezemolo complaining about building four-cylinder engines for F1 just because the road cars don't need them? Ferrari was perfectly happy to build 1.5L V6s in the 1980s, 3L V10s in the 2000s and 2.4L V8s in 2010, and none of them were in road cars.

Ferrari will build engines according to the rules, just like they always have and will do. Does Mr di Montezemolo think that he's Mr Jong Il or something?

I would like for the record to point out that in this issue Di Montezemolo is not the only one showing disagreement. Mercedes is against it as well.

[mstillhere]

The 4cylinder turbos were making approx 1500bhp at around 11k with 1980's materials and technology. With today's technology I'm certain they could far exceed that output @ a 12K rev limit, if allowed to, which of course they won't be.

It kind of reminds me of the comparison of older cars and today's cars. My car in 1981 got high 30's-40 mpg with carburetors and breaker point ignition and were plenty comfortable and fully equipped. Now I have to buy a roller skate of a car that feels like it's a lunchbox, complete with plastic and styrofoam bumpers, all sorts of computers, electronic ignition, VVT, etc, etc etc. and I'm supposed to be excited when they can't get out of ther own way and struggle to get 30-32 mpg. WTF happened there? shouldn't I be making about 500 hp and getting over 100mpg with all that so called "technology".

Totally agree. The only winner in this case is the car maker not the consumer.

[555-04Q2]

It kind of reminds me of the comparison of older cars and today's cars. My car in 1981 got high 30's-40 mpg with carburetors and breaker point ignition and were plenty comfortable and fully equipped. Now I have to buy a roller skate of a car that feels like it's a lunchbox, complete with plastic and styrofoam bumpers, all sorts of computers, electronic ignition, VVT, etc, etc etc. and I'm supposed to be excited when they can't get out of ther own way and struggle to get 30-32 mpg. WTF happened there? shouldn't I be making about 500 hp and getting over 100mpg with all that so called "technology".

The problem lies in the fact that modern cars are a lot heavier than they were 30 years ago. This is due to government requirements for crash safety, ABS systems, air-conditioner units etc etc that make even small cars like the Toyota Yaris and VW Lupo/Polo heavy. Weight kills performance which requires more engine power/effort to make it move.

The average modern car today vs cars from 30 years ago is 20-30% heavier. Engines are a lot more fuel efficient than they used to be, but sometimes this is negated by the increase in weight.

[Sonic]

I have no particular problem with any ethos of engine configuration. Sure I'd love a free-for-all, but that simply won't happen this side of hell becoming a nice vacation spot.

So if we must have all engines conforming to one spec, four cylinders sounds fine to me. I have no doubt they'll make a decent noise (anything with several hundred horsepower will), but please, please, please can we do away with the silly restriction on stupid things like;

Artificial rev limits - the only limit that matters is when the valves start bouncing off the engine cover.

Engine freezes - we know they are doing via the back door anyway so what's the point.

Restriction on new technology - I'm still right behind KERS etc. Not because it makes F1 relevant (a sport shouldn't need to legitimise itself) but because it (and other tech like it) offers a chance for the thousand bhp monsters we all crave.

Here's hoping *crosses fingers*

[SGWilko]

The 4cylinder turbos were making approx 1500bhp at around 11k with 1980's materials and technology. With today's technology I'm certain they could far exceed that output @ a 12K rev limit, if allowed to, which of course they won't be.

It kind of reminds me of the comparison of older cars and today's cars. My car in 1981 got high 30's-40 mpg with carburetors and breaker point ignition and were plenty comfortable and fully equipped. Now I have to buy a roller skate of a car that feels like it's a lunchbox, complete with plastic and styrofoam bumpers, all sorts of computers, electronic ignition, VVT, etc, etc etc. and I'm supposed to be excited when they can't get out of ther own way and struggle to get 30-32 mpg. WTF happened there? shouldn't I be making about 500 hp and getting over 100mpg with all that so called "technology".

One word here, and this is 'part' of the reason F1 is going green - emissions.

Your '81 car was, no doubt, chugging out C02 in eye poppingly huge amounts. Just imagine the C02 output on a cold carburetta's engine, choke out and 8 stroking.....

Nowadays, Euro IV, V and even VI emissions regulations for new vehicles dictate that the engines are severely handicapped.

