Red Bull Racing team principal Christian Horner has said he is open to the idea of introducing 1,000bhp cars but warned the costs would be 'eye-watering' for manufacturers.

Horner's team, which struggled getting up to speed last season with the introduction the new generation Renault power unit, believes if more power was brought to F1 it would make the sport more spectacular.

"I think it is fantastic to contemplate using 1000bhp engines," Horner said. "The sport wants to make the cars harder to drive and make it more spectacular but if they were brought in serious chassis changes would be needed. It is very easy to say we want 1000bhp engines but we've got to consider whether it is going to cost another ?20 million or ?40 million for the manufacturers. The two have to go hand in hand."

Related Articles

Horner was speaking shortly before the launch of Red Bull's new car for 2015 and called his team's winter developments 'the most successful ever'. He also welcomed in a new era for the team with four-time world champion Sebastian Vettel departing to Ferrari and young Russian driver Daniil Kvyat joining from Toro Rosso.

Horner is hopeful the progress the Milton Keynes-based team made during the 2014 season can continue in a similar trajectory for the new year. Red Bull were the only team to break Mercedes' race victory dominance, with Daniel Ricciardo winning three Grand Prix in Canada, Hungary and Belgium respectively.

The Red Bull boss also said if the idea of more power in F1 was to be taken seriously then heavy cost-cutting would be needed for every team.

"The prospect is eye-watering," he added. "The burden of cost on the manufacturers is a worry because the cost is already enormous under the current rules. So anything we do going forward needs to be considered against cost."

Horner suggested cutting costs in other areas of car development in order to meet the fee of bringing in bigger power units.

"We currently run a common ECU that McLaren supply, so maybe F1 could look at standardising other aspects, not to cut costs dramatically but enable more development on the engine side."


Join the conversation - Add your comment

Please login or register to add your comment

"Considering I said test bed, it would indicate rpm..."

Errr, isn't it obvious? Same RPM at different engine sizes would give a smaller engine an advantage as it will use less fuel and less energy. What about the same output? It would make a bigger engine work at lower RPMs. In this scenario these should be almost equal.
The biggest losses with a bigger engine are so called "pumping losses" . as when an engine is throttled cylinders are not filling that easy like at WOT. In F1 you run WOT most of the time so I would bet lower max RPMs of a bigger engine (a result of a restricted fuel flow) would make sure it's not using much more fuel if any.

BTW: check with some BMW users which say things like:

"I have an E36 2.8, and from what I've heard the 2.0's are worse on fuel. They're just underpowered for the weight of the car and have to work harder."

"I had an E36 320 and replaced it with an E36 323 (2.5L), the 323 did around 2-3mpg more, maybe because it produced significantly more torq

"Rafal, So now you get the "fuel flow" rule into the subject/argument,"

Go up and check. I wrote "fuel flow" in my 1st post here.
On the other hand you still did not explain your "logic".

"A bigger engine by nature requires more fuel to run at the same speed as a smaller one. "

At the same speed of what? A car? RPMs of an engine?
What If you need a certain amount of energy to maintain your car's speed and you get it at 4k RPMs in a smaller engine and 1k RPM in a bigger one?

Anyway, I am sure you know what I mean. And there is o point in beating this topic for any longer. Some other people will never get it, not my problem.

Engine is a machine to convert energy in fuel and air into movement. It's simple, the more fuel and air you are able to pump in the more energy you get out. You can make an engine bigger (displacement), you can cram it faster (higher RPMs) or pump a mixture at a higher pressure (or a combination of all 3). So to make more power you need more fuel flow, this is a restriction.
Prof is right here, bigger displacement does not mean higher fuel usage.

Did you ask yourself why? Or it's just a gut feeling?

Did you write?

"Very interesting, But as my logic says the bigger the displacement the the higher the fuel usage (consumption)"

So please tell me what's your reasoning and I can try to explain. I did explain why but I guess it's not enough for you so if you give me your reasons I can try.

"I certainly know that my old 2 litre turbo used less fuel than my 2.5 turbo, so I too would also like to know how they can use the same fuel quantity with the bigger engine... "

Did you accelerate harder in 2.5 or the same? I know it's hard to restrain when you can but if you'd install a fuel restrictor so it's max flow would be the same on both you would hardle see that difference.

"everything else would have to be adjusted accordingly... Stiffer springs, stronger brakes, stronger steering components, etc, as well as harder tyres, not to mention the fact the chassis itself would need to be made far stiffer in order to cope with the additional power"

It might be true about your grocery getter like EVO or STi but not F1. These cars are built as rigid as possible with a minimal required weight the main limit. Brakes are similarly maxxed out anyway, you can trade some longevity for a bit less bite but that's it. You must understand it's a different philosophy when you build an F1 car

"And I said, “My logic says the bigger the displacement the higher the fuel usage”. I asked you to explain."

You used a word logic.

Logic - Reasoning conducted or assessed according to strict principles of validity.

So I simply asked you for your reasoning why "your logic" says what it says.

It will make it much easier to know first what are your reasons to think this way. If you have no " strict principles of validity" it's no more "logic" and becomes a "gut feeling".

If you have a limited fuel flow which you feed to an engine going WOT gives you exactly the same fuel usage per time regardless of displacement. I know people which get a lot worse milage in small cars with small engines than bigger ones. The reason is they always got WOT in a small car but never feel the need in a bigger one when enough torque is generated at much lower RPMs.

Bigger engine gives you a bigger potential to burn more fuel if there is no fuel flow restriction and this is the reason that in practice yo