Mercedes-Benz PU106A, 2014

Strategy Group planning 2016 engine rules change

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Mercedes-Benz PU106A, 2014In the round-up: Bernie Ecclestone plans to use the Strategy Group to override the need for a majority agreement to change F1’s engine rules for 2016.


Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Ecclestone Says F1 Governors Gave Share Of Power To Top Teams For $40 Million (Forbes)

Ecclestone: “We had this arrangement which is this Strategy Group […] Well we have six so if we have four teams want to do that that’s ten. There’s 18 votes so that’s the majority.”

Bahrain agrees McLaren share sale to Dennis (Reuters)

“Bahrain’s sovereign wealth fund Mumtalakat has agreed to sell some of its stake in McLaren to the Formula One team’s overall head Ron Dennis, who is set to become the majority shareholder.”

Bernie: We had to add Korea (Sky)

“We have a contract with Korea… we have to put it on the calendar. If we hadn’t have done they could have sued us. We let them off for a year on the understanding they would be back.”

Looking back to 2014 (Toro Rosso)

Franz Tost: “The STR9 was the best car designed and manufactured by Toro Rosso so far. We made a big step forward. All the upgrades we introduced, such as those in Melbourne, Austria, Singapore and Japan worked well.”

F1 team Marussia’s assets auctioned (BBC)

“While the 2014 Marussia race cars are part of the sale, their engines are not included.”

F1 bosses vote Hamilton as best driver (Autosport)

“It was Fernando Alonso who emerged as the team principals’ second best driver, with his performance in the underwhelming Ferrari serving to impress.”


Comment of the day

Jared’s view on how to bring costs down is similar to something Ron Dennis said on Thursday: keep the rules stable.

If you want to cut costs you have to have the same regulations for years. The engine program perfect the way it is, its just unfortunate that someone came out way ahead of others.

In the V8 era Mercedes also had the strongest engine but Red Bull won four championships by focusing on other areas. 2014 was pretty much 2009 again but Red Bull didn’t catch up at the end.

Since the Michael Schumacher and Ferrari era there has always been one or two teams that dominate the season, people just aren’t used to it being Mercedes.
Jared H (@Thejaredhuang)

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Siddharth and David N!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

On this day last year Sauber confirmed Adrian Sutil, who had been dropped by Force India, would join them for the upcoming season. Sutil has lost his place at the team for next year, as has team mate Esteban Gutierrez.

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 78 comments on “Strategy Group planning 2016 engine rules change”

    1. Before someone rushes to correct Tost, keep in mind that Torro Rosso from 2008 was made by Red Bull, not Torro Rosso.

      1. I was going point out the exact thing!

      2. James Key!

    2. To add to the round-up, Autosport reports that Kamui Kobayashi has topped a test in Super Formula. Good for him – I think he’d want to race a car in a series where he can be competitive.

      1. I like it as well. When you look back at it, Kamui had a good career. He raced for a few years, had lots of fans, got a podium at his home race and now he’ll hopefully spend a few years having some fun.

    3. maarten.f1 (@)
      13th December 2014, 0:41

      Good Lord Bernie, please just go! That interview is just cringeworthy! What the heck was Jean Todt thinking when he agreed to the F1 “strategy” group?! (let me guess: about lots of $$$).

      1. A non-profit whose only job is to rule and adjudicate with revenues of 80+million and still makes a few million loss, I’d like the chance to dine in their executive canteen, or perhaps they just popdown to the the nearest *** restaurant.

        1. Do you have a source for that claim of $80 million a year? Most of the figures that I have seen put the FIA’s income quite a bit lower than that (closer to $60-65 million a year).

          1. It says in the article that daily telegraph reported a revenue If 81.7 mln in 2012.

      2. I just look what tool is the author of the piece and put it away as more BE nonsense @maarten-f1.

      3. @maarten-f1 I’m a little late but that Bernie is some character. I mean to banalise F1 with comparing it to a ballet dancing says a lot about his passion to racing, doesn’t? His only motive and his only knowledge is to bribe people because I can’t see any common sense or arguments in his talks. I live in a country full of this type of “businessman” whose only logic and quality is bribing people….

    4. To the CotD.

      It’s not just since the Michael Schumacher era, teams dominated to an extent earlier as well (certainly as much as Brawn or Red Bull ‘did’). Although the Mercedes dominance of the present day is almost unparalleled – Ferrari 1952-53, Mercedes 1954-55, Ferrari 1961, McLaren 1988-89 and Ferrari 2002 & 2004 comes close.

