Kimi Raikkonen, Lewis Hamilton, Bahrain International Circuit, 2015

V6 turbo engines could hit 1,000bhp by 2017

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Kimi Raikkonen, Lewis Hamilton, Bahrain International Circuit, 2015In the round-up: Formula 1 may be heading towards 1,000bhp V6 turbo engines by the start of the 2017 season.

Links

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

F1 closing on 1000bhp future from 2017 onwards using current V6s (ESPN)

"Bernie Ecclestone has been one of the main supporters of 1000bhp but also wanted a return to V8 engines as recently as last week. Now he appears happy to give his blessing to 1000bhp V6 turbos as long as they are supplied to the smaller teams at a reasonable price."

Bernie Ecclestone gets tough with F1 teams over talks on 2017 engines (Guardian)

"Ecclestone: 'Whoever supplies engines to the teams has to supply the same engine as they currently use. If it’s going to be the current engine upgraded to 1,000bhp, then good – and they need to supply it at a price the team can afford to pay.'"

Daniel Ricciardo onto his fourth F1 engine after Bahrain GP failure (Autosport)

"Daniel Ricciardo will have to use his fourth and final Formula 1 V6 engine in Spain next month following his last-gasp failure in the Bahrain Grand Prix."

Fernando Alonso says McLaren face 'three important weeks' (Sky)

"Alonso: 'There are many things to be done and we have three important weeks now when we have to increase the performance, increase the reliability. So I am optimistic for the future because the steps are going in the right direction, but a lot of things need to be done.'"

VIDEO: Bernie Ecclestone: Formula 1 boss says sport is too expensive (BBC)

"In a wide-ranging interview with BBC Sport, Ecclestone complained that F1 was 'too democratic' and continued his campaign against its turbo hybrid engines."

Lewis Hamilton to cruise to a third world title? Think again... (BBC)

"Three men share the ignominy of failing to land the title after winning three from four at the start of the season, and - Hamilton be warned - they are among the best drivers the sport has ever seen."

Bernie Ecclestone gives Azerbaijan green light to host European Grand Prix next season despite human rights concerns (Daily Mail)

"Asked whether Azerbaijan's human rights record would be checked, the 84-year-old replied: 'We have. I think everybody seems to be happy. There doesn't seem to be any big problem there.'here's no question of it not being on the calendar. It's going to be another good race.'"

Real Life v the Bahraini Grand Prix (Huffington Post)

"Meanwhile, the country's Interior Ministry has reportedly spent this week letting it be known that anyone thinking of 'attempting to defame the international event and the interests of Bahrain before, during and after the Formula 1 race' will face the full force of the law."

VIDEO: Bahrain's Grand Prix Sparks Human Rights Protests (VICE via YouTube)


Tweets

minttuvirtanenofficial (via instagram)

Comment of the day

With Sebastian Vettel admitting that he felt he let his Ferrari team down by running off track and damaging his front wing in yesterday’s Bahrain Grand Prix, @slowhands believe it was simply a case of the Ferrari driver trying a little too hard.

The challenge of driving fast in F1 is that you have to push to the limit, but if you push too hard then you overdrive the car. I think Vettel felt before the race that a win was possible, and because he knows that the conditions have to be just right for Ferrari to have a chance to beat Merc, he may feel like he has to grab the opportunity when it arises. It can be easy to push too hard in a situation like that. The challenge in such a situation is to drive at the maximum of your skills and package without pushing over the line.

In his post race interview he admitted that the errors he made were as a result of pushing too hard. It’s been more than a year since Vettel had a car that was suited to him that he could win with. To drive a car that has a chance to win, you have to drive “within yourself” as they say, because overdriving mistakes are much more likely in a fast car than a mid-pack one. Like Malaysia, Ferrari had a chance of winning this one “fair and square” and Vettel got a little too excited by that idea. It happens to the best. He will learn from this and be back.
@slowhands

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Jacob!

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 Lewis Hamilton won the Chinese Grand Prix after team mate Nico Rosberg was delayed at the start in his Mercedes.

Author information

Will Wood
Will has been a RaceFans contributor since 2012 during which time he has covered F1 test sessions, launch events and interviewed drivers. He mainly...

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

  • 77 comments on “V6 turbo engines could hit 1,000bhp by 2017”

    1. Don’t know why they are so desperate to hit a arbitrary number of horsepower. 900 hp, 1000 hp, 850 hp… what’s the point? they’ll get there eventually, as Toto says…

      I just don’t get that obsession to reach such number. Sure, I want more power, but I don’t see how a better laptime might change my experience as a viewer. Specially if they have to drive saving tyres and fuel.

