Bernie vs Todt on engine

[CHT]

Been reading what Bernie was saying about the importance of noise in F1 to create that atmosphere, while Todt is arguing that it is important for F1 to demonstrate its moving with green initiative.

As an F1 fan, I actually think that a possible solution to this problem is to allow teams to choose between a power restricted V8 and unrestricted 4 cylinders turbo engine. So the Ferrari will be happy, while team like Renault will be happy and possibly VW might joint F1 as well.

[Sebp]

I don't really understand all this bitching about the engine sound. Anyone seen a MotoGP race lately? - It's not the size of the engine that counts -

[Robbobnob]

Im going to be Blunt here CHT

Noway would they ever consider a unrestricted turbo four cylinder ever, we would be back into the thousands of horsepowers easily, not to mention costs involved in development of an unrestricted engine.

id prefer a less stringent restrictions and set a money cap on the development of engines (say 20 million as an arbitrary figure) and teams which buy their engines would therefore have to contribute towards the development, which they do anyways but to a greater degree

[gibells]

I'm with Sebp on this, the MotoGP bikes sound absolutely amazing so I can't see what the big deal about the sound is. I do however, take exception to this world engine borrocks. But I like what Aston Martin have done for the new Lemans Prototype (turbo'd in-line 6).

Heck, if we want to go for turbos, why can't we say "any number of cylinders, we'll just restrict the intakes."

[Sebp]

Why not allow diesels aswell? They seem to be doing alright in endurance racing. (deliberate understatement there)

And I'm all for that proposed budget-cap Rob. But why not restrict team expenses in total, let's say to 100 million? Then make sure the rules are open enough (though still green and all), so that no team can delve into every direction as deep as possible. They would have to decide which field they want to tackle and stick with it.

[andrew]

I can understand MrE's stance on this. He is looking at it from a commercial point of view and there arte a lot of people that like the noise. I don't like the sound of the current engines but that's just me.

I also understand where MrT is coming from in that the FIA have to be seen to be tackling the environmental issues around the series which they oversee.

For the true fans who enjoy the racing (rather than the glitzy show) the I think the engine format is less important. As long as there is close and exciting racing and we continue to see clever engineering solutions (e'g' DDD, FEE to name 2 innovations) then F1 will still be popular and draw huge audiences.

I think MrE is (understandably) getting worried but he is worried over not very much.

[Pandamasque]

Even though I agree about he sound issue, I'm SURE the argument between BE and mr.T really isn't about the sound, and not about the fans at all!

On a different note, I find worrying the prospect of having only 2 engine manufacturers in F1. I can't see how Cosworth is gong to afford the switch to 2013 engines, unless it gets to supply half the grid. And I can't see any reason for other manufacturers to enter an extremely expensive artificially equalized not road relevant de facto spec-engine formula with no development allowed.

For the true fans who enjoy the racing (rather than the glitzy show) the I think the engine format is less important.

Those must have given up on F1 years ago!

[ecapox]

I think what they really should be focusing on is fuel management with a higher percentage of power coming from KERS. I am all for the 1.6l turbo engines, but i can see how that is going to anger Mercedes and Ferrari. 1.6l engines are NOT in their stable of engines for road cars. You hear all this "F1 must be relevant to road cars" but yet you are going to alienate the two largest manufacturers.

I do believe there is a middle ground here with the "Green" initiative while keeping the V8s and the "Sound" for Bernie....although im pretty sure the "sound" issue is just a cover for something else...

[CHT]

Im going to be Blunt here CHT

Noway would they ever consider a unrestricted turbo four cylinder ever, we would be back into the thousands of horsepowers easily, not to mention costs involved in development of an unrestricted engine.

id prefer a less stringent restrictions and set a money cap on the development of engines (say 20 million as an arbitrary figure) and teams which buy their engines would therefore have to contribute towards the development, which they do anyways but to a greater degree

you are right about that.

Maybe teams could have an option to choose between a standardized 1.6L turbo engine provided by maybe VW or use with the bigger but restricted V8.

[Richied76]

Standard V8, no kers, 150ltr tank = 750ish bhp OR 1.6ltr turbo, unlimited kers, DRS, 75ltr tank - 750bhp ish?

then its up to the engine builders and who's brave enough to show there worth technicaly

[WhiteBlue]

1. All of this is already under discussion in other threads like the 2013 engine thread.

2. Bernie kicking up the noise issue again is most likeley a pure tactical move to split FOTA and FiA. It is best disregarded as such. The 2013 engines will be noisy as well. The sound will just be different and that will not do considerable detriment to the sport according to the experts (such as Renault's Rob White).

3. The FiA has the legitimate right to set a framework to the technical rules such as energy consumption. They own the championship. So there should not be a question about the need for more fuel efficient engines by the fans.

[andrew]

1. All of this is already under discussion in other threads like the 2013 engine thread.

And?

Surely the relationship between MrE and MrT with regards to the future engines to be used in F1 deserves a thread of its own? The engine thread is too general and is more about the technical aspects than this latest FIA versus CVC debacle.

[Sebp]

3. The FiA has the legitimate right to set a framework to the technical rules such as energy consumption. They own the championship. So there should not be a question about the need for more fuel efficient engines by the fans.

It would be quite arrogant of the FIA to impose rules the fans can't relate to. In the end, if they don't please their audience, they'll "own" a championship nobody wants to see. I think the attempts to go green(er) are an effort to relieve the fans' collective conscience about supporting such a fuel gobbling sport.

[strad]

Answer me this:
Why in the world should any racing series, let alone F1, be concerned about being "green"? I don't understand. It's pure BS.
Long as they aren't worried about what big ships and what airplanes spew out we shouldn't worry about our cars or races. Racing has near zero impact compared to soooo many other things.

[andrew]

The FIA have to be seen to be running to be series which whilst being very un-green are aware of the supposed global warming and emissions issues. They also have to lower costs so reduce fuel consumption. This is their reasoning behind going green.