One of the aims of the new Formula 1 regulations for 2013 is to create more sustainable engines and help the automotive industry develop new technologies. Yes, there are some people complaining about the costs involved, but the bottom line here is that no-one is forcing the car manufacturers to stay. They are involved in F1 because they think it provides them with good marketing opportunities. If the sport fails to do that, then there will be no manufacturer involvement. A couple of years ago, as the recession began to bite, we suddenly lost BMW, Honda and Toyota. The sport goes on without them and, to be quite honest, nothing much has been lost. Now that the economy is showing some signs of a revival (albeit still rather weak, and not helped by uprisings and natural disasters), there is increasing potential for new manufacturer involvement in F1. There are also new sponsorship models that are being developed to help out. The word on the street in F1 circles is that Renault has come up with a new concept to fund its F1 activities. From what we are hearing Renault has proposed to Total that rather than giving money to different teams, the oil company should give its entire F1 budget to the car manufacturer (as part of a much larger original equipment manufacturer – OEM -deal), allowing Renault to lower the money it has to invest in the sport. The teams will then get a better deal on engines, bringing down the supply price, and all Renault teams will contractually have to carry Total stickers. That is a real win-win-win situation, because there is something in it for everyone, apart from those who currently soak up the Total sponsorship. Similar schemes could work for other manufacturer-oil company tandems.
There has long been talk of a Volkswagen presence in F1, although with the Volkswagen-Porsche merger, one can also imagine a Porsche presence in F1. Honda has always been a great supporter of F1 and as the economy comes back it may want to be back in F1 to develop new ideas and help train its engineers to be more productive. The other names that have been mentioned are Hyundai and McLaren, but there is always the potential for other smaller companies to invest in the sport, in order to raise their profile. It remains to be seen whether or not the manufacturers in question will enter in 2013 or whether they will watch how the new formula works and enter in 2014 or 2015.
If one looks back to the last major change in the engine rules – the switch from turbocharged engines to normally aspirated units in 1989 – new manufacturers did arrive as a result of the new rules, with the likes of Ferrari, Honda and Ford being rejoined by Renault and new offerings coming from a wide variety of companies, notably Lamborghini, Porsche, Yamaha and Peugeot along with specialist engine companies such as Judd, Hart, Motori-Moderni (Subaru), Life Racing Engines and Ilmor (which would transform into the Mercedes-Benz engine). As the championship stabilised the bigger manufacturers began to role into F1 in the late 1990s and early 2000s.
It is always a question of the survival of the fittest, and joining the F1 engine club is expensive, but if the rules provide car companies with technologies that they need and global publicity at the right price, then the sport tends to prosper.
I’m still going to miss the sound of 18,000rpm engines. I’ve been going to the Australian Grand Prix for quite a while and this year had two new attendees with me and both of them remarked on what on what every newcomer does – the sound. It was the big stand out for them. I understand that change needs to happen but I fear the spectacle will lose something big in the process.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/why-f1-engines-have-been-changed-in-2013/ [...]
I must say I have a different opinion on F1 not being effected by the loss of BMW, Honda, and Toyota. Additionally, while the bulk of why they left certainly was due to the economy, a margin also was because of exposure in markets that didn’t really pertain to their global presence. Today there is only three automotive manufacturers involved, Ferrari (Fiat), Mercedes-Benz, and Renault. That’s fully 50% less then existed only a couple of years ago. It’s my opinion that the governing body is, as you say, setting a new standard with engine development that pertains to today’s requirements, which I applaud. However, I feel they must address also the markets where their manufacturers have a substantial presence. Going back into a market like the United States is exactly what manufacturers like BMW, Honda, and Toyota, in addition to Mercedes-Benz and Ferrari had been calling for. Running Grands Prix in countries where a dictator or monarch can stroke the large check, doesn’t does little for the major manufacturers. However, having a Grand Prix in a country which will benefit the manufacturers involved, is paramount if the series wishes to attract major manufacturers and maintain it’s credibility.
I remember standing at Maggots when the Renault Turbo first went out for practice in 1977 with Jean-Pierre Jabouille and thought it sounded very flat and dull. It didn’t take long for things to liven up though and Honda sounded pretty good when they arrived. By the end, we had some pretty impressive power and Honda’s aim was to get 1bhp/c.c reliably.
