Ferrari, according to Auto Motor und Sport, have started their campaign against the FIA’s 2013 engine specifications which calls for a 4-cylinder turbo engine with less horsepower and lower fuel consumption. Ferrari President Luca di Montezemolo has suggested that this does not fit the Italian team’s model and is looking for allies to challenge the regulations. Now, whether you believe the story at AMuS or not, it’s a good conversation starter regarding the 2013 lump regulations.

While Ferrari detractors will be claiming “Italian arm-waving”, it actually makes logical sense as we’ve been discussing on our podcasts since the regulations were announced. The FIA, it seems, are attempting to woo manufacturers back to the sport with a ubiquitous engine specification and the 4-cylinder fits the bill as many car makers are using them with their hybrid technology and other low-fuel consumption cars. If you felt the new teams were not the answer to a healthy and stable F1 series, then you can understand the FIA’s attempt to lure Honda, Toyota and others back to the sport for some propping up.

Ferrari, on the other hand, has no 4-cylinder models or aspiration to build one. They see no logic in spending the money to build an all-new engine specification when the current V8 fits nicely in their catalog. The notion of a Ferrari with a turbo 4-cylinder is as unorthodox as it can be. Ferrari will not reap rewards from their 4-cylinder F1 program influencing and permeating their road car division as the 4-cylinder has no home there.

Before you get too irate over Ferrari’s comments and trenchant position which is directly attached to their business model, the story also quotes Mercedes GP’s Norbert Haug as suggesting the FIA may be leaving the V8 format a tad too soon. If you consider that Mercedes do have use of a 4-cylinder engine, you can see where the FIA’s formula could help them improve their technology in this specification but they also make some of the best V8’s in the world.

Renault have a series of 4-cylinders and this could be advantageous for the car maker but as they are/have bowed out of F1 and only remain as a supplier of engines, it is clear they could go either way and would probably desire the 4-cylinder as it is most germane to their road car program.

Cosworth, on the other hand, are in a similar position to Renault as they are merely a supplier of engines and a low-cost engine specification makes sense from their perspective. If they can reduce their cost of development, the loss of Lotus Racing/1Malaysia Racing as a client is more bearable. Cosworth could also use their 4-cylinder model to propel an engine supply program in other series as well.

The biggest winners of this formula are not even in F1 and to be honest, it’s betting a lot on the come. Some have suggested that VW have made innuendos that they will enter the series if the FIA uses a 4-cylinder turbo while Honda, Toyota and Nissan go through 4-cylinders like toilet paper at a roadside McDonald’s restaurant.

Who stands to gain? Who stands to lose? What about the new teams? Locked into the Cosworth option? Will this impact McLaren and their future engine aspirations? Does Ferrari have a point in that the current V8 is a good engine and can be further developed with a lower cost that creating an all-new 4-cylinder? Are the FIA further former president Mac Mosley’s dream of the ultimate “world engine” for the socialist in all of us? What do you think?

An F1 fan since 1972, NC has spent over 25 years in the technology industry focusing on technology integration, AV systems integration, digital media strategies, technology planning, consulting, speaking, presenting, sales, content strategy, marketing and brand building.
  • DVX

    Obviously LDM is correct, this 4 cylinder engine formula would be a disgrace for Formula 1. I’m sure in the end this fromula will not come to be.

  • positiveCamper

    From a fan’s point of view, I would like a much less specific regulation regarding engines. I think Steve Matchett suggested that they simply set a maximum amount of fuel allowable and let the teams sort it out from there. I am not an engineer, so I don’t know how or if this could be regulated, but I would like to see a maximum energy use limit set and let the teams and/or engine manufacturers decide how to approach a solution with whatever fuel source(s) they choose: gasoline diesel, electric, hamsters running in wire cylinders, whatever. I long for the days when the cars were less homogeneous. I would like to see some cars that are identifiable by something other than their livery, and F1 engineers given a wider range of solutions to pick from. If Ferrari can produce a fuel efficient 14 cylinder engine, more power to them! ;-)

    • Steve did in fact suggest that starving the engines for fuel flow would be a real challenge for engineers and I subscribe to that notion. Sure, there is a limited amount or point of no return, literally, but I think it’s more salient to the notion of engine using less resources than trying to extrapolate the absolute maximum out of a turbo 4. I’m not an engineer so anyone who is, feel free to help us understand better.

