F1 » Ecclestone continues to rail against 2014 engines

Bernie Ecclestone has warned that there could be hidden implications of F1's changing engine specification.

Sort Comments: Oldest | Newest

fish fingers - Unregistered

May 24, 2013 2:56 PM

F1 can be great again if they just bring back what it is supposed to be ie RACING. I like the smaller engines, I don't mind refueling, but ban DRS etc and bring back fat tyres!


May 24, 2013 3:22 PM

Bernie most certainly is not a public school boy. His father was a fisherman working out of Lowestoft and he is a country boy from a tiny village about 6 miles from me.
Bernie left school at 16 to work in the local gasworks after the family moved to London.

With apologies for defending Bernie......


May 24, 2013 3:34 PM

A couple of questions to the opponents of change.
How long would you run the V8s for? Another 20 years? 40 years? More?
And when you finally decide to update, what would you then choose and how will they afford it?
Cost of developing the new engine is high but put it off and it will become even higher.

bucksboy has hit the nail firmly on the head....

Texas Roadhouse

May 24, 2013 7:04 PM

If F1 wishes to really be the pinnacle of motorsport engineering, then the rulebook needs to be drastically revised and simplified, to allow designers a freer rein.
Same applies to engines - don't limit the number of cylinders - just the overall capacity (have two figures, one for t/c, one for naturally aspirated). At least we'd then start to see a true variety of design philosophies.

prof-x - Unregistered

May 24, 2013 9:24 PM

turbos are not any more efficient then naturally aspirated engines, you can get more power with less displacement but you need to mix more fuel with more air that is being piped in to the motor. On top of that the motors are going to cost more with respect to increased heat tolerances. Also you cant just add more heat to the equation and expect to run as lean as you might with a naturally aspirated engine, and you typically have to drop the compression ratio which will lose you torque in favor for more fuel and air.

Forcing people to go with smaller displacement motors and turbos has more to do with getting people to buy new cars than it will ever have to do with effeminacy. If F1 really cared about efficiency they would not write so many rules and force people to carry weight in order to pretend KERS is such a great thing. The charge density of the current batteries cannot touch the density for petrol, and you can lose fuel weight during a race, that battery stays with the whole rac

chopchop - Unregistered

May 25, 2013 12:34 AM

What I would like to see is the fat tyres, no DRS, limited aero packages and limited fuel, then let the designers make the most of the engine with whatever configuration works for them, beit 2 cylinders or 12, turbo or non turbo. It will allow designers to approach the problem of making a fuel efficient, powerful engine from different view points. It'll make the grid look more interesting too!

rimbert - Unregistered

May 25, 2013 1:05 AM

I don't recall people - including Mister Bernard Ecclestone - bitching about the engine note the last time we had 4 cylinder turbo engines. I do however remember excellent racing. I don't know if Bernie is mostly to blame, or whether it's only the safety considerations since 1994, but F1 has become increasingly boring, processional and uninteresting, until the past couple of seasons that is. Personally, I hate the artificiality introduced with DRS, KERS and the Pirelli tyre fiasco (I don't hold them wholly to blame though - they're just doing what they've been contracted to do). I do blame the parlous state of F1 on Mr Ecclestone. All he cares about is the bottom line and here he is again ignoring the issues and only concentrating on profits. This tunnel vision is destroying F1. How I would love to go back to the era of actual wheel-to-wheel racing that we had with the likes of Mansell, Prost, Senna and a few others. I understand the safety push, especially in the light of Senna's unti

rimbert - Unregistered

May 25, 2013 1:10 AM

(Hmm, looks like I was cut off without warning! Somebody needs to fix that bug, stat)

As I was saying, before being rudely interrupted by inadequate programming:

I understand the safety push, especially in the light of Senna's untimely demise, but let's get rid of Mr. Moneybags and get back to the actual business of racing.

rimbert - Unregistered

May 25, 2013 1:14 AM

@TexasRoadhouse: if you had different designs allowed then it would no longer be a *formula*. That's what the formula in Formula One means: it's a set of design rules that is intended to result in closely matched cars, but gives the creative engineering team just enough leeway to steal a lead over the competition.

Page 2 of 3
« 1 2 3  »

Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register before adding your comments.

Although the administrators and moderators of this website will attempt to keep all objectionable comments off these pages, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the poster, and neither Crash Media Group nor Crash.Net will be held responsible for the content of any message. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. If you find a message objectionable, please contact us and inform us of the problem or use the [report] function next to the offending post. Any message that does not conform with the policy of this service can be edited or removed with immediate effect.

© 1999 - 2016 Crash Media Group

The total or partial reproduction of text, photographs or illustrations is not permitted in any form.