If you wanted really dull, then you should have heard the Lotus 56. All you heard was a whoosh and, believe it or not, tyre squeal. Weird!
“The other names that have been mentioned are Hyundai and McLaren” – McLaren? You mean as an engine manufacturer or was it a typo?
“Now that the economy is showing some signs of a revival (albeit still rather weak, and not helped by uprisings and natural disasters)”
And not in the UK
Agree about the noise, I miss the sound of the V12′s and also notable for me was the sound of the 2004(?) Ferrari which hit something like 21000rpm in qually trim.
I remember hearing the first of the v8 engines when the number of cylinders was last dropped, leaving the V10 and V12s to be a thing of the past. The lone team running the restricted revving, higher number cylindered engines sounded awesome, but before too long we all got used to it.
No matter what the engine formula changes to, and this won’t be the last time that it does, it will still be F1, just so long as the engineering is being pushed to the limit regardless of the restrictions in place.
If the concept works with oil companies, why not any other majpr sponsor ?
“This engine has been brought to you by the good people of Vodaphone”
“Santander – the Power Bank!”
“Macdonalds – “Turbo Burger!”
Personally, I couldn’t stand the sound when I went to my first GP. In fact aside from the insane ticket prices, and poor viewing spots it is the main reason I did not attend subsequent races in Montreal, even though I lived in the city. I had ear protection and still found the shrill a bit too loud for comfort.
I like hearing the sound on TV and do no think for a moment that this part of the experience will change. For the record, I spend a lot of time reading car sites such as Jalopnik and regularly ‘watch’ car videos for the sound of their engines. Bernie’s assertion that people will tune out, or that they are only there for the sound is absurd. I know, though, that he just wants to be a mouth piece to gain any attention to the sport.
The engine change is all about image, not about being green. The noise will be sacrificed as a clear indicator of Formula 1 ‘doing something green’. There are plenty of technologies out there which could produce carbon neutral fuel – including petrol – for conventional engines to run on. The V8′s could be kept just as they are. Plenty of examples in this link: http://www.simplesustainable.com/topic/1262-petrol-from-thin-air/
So the proof of concept is there, the cost is just prohibitively high. What better environment than F1 to dive these technologies forward? Imagine an F1 team partnering with a fuel supplier that makes petrol from thin air! This would be a closed loop system that was carbon neutral. Now that would be green, and great for the team’s image, as well as helping to drive the technology.
And yet, it seems Renault is moving towards a situation that may make all teams who run it’s engines have Total stickers? Presumably they would have to run that fuel too. Hence stifling innovation where it matters, protecting the interests of car companies who are developing their own psuedo-green technologies as purely a new business opportunity, not as a means of reducing carbon emissions.
While I was only watching the Australian GP on TV, I thought that the engines sounded (for the most part, and especially on over-run or in the pit lane) awful this year. I guess the wild timings and fuel maps that are used to drive up and stabilise exhaust flow through the diffusers must be causing the flat and raspy engine notes.
One of the real joys of bygone eras was the difference and diversity of engine noise! I was lucky last year to experience the Canadian GP. one of the (few) supports came from historic GP cars. How glorious to hear the V12s and flat 12s go up against DFVs through the parkland of the island. My concern is a lack of diversity – yes, screaming V10s or V8s are a wondrous spectacle, but for me it is in the comparison that the joy lies!
I’m in complete agreement with what you’ve stated before Joe. 1.5 turbo’s provided great spectacle in the past, so there is no reason why 1.6 turbo’s should suddenly ruin F1.
From what I can gather, theres really only Ferrari that are completely opposed to it, the fact its Ferrari may explain why Bernie is bleating out against it. Looking for an ally in Fota before the next concorde agreement?
Hi, Joe, love your blog.
I hate the thought of WRC engines in F1, they seem so low tech and will sound abrasive.
I find the idea of saving money by creating new rules that require a lot of investment peculiar. I also struggle with the limitations on engines available to the drivers. The cost is mostly in the development, not the manufacture, so cutting the number of units seems silly to me.
For once I agree with Bernie that the new engines will sound dreadful and not improve the show.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/why-f1-engines-have-been-changed-in-2013/ [...]