      1. As you say, Vettel went in thinking of the win but for me, he only had a chance if he’d been first at turn 1.Mercs upper hand is their qualifying. If Ferrari can crack that. . . .

      2. if they hit that bhp with fat rear tyres and little ones in the front, it would be an awesome show, but as it is.. well, if i’m not wrong, back in 2003 the F2004 was about 930bhp and one of the most boring season i can recall…

      3. @fer-no65, exactly, if Bernie wants to make the cars harder to drive they just have to reduce wing area. But if 1000 hp is essential for marketing they could easily increase the electric power output and though they would have to use it less often it would be 1000 hp.

        1. @hohum,
          I keep thinking the same thing. It would not be hard to let them turn up another 50bhp on the electric side as they intentionally limit that today.
          but I guess for Bernie it’s all about louder noise. He doesn’t realize that he’s so deaf now from all those years of loud noise that nothing is ever going to sound loud to him again!
          LOL

      4. like bernie said in BBC interview, aim is not just to increase to 1000hp, but also to reduce cost by using shared components amongst other manufacturers and up the engine sound a bit.

        1. @f1007 meh, knowing F1 and all the people involved, “saving costs” is a false objective, one that never is achieved.

          1. @fer-no65 true, previous attempts to reduce costs did not work, but this is totally different tho. Previously, reducing costs by yearly budget restrictions or asking to increase distributed revenues to smaller teams etc. This might work esp coz all teams are also keen to increase engine noise as per promoter’s demands, and customer teams are struggling coz of engine costs which are 3 times the cost of previous generation engines.

      5. Exactly, its completely irrelevant what exact number they hit with bph (just put it in “official numbers” KwH and its lower anyway) @fer-no65. I think that if they up the engines power and then give them better mechanical grip (huge tyres) and let them juggle with aero MORE it will just mean crazy cornering speeds, and the FIA having to step in and take it back down a notch somehow.

        Instead they should just leave the engines be, reduce the scope for FW development and we will see the drivers having trouble to keep these cars on rails. Good idea for the electric part there @hohum

      6. +1 @fer-no65

        It’s almost like Bernie has scientific proof that 1000 hp will guarantee more competition… this obsession with “the show” is actually causing more harm than good. BTW, those sparks are not that great…

        1. @jcost : If I am not wrong, the sparks are a by-product of using titanium skid blocks, which apart from other uses, is a safety feature over steel.

          I for one love the sparks…

      7. @fer-no65 Bernie apparently said yesterday that he stand down and I think you are the person for the job.
        I’m sure Mark Webber and the majority of fans would agree with your comments regarding horsepower, unless that is
        Bernie incorporates straight line drags Fast N Furious style employing the dropped grid girls from the WEC as fake crowds.

      8. I agree that the notion of 1,000bhp is completely arbitrary, but it plays into mankind’s irrational obsession with arbitrary thresholds – just look at the fuss created over the Bugatti Veyron when VW first announced how powerful it would be.

        The Mercedes and Ferrari powertrains are probably already over the 900bhp mark – we know Renault are at 850bhp and that they have a sizeable power deficit to Mercedes and Ferrari – and would probably be pushing close to 1,000bhp through natural development work by 2017 anyway.

        As you say, the cars will naturally approach that point anyway soon enough, and in reality it won’t make much difference to a driver whether he has 950bhp or 1,000bhp under his right foot.

        @matiascasali, some of the teams back in 2004 were claiming power outputs close to 1,000bhp – Honda did develop a “Suzuka Special” which reportedly produced about 980bhp, with power outputs generally hovering around the 930-960bhp mark.
        However, it’s worth remembering that electronic driver aids, such as traction control, were permitted back in 2004 – it wasn’t necessarily much of a challenge if a driver could afford to be a bit sloppy with his throttle application and simply let the electronics sort the problem out.

      9. You could argue that the current fuel flow limit of 100kg/hr is an arbitrary number– actually, I’m not sure you can argue that it *isn’t*.

        There’s a fuel flow equation in the rules that governs how much fuel can be used at any given RPM, and the “100kg/hr” happens to be 10,500 RPM. On engines that are designed to rev to 15,000 RPM.

        Keep the equation, but remove the artificial barrier that keeps the engines at 10,500 RPM. You’ll easily get to 1000 combined HP.