      • positiveCamper

        Yeah, I would love to have some educated input on this. To clarify my positiion: I am not advocating the standard of a miniscule amount of fuel. For me, this is not about being green so much as challenging the engineers to think more broadly about how to get the most speed and reliability out of a specific amount of energy. It would allow for more variety in solutions than simply specifying numbers of cylinders, kind of fuel, etc. I would like to see more variety on the grid.

    • Ballin’

      I believe they could simply limit fuel flow by regulating the total amount of fuel allowed per race.

  • Tim

    When did F1 become a spec series? Good grief! Isn’t F1 supposed to be the pinacle of motorsports? F1 is becoming another IRL.

    • Eje G

      So agree here. By going to a 4 cylinder engine F1 is no longer the pinnacle of motor sport, IRL, GT1 and SuperV8 would IMO end up fighting for this title. Road relevancy in F1 my a**. I really don’t care I love to watch fast openwheel cars slugging it out unfortunately with the constant restrictions and reduction in engine performance and technologies aerodynamics becomes more and more important, look at the cars on the road (any regular road car) sleek aerodynamics? Nope. GT2 series is one of most road car relevant series out there and I love it for it even with it’s limitations and rule restrictions just because it’s really road car relevant but a openwheel car in all sincerity just will never be truly road relevant. F1 becomes more and more a spec series the rules should IMO open up allow bit more freedom. I said for last few years now allow more engine freedom set some base rules, allow different fuel types, hybrid combination but set some limits then let the teams figure out where they want to go. Diesel engine, E85 & KERS engine, fuel cell whatever floats their boat.

      For a change something sensible is actually coming out from Morranello and the only sensible I heard from Montezemolo for a long time (ever?).

      • Jakobus VdL

        Are you guys sure a 1600 four cylinder turbo is such a bad thing for F1 – go back and have a look at the previous turbo era cars – 1500cc turbo capacity limit – BMW, Alfa Romeo, Zakspeed Hart and some others ran inline 4’s, they made spectacular HP – 800+ in races, 1100+ in qualifying. The racing and qualifying was amazing. The sport didn’t die, or become ‘devalued’.
        I see great opportunity for F1 to develop technology that can relate to road vechiles again. The engines will have to be amazingly efficent to make comparable HP to the current 2.4l NA engines, and on 30% less fuel. Think how that could translate into road vehicles.

        • Zemarreta

          Yes, you’re right, and they were banned because these small 1.5 turbos (V6 or L4) were much much more better than the 3.5 (v8-10-12) aspirated. Turbo is simply the future, and I think it was a bad decision to ban them back then.
          I also agree with positivecamper in the way that I’d rather see less detailed regulations about motors, and more generical specifications. If I were to set rules, I would do something like 88, were you could choose 1.5T or 3.5 aspirated, and makers could freely choose how many cylinders they want. So, if for Renault and VW is relevant to make a 4L turbo, ok, if ferrari wants a V6 turbo, alright! Let’s see who is right where it matters: on the tracks!

  • robf1ction

    Maybe someone should tell Luca D that the ‘f’ in F1 isn’t short for Ferrari.

    Those crazy Italian hand wavers need to learn that this sport would carry on without them! Especially if they got replaced by 3 returning manufacturers!

    Try this for a campaign slogan mister Luca D ‘Bring back Doctor Mario!’

  • Debris88

    What will the FIA do next to make this sport less appealing? Southwest Airline flight attendants as umbrella girls?

  • The Captain

    THis is one time the Italian arm waving is greatly deserved. Heck I’m flapping my arms around now like a wacky wavy inflatable tube man (I’m typing with my feet I guess).

    I guess I just don’t see how this will appeal to the manufactures anyway. Sure some of them make 4-cylinder turbos, but will they really get to “develop” them? From what I can tell, they’ll get to build one, the the FIA will put some sort of freeze on development anyway. The FIA really needs to just mandate say a fuel consumption level, and perhaps a horsepower level and let the engine suppliers go from there. If they want an 8-cylinder, 4-turbo, or even a rotary, research away on it. As a manufacture that would be a lot more appealing to me from a return on research point of view.