If the idea of having TOTAL sponsoring RENAULT engines instead of the Teams goes ahead it will impose a limitation to the Reanult powered teams once it will no be possible to then to negotiate sponsorships with other oil companies. It will close the doors to new Oil companies. Imagine if all the engine suppliers come with their oil sponsors…. Sponsors like Pdvsa, Petronas, Petrobras will not accept to share the car spaces with Shell, Total or Mobil….
“It is always a question of the survival of the fittest, and joining the F1 engine club is expensive, but if the rules provide car companies with technologies that they need and global publicity at the right price, then the sport tends to prosper.”
That approach is suicidally arrogant for F1! FOM can successfully put blinders on the fans through media coverage. But OEMs know that the exclusive technology blablabla thing just that – PR nonsense for those who have no clue about motorsport outside F1.
My fear is that with the new engines being largely irrelevant in the real world (just like the current ones) and very expensive to design from scratch, the manufacturers wouldn’t be attracted while Cosworth would have to leave. Does that leave us with Ferrari and various brands of Renault-Total-Infinity-Lada?
I would LOVE to see another few manufacturers in F1.
Mario Illien of Ilmor fame recently made lots of positive noises about the the new FIA regulations, so it would be interesting to have them back to help McLaren build their own Engine or maybe work with Sauber through their Jo Ramirez-Perez-Slim connection.
There’s a rumour that Jaguar through parent company TATA, are interested in the 2013 engine.
There are also new indycar engines on the horizon so manufacturers have a choice of single seater programme at the moment, in recent years Honda and bridgestone have both stayed with indycar and dropped F1 for the simple reason that indycar was a cheaper proposition. True cheaper for less worldwide exposure. The trick now for FOTA is to widen the gap between the value of a presence in F1 and the cost of securing that presence, whilst ensuring that performance depends as much on effort and organisation than raw cost. Honda and Toyota’s terrible ‘bang for buck’ proves this is possible, ie dollars don’t always deliver. The car companies should think about why this is (I’m looking at you mercedes with your over engineered 2012 tyregun line supports and poor car performance)
It will be interesting to see if teams like Sauber or Force India take a risk and go for a new or returning engine manufacturer, or stick with their existing technical partnerships.
If there is enough demand from engine suppliers, hopefully the FIA moves to only allow no more than two teams to use any one engine.
I agree with Exar! Those V8 (and the awsome V10/12′s of yester year) will sadly be missed. I must say however that Joe’s comment is the first practical one – transfer of technology. Up to now a lot has been “bleated” about green technologies and fuel efficiency – if that is what must be achieved then start complaining about the fly-away races and the steady increase of it. One of those jumbos probably consumes more fuel between Europe to Australia than used in an entire racing season by the racers. I mean seriously – if it’s green that they want, start by cutting the right branches.
I guess for me the question is whether the engine manufacturers will see sufficient reason to come back. With regulations so tight, there’s little room for anyone to really stand out. The only time we really hear about engines in the last couple years is when one manufacturer is claiming to be down on h.p. and wants FIA approval to tweak it to get 10 h.p. more.
If the engine regulations were loosened to allow more innovation and more variety, I could see a manufacturer’s interest in trying to make a mark. But, to be one of three or four companies making essentially the same engines…it’s hard to see the appeal.
Of course loosening regulations won’t happen though, because of the over-riding emphasis on cost limitation.
Sounds like watching Nelson Piquet win the 1983 WDC must have been pretty boring, at least acoustically … really? Ok they’re not going to shriek as high-pitched as the current cars do, but … so what? They’re still gonna be incredibly loud, and nobody is going to talk about it anymore after some races.
The Renault-Total deal sounds like the kind of thing some of us suggested would happen if the budget cap was brought in.
I hope the manufacturers don’t come back to F1. They have done nothing but drive up costs and drive proper racing companies out of business.
<Honda have always been a great supporter of F1
Really? I thought Honda had popped in and out of F1 every few years as the vagaries of the global economy dictated their priorities. Every time the economy dips Honda run away from F1 caring little about the mess they leave behind them.
Surely it has to be better to have the likes of Cosworth, Ilmor, Judd and the like supplying engines rather than F1 handing itself lock, stock and barrel to the car manufacturers again.