      1. Williams and Lotus (original) should be in there somewhere.

      2. I completely agree with CotD and I was thinking the same thing as you Atticus. There is usually always one team who has (or seems to have) a margin over the rest, it’s just that margin increases or decreases race to race. How often do we go into a race weekend with two or more teams as joint favourites to win? Very rarely I would say.

        Mercedes this year was a long way ahead, but looking back I would say that it’s standard practice in Formula 1 to have one team ahead by some measure. In fact, the only examples I can think of a sustained period of time without this in the last 20 years was 1999 and 2007-2008, both times with McLaren and Ferrari. These two teams won all of the races between them in 2007, but neither had a run longer than 3 races, showing they were almost equally as dominant as each other over the likes of BMW.

        In 2005, 2006 and 2009, we saw the balance of power shift as the season went on, but away from the changeover period in the middle, there was still one team on top either at the start or the end of the season.

        I would say that in the last 20 years, you could reasonably expect to go into a race weekend with the following teams as favourite to win, so it’s nothing new to have one team on top.

        2014: Mercedes
        late 2009-2013: Red Bull
        early 2009: Brawn (now Mercedes)

        late 2006: Ferrari
        early 2006: Renault
        late 2005: McLaren
        early 2005: Renault

        2000-2004: Ferrari

        1998: McLaren
        1996-1997: Williams
        1995: Bennetton

        1994 was probably a special case. Bennetton (well, Schumacher) was ahead but when Schumacher was banned, it was all about Williams.

        1. and the years before that it was all Williams @sbewers, as @hohum mentions, in the past there have been dominant streaks more often than not. Lotus dominated with their groundforce cars before others were able to catch up an it dominated earlier as well with innovative designs and Ferrari has had quite a few dominant years as well.

    5. I gotta say, I’m really wishing Ron regains the control, because I feel it will really allow for some serious focus and clarity of the goals for the team, due to his understanding of the demands of the sport in terms of commitment and stability.

      1. I’ll be really happy if Ron manages to get majority control over McLaren, that team is his like and his brainchild, and like someone said here once, he lives for the glory of a team that even carries another men’s name.
        I’d much rather have Ron calling the shots than a group of investors linked to human rights violations in their country

    6. Bernie seems determined to get rid of me and my ilk as fans of F1.

      1. @hohum
        Once again, I couldn’t agree with you more. I said the same thing yesterday when they had all of his comments.
        I’m starting to look forward more to WEC because at least they don’t have an offensive troll trying to drive me away.

      2. Are you less than 70 years of age? Can you afford a rolex watch? Also, does your financial background have an significance to UBS?

        :D :D

        1. What have Rolex or UBS got to do with F1? As far as most of New Zealand is concerned they are irrelevant to F1, mind you as far as most of New Zealand is concerned F1 is irrelevant, and that is because F1 deliberately planned their broadcast so it is irrelevant.

          1. @drycrust Bernie mentioned in an interview a few weeks ago that F1 isn’t for younger people because they can’t afford a rolex.

        2. Answers, in 2016 yes, yes but why would I, no I pay my taxes.

          1. I was referring to Bernie’s interview in which he said he doesn’t need younger fans in F1, and he would much prefer having fans who can afford a Rolex watch and associate with UBS! :-\ :-\

            I just can’t be funny, can I? :( :(


      3. You’re not the only one, we have the whole of New Zealand which has been successfully de-fanned. I guess there is a logic to why having less fans is better, but it escapes me.

      4. I am a little embarrassed to say that I am not very technically knowledgeable ,but I have been a fan since the early 60’s ,but I am afraid that although I had a new lease of very stong interest when Lewis and Fernando had there year at McLaren together, since then the whole thing has gone down hill rapidly. It seems that the most recent incarnations are not that difficult for a very young driver to master instantly. All spectator sports are about heroes for fans , but I can’t determine if there are any ,or if there are there’s to many.No Rolex.

    7. “Well we have six so if we have four teams want to do that that’s ten. There’s 18 votes so that’s the majority.”

      Bernie will have Red Bull. Possibly Ferrari. The other side will have the FIA, Mercedes, Williams and Lotus. McLaren-Honda probably on the FIA side.