  • TonyAus

    I dont really want to watch F1 with a load of 4 pot turbo bangers screaming their tits off and blowing up in a cloud of white smoke. The current motors in F1 go pretty hard and sound great, as the old saying goes, if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it. Stuff the green brigade.

  • Flatlander

    My stomach gets a little queasy at the thought of a 4-Cylinder engine and I don’t like the ‘homogenization’ of the sport at all, but its really hard to argue with the results pertaining to the track and the standings in the last few years (the ’09 drubbing by Brawn & Co excepted).

    I am not so sure the engine spec means we’ll be served a pile of ‘fail’ regardless. The aero ingenuity shown the last couple of seasons has been fantastic. I thought going to one tire manufacturer would be awful and it didn’t seem to cause many issues. As long as they don’t introduce ovals (hah), the sport will endure.

  • So far, most of the responses to a few of the stories we’ve ran regarding the 4-cylinder turbo have not been in favor of it. A twin turbo V6 would have been my choice if they MUST change but staying with the V8 would have been preferred as well as going back to V10 etc.

    the reasoning for me is that a V8 program at Toyota or Honda or VW seems as lucrative as catering to their current 1.6-1.8 liter turbo’s. The tech that they would use to make their V8’s perform better with less fuel seems universal to me but I’m not an engineer. If you can make your Mercedes V8 scream with less fuel, you should be able to use that technology to great effect for C and E class 4-cylinder engines right?

    “The Capatain” brings up a great point, once developed the engines have been frozen and one would assume this is still going to be the case so what development can actually occur if the teams create a 4-cylinder and then freeze it for 3 years? This is assuming the FIA will actually freeze the development of the new engines as well. I have not read that but if they do, I’m not sure what ongoing development can be gained.

    Luca, in my opinion, is right. We shouldn’t confuse affordable with cheap.

  • zblkhwk

    I guess it all comes down to “what is F1?”. Is it the pinacle of motorsports with the fastest beasts money can build or is it a innovation series to build cars of the future?

    Personally, I say bring back the V-10’s. They sounded awesome. I really am not looking forward to the whine of a 4 banger. I’ll personally plant a couple trees if that balances things out a little.

  • Trevor

    Like or hate Ferrari I think LDM is right here. I would love to see the old V10s brought back ideally. I really like the idea of giving the teams more broad standards on the engines and really pushing the envelope. To me, F1 is supposed to be the pinaccle of technology. All this regulation seems to hamstring that. I will say every year it seems the engineers somehow, within the ridiculous confines of the FIA, come up with crazy ideas that work. I would like to see the rules foster these feats of engineering not restrict it.

  • 4kBeast

    Ferrari needs to get over themselves. Their automotive business model is one of the few remaining that can sustain using a big V10 in road cars, aside from McCracken. Sure, this is motorsports, but if you want to attract auto companies and new money into the series, you need to understand where the auto industry is headed.

    In the face of new emission regulations vs coming in the next 5 years, consumers are going to see a switch to smaller displacement forced-induction engines. If you are going to attract manufacturers, I think you need to be conscious off what they are facing and create a series that allows companies to market themselves while still allowing for innovation. I really like the idea of hitting an efficiency target. And I love the idea of hearing a V10 wail again. But I fear these powerplant’s days are numbered.

    So here’s a question; should F1 represent the series of yester-year with big engines or should it represent the leading edge of technology? …Because technology demands in the industry are changing…

    • There is a fine line for me on this issue. yes, gas guzzling V12’s may not be the best answer moving forward but I am not sure the V10’s were consuming enough petrol to have any impact whatsoever in the grand scheme of things and if they use the best, large displacement engines, can that technology not have a knock-on effect for the smaller lumps in a manufacturers stable?

      In the end, we are looking for a small, turbo engine with low rev’s and low fuel consumption, energy recovery systems to harness potential energy, energy generating systems that harness active energy use and an energy storage system…I just have a simple question about all this…are we racing or building power plants to power three subdivisions east of Swindon?

    • The Captain

      I’m not really buying the whole “the auto industry is going to 4-cylinder turbos” argument either.

