He will be clawing back some fans with his latest "publicity stunt" Bernie on Autosport: Seems to mirror the views of the full time fans and the general fans (generally). The noise is an important part of the F1 scene. Well in my opinion it is anyway, maybe others have other opinions.
Do we know how bad the new engines will actually sound though? I know they won't have the same roar as the current engines, but they might not be that bad! They're certainly not going to be silent are they? I'm not quite sure I understand the need to limit the engine size to be honest, the current setup doesn't seem to disadvantage the smaller teams too much, as the cap on engine development ensures a relatively level playing field in that respect already
For once, Bernie is saying what most of all think isn't he?! Shall we break out the Champagne yet? I completely agree that tiddler-turbos are anathema to anything claiming to be at 'the pinnacle' of motorsport. The so-called 'green argument' is, as far as motor-racing is concerned, nothing more than a placatory nod to politics; and so long as motor racing at the F1 level exists, is utterly irrelevant to the 'F1 fingerprint' on the environment. Well done Bernie!
I don't understand why they limit engine development so much and then moan that the engines aren't eco enough. If they gave teams a set amount of fuel for a race then I'm sure they'd develop their engines to have the maximum amount of power with the minimum fuel use. If they don't want the little teams to suffer then last years engine must be made available for teams to use for a nominal fee, or something to that effect. I'm sure people far more knowledgeable than me within F1 could come up with some sensible engine regs.
I don't think you'd even need to give the teams a fuel limit. Logic dictates that the most efficient engine means the least amount of fuel carried, and therefore the car would go quicker. I guess the problem would be the smaller teams, but your solution would work. I think most teams currently use customer engines at the moment anyway, with the possible exceptions of Ferrari and Mercedes.
You raise a logical argument BLS. The trouble is that F1 involves a juggling of several ideals which compete with each other: ∆ 1 F1 is nothing if it does not maintain the perception of being the World Drivers' Championship; and that is only possible so long as it is perceived as 'the pinnacle' of it. ∆ 2 F1 needs to play a global political game and avoid the most obvious pitfalls of accusations of wasteful, frivolous indulgence. ∆ 3 F1 is far from a one-make series and needs to stand at the forefront of technological developments, as demonstrated by, and in order to satisfy ∆1. And even if politics aims towards limited development, the very idea of it flies in the face of the original concept of motor racing. ∆ 4 In order for F1 to maintain its appeal, it needs to have plenty of competitors on its grid, which is at odds with ∆1 because of the expense of making one's venture viable. ∆ 5 Even teams at the back of the grid are hugely reliant upon sponsors who may well have - and usually do have - all sorts of agendas in choosing to position themselves in association with F1. ∆ 6 F1 spearheads the global perception of motor sport in general, and as such must set rigorous safety margins which may be at odds with the realities of an ever-evolving technology which, by definition, is trying to go faster and faster (often around the same little circuits which pander to the viewer's requirement to see all of the action). And the idea of making last year's engines available is already there, albeit according to market forces. +++ Unfortunately, regulations which satisfy all of the above are notoriously difficult to both produce and manage. Of course, idealism is the easy bit; making it work is a little trickier with plenty of practical problems - even prior to reaching the preaching of the politics. Yes, unfortunately One's Formula must mind its P(olitic)s and tend its Queuesââ¬Â¦
Quadruple negative there, that means he's in favour of it after all. This was why I was saying FBEs should be mandatory. The sport has to make an effort to be greener, but this shouldn't come at the expense of the engine noise, which as Bernie points out, is an integral part of the sport.
wow seriously? Go Bernie! though my thoughts are with all the automotive talent in the sport something incredable and better than the current technology could be created that would tick all boxes (speed, sound, cheap, green). Somebody just needs to allow it
Unlimited KERS would make teams put some serious development into the idea, but no, the FIA deem that massively limiting KERS is the best way to develop the idea, strange people. There are many things that can be done to keep the fans and politicians happy but it involves giving teams more scope to evolve.
I think teams should be given scope to develop solutions that are eco-friendly, like biofuel - or diesel!
I quite agree. Unlimited KERS is the only way for it to really make sense. As it is, it's a rather expensive luxury; but of course, this is part of the reason why it needs to be restricted: if it was unlimited, the wealthier teams would vastly increase their advantage relative to the less wealthy. Two more points: I'd prefer to either get rid of this new rear wing or allow teams to use it whenever they like if their within one second of the car ahead, not just where the FIA allow the driver to 'switch it on'. I also think each team should be allowed to choose which two tyre compounds they'd like for a weekend, rather than get what their given. Of course the logistics of this would be difficult for Pirelli but I think it would be fun. - It might allow some interesting combinations and wouldn't be any worse than what we have if all teams were forced to use two compounds for a dry race.
The 2013 engine regs are ridiculous. Moto GP is going back to 1000cc next year, while F1 are getting slower, how does that work? Moto GP bikes had always been quicker than F1 cars in a straight line, but get bogged down in corners, soon they'll be blitzing past F1 cars even around Eau Rouge
Didn't fifth gear do a drag race between and F1 car, a Moto GP bike and a boat in 2006ish and the F1 car won by quite a lot? Or was that not a moto GP bike, I'm not a regular bike follower.
I think that was a world superbike back then. I did watch that, and if it was Moto GP, I'm sure James Toseland would have done it, but I'm sure he didn't. The WSBK bikes mean that riders can be heavier than Moto Gp riders, and can throw it around more, but it's very evenly matched, and about 32 riders per race. You constantly get 3-6 different leaders over the course of about 5 laps