        I think F1 could be “fixed” with some fairly simple changes, only one of which should be controversial:

        * Active suspension (less expensive, AND safer)
        * Reduce complexity of front wing (limit number of elements, but reduce restrictions)
        * add limited (I stress, LIMITED) underbody ground effects (reduce reliance on front wing to improve passing)
        * remove fuel flow cap (but keep equation)
        * more resilient tires (less sensitive to abuse)
        * bring back refueling

        OK– refueling isn’t that “simple”. And it’s controversial. And adds cost, and I’d suggest a safety interlock to keep the clutch from being engaged while the fuel hose is connected to the car. But the racing will be improved.

        The engines will get cheaper, the longer they’re in use.

        1. Michael Brown
          21st April 2015, 23:25

          The thing is, the teams like to block drastic changes like this, complaining about costs.

          Personally, I’m against refuelling. It has no place in F1, encouraging overtaking via pit stops. Things were great in 2010 until Pirelli came in and gave us the 2 second gaps.

    2. Regarding the COTD, Vettel did overdrive the car esp because he tends to explore track limits and with a Merc with driving modes that make it faster behind you, you’re bound to make errors. He should have done better though.

      1. I have been on the “Vettel sucks” for a long time, but his recent victory kinda proved he doesn’t suck. I was finally convinced he is a damn good driver. But I’m still not convinced 4 world titles (possibly more) are a reward proportionate to his skills. He should have done better.

        1. *- On the “Vettel sucks” side -*

        2. @flig … seriously?

          1. @xtwl Sure. Would you disagree? What I mean is – 4 (or more, he could very well bag another one eventually) is too much for him, it does not reflect his skills. Unless you think big names deserved more than they have – you cannot possibly think that only Schumacher, Prost and Fangio were better drivers than Vettel…

            1. @flig I don’t think as black and white that a simple number of titles mean how good a driver is. Many rate Alonso alongside Schumacher yet he not even has a third of his titles.

              Senna is rated as the best but only has half the titles of Schumacher and even his 89 title was due to some stupid rule taking it away from Prost. So is Senna half as good as Schumacher?

              Comments such as yours that Vettel does not deserve his titles is plain nonsense and don’t belong on a site like this where most posters are very well educated on F1 matters.

            2. @flig But for two minor errors, Alonso could easily have 4 titles, winning 2010 and 2012. Alonso 4, Hamilton 3, Vettel 2 would be a fair reflection of majority opinion IMO. You could also put Senna on at least 5 had Imola 1994 not happened.

            3. *The third one for Hamilton is the one he’s currently leading, 2015. 2016 would then be mouth watering between Hamilton and Vettel now developing the Ferrari.

            4. **The same happened to Clark in the 1960s (as Alonso). But still people will put Clark and Alonso in their all-time top-ten lists, even with 2 titles each, same for Senna with 3 and still making most top-five lists with MSc, Prost, Fangio, Clark.

            5. @xtwl, I merely said I think 4 is a bit too much. We’re all entitled to have our favorite drivers, and we’re all inclined to judge performances and rate their skills – they are competing, after all. I have seen many drivers throughout the years, and the same way I think Frentzen or Kubica were unlucky and the fact that they don’t have many wins or a single title to their names is not a just reward for their skills, I think Vettel’s (or Schumacher’s, for that matter) number of titles tilts the other way – too many. I’m not saying he does not deserve to be a world champion, but looking at Hamilton and Alonso (and I dare say Hulkenberg) and how they performed in recent years, I think it’s no insult to anyone that I think he got over-rewarded. As @fastiesty says, small details prevented Alonso from flipping the situation 4 x 2 to Alonso, which I think many would agree would be a “fairer distribution of championships” based on performance, skills, pace and finesse.

            6. @fastiesty My top five would be Clark/Prost/Moss/Senna/Schumacher and if I spent some more time reading I’d form a proper top 10 including Fangio, Ascari, Alonso, G. Hill and Villeneuve. Hamilton and Vettel lurk in that top 15.

            7. @flig Indeed, and at this point, Vettel is well placed to battle Hamilton over the next few years for titles. This would see them battling to match/beat Alonso’s total of 4 titles, and status as ‘best on the current grid’ before he retires.

              Frentzen and Kubica were indeed unlucky, Frentzen just underperformed when he had his fastest car (Williams), while Kubica was ‘lost’ like many drivers of old (and now Bianchi sadly). I do feel Grosjean and Hulkenberg are not far off winning either, as Japan 2013 and Brazil 2012 show. Bottas joins that category with Austria 2014..

            8. *Put Vergne in a Red Bull for a wet race and he probably wouldn’t be far off either..