      We all keep comparing the F1 engines to what a few cars have, but most of the cars sold here in the US are mini-vans.. er I mean SUV’s (that are just mini-vans!). Looking around in the net just now (real scientific I know) most of these seem to be 6-8 cylinders. Factor in trucks (the other big hit in the US) and the 4 banger becomes a minority. Now this may just be the FIA being so euro centric they have no idea what anyone drives outside of Paris, but car companies are defiantly still using 6-8 cylinders and I don’t believe are going to start making a push to put a 4-turbo in a Dodge Ram.

      • ubergreg

        It’s not just about F1 being Euro-centric; even though the US is an huge car market, they (and places like Canada and maybe Australia, with their relatively cheap fuel) are some of the few markets where the average car is still bought with a V6 or V8. For the rest of the world, the engine of choice/necessity is something with four cylinders. Anything more is seen as a very costly indulgence to anyone with a ‘middle class’ income.

        And Since F1’s main target audience is Europe, AsiaPac and the Middle East, they don’t see (re)introducing turbo fours to the fan base as a huge problem. Also, as F1 is expanding East (where the performance enthusiasts embrace turbo fours) and not West, they don’t have a strong incentive to do a U-turn on the engine format going into 2013.

        The only stakeholder who would have a real problem with this is Ferrari, since a four-cylinder in one of their cars would be heresy. It will be interesting to see what kind of influence they can exert on the FIA and, possibly, Mercedes. The rest, I think, are absolutely fine with it. Even McLaren would be (they have used turbo fours in the 80s – to great effect).

  • Rob S

    Producing an all 4 cylinder f1 would be costly for most teams and advantageous for others such as car manufacturers. The 1982 F1 season was notable for having teams with different engines. There was the Cosworth V8 supplied engine for most teams, Ligier and Alfa Romeo had V12, Renault and Ferrari had V6 Turbo and Brabham had a BMW Turbo charged inline 4.

    Why not limit the power and give the teams the freedom to use whatever technology available to power their cars. It will create innovation and save more cost.

    Ecclestone should know that because they were the team to beat with their innovative BMW engine!

  • 4 Cyl. engines are NOT F1. These are Honda VTEC, Mazda Turbocharged, VW or any other car manufacturer, but not F1. Why can’t FIA say : you can also use V6 for example, as long as it meets the fuel flow rate, max. HP and max torque ? This way we’re going to see interesting engineering solutions – otherwise the part with the engine is going to be just like in WRC – 2 liter turbo charged and that’s it, total boredom. I’m not a big Ferrari fan, but I stand behind them on this topic !
    On the other hand, how developing a brand new engine will help teams reducing their costs ? They will literally need to invest tens or hundreds of millions to build a reliable one, which has to survive at least 4 races – that’s the flip side of the coin. Overall, I don’t think that F1 needs that much “green” image – it doesn’t do more harm to the env. than big petrol ships or the airplane that just flew above you. If it’s the new manufacturers to attract – V6 is also a good option – almost any decent car makes has 6 cyl. in their portfolio.

  • MIE

    Whilst opening the engine regulations to allow the designers more freedom would see much more innovation (and different solutions to the problem), it would add to the cost of competing as each engine manufacturer tried several different designs before they all settled on an optimum configuration (and Ferrari persisted with a V12). This would severly limit the savings the teams could make under the Resource Restriction Agreement, and may well increase the differences in competiveness of the cars (as temas find the optimum configuration at different times). So although the cars (or at least the engines) may look different, the racing may suffer.

    A lot of people are indulging in their own arm waving, saying that it won’t be F1 if we go to 1600cc turbo engines, and they won’t watch any more. How many fans did F1 lose in 1961 when the engines were limited to 1500cc normally asperated?

    • In 1961, reducing the engines to 1500cc still made them the most powerful engines on the planet for circuit motor racing purposes. Therefore, F1 remained the pinnacle and that pinnacle status attracted many (at least in terms of those reading papers, books and collecting models – back then, there wasn’t a whole lot of motorsports broadcasting going on). Four decades later, that is no longer the case. 2400cc is already lower than a number of other series and IRL engines produce more horsepower. People are more likely to be aware of this now than they would have been if a similar situation had been the case in 1961.