My bosses recent Bentley used to have blowers to add air to the exhaust when cold, just so the emissions were diluted enough to pass strict tests - :crazy:

[AndyL]

Your '81 car was, no doubt, chugging out C02 in eye poppingly huge amounts. Just imagine the C02 output on a cold carburetta's engine, choke out and 8 stroking.....

CO2 emissions are linked directly to how much fuel you burn so if the '81 car was giving better overall fuel consumption it will have been producing less CO2. No doubt it would have been throwing out vastly more unburned hydrocarbons, soot and nitrogen oxides than a modern engine though.

[Mark]

As mentioned in the other thread I don't get this idea of saying 4 cylinders is less relevant to road technology when nearly all road cars have 4 cylinder engines!

[V12]

I have no particular problem with any ethos of engine configuration. Sure I'd love a free-for-all, but that simply won't happen this side of hell becoming a nice vacation spot.

So if we must have all engines conforming to one spec, four cylinders sounds fine to me. I have no doubt they'll make a decent noise (anything with several hundred horsepower will), but please, please, please can we do away with the silly restriction on stupid things like;

Artificial rev limits - the only limit that matters is when the valves start bouncing off the engine cover.

Engine freezes - we know they are doing via the back door anyway so what's the point.

Restriction on new technology - I'm still right behind KERS etc. Not because it makes F1 relevant (a sport shouldn't need to legitimise itself) but because it (and other tech like it) offers a chance for the thousand bhp monsters we all crave.

Here's hoping *crosses fingers*

Pretty much agree with all of that. I won't be happy with a field of four-pots, but no more than the all-V8 and all-V10 scenarios we had.

[555-04Q2]

Next they will want to fit 2CV engines in F1 cars.

[SGWilko]

Next they will want to fit 2CV engines in F1 cars.

You'd probably be better off fitting the Dyane engine, it was more powerful due to slightly larger barrels and higher compression ratio.

[555-04Q2]

What about a 1/7 HP Deezil engine that was manufactured between 1947 - 1955 and sold for just $1.50 (excl 5c shipping). That would make F1 a really affordable and eco-friendly series all in one. Now I'm off to go hug a tree.....stump.

[airshifter]

I'm not surprised at all the pouting when really nobody knows for sure what the exact restrictions will be. A four cylinder engine of that size can make equal HP to what the cars have today, and that's all that really matters in the end is the power they are allowed to build it to.

Well really not, since the smaller configuration would allow a tighter package and better weight distribution... but let's not try to find anything good about this. :rolleyes:

[Roamy]

Well what do you expect letting a fag frog and a midget mophead run the pinnacle of motorsports??

But with that being said: Based on the eroding fossil fuels I can not even believe we still allow v-8s in passenger cars. A POS ford explorer gets 10 miles per gallon - It is a travesty we even allow this vehicle to be on the road.

So maybe where we are headed is to limit passenger car engines to 4 cylinder. But I don't necessarily agree that F1 should be dictating this.
Go back to the 10 and lets scream!!

[Sonic]

So maybe where we are headed is to limit passenger car engines to 4 cylinder. But I don't necessarily agree that F1 should be dictating this.
Go back to the 10 and lets scream!!

I don't believe any such restriction is required. The technology is already there to allow big engines to drop to four cylinders for better economy when outright power isn't needed (I think I'm right in saying that a big concept caddy with a V16 :eek: did just this, and i'm almost certain Mercedes did the same in F1 perhaps 3 years back to stop a stationary car overheating so quick).

[SteveA]

I don't believe any such restriction is required. The technology is already there to allow big engines to drop to four cylinders for better economy when outright power isn't needed (I think I'm right in saying that a big concept caddy with a V16 :eek: did just this, and i'm almost certain Mercedes did the same in F1 perhaps 3 years back to stop a stationary car overheating so quick).

That technology doesn't really save much fuel though because you're still moving all that extra weight around, and compressing air in the unused cylinders.

[DexDexter]

An interesting note: Almost all of the posters that complain about these new regulations are not Europeans, so they are used to gasoline-burning lazy V8s or something and so see a four
-cylinder engine as something weird. Well it's the most logical thing in the world on this day and age. Most leading car manufacturers use mainly four-cylinder engines so it's quite logical that F1 moves to those as well.