I really don’t see how the new regs are going to do anything for road car manufacturers. We are going to end up with similarly dumbed down, over engineered engines as we have now. When the original turbos came in everyone learned a lot because the engines pushed the limits of technology and improved at an incredible rate. Unfortunately now when teams are spending ten times the budget they had then we can’t afford to push the limits to the same degree.
It really is amazing that now teams are spending vastly more than in the past they can’t do the things that they did then. Then teams went to Brazil or South Africa for 6 weeks at a time for pre-season testing and went through engines at a rate unimaginable now.
If we want good racing there are simple things that need to be done. We need more mechanical grip than aero grip and we need more power than grip. Continuing with under-powered, over-engineered engines to keep car manufacturers who will drop the sport like a hot stone happy while maintaining current levels of downforce means we will never get proper racing or see any serious engine developments that are of use to anyone.
[...] Saward (um jornalista que a gente sempre recomenda a leitura) trás hoje um artigo interessante em seu blog. Nele, Saward fala sobre o porque da entrada das novas regras, novas tendências de relação entre [...]
I’m all for the new engines. 1.5L turbos added to the sport rather than detracted from it in the past so I don’t see how the new rules will hurt F1.
One change I would make though is allowing the engine manufacturers use any 4cyl configuration instead of an just an inline 4. This might encourage the likes of Subaru and Porche with their boxer engines to enter the sport.
I know this isn’t directly related Joe, but what’s McLaren’s arrangement with Mercedes? Are they planning to remain working together for the forseeable future or are Mercedes just going to be involved in their works team at some point? Cheers
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/why-f1-engines-have-been-changed-in-2013/ [...]
For people with short memories, you do know that in the turbo era we saw 4 cyl and 6 cyl turbos that pumped out as much 1300-1400 bhp in qualifying trim……just sayin’…..
I for one, am happy to see this change as long as the manufacturers can take technology to the extreme with no hindrances from the usual suspects.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/why-f1-engines-have-been-changed-in-2013/ [...]
Exar, Dieter, John M.
Complete and utter sense.
A 4cly engine in an F1 in the modern era is a joke. As I’ve said before these engines will not be the fire farting 1.5 turbos of yesteryear, that was unburnt fuel, we cant have that in this pc correct green era.
However the transfer of technology is an interesting one. But the transfer of tech could also happen if the engines were 2ltr v6. What an idea! The right noise, less stressed engine, the advantages go on and on. This was suggested and dismissed out of hand by the FIA, by such people as Head, Whitmarsh, Horner, Stewart, Williams, Moss, these people obviously know bugger all about F1.
Joe,
Whats your view on a 2ltr v6? I would be very interested in your opinion, because of your insight and approach to F1. What does David T and Doody think about the engine business, just out of interest and good debate.
Cheers
Andy
PS. 2ltr v6 with turbo of course and less restrictive regulations.
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/why-f1-engines-have-been-changed-in-2013/ [...]
[...] Source: http://joesaward.wordpress.com/2011/03/31/why-f1-engines-have-been-changed-in-2013/ [...]
Some people say lower reving engines won’t sound any good–well I don’t agree, to be quite honest I’ve found a grid full of v8s all using the same narrow rev range as each other, and 18000rpm max, rather uninteresting! The days of a variety of different configurations and different rev ranges were so much more interesting and exciting to hear! I mean a 18000 rev v8 doesn’t actually sound like a piston engine, they just make a scream with all the cylinder pulses murging into one long drawn out scream. EG a nascar v8 or an Ausi v8 produces a great noise that has character/personallity and is interesting to listen to. But I’d like to see and hear 4, 6, and 8 cylinder engines in F1 for some variety! Oh, and btw when they engage the kurse, it should emit a loud buzing or whistling noise to add some variety and interest for the spectator. At the moment we don’t know if they’re using it or not!
PK
I recently noted that the Indycar series is moving to carbon brakes for 2012 along with turbo engines–looks like V-6′s at 2.4 liters using ethanol and tuned for up to 750 bhp. It looks like some names familiar to F1 will be making these engines.
Will these changes have a beneficial spillover effect on F1 budgets and technology development? Also, I think it may be much more interesting to see if this makes Indycar a more effective feeder series to F1, and if it makes comparison of the drivers more interesting. I’m sure these changes will help Indycar, which will in turn help F1 visibility in the US. Interesting times ahead for open wheel race fans.