      Nay problem, unless he starts throwing more free money around to buy votes.

      1. There’s no free money with Bernie.
        You have to sell him your soul and marry a retired pop celebrity from the 90s.

      2. I’m sure Bernie regrets not allowing the smaller teams to attend meeting of the Strategy Group. Mallya hates the V6 engines despite having a Mercedes unit and the smaller teams hate the enormous costs of the V6 anyway.

        1. Funnily enough, the only reason Vijay gets a seat at the table next year is his supply of Mercedes kit… Why would he vote against the equipment that put him ahead?

      3. @neilosjames That was my first thought as well. Even McLaren might agree to radical changes to the engine regulations if they feel that Honda’s V6 power unit is not good but I do not see why Mercedes, Williams and Lotus / Force India would want to support it. Besides, I believe that the the FIA World Motor Sport Council still has to ratify any changes even if they have been approved by the Strategy Group and F1 commission.

        It seems that Red Bull and Ferrari do not really care if there are V6, V8, V10 or V16 engines in F1, they just want something different to get a chance to win something before 2021, which is understandable. As for Bernie, he has never been a fan of the current power units and he might not be looking forward to Mercedes’ domination for the next six years, too. As for the engine manufacturers, it is really hard to say – I do not think that Renault and Honda want to spend more resources to produce something that has no relevance to the road but they might still prefer “irrelevant” engines over engines that cannot win.

        Anyway, the Strategy Group meeting on December 18 should be an interesting one, watch this space…

    8. I usually don’t bother to comment on Bernie’s blathering, but I found the Forbes article particularly annoying. One thing that irks me is that “Renault and Ferrari have no opportunity to catch up in 2015”. What is this nonsense? They have had the whole of 2014 to improve (at least half) of their power unit.

      Also, what exactly is he proposing as an alternative? Use the old engines? A new engine formula of 1000hp V10s with “some hybrid bits”? It’s just too ridiculous to comment on, except that it’s coming from the guy who’s running the sport.

      1. If you look closely at what he said, what he was asking for was a return to a normally aspirated, high revving engine. He never explicitly asked for a V10 engine format – the journalist who interviewed him simply assumed that was what Bernie was asking for.

        Read his comments more closely, and it appears that what he is actually pushing for is a return to the old V8 engine format – in other words, the same engine format that Red Bull and Ferrari want the sport to revert back to. In fact, quite a few of the lines that Bernie is parroting there – such as the misleading claims about being unable to develop the engines – are almost indistinguishable from comments that Horner has been making.

        1. It’s quite a non-existing engine (correct me if I’m wrong). Torque [Nm]=9550*Power [kW]/revs [rpm]. At 20000 rpm and 1100 bhp you get third of that torque, about 400 Nm, not mentioning thermal efficiency you should achieve to get that amount of power from 100 kg of petrol. These V6s give about 600 HP from ICE, 160 hp goes from recovery.

          1. sorry, wrong comment replied, should be to @peppermint-lemon

          2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
            13th December 2014, 12:52

            Sorry you are probably correct my figures etc were off- I’ve Bennett been the best mathematician lol.

            We definitely need twice the power we have now and 160db volume though regardless of which engine architecture is used to get there.

            1. Still don’t know why thousands of horsepower, torques and decibels is any better.

            2. Noise is just wasted power. And 160 db would result in instantly ruptured eardrums, which makes it even more stupid.

              Having said that, I’m OK with removing the artificial fuel flow cap @ 10,500 RPM, and letting these engines actually howl. Truth is, Renault and Ferrari underestimated what Mercedes could bring– a handicap Honda won’t have, and Ferrari and Renault shouldn’t.

              And if the Mercedes engine is so all-conquering, how the bejesus did Red Bull score 12 podiums and 3 wins?!?

      2. If you see any article about Bernie with the words ‘Christian Sylt’ or ‘Formula Money’ in the body anywhere, take them with a pinch of salt – they’re articles fed into the meat grinder by Bernie…

        Just ask Joe Saward!

        1. @optimaximal and @hohum I have just come across your comments and would like to set the record straight. It is completely inaccurate to say that I deliberately report a “message that Bernie wants to send” or that my articles are “fed into the meat grinder by Bernie.” Both of these statements suggest that my articles somehow lack editorial objectivity and are instead vehicles for Bernie Ecclestone which is not only inaccurate but there is no evidence to support it.

