Bahrain GP: Red Bull chief Adrian Newey criticises F1 rules By Andrew Benson Chief F1 writer in Bahrain Red Bull design chief Adrian Newey has criticised Formula 1's new rules, saying their merit is "questionable". The 55-year-old says the new turbo hybrid engines and fuel limits were introduced "without proper thought". Newey said the sport should have spent more time considering whether it had gone in the right direction. Williams chief technical officer Pat Symonds said: "I don't agree. The power-units are relevant to the future of the automotive industry." Newey's comments are the latest in a series of public statements opposing the new rules by four-times world champions Red Bull, who have suffered a drop in competitiveness this yea r because their Renault engine does not produce as much power per unit of fuel as the rival Mercedes. But he denied he was making his remarks as a result of sour grapes. "I would have said the same thing before the rules came in," Newey said. "I wasn't asked. That's my opinion. "I like lightweight and efficiency, and these regulations have created cars that are exceptionally complicated, quite a lot heavier. Play media BBC pundits on Ricciardo exclusion "Complication and weight is an expense, if it brings something that's absolutely fantastic, but I do believe that should be debated." The new rules are focused on two levels of fuel restriction - a maximum of 100kg of fuel for a race distance and a maximum fuel-flow rate of 100kg/hour. There have also been changes to the aerodynamics of the cars. The fuel-flow rate ensures that the development of engines goes in a direction relevant to fuel efficiency - and therefore the road-car industry. Removing the rate restriction would lead development down paths that were relevant only to racing, experts say. However, Red Bull team principal Christian Horner has proposed abandoning the fuel-flow limit because of what he claims are problems with the accuracy of the official sensors that measure it. Newey argued that the new rules may not have been the best way to pursue their intention of driving increased efficiency in F1. "We've gone down this route of trying to come up with a sport that appears to be road-relevant and in truth that's extremely complicated," Newey said. "To come up with a formula that's about a very short sprint race, an hour and a bit, using a single-seater open-wheel car, and saying that's then relevant to the road is a very complicated leap in my opinion. "In making a road car you have so many factors - the cost of the car, how many miles it will do, whether it be city driving or motorway cruising. "Trade the cost of the [new F1] power-unit versus the cost of making the car lighter or more aerodynamic or whatever. So I think it's questionable." "The drive to make cars more efficient is a good one. How you do that and whether you do that through a much more open formula - where you are able to trade for instance the weight of the power unit against the weight of the car - is another matter. Play media Mercedes dominate second practice "You are into a really big discussion there, one that's probably outside the scope of a quick interview with the BBC." He said that ultimately the viewing public would be the arbiters of the new F1's success. "Let's see how it pans out," Newey said. "It's too early to say the sport isn't exciting. Let's see what the viewing public thinks. "If they like the show, then that's fantastic; if they don't we're going to have to have a bit of a think about it." Symonds said: "One can look at where we would be if we hadn't introduced something like that. We would really be standing out and leading ourselves open to criticism. "We should be very proud of what we've done. We had pretty efficient V8 engines before; we have super-efficient V6 engines now, with technologies we will undoubtedly see on road cars in years to come. So we should be celebrating what we've done. "Has the racing changed because of it? I don't really think so. "There might be some early teething problems but we've had two races, it's a very immature formula at the moment. Let's see how things pan out but I am pleased with the fact that what we're doing is relevant to society." The two men's comments come on a weekend when F1's future direction will be debated by three of its most important power-brokers. Ferrari president Luca Di Montezemolo, who has been critical of the new formula, is flying to the Bahrain Grand Prix on Sunday and will meet with F1 commercial boss Bernie Ecclestone and FIA president Jean Todt, who was instrumental in introducing the new engines.