      There’s more to viewer figures than engine displacement, but the “pinnacle” issue is important. If people feel like the racing, cars and drivers they see are no longer the best, they’ll drift away into other series and other activities.

      • ubergreg

        “There’s more to viewer figures than engine displacement, but the ‘pinnacle’ issue is important.”

        That’s true. But what defines pinnacle, then? A big engine? The most power? If a 2010 IRL car can go around Spa faster than, say, a 2010 Force India car then I’d say ‘yeah, there’s an issue’. If a 2013 IRL car could beat a 2013 F1 car then of course that would raise eyebrows, too. But I bet within two years that deficit would be clawed back through technical development.

        I dunno; to me, I see pinnacle as the best and brightest competing in with the fastest formula, but also by making the most of available resources through engineering and technical brilliance. Different eras of F1 are noted for different things. To me, the 2013+ era will be noted for what can be achieved when stricter resource limits are imposed on the contenders. I won’t stop watching because the car has fewer cylinders and I’ll bet none of us will, either, because F1 is so much more than that.

        • Rob S

          By the way the power output of those engines in the 1961 season was only 150 to 225 hp. My SUV has more power than that!

          F1 is about being the best in innovation and that separates it from the rest of the other motor sports. I wouldn’t mind running a supercharged 4 cyl engine if I can get it as fast, if not faster than the current engines – but that would prove costly to the other manufacturers. The point is to regulate the engine displacement and horsepower and use whatever type of engine the teams can use at the least cost. That will spur technical innovation and relevance to road car use.

  • tef20

    First off, lets get the ‘green’ issue out of the picture. KERS isn’t green, when you ship heavy batteries all over the world and then throw them away after one or two races; hell, if they wanted KERS to be green, they would insist that everyone went down the flywheel route as per Williams. At least Flywheels don’t continuously gobble up limited resources.
    The fuel used by F1 cars doesn’t even equal the fuel it takes to get them to the races – heck, why don’t all the races take place at Silverstone? But the biggest polluter in F1 is the wind tunnels. They require a staggering amount of energy and are run 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Some teams even run two at a time. To green up F1, ban the use of wind tunnels, and bring back testing. Better for the drivers, better for bringing on new talent, and better for the fans.

    So to the engines. I personally am dreading the intro of 4 pots. I want a return to the days when a an F1 car took virtual supermen to drive. Limit the fuel, limit the materials they use, even limit the revs and standardize the ECU – but that’s enough. In a few years time we will see F1 drivers buying Aerial Atoms and TVRs in order to get the kicks that they no longer get on track. F1 isn’t about saving money, its about developing the best. It is no longer about developing tech that will work its way down into road cars, its about proving that you have the best engineers. I am not looking forward to the days when the subtleties of technique that separate the winners from losers is so small that only a computer can see the difference, and that we depend on ‘push button to pass’ for entertainment. Even Bernie’s shortcut idea is begining to be appealing.

  • SMB

    They are already restricting the fuel flow rate. Why don’t they just leave it at that. f teams want to continue to use V8s and make them more efficient then they can. If manufacturers want to use 4 cylinders then they can. Surely it’s even better advertising for manufacturers if the can make a 4 cylinder engine that goes toe to toe with those using V8s. Then we’d be going back to the good old days when you could actually innovate and clever innovations like the f-duct weren’t banned for no good reason and replaced with adjustable rear wings.
    Am I the only one who pictures Mario Kart speed mushrooms when thinking about the new rear wing regs?

    • Monad

      Don’t worry the rear wings basically give back to the attacking driver the speed he loses because of the dirty air so if two cars are very equal it still won’t be a walk in the park to get around.
      Kind of unfair for the small guy that found himself in-frond of a stronger car and no matter how good he is at defending he will probably get passed though. But that’s what fans wanted right. They don’t want their super drivers in the Ferraris and Mclarens trapped behind a small guy. So no complains if you can’t see a heroic drive from a small guy anymore.

  • The engine sorbet concept has been a disaster – it hasn’t detectably reduced costs for anybody, it’s created space for “upgrades” of varying legitimacy (thus opening accusations of cheating) and it’s removed the manufacturers’ primary reason for providing engines to F1. I don’t understand why the FIA believes there is any point in pursuing this route further – if engines can’t be developed, then the lapsed manufacturers won’t return whether there are 4, 6, 8 or 1000 cylinders mandated in each unit.