[CNR]

it would be better if they stuck with the v8 and used an alternative fuel

http://www.ethanolanswers.com.au


E85 is an alternative fuel that contains up to 85 per cent ethanol and 15 per cent petrol. The ethanol component, which can be produced from naturally occurring biological materials, offers consumers a range of benefits

[F1boat]

I have to say that this would likely be the end for me. If they go to V4 engines, I quit watching. I hope that Ferrari will quit racing too. All these rule changes seem to affect them most. And really all this push for a small green weak formula championship which benefits poor teams and kid drivers is getting too annoying.
I hope that the new IndyCar concept works, though.

[POS_Maggott]

If they end up making the same power, which they've stated they will, what is the fuss about?

You could have two-million screaming chipmunks in there, as long as they can push the car around the track just as fast, what's really changing for the spectator?

...Aside from those linked with PETA :P

[evooo]

I don't mind the new engine formula (apart from the rev limit) if they went the way of the WRC engine - 300hp limited but bags of torque.. which would hopefully translate into a handful of an F1 car = more potential driver errors etc!

[555-04Q2]

An interesting note: Almost all of the posters that complain about these new regulations are not Europeans, so they are used to gasoline-burning lazy V8s or something and so see a four
-cylinder engine as something weird. Well it's the most logical thing in the world on this day and age. Most leading car manufacturers use mainly four-cylinder engines so it's quite logical that F1 moves to those as well.

I drive hot 4-cylinder and 8-cylinder cars on a daily basis. While I love my Scoobys and the way their turbos whine and dump valves whoosh when I push them, nothing beats the potent sound of my V8's. And fuel is also expensive here BTW.

[rah]

Terrible idea. How many 4cyl supercars are there? Sure there are some but most supercars are over 8cyl. Don't get me wrong, I quite like 4 bangers, and I don't mind them being in F1, but I don't resticting everyone to them is a smart idea.

[Mark]

Terrible idea. How many 4cyl supercars are there? Sure there are some but most supercars are over 8cyl. Don't get me wrong, I quite like 4 bangers, and I don't mind them being in F1, but I don't resticting everyone to them is a smart idea.

Most supercar engines are greater than 2.4 litres too, but most are still inferior to F1 engines.

[Dave B]

I want F1 teams to be given a fixed amount of energy per race and given the freedom to exploit it however they wish. Petrol, diesel, electric, whatever works for them. If that means supplementing it with renewable or recovered energy so be it. Stick on a bloody hydroelectric plant powered by the driver's sweat if that's the most efficient.

F1 rules are way too restrictive. We'll never ever see innovation like fans, skirts or 6 wheels under the current regime.

[Mark]

F1 rules are way too restrictive. We'll never ever see innovation like fans, skirts or 6 wheels under the current regime.

And if there are innovations, double diffuser, F-duct, you have to get it spot on in the first year, because it'll be banned by the second year.

[schmenke]

The problem lies in the fact that modern cars are a lot heavier than they were 30 years ago. This is due to government requirements for crash safety, ABS systems, air-conditioner units etc etc that make even small cars like the Toyota Yaris and VW Lupo/Polo heavy. Weight kills performance which requires more engine power/effort to make it move.

The average modern car today vs cars from 30 years ago is 20-30% heavier. ...

You sure about that?
Today's cars are almost exclusively built on a uni-body frame, elimniating the need for a steel chassis that weighs a ton.
Also, crash protection in modern cars is achieved largely by designing the front and rear to "crumple" instead of adding steel which was the thought 20 years ago.
Engines today are generally smaller and lighter too.

[Mark]

The increase in the size of cars is due to "inflation" for want of a better word. Models grow in size with each evolution. Eg My current shape Fiesta is bigger than early models of Escort.

[AndyL]

You sure about that?
Today's cars are almost exclusively built on a uni-body frame, elimniating the need for a steel chassis that weighs a ton.

Monocoque construction has been the norm for the last 40 or 50 years. Crash protection is not just crumple zones either - the passenger cell of a modern car is a lot stronger than one of 20 or 30 years ago. Think of things like side impact bars, and how thick the roof pillars are compared to older cars.