          Firstly, you may not be aware but I write about the business of F1 for almost all of the UK papers (more than any of the journalists who cover the sports side of F1 in fact) and have been doing so for more than a decade. Before my articles are published they have to go through the business editor, his/her deputy, the sub-editor, the overall editor of the newspaper and sometimes its lawyers. If there was a lack of objectivity in the first place (which there is not) it would be weeded out through this process. In contrast, you mention someone who can simply post articles on his blog without an editorial process.

          In addition, facts in the public domain disprove your inaccurate and defamatory suggestion that Bernie Ecclestone is responsible for my articles (‘fed into the meat grinder by Bernie’). If you had done some research you would have found that I regularly speak to many other senior industry sources and in the past year have alone written articles about my conversations with David Richards, Gene Haas, Zak Brown, Tony Purnell, Toto Wolff, Alejandro Agag, Ron Walker and Jackie Stewart amongst others. Clearly these articles were not ‘fed into the meat grinder by Bernie’ which alone shows the inaccuracy of your suggestion. For reference, here are links to some of the articles I am referring to:


          For the avoidance of doubt, I reserve all my rights in respect of the defamatory material to which I refer and I trust this clears up the matter.

      3. Bernie just want to help his friend Horner and his Ferrari friends because those two teams are his allies in his divide and conquer management.
        They are the two teams that don’t care selling their mothers for their own benefit.
        They aren’t there to compete, they just want to make sure the others can’t compete with them. That’s why they hate the idea of small teams getting any benefits and can’t accept having to work to do better than Mercedes.
        Mclaren and Merc aren’t that hardcore. Dennis already said he will be willing to help small teams and Whitmarh was trying really hard to make people compromise for the good of the sport and was willing to make sacrifices too. Merc proposed all the money left on the table after the new teams folded to the devided to the smaller team and Red Bull and Ferrari didn’t accept.

        1. I forgot to mentioned that he also seems to have a personal grunge against this engines because it is one of the things he didn’t managed to get his way. He isn’t used to not getting whatever he wants. His like a spoiled brat throwing a hissy fit because not eveyone did as he liked over the engines.

    9. That interview with Bernie makes him sound like someone with obvious mental problems. Absolutely absurd.

    10. I don’t think there’s any problem with the current engine, changing from V6 to V10 is after 2 years is pretty early

    11. I feel sorry for the interviewer for Forbes. It must be so frustrating having to talk to someone like that. There is simply no logic in his thinking, no acceptance of facts, no understanding of consequence and no responsibility taken. For example:

      “I said we have got this bloody engine and it is a secret. Nobody has told the world what it does and how a wonderful piece of engineering it is…”

      Whose job is that? The teams? The engine manufacturers? The press? The sports commercial rights holders? Who should lead that? Some social media would be a good start… In the meantime, he’s doing his own bad press with interviews like this. Because the rest is just a frank insight into secret handshakes, knowing winks and back-room deals. Corruption and mayhem.

      1. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        13th December 2014, 9:55

        I’m fed up with people on social media talking badly shout other people they don’t even know our haven’t been in direct contact with. Bernie Ecclestone talks in the manner he does because much is legally confidential and he can’t discuss in detail. I respect and accept that. It it’s up to the manufacturer of components to shout about their products and capabilities. But of course development is secret. So its a hard to break cycle.

        As for the engine formula, I personally believe in high revving, low inertia, high torque, supercharging and high volumes for effect. So, for me a 4.0litre V8 with a supercharged whine producing 1100bhp and 800lbft at 20000rpm and 160db would be spot on. But, such an engine should only use 100-150 litres of fuel per race.

      2. The thing that baffles me is that it is NO secret that these cars are using one third less fuel than the previous generations, and they have energy recovery systems on board. ‘Nobody has told the world…’??? Say what???

        That’s all we heard about all season. Fuel economy, energy recovery systems and how braking effects that etc etc. I agree that this interview is a mumbo jumbo of a mess. Sometimes I think BE just likes to hear himself talk.

        Also, it seemed to me that most people around here who have been to races this past season have said the noise isn’t as bad as it was made out to be. Some were disappointed and said they wouldn’t attend another race, but more were either fine with it or in fact were stoked that they didn’t have to wear ear protection, could hear braking and tires squealing, and were excited they could now bring their smaller children.