    Instead, perhaps the FIA should borrow an idea from Finnish stock car racing. Mandate minimum safety criteria and then stipulate that anyone making an engine must be prepared to provide a unit of that engine (including all necessary instructions and personnel to operate it) to anyone else – including another F1 team – for a set fee. Other teams would be allowed to substitute up to half of their engines from their usual supply with one from any other F1 suppliers (provided that it doesn’t bring the total engines used over their season limit and, where necessary, the team is prepared to substitute staff to stay under the personnel cap).

    The price cap could start quite high – perhaps $1.3m per engine – but be dropped every 2-3 years at a rate that took the economy and supplier capabilities into account. At these negotiation points, an energy cap could be adjusted to encourage resourceful energy use from all engine suppliers. This could start with a limit on energy used in the race but ideally there’d eventually be a cap on energy used to manufacture the unit as well.

    The price and energy caps taken together could meet all the FIA’s goals without needing to interfere a tenth as much with the specification of those engines as the current scheme does. So innovation (thus competition) would re-emerge and F1 would become known as a place where the future is made.

    That’s what attracted manufacturers and made F1 popular in the first place and that’s what would work again.

    • Monad

      Sorry but you are very wrong there. The engine cost has been reduced by a lot and yes it does save huge amounts of money.
      Saying that it was a disaster is completely false.

      • Robf1ction

        i think monad, you may misunderstand what la canta is suggesting.
        ‘completely false’ is harsh critism, this viewpoint is just yet another possibility of, what seems like, millions.

  • ubergreg

    Let’s say F1 decides that the best compromise, to accommodate a team like Ferrari, is a simple restriction in fuel use and all teams are allowed to develop whatever powerplant they want. Ferrari could certainly continue with their V8. So could Mercedes. But they’d be at an inherent disadvantage from an engineering standpoint, because if they’re all still limited to using the same amount of fuel, the guys with the smaller engines will come out on top anyway.

    More cylinders + revs equals greater internal friction, complication and mass:
    • friction between moving parts wastes energy (fuel) and creates more heat
    • there are more con rods, valves, actuators, spark plugs etc. that can fail
    • a bigger engine with more cylinders means more weight (and a more complicated, larger and heavier exhaust)

    With technology being what it is these days, it’s not hard to create a small four-cylinder that reliably makes 650bhp. Any team choosing to use a four-banger – i.e. teams that won’t suffer (understandable) image issues from using a turbo four – can use less fuel to make the same power. Which means an even lighter car at the start of a race. Imagine that, plus the torque advantage offered from the turbo and KERS). They will probably also have a weight distribution advantage and even be able to punch a smaller hole in the air, due to tighter packaging and bodywork afforded by the smaller lump (all this even with KERS).

    The reason they won’t allow freedom to develop different engine configs is because of the cost. Even if the teams were allowed to use the same amount of fuel as today, the only sensible thing to do – from an engineering standpoint – is go as small and efficient as possible. Only marketing pressures would get in the way of a team’s decision to produce anything that isn’t as small and turbocharged as possible. Even Ferrari knows this. If they stuck to their V8 programme in the first season or two of the new ergs, they would eventually either have to redevelop a new, smaller engine from scratch, or get the rules re-written (again) to make their inherently bigger, thirstier, heavier engine more competitive.

    I can see the difficult position Ferrari is in (and many fans who like the complex sound of anything with more than four cylinders) but a free-for-all isn’t the answer when the cost of the participation – and who is willing to continue to pay for it – needs to be considered. Also, what is more important to the sport: lots of different engines or close racing? Because ruthless, unsentimental efficiency is the only way to come out on top in F1.

  • Monad

    Luca is crying simply because is not the kind of engine he likes, not because he wants to see all the things that you guys are crying on about. He ain’t supporting your ideas. He just wants V8s instead of V4. Basically he is happy with what we have now. Are you all happy?