      2. That’s why close competition makes the race ballistic. Yesterday Vettel was not alone among the top crop regarding “forced errors”, both Lewis and Nico crossed the limits of the circuit. (In Nico’s case, BBW failure probably played a part).

    3. Despite the first sentence of the comment being way too… I’m way too tired to find the adequate word… perhaps way too commonplace, I feel like this is a very very good COTD, very much spot on. I’ve felt the same about Vettel’s driving today.

      One of the worst thing about it is that, looking at the race chart, his lap 8 mistake resulted in him backing Raikkonen up a few seconds and losing a very much real chance to undercut Lewis as well during the first stop. Adding this two effects up, that innocuous outbraking into T1 on lap 8 may have just kept Ferrari from that coveted second victory of the season.

    4. Vettel definitely pushed the car too hard especially when he broke too late trying to overtake Bottas. But that is what happens when you are on the limit.

      Regarding the tweet about RBR’s engine usage, that is pretty shocking. Unless they are cycling the engines (which I assume is allowed).

    5. Is this a cunning ploy by Renault to re-design the entire PU under the rule allowing modifications for reliability. :)

      1. well-spotted!

      2. This prob seems more like a consericy type of theory but I wouldn’t put it past them. If they are doing this in the long run it could be a very smart thing to do. I still feel they should open up development more on the power units as long as that wouldn’t mean higher customer car pricing. If the big boys wanna spend let them but there should be a cost cap on the customer PUs

        1. One last thing to add to that is if the big car company’s want to translate their f1 involvement to help sell road cars what would be a bigger selling point for people buying cars 1. They make better wings 2. They can use some sorta trick device on the cars or 3. That they can build a great motor thats powerful and will get you feeling that amazing feeling in your road car when you smash the gas pedal. I’m going to say number 3 so I feel that would be very relevant In their marketing.

      3. @hohum – Something does seem amiss with the Renault power unit from this year to last. Literally. Funny how they do not seem to have gained much performance, but still have severely sacrificed their reliability. Seems too far fetched of a high stakes scheme to be true, but right now they don’t have much to lose. Every race will be another opportunity for the media to count up the coming grid penalties caused by Renault’s engine problems.

        1. @bullmello, yes they actually seem to have gone backwards. Can you imagine a small car manufacturer like Caterham trying to link themselves to F1 technology by an advertising campaign along the lines of ” Powered by Renault, tyres by Pirelli”.

        2. @bullmello Yeah, they halved the gap to Mercedes…. of 2014. In 2015, Ferrari have even gotten close to the 2015 Mercedes. Honda matched the 2014 Mercedes as well most likely.

    6. Good progress from Mclaren. If their upgrades for Spain are effective, it could mean points.

      Here’s me hoping for the best!

      1. Plotting their progress on a graph shows them lapping the entire field by the USGP.

        1. @hohum with how many cars?

        2. @hohum The law of diminishing returns?

          1. @davidnotcoulthard, The advantage of starting your graph early is you can plot a straight line and leave the bellcurve to the realists and sceptics.

    7. Regarding the 2017 engine regs it would make a lot more sense to have some continued development of the current power units. It would cost less than switching to any other completely different engine formula and these power units are not far from the mythical magical 1K HP number already.

      Of course, Bernie will say something completely different tomorrow or the next day.

      1. One last thing to add to that is if the big car company’s want to translate their f1 involvement to help sell road cars what would be a bigger selling point for people buying cars 1. They make better wings 2. They can use some sorta trick device on the cars or 3. That they can build a great motor thats powerful and will get you feeling that amazing feeling in your road car when you smash the gas pedal. I’m going to say number 3 so I feel that would be very relevant In their marketing

        1. Agreed. It is amazing to me what they have already done with this engine formula. Added significant amounts of torque, combined hybrid horsepower approaching the V8’s and all done with much less fuel. All that and even with less downforce they are still lowering lap times. Pretty good engineering. Wish an engine like that was sitting in my little truck. It has a V6, not quite like an F1 version. Don’t need any wings or DRS though.

      2. If I understand it right the “agreement” isn’t all that solid. The only thing they seem to have agreed on is to take the current V6s with Hybrid drivetrain as the basis for any “new” concept, because the engine Manufacturers insist on that. Not even the 1000 bhp thing looks like completely settled.