        BE seemingly was surprised at how quiet the cars were when he first heard a few cars on the track at a time in early pre-season testing. Then he seemed to warm up to it when he was at an actual race and heard them all together. What is to say his idea of ‘normally aspirated engines with a few hybrid bits attached would sound so much better?

        There’s beauty to me in these power units that do not waste nearly as much energy in noise for the sake of noise. Going backwards would be ridiculous imho. He at the same time calls these power units wonderful pieces of engineering…why can’t he just keep hammering away at that message instead of at the same time saying lets get rid of them?

        As to the cost? That was always going to be high initially and will decrease with time. How costly would be the wasting of all that money and R&D to go backwards? It’ll be years before they see any ‘savings’ to have gone backwards in front of the world. And…F1, like governments, have tons of money. It’s the mismanagement of it that is the problem. So I don’t buy the cost argument when you consider the long-term benefits.

      3. Quite right, Mr Sylt usually takes a lot of trouble to ensure he reports the message that Bernie wants to send rather than just highlighting some aspect of Bernies scattergun pronouncements, however it seems in this case there was no good news to report and the only course he could safely follow was a verbatim report of the press-conference. Thank you CS.

      4. “I said we have got this bloody engine and it is a secret. Nobody has told the world what it does and how a wonderful piece of engineering it is…”

        Actually, Bernie, they did… it was all over social media.

    12. ColdFly F1 (@)
      13th December 2014, 9:55

      I don’t like the Mercedes dominance. Neither did I like the Red Bull dominance recently.
      I want to see real fights between the most talented pilots. And having 1 dominant car makes that less likely.

      But it is not the V6 Hybrid’s engine’s fault. It is simply that 1 manufacturer was well prepared, and the others were not.
      I might give them all more tokens per year, but keeping it to 1 homologation per year is a smart way to keep costs down.

      The sound of the V6 Hybrid does not worry me either. It sounds a bit dull on TV, but at a race it is quite impressive (no ear plugs needed).

      And it would be retarded for F1 to go back to normally aspired or leaving the hybrid parts out. F1 is supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsport.
      BWM (3 cylinders), Porsche, Ferrari, McLaren all released (super) sports cars based on hybrid technology.
      Why do we want F1 to stay behind? it should be leading the way!

      1. I absolutely agree. Mercedes GP got it right, both in terms og PU and chassis.

        The good news are that the other Mercedes powered cars “only” need to improve their chassis to be more competitive. Williams, Force India & even Lotus should have a good chance of improving for next year, since they have had time to better integrate the PU in the chassis by now.

        So although Mercedes probably will still be out front next year, the competition should be able to catch up. What will happen at Ferrari, at McLaren-Honda and with the Renault PU is an open question.

      2. “The sound of the V6 Hybrid does not worry me either. It sounds a bit dull on TV, but at a race it is quite impressive (no ear plugs needed). ”

        Right. Onsite at an F1 race, you’ll only need earplugs when the AMG safety car and medical car run down the track, because they’re so significantly louder and more awe-inspiring than the muted put-put-put of the ERS-H F1 cars. The earplugs also come in handy for any of the intermediate races (e.g., Ferrari Challenge, GP2) because they also are more true to the high-performance racing spirit than anything ERS-H.

        1. So noise & volume is the deciding factor in a high performance engine?

          You do realise that the F1 V6 Turbo/Hybrids have more power than the GP2 cars & the Safety car don’t you?
          They have more torque, More grunt & are faster at the top end, Not just when compared to the support races but also compared to the previous F1 V8’s.

          These new V6 Turbo’s also make watching the cars so much more spectacular because they actually have torque so drivers are having to actually manage the throttle exiting corners to fight off wheelspin & this see’s the cars moving around a lot more under power which both on TV, The in-Car cameras & sitting at trackside makes the cars so much more interesting & exciting to watch.

          The old V8’s were loud, But they were so dull & sounded so flat & the complete lack of torque made the cars so uninteresting to watch as drivers could just plant the throttle with little drama.

          I love these new V6 turbo’s, I love the sound, I love the torque/power & I love how they have made the cars look way more interesting to just watch, Hope they stick with this formula!