I don't think it's entirely down to size inflation either. If you take a 1970's Ford Cortina 1.6 it would have been about 1050kg. The nearest modern equivalent in size I reckon would be a 5-door Focus, which will be at least 1250kg depending on model. It's true modern cars do tend to be a bit wider, mainly to give better side impact protection I think.

Edit: another comparison - 1985 Ford Sierra 1.6GL, 1076kg. That must surely be at least as big as a modern Focus.

[DexDexter]

I drive hot 4-cylinder and 8-cylinder cars on a daily basis. While I love my Scoobys and the way their turbos whine and dump valves whoosh when I push them, nothing beats the potent sound of my V8's. And fuel is also expensive here BTW.

Sure, but four-cylinder engines in F1 are IMO nothing to cry about, they're going to be extremely powerful and advanced. Nothing beats the old 3.5V12 Ferrari but those days are gone....

[555-04Q2]

Nothing beats the old 3.5V12 Ferrari but those days are gone....

Which is exactly why I would like to see the return of V10's, V12's etc and not see pissy 4 potter enter F1!!!

[555-04Q2]

You sure about that?
Today's cars are almost exclusively built on a uni-body frame, elimniating the need for a steel chassis that weighs a ton.
Also, crash protection in modern cars is achieved largely by designing the front and rear to "crumple" instead of adding steel which was the thought 20 years ago.
Engines today are generally smaller and lighter too.

Yes I am sure. Take a look at what a MK1 Golf GTI weighed in the 70's & 80's and look at what a MK6 Golf GTI weighs today. Its increased from 790 KG's to just over 1300 KG's. That a huge jump.

That's just one example.

[rah]

I want F1 teams to be given a fixed amount of energy per race and given the freedom to exploit it however they wish. Petrol, diesel, electric, whatever works for them. If that means supplementing it with renewable or recovered energy so be it. Stick on a bloody hydroelectric plant powered by the driver's sweat if that's the most efficient.

F1 rules are way too restrictive. We'll never ever see innovation like fans, skirts or 6 wheels under the current regime.

Absolutely agree. With more variation you will see more passing and different race stratergies.

[DexDexter]

I want F1 teams to be given a fixed amount of energy per race and given the freedom to exploit it however they wish. Petrol, diesel, electric, whatever works for them. If that means supplementing it with renewable or recovered energy so be it. Stick on a bloody hydroelectric plant powered by the driver's sweat if that's the most efficient.

F1 rules are way too restrictive. We'll never ever see innovation like fans, skirts or 6 wheels under the current regime.


This would lead to enormous costs and huge differences between engine manufacturers and would kill F1 in a few years. Too expensive and too "free" on this day and age.

[Dave B]

This would lead to enormous costs and huge differences between engine manufacturers and would kill F1 in a few years. Too expensive and too "free" on this day and age.
It worked for 50 years, through boom and through bust. In fact there's an argument for the opposite view: that manufacturers like Toyota pulled out precisely because they weren't able to showcase their innovation in regenerative technology.

[Mark]

There have been many examples of series trying to cut costs and going down the 'spec' route, this may work for a short period of time and achieve the lower costs, but ultimately most manufacturers aren't interested in competing in a spec series. They want to show that they are the best, and if they can't, they'll go!

[AndyL]

There have been many examples of series trying to cut costs and going down the 'spec' route, this may work for a short period of time and achieve the lower costs, but ultimately most manufacturers aren't interested in competing in a spec series. They want to show that they are the best, and if they can't, they'll go!

Don't know if I buy that. Proving you're the best is difficult and expensive. Giving the impression that you're the best to people who can't tell the difference is much cheaper, and 90% as effective.

[UltimateDanGTR]

although I personally like the turbo-V4 format, I really think the best engine solution that will suit everyone is to open up the engine rules slightly and allow for different engine classes, but also increase weigth based on engine class.

For example, cars fitted with 1.6L turbo-V4s could have a smaller minimum weight than say a car with 2.5L V10 engine or something that would be more powerful. This would raise an interesting question; what's the best strategy? more power but heavier car? or less power but lighter car? The rules could be set so every type of engine had a similar power to weight ratio.

unfortunatly, this makes sense for everyone, so it will never happen.

[Sonic]

Don't know if I buy that. Proving you're the best is difficult and expensive. Giving the impression that you're the best to people who can't tell the difference is much cheaper, and 90% as effective.