        And the aero stuff is in a phase of “bringing up solutions of how to do it” so if they don’t agree on any of them or if it goes the way of the last aero-package that was supposed to be introduced with the current engines, before the big teams voted against it, those hyped up changes won’t amount to much.
        And honestly, I think the only thing really needed is to put a price limit on the customer engine packages, as that would help the smaller team a huge amount. The racing has been solid enough with the current package, apart from the field not being big enough and too many cars being able to really compete.

        1. So true, even if it were written in stone, it still could be subject to change with this circus. I guess the positive to take away is that Bernie conceded going forward with V6s was the way to go after hammering the thousand HP V8s line for so long. Of course tomorrow is a new day in Bernie-land so we shall see…

    8. I just refreshed the page hoping that political statement video wouldn’t be there, but unfortunately it is :(
      Bernie’s comments confirm he doesn’t really know what he is doing, but he knows he needs to find a solution to the sports problems, meanwhile Jenson Button leads by example by tweeting throughout the entire race showing he loves the sports even he is not driving.

      Jenson for Bernie’s job 2017!

      1. why wouldn’t that “political statement video” suddenly not be there?

        1. Kind of like, “I closed my eyes, hoping they were just playing tricks on me, but when I opened them, it was still there”.

        2. @bascb I think @wsrgo explains it best and I’ll leave it that :)
          But I will take this chance to edit my post from typo’s

          Jenson Button leads by example by tweeting throughout the entire race showing he loves the sport even though he is not driving.

    9. Suggested to Ecclestone it was unthinkable the race could be dropped, he replied: ‘I tell you something, I was told that when we didn’t have a race in France actually. And Germany now. We’ve got some good replacements, haven’t we?

      Oh, you are quite the comedian, Mr. Ecclestone. Quoting James Bond: I am almost speechless with admiration. Some check-up on human rights- I would say that whole setup is as legitimate as FIFA’s corruption or a mafia organization. The Baku street circuit looks really good, I have to say- but I personally don’t like racing in countries that have a bad human rights record- and now with France, Germany and even possibly Italy off the calendar, F1 is nearing an all-time low in terms of where the GP’s are being held. I’m all for trying out new places (I still wish F1 would race in India (on a much revised circuit))- but another race in another authoritarian country is just awful- it’s all about CVC wanting their money’s worth, and the worst part about it is that they are not putting a dime back into F1. You simply cannot run F1 like most other businesses- it’s very high maintenance- and it’s tantamount to rape, IMO. CVC is raping F1 by going to countries like Bahrain, the Emirates, China, Korea, Azerbaijan, Russia and potentially Qatar as well. Granted, I quite like the idea of having an F1 race in the Middle East (the only race that works for me there is Abu Dhabi, but the Yas Marina track absolutely sucks and needs to be redesigned), and I would like to see a race in Hong Kong and/or Ukraine (when the situation there gets better, preferably a circuit in or near Kiev). But come on- F1 will hardly be recongizable in years to come- if it keeps going like this, fans just won’t matter anymore, and F1 will be near-death in 5 years time.

    10. ColdFly F1 (@)
      20th April 2015, 6:40

      Bernie Ecclestone has been one of the main supporters of 1000bhp but also wanted a return to V8 engines as recently as last week.

      And only yesterday during the grid walk interview I still heard him say that he wanted V8’s or V10’s because the sound was crap. But I might have misunderstood him; I could not hear him well because they started up a V6 engine next to him ;)

    11. Apparently the cost of an engine is only 750,000 Euros already. Just stop messing with it. The issue is Free To Air, that’s all. Delayed highlights is less involving, obviously, as Bernie knows full well.

    12. Was anybody else bothered by the amount of sparks flying off the cars? The fact that they deliberately changed the skid blocks back to titanium to “make a better show for the audience” proves to me that the ones in charge don’t really know what the audience wants (at least in my case).

      Honestly, if I found metallic sparks flying around entertaining I would watch a metal worker using a grinder. Are we 5-year-olds?

      1. @vvans : Ah… The titanium skid blocks were used as a safety feature and not to make a better show, the sparks are a by-product. If you see earlier races, you could see cars producing sparks occasionally.

      2. Charlie Whiting quoted the titanium skids were used as a safety measure instead of the heavy metal skids they used before, because as flying debris they could (and in fact did) cause damage on tyres and cars. So, as it was in the past, the visual effect is secondly to material choice, but I would say that 95% of the fans are not having any problems with the flying sparks, as they did in the past. In fact, it should be the other way round. So I don´t understand what´s your problem. Are we are going to complain about EVERYTHING now??

        1. Just a coincidence that they addressed this safety measure straight after Bernie called for louder noise and sparks to be reintroduced “for the show”.