          1. I cannot believe anyone “loves” the sound of the new v6 turbos. Also the torque, I bet if the teams quoted the amount, it would still be a limited number compared to turbo diesel road cars. what I saw this year was most of the time drivers still having very little dram with the throttle, even in the wet races. engine management is akin to traction control in this current f1 era. I didn’t see much more spectacle in this v6 turbo era with fighting throttle then in the 90s with v10s and v12s fighting throttle, infact it was less. the way the Mercedes controlled in the rain races wasn’t anything more spectular then how the Mercedes controlled in 2010-13 in the rain.
            how were the v8s dull and flat???? they were screaming piercing and rich in mechanical noise!!
            yes the v6 hybrids produce as much power as last years v8s, but imagine last years v8s with hybrid power added, then compare.

            1. Go back & watch some of the in-car cameras with the telemetry & you will see how much more cautious drivers were having to be with the throttle.

              Look at Turn 10 at Melbourne for example, Its been an easy floor the throttle acceleration zone for years yet this year we saw drivers getting a lot of wheelspin there & it caused Bottas to slide off & tap the wall during the race with many other drivers sliding when the torque kicked in there all weekend.

              I was at the Jerez test & Spanish Gp & during the test at the chicane towards the end of the lap there was way more wheelspin & sideways moments coming out of there than i’ve ever seen from an F1 car & it was the same exiting many corners at Barcelona from what I saw from trackside.

              Jenson Button was quoted at the start of the year as saying he’s never driven a car with so much torque. And on a piece on the BBC during qualifying at Abu Dhabi David Coulthard drove a 2014 Williams & said he’d never driven an F1 car that felt like it had that much power & that the torque was incredible.

              I have spent the past 4 years watching tons of in-car cameras footage thanks to sky’s multi-camera stuff & this year watching those in-car cameras was so much more fun & a big part of that was these wonderful new V6 turbo power units.

              Just compare these suzuka pole laps & watch the throttle trace,

              In 2014 there clearly having to be way more cautious before putting full throttle down.
              At spoon for instance in 2013 Mark was 100% throttle before the end of the inside kurb while in 2014 Rosberg wasn’t 100% throttle until he got to the exit kurb & had the car straght.
              Exiting the final chicane in 2013 Mark was 100% throttle as soon as he exited the chicane while in 2014 Nico was 100% throttle until he was half way round the right sweeping bend going onto the start straght.

            2. To be honest, the V8’s were mildly painful to listen to, and not in a pleasing manner. They have a very shrill tone that plays havoc with anyone who still has any amount of high frequency hearing left.

              I do actually enjoy listening to the Mercedes engine on the overrun– cracks me up every time.

              As for torque, that 160 BHP coming out of the ERS system is full torque for the entire range of output, so I doubt *any* diesel road car is getting anywhere near the torque output of the F1 cars. They might claim it, but the tires can’t take it. The torque’s always going to be at the mercy of the anti-spin system.

      3. I really enjoy classic racing series, old school technology, lots of noise and oil smoke, skinny tyres squealing and squirming, great entertainment, but like those 2-4L V8s no longer state of the art, in fact the only technology those V8s had that wasn’t found on the family sedans of last century was the troublesome compressed air valve closeing which had been developed to cope with potential rpm of 20K+.
        My point is, there is a place for every thing in motorsport but F1 has to be at the cutting edge, it has to be a technical challenge or it loses it’s reason to be. It would be very easy to provide more torque, horsepower and noise at less cost if that is what enough people want, simply bolt on a twin turbo 7L pushrod V8 smallblock from GM and hey-presto, 1000+ HP, mega torque, booming exhaust, massively exciting to drive but no more interesting technically than NASCAR.

    13. I don’t believe Renault will allow Red Bull to vote for some other engine. Mercedes will just out-spend and out-develop them again, leaving Renault in the same position but a lot poorer. They need to chase a stable design and get close enough so that the Red Bull chassis can make the difference, like last time.

      I think the most meaningful thing Bernie said was this:

      “I told all the teams that I’m happy to tear all the contracts up and then we will get together and decide who should get what.”

      I reckon Mercedes will trade engine development for a bigger slice of the pie. I’d like to think they’ll also insist on more money for the bottom teams, but that’s probably me being idealistic.

      1. @nin13, thanks mate – great compilation!