That may well be very true and I certainly don't want F1 to become FIA world sportscars mrkII with massive swings between booms and terrible, terrible lows.

That said F1 needs something special to keep the best engineers etc. Newey keeps making noises about quitting to go build boats (and I doubt he's alone) because the rules give limited room for imagination. This is especially true on the engine front.

[DexDexter]

It worked for 50 years, through boom and through bust. In fact there's an argument for the opposite view: that manufacturers like Toyota pulled out precisely because they weren't able to showcase their innovation in regenerative technology.

Sure it worked but the world has changed. F1 is competing in a world where it is more and more difficult to get people's attention and keep them interested since they've so many leisure activities to choose from. That's why the playing field in F1 must be/is levelled so that it is very difficult to dominate and get an edge over others. It must be exciting and dominance of one team or engine manufacturer (which your rules would more likely to lead into) would be very bad for F1 since nobody wants to watch Jenson Button going around the track a minute ahead of everybody even if the car is cool and advanced. They'll turn the channel or do something else, believe me.

[Chris R]

As for those who think that 4 cylinders are the end of F-1 - I don't recall the BMW turbo being a boring engine..... I do agree with the sentiment that a a really good (the best?) way to regulate the power of a racing motor is to regulate the amount of energy that can be input throughout a race....

[Sonic]

Sure it worked but the world has changed. F1 is competing in a world where it is more and more difficult to get people's attention and keep them interested since they've so many leisure activities to choose from. That's why the playing field in F1 must be/is levelled so that it is very difficult to dominate and get an edge over others. It must be exciting and dominance of one team or engine manufacturer (which your rules would more likely to lead into) would be very bad for F1 since nobody wants to watch Jenson Button going around the track a minute ahead of everybody even if the car is cool and advanced. They'll turn the channel or do something else, believe me.

Well said.

[Mia 01]

They are not, thoose BMW produced 1500 hp.

[V12]

On the cost argument, teams will basically spend what they can anyway.

And coming up with a clever idea costs nothing. It's all the multiple aero iterations required to develop under the current regulations that burn money.

[V12]

Sure it worked but the world has changed. F1 is competing in a world where it is more and more difficult to get people's attention and keep them interested since they've so many leisure activities to choose from. That's why the playing field in F1 must be/is levelled so that it is very difficult to dominate and get an edge over others. It must be exciting and dominance of one team or engine manufacturer (which your rules would more likely to lead into) would be very bad for F1 since nobody wants to watch Jenson Button going around the track a minute ahead of everybody even if the car is cool and advanced. They'll turn the channel or do something else, believe me.

That is a very good point, and to be honest I've resigned myself in recent years to the fact that F1 is clearly setting it's stall out as entertainment first and a sport second (and technology showcase a distant third probably).

Maybe it's time for someone (hell I'd take a stab myself if I had any organisational skills and connections) to have a go at setting up a new form of motorsport where the USP is unlimited technological development besides restrictions of energy, as well as safety concerns and practicality (i.e. max. dimensions so that cars that take up the full width of the track are banned).

If the cars get too quick and approach g-suit territory then lower the permissible energy consumption to peg them back, no arsing around with anything else needed.

Pay all entrants equal "prize" money to aid lesser funded entrants.

And then see what fans, manufacturers and competitors bite. Yes it would be a niche sport, but there's plenty of those around. Judging by these message boards and others there are fans out there who'd take an interest, manufacturers could justify the cost as it would be the ultimate R&D exercise, sponsors who might want the PR of being associated with an activity that is having actual benefits of solving the energy crisis might not expect as many eyeballs for ROI as they would for an equivalent F1 sponsorship too.

If someone wants to enter an F1 car, a sportscar, that Delta Wing thing, or purpose-designed machine, all would be welcome provided they met the basic size, safety and energy consumption regulations.

Yes, it's a pipe dream and might well not get off the ground, but I'd love to see an attempt at something like this.

[Ari]

4 cylinder F1's? That great. I hope who continue watching enjoy it, I won't be. If they do it, I'M OUT.

And talk about money! All the teams will need to totally redevelop their cars engines. What's that gonna cost? Funny they talk about cost-cutting then do stuff like this!

It would only be there for 1 year. No-one would show up. Going V8 was one thing, this is absurd.