        2. @Megatron: Ferrari and Mercedes even ran tests before the Austrian GP 2014 to see which material produced the most spectacular sparks.

          “AUTOSPORT revealed earlier this year that F1 teams were looking at ways to make cars more spectacular, considering ideas including sparking cars, glowing brake discs and vapour trails.”

          Source: http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/114525

      3. @vvans, I agree, can’t these companies design and build a car that doesn’t drag its backside on the road? On another tack I find it ironic that titanium is banned in engine components (where it can be recycled) on cost grounds but allows it to be ground to dust and lost in skidblocks. However skidblocks and sparks are way down my list of things F1 needs to address.

    13. In other news, none of the engine manufacturers care what Ecclestone wants, or thinks he can impose.

      1. What Mr Ecclestone wants or thinks he can impose is important, because he holds the purse strings.

    14. Why do we need to changes it. In 2013 the last season of the V8 Sebastian Vettel finches in a time of 1:36:00.498. Sunday Hamilton finches in a time of 1:35:05.809. The cars they have now is on par with the V8 and will only get quicker. If you take in to account that they have to save fuel it only shows you how great these cars are.

      1. @koosoos : Overall race time might not be a good indicator, considering traffic, safety cars, type of tyres etc..

        1. So do the analysis!

    15. Wider tyres, less aero, no 100kg limit, no DRS. There, it was that simple.

      1. +1000.
        To bad nobody can’t/won’t see that.

    16. “The purpose he said was to make “cars that are difficult to drive”

      The problem with this is that while you can make regulations that make the cars more difficult to drive, the teams are hardly going to sit back and say to their driver “get on with it son, but don’t blame us if it’s hard to handle”. The teams spend lots of money to make the cars both faster and easier to drive so regulation changes along these lines simply increase the challenge for the teams which ultimately means more money is thrown at the problem. So making things harder to handle and cutting costs don’t go hand in hand.

      Bernie seems to oversimplify things and has such blinkered vision – his idea that simply going back to old engine regulations will see fans and sponsors flooding back is laughable. What worked in the past may not have any relevance in the current environment. I don’t think the problem will be solved by constant tinkering with technical issues by a marketing man, I think the FIA should be left to govern the regulations (with limited input from the teams), the teams should focus on building and racing cars and Bernie should get on with marketing Formula 1. Given how cheaply he acquired the commercial rights I don’t think he should be entitled to complain about the product and should just get on with doing his job.

      1. You are off course right. We just have to look at how hard most of the cars seemed to be to handle at the start of last year with huge torque and compare to now to see how the cars were finetuned to make it easier/predictable to handle (and sure enough the drivers got a grip of the changed characteristics too) @jerseyf1

      2. Your comment is telling how it is. “Bernie should get on with marketing Formula 1.” At the moment he does the opposite, he is talking down the sport purposely at every occasion. Furthermore, there is decision of the European Commission that Ecclestone has to keep his fingers out of technical regulation issues.

    17. COTD is dead right in facts, but aren’t we all being a little critical? Yes Vettel made a few mistakes but was pretty unlucky to damage the front wing with his little excursion into the rough. If it wasn’t for the wing change, I believe both Ferrari’s might have been on the podium which would of meant Nico Rosberg was over driving his car? Especially considering his team mate dominated the race in the same car even after a poor pitstop.

      That’s racing for you :)

    18. Lolz. Bernnie thinks the problem with F1 is the engine formula… HA! I think the problem is Bernnie milking the sport for everything it’s worth.

      The best thing that could happen to F1 would be equal prize money for equal performance, and A PRICE CAP. Open up the formula, use $ as the new formula.

      You know it would be good for competition solely because the rich teams and Bernnie don’t want to see it happen.

      I hate Bernnie. You watch: as soon as there’s a new F1 boss the sport will get healthier.

      Also, the current power units are brilliant, and will find (and have found) their way to the public roads. It is healthy for the sport to drive future automotive technologies. The benifits ate greater than extreme hp and loud engines. Bernnie is a blowhard corrupt toad.

    19. Re:1000 bhp
      With what fuel flow ?
      They Can’t run the engines they got now full power for a race distance !!

      Sure , sounds great , but 1000 bhp on the dunk or at the track

      Re:Rics 4 th PU
      UHM ! This rate he could use 3 or 4 years of allocations in 2015 ,
      although I feel Renault is doing a lot of work in the name of ” reliability” back at Viry

    20. Dunk ?
      Dyno , damnit ;)

    Comments are closed.