    To me there is no difference between this V8 or the V4turbos since both engines in the end will have the same power. If you are pleased with the current situation then why to you care? Because saying 8 cylinders sounds cooler than saying 4? Big deal? Both engines will be equal in power so who cares.
    What i want is not cylinders but unfreezing. I don’t want 4 engines that are all freeze and basically have similar power like we have today with the V8s. What’s the point in having 4,5 or 6 different engine manufacturers if all the engines are basically the same? You might as well have one engine for all.
    Give them the v4 turbo, put even stricter fuel consumption and make them build engines that last 10 races but let them develop their engines so we can have a true competition on who will build the best engine. With such cruel engine rules they won’t be able to make engines with 1000 horse power anyway so you are ok at least for some years and they want be able to waste money in many engine updates since an engine will be changed basically only once a year.

    Yes Luca won’t like it because he doesn’t care about engine competition(like the fans do) but about engines that are relevant to his car business. Well tough luck Luka. Attracting 4-5 manufacturers is more important than one. If you don’t like it then there is the door and don’t let it hit you in the ass. Maybe if you go away for a couple of years we will finally see that F1 can survive just fine even without Ferrari and when you come back you won’t be able to make our ears red with that “Ferrari is F1 because we raced in every race since the beginning” and all that bullshit.

    In the end why is Luca crying about it? Isn’t their parent company FIAT? They can use the F1 engines for development of FIAT car engines that use 4 cylinders and keep the Ferrari name for advertising purpose of their super cars. They get something from both uncles and they are just fine.
    It’s worse for teams like Mclaren who are trying to become a super car manufacturer but don’t even have a normal auto department.
    But in the end, what the hell. If you can have a 4 cylinder that produces 700 horse power why shouldn’t you use it on a super-car too. Yeah it’s a small engine but is still a beast.

    • Robf1ction

      Hey I was happy with a V12 revving at over 20000rpm.

      We’re all becoming Clarkson from Top Gear, POWER!!!
      Unfortunately James ‘Todt’ May is in charge, so whatever we suggest won’t get listened to.

    • tef20

      Just when I thought it couldn’t get any worse, I swa this on Autosport:

      “I hope the next step is to make the wheels and tyres the same size as [road] cars so tyre manufacturers benefit from the safety that is learned, and engineering that can be put onto a 1.6-litre, Toyota, or Hyundai or Renault,” said Fernandes.

      This would give us a triple whammy of dumbing down the sport: 5 minute wheel changes as the mechanics mess around with four or five wheel nuts per wheel, tyre changes every five laps as they fall apart due to the pressure from the downforce, and cars that constantly fall off the track due to lack of grip.

    • zblkhwk

      If I were running Ferrari, I would be waiving arms screaming too. They have been a solid team for decades where most teams have come and gone. They have built a very profitable business on 8,10, and 12 cylinder engines. Who is going to buy a Ferrari with a 4 cylinder engine? I just don’t see it happening.

      The 4 cylinder engine belongs in a Fiat, not a Ferrari.

      This is not rally, its F1.

  • Hey guys check this article out – apparently in 2004 Ferrari had already outsourced its engine design to Tata. Should we now be expecting a 1600 turbo version of the Tata nano????

  • QuickStudy

    The issue with restricting or capping energy use (from whatever source; fuel, sunlight, battery) is that the racing will be crap…
    You will get 99 laps where everyone will draft the leader for the advantage of saving fuel…then one lap at the end of racing for the victory.

    It will simply be such a disadvantage to ‘Lead’ a race or group of cars.. that there will be bugger all overtaking, in a sport where that’s an issue already!!!

  • Datsun510driver

    old story but seriously if you dont think this is a good idea then you have rocks in your head.

    literally this would be the most benificial to the public, because the L4 cylinder is the most commonly used engine format world wide. It’s development by F1 standards will see much improved economy and power in our road cars. There is always a flow on effect, why else would the 458 be so mad?

  • You got a truly helpful blog I bang been here representation for nearly an period. I am a newbie and your success is very some an inspiration for me.

    Engine and Transmission World

  • Pingback: Is Ferrari Winning The War Against CO2 Emission Mandates? | Autoparts online()

  • Pingback: Ferrari Beating Competitors at Reducing Tailpipe Emissions()

  • Pingback: Is Ferrari Winning The War Against CO2 Emission Mandates?()