Thursday 03rd April 2014, 11:56 by TF1T Staff © Ferrari Ferrari president Luca di Montezemolo has called an urgent meeting in Bahrain to discuss ways to improve the Formula 1 spectacle, after he admitted he was unimpressed by the first two races of the season. The Italian met with Bernie Ecclestone in London on Wednesday to hold preliminary discussions about increasing the "excitement". He will meet with Ecclestone again this Friday during the Bahrain Grand Prix. FIA president Jean Todt will join the pair, but it's not clear whether other team bosses will be invited. The 2014 regulation changes, which included a new 1.6 litre V6 turbo-charged power unit, were expected to increase the on-track action and overtaking, but that's not quite materialised in Australia or Malaysia which were both won in dominant fashion. Whilst it's not certain what ideas they're set to discuss, it's believed one of the proposals tabled is to drop the fuel flow limit of 100kg/h. Whilst it would result in a less fuel efficient formula, it could stop criticism that F1's new era is about economy runs and it could result in louder engines according to Renault's Remi Taffin. - See more at: http://www.f1times.co.uk/news/display/08700#sthash.BZAhII8f.dpuf
While I agree that dropping the maximum fuel flow might be a good thing, I find it laughable that teams who abandoned FOTA are now complaining that "They weren't asked". They had plenty of time to speak up and would have been better served had the teams been able to address issues in a united front, rather than calling private meetings with a geriatric. They took the financial benefits over the good of the sport and are now claiming their concerns are for the good of the sport. But be it Merc, Ferrari or Red Bull that came out on top... there'd still be this same crap. They all made their bed. They're all in it for their own success, not "the good" of the sport.
well, after Renault produced their engine last time there were new rules I seem to recall Mercedes and Ferrari getting to change their designs a bit to catch up, contrary to the rules. But don't let that detract from your hypocratic finger pointing.
You are quite right sgtBhaji...now they just have to live with it and do the best they can.... As you said they had time to make their feeling known earlier, make no sense complaining after the races have already begun. Do you know why it is that Red Bulls seem to be the team that is having the most problem with fuel sensor and fuel flow?
I would have asked the same question regardless of which team it was wanting the rules changed at this point.
Actually, Renault were allowed to develop... But that I don't have an issue with and anticipate similar happening again.
Every thread you write has a negative red bull statement in it, I don't need to go to university for a psychology degree to know what that means.
To be fair Dhel, you do have a tendency to beat the same drum... But still, any team that wants to whine now, after playing a part in silencing their own voice deserves all they get. And that includes all of them that took the carrot.
I did beat up on red bull mainly because I thought they were bending the rules especially with the flexi wing issue and also how the really shafted Mark Webber. And then the big hypocrite Horner...
Horner learned his lessons early in F1 and decided if he couldn't beat them he'd join them, so he waves the rule-book the same as Ferrari, McLaren, Mercedes, Lotus et al. As for Webber, that's Webbers excuse for being a loser, when did they shaft him? Bullet proof car for 3 1/2 seasons (when he wasn't driving it into people and blaming them for it) and don't bring up Webbers media driven fallacy of 'wing-gate'.
Bad idea to drop the fuel flow, very bad idea as Mercedes will increase the gap even more in qualifying.
Simple answer is no. If you're winning you're happy. Is this thread here as you've given up on vettel throwing a paddy?
Re: RedBull being the only team complaining about the fuel flow sensor. My guess is that they have problem with vibrations destroying the sensors. I believe that the sensors are mounted in the fuel tank so I very much doubt that they have a temperature related problem. I believe a couple of the other Renault teams have also had fuel flow meter issues but I have not heard of Ferrari or Merc engined cars having fuel flow meter issues. As for Ferrari complaining as they aren't at the front. I do believe you are right, they wouldn't be complaining if things were going better. I was surprised that Ferrari allowed fuel quantity and flow limitations to be introduced. IMHO Ferrari have never been good with fuel, they always seem to require more than anyone else. I really hope that nothing is changed for this season. The teams accepted the rules so let them run for at least a year and see how it goes.