[Ari]

That is a very good point, and to be honest I've resigned myself in recent years to the fact that F1 is clearly setting it's stall out as entertainment first and a sport second (and technology showcase a distant third probably).

Maybe it's time for someone (hell I'd take a stab myself if I had any organisational skills and connections) to have a go at setting up a new form of motorsport where the USP is unlimited technological development besides restrictions of energy, as well as safety concerns and practicality (i.e. max. dimensions so that cars that take up the full width of the track are banned).

If the cars get too quick and approach g-suit territory then lower the permissible energy consumption to peg them back, no arsing around with anything else needed.

Pay all entrants equal "prize" money to aid lesser funded entrants.

And then see what fans, manufacturers and competitors bite. Yes it would be a niche sport, but there's plenty of those around. Judging by these message boards and others there are fans out there who'd take an interest, manufacturers could justify the cost as it would be the ultimate R&D exercise, sponsors who might want the PR of being associated with an activity that is having actual benefits of solving the energy crisis might not expect as many eyeballs for ROI as they would for an equivalent F1 sponsorship too.

If someone wants to enter an F1 car, a sportscar, that Delta Wing thing, or purpose-designed machine, all would be welcome provided they met the basic size, safety and energy consumption regulations.

Yes, it's a pipe dream and might well not get off the ground, but I'd love to see an attempt at something like this.


If Ferrari went with the NEW series it would have SOME chance. If not, check this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A1_Grand_Prix

[DexDexter]

4 cylinder F1's? That great. I hope who continue watching enjoy it, I won't be. If they do it, I'M OUT.

And talk about money! All the teams will need to totally redevelop their cars engines. What's that gonna cost? Funny they talk about cost-cutting then do stuff like this!

It would only be there for 1 year. No-one would show up. Going V8 was one thing, this is absurd.

You are joking, right? You can't honestly think that people follow F1 because there are a certain number of cylinders in an F1 motor? :rolleyes:

[maxter]

Together with the other changes for 2013 I'm pretty convinced F1 will be more exciting than it is today, and. I'm sure most of the 600 million viewers will at least give it a chance before writing it off based on number of cylinders, which will be enough for them to realize it's still worth watching.

I think the sport can spare the few people that doesn't. Bye bye.

[UltimateDanGTR]

I think people who will throw a paddy if we go to four cylinders, forget these things will be turbo charged....

[gloomyDAY]

People, relax! I'm not as concerned about the 4-cylinder engine as I am about the push-to-pass nonsense.

Let's not forget that there are very clever people in F1 who can achieve great results.

[Don Capps]

I don't like the way F1 is heading

For some time now, formula one has been barreling down the wrong road, with regard to both the technical and "sporting" aspects of the whole enterprise. Technically, the various formulae used in recent years have never been more than more of the same ol' same ol' by sticking with simply tinkering with the size and shape of the internal combustion engine. That a hybrid or alternative power formula has never been implemented or that other means to actually push the technological boundaries has never been used actually means that the usual reason given for following formula one, that it is the cutting edge of automotive technology, is delusional given that it is anything but that. That the Delta Wing concept popped up at the IndyCar corner of the world says something, even if the knuckleheads managed to continued to prove that they are still as clueless as ever despite ditching Tony George by not adopting it or providing for it as being eligible for competition.

To even begin to comment on the many disasters of the "sporting" regulations regarding formula one would be both time-consuming and a waste of time. Since I drifted away from formula one in the mid-Eighties, I have found nothing to cause me to regret that decision. The potential for change and improvement for the better seems to have successfully eluded those running formula one for decades and decades now, with nothing to suggest that it will be any better any time soon.

Things "Back in the Day" really were not much better, but at least they had the advantage of not fully believing their own hype and propaganda, to say nothing of requiring more than the GNP of a small nation to make it through a season. It has all been out of control and lacking adult supervision for longer than most can or would like to remember.

I will leave the damage willfully done to automobile history by the brigands running the sport for another day, but suffice it to say that it has been considerable.

[Flatsixrules]

4,6,8,10,12 or 16 ... as long as they produce high HP, I'm good with it! Even better that they scream ... therefore, not a fan, at all, of rev limits. Times change ... the sport moves on. It's been that way in motorsports for over 100 years. No different now.