      2. @nin13 Thanks! P.S. Honestly, now we’ve seen 2013 and 2014, what a great year 2011 actually was…

      3. Thanks! But it would be better without the music.

    14. hamilton over alonso and ricciardo? hahahahAHahAHahahahaha

      1. Of course! He is The Champion! He is the best!

    15. How’s this for an idea:

      Teams may use any specification of engine, including unlimited hybrid power. The fuel tank must be limited to x litres (same or less than 2014). The specification of the engine must remain stable after the third race of the season.

      Job done- no team boss can then whine about their engine!

      1. no, 3 races is not enough, that is the whole problem this year (besides the sound too ofcourse). teams need more time for development so they can reach relative parity, otherwise the concept of homologation is a failure – engine holomologation only works when the playing field is quite close. if they cant reach relative parity, development should be allowed – it is the sporting thing to do, otherwise make it a spec series to keep it fair and keep costs down. if this was a true sport, a team or manufacturer would be allowed to develop to try to win when they are not, this happens in every sport even things like running, you train to get better. luckily chassis homologation isn’t happening yet in this modern f1 that seems to be shooting itself in the foot. I have watched f1 since 1994, and 2014 was the worst season – at least in every other season you had hope that a dominant team would be catched because of development possibilities, in 2014 Mercedes had a locked in power advantage of about 100hp or so, and no chassis development would catch that up. the last time any manufacturer had such a power advantage, engine development was allowed.

        1. With unlimited development (which I love) 1 team can be unbeatable one race but may not be unbeatable next race, great, with limited development 1 team may be unbeatable for 1 season but may not be unbeatable the next season, the pace (and cost) of development has been slowed from 1 race to 1 season, but the development challenge is still there, unlike it was with the frozen equality of the V8s.

    16. What’s max talking about?

      He still is a kid!

      1. similar message as all other drivers when announcing their racing numbers.

        And you are right, at 17 in many countries he is still considered a kid!

    17. go Bernie! He is very hit and miss with his opinions, but if anyone can get rid of these dreadful sounding v6s and possibly end a one manufacturer domination of f1 for the foreseeable future, it is this man Ecclestone. he is right, imagine a V8 or V10 hydrid series. the small percentage of f1 fans that care for road relevance will still be happy as they will have hybrid technology like they do now, but every other fan of f1 will be happy as we will have a great sounding top level racing series again. they would make about 1000hp – so to stop laptimes getting too fast, they can up the chassis to 700kg weight, or better still reduce aero more. we could end up with silky smooth looking open cockpit f1 cars with 1000hp, still pushing technology, and making a great sound that f1 until now has been known for. why would you not want that?
      I predict f1 crowds will fall next year, the majority of fans that go to races are not diehard f1 fans like the handful in this forum, and were disappointed by the lack of sound this year, they may not return. for me what was disappointing in 2014 was promotion of races, like in Melbourne promoting the 2014 season opener, they used a v8 f1 car – that is akin to false advertising. Ricciardo was in Melbourne a few days ago promoting the race for next year, I didn’t get a chance to see which car he used to promote it, wouldn’t surprise me if it was a 2011 or 12 redbull.

      1. V8 supercars provide the kind of entertainment you and many people want, support that if you want, but allow F1 to be different and technically interesting for those of us who have room for more than sensory excitement in our chosen form(s) of motorsport.

      2. Peppermint-Lemon (@)
        15th December 2014, 14:18

        I believe that F1 needs to be running say 6.2L V8 supercharged engines (think the famous AMG 6.2L V8 in their SLS). F1 development would likely see 10k-12k rpm & 1000+ hp.

    18. The thing is, Mercedes are so dominant that it can drive away more casual fans than what RBR dominance did.

      Things that can make 2015 better-

      James Allison

      1. It is highly unlikely that Mercedes will have anything like as great an advantage in 2015 as they enjoyed in 2014, extracting power from a given amount of fuel is governed by the law of diminishing returns, Ferrari and Renault may have been caught with their pants down this year but they have a pretty good idea where they went wrong and what will be needed to be competitive next year.

    19. It’s very strange that they sell their stakes.

    20. My knowledge of the technical side is not great. However, the cost of the engines seems to be unsustainable and needs to be cut. I am not sure how this is best achieved. I think if it is more cost effective and cheaper for the small teams for the suppliers to update/re-develop the V8s from last year, then that’s what they should do. If sticking with the V6s is going to be no dearer in the long run then they should do that. The other manufacturers will catch up with Mercedes given time.

    Comments are closed.