Start, Suzuka, 2015

FIA wants cost-capped 2.2-litre V6 engine option for 2017

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Posted on

| Written by

In the round-up: Jean Todt and Bernie Ecclestone are seeking a new low-cost engine package for 2017.


Comment of the day

Not a lot of you were thrilled at the news Jolyon Palmer will race for Lotus next year:

That’s rather underwhelming.. Good for Joylon, but I think most F1 fans can name 3 to 5 drivers that would have probably been better picks. Then again, if he has paid 250.000 per practise session, I’d imagine he brings considerable budget to a team that might not be competitive until after a hefty Renault investment.
Nick (@npf1)

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Adam Tate!

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

Honda scored their first victory as an F1 constructor 50 years ago today. Richie Ginther triumphed in the Mexican Grand Prix which was also the first victory for F1’s most successful tyre manufacturer, Goodyear, which by the time of its withdrawal in 1998 had won 368 races.

Also on this day in 2010 Fernando Alonso looked on course for a third world championship title after winning the inaugural Korean Granf Prix as both Red bull drivers failed to score:

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

  • 65 comments on “FIA wants cost-capped 2.2-litre V6 engine option for 2017”

    1. Palmer’s signing seems a bit odd. If Renault buys a team, his contract will be worthless and they won’t need his money. They’ll want someone better, so no drive for him.
      On the other hand, if Renault doesn’t buy the team, I can’t see them making it to the grid next year, so again, no drive for him.

    2. Dumb and Dumber at the controls again, hang on tight.

      1. I must say that seeing what “motorsport” and autosport bring out for news recently, I wouldn’t trust them to be really accurate more than listening to guys from the RBR camp hyping up their choices and from BE et all to make more from some things than they really are @hohum

        1. @bascb, quite, I no longer believe anything I hear about F1 until it’s actually happened.

          1. A bit hesitant, in the end I did read that article and as expected it doesn’t actually say where they base the story on, only naming Red Bull and Bernie as sources for other parts of it.

            Guess it should really read “FIA allegedd/said/rumoured to be looking at …”

      2. I’d sooner trust FIFA.

    3. So Jackie doesn’t understand why Lewis has never visited him at home.
      Maybe try looking at all of those interviews were you’ve put him down over the years Jackie, you might just find the answers you’re looking for mate.
      It may be too early to start calling him a legend, but it would be nice if Jackie (and a few other senior figures in British motorsport) would give Lewis some of the hype they’ve given other British champions in the past. They couldn’t do enough to talk up Damon Hill and Mansell, Lewis has achieved more than both of them in F1 but still gets little more than grudging praise.

      1. Something’s different about Lewis, can’t quite put my finger on it…

        1. @pastaman – Something’s different about Lewis, can’t quite put my finger on it…

          That’s quite easy. Take a good look at him. Again. :-)

      2. It was the same when Vettel won his 3rd championship… So it isn’t nationality, or race, I just thinks he doesn’t appreciate the new age champions because they have it “easy”…

        1. Jackie Stewart has never had a nice word to say about Lewis, so this isn’t really about ‘new age champions’. He like John Watson, just don’t like the guy.

          Last year Watson was very vocal and critical of Lewis, especially after what happened in Monaco, but strangely this season he is awfully quiet. Hope it stays that way.

          You know what I find interesting. I think these ‘new age’ champions could drive those ‘old age’ champions cars probably just as if not faster than they did, but I doubt they’d be able to do the same with these modern cars.

          1. that’s exactly what I was thinking, put them in the old cars they’ll drive the wheels off the thing, but put the older drivers in the new cars and I doubt they’d get it going without antistalling

          2. @Kgn11 For me it is not about the physical driving of the cars. We have to always remember that Jackie Stewart drove in an era where death had vastly greater odds of occurring, each race, race after race, season after season, until they finally started doing things about that, largely thanks to Jackie Stewart.

            In some regards driving is driving but let’s talk about the psychological and emotional differences in the eras. Driving under such dangerous conditions and in cars that allowed driver errors to show be it through missed shifts or actual broken trannies and engines due to said driver errors, and have that weigh on them on top of everything else. LH got distracted enough away from the track to be bested by Button in 2011. How would he fare having lost 5 fellow racers in the past year or two like JS et al had to come to terms with back in the day? Or differently put…what must JS have thought, knowing what true sacrifice means, to have heard LH’s ‘woes’ in 2011?

            Anyway I’m sure many of us could write a novel on this topic, as could I go on and on, but I bottom line it that in it’s current form, with DRS available, no driver on the track today can be considered among the Greats. Never mind the ultra-conservation era we’re in that sees the drivers unable to push, to race, to the point where they’re starting to ‘beg’ for more challenge and closer racing. At least that is a good sign.

            1. @robbie

              bottom line it that in it’s current form, with DRS available, no driver on the track today can be considered among the Greats

              Do you think the same about drivers who had traction control, active suspension, and all of the other driver aides available to them ?
              Mansell’s FW14B had semi-automatic transmission, active suspension, traction control and anti-lock brakes, and finished in the top 2 in every race he completed on the way to winning his WDC title.
              At least these days every driver has DRS available to them, unlike most of Mansell’s competitors, who could only dream about getting many of the aides he had available.
              I hate DRS as much as you, but to say that it negates any claim Lewis, Seb, and Alonso may have to being among the greats seems a bit harsh to me. Every driver has to do the best they can with the cars they’re given, no matter what era they’re driving in.

            2. @Robbie

              This is 2015 not the 50s, 60s or 70s, so it’s time we stop talking about how racing was in the past

            3. @beneboy The aides you talk about are gone, so what does that tell us? They were overkill, made it a money race, and took away from it being about the driver. A lesson can be learned. Similarly DRS kills the integrity of the sport, as does knowing that the drivers are not taxed nearly like they have been in the past, when it is currently so much about conservation.

              In order for me to consider drivers among the Greats I’d like to know they are achieving great feats. I have no such feeling these days. Didn’t for MS/Ferrari either, so skewed was everything for him to win.

              @Kgn11 This is 2015 but you are the one that claimed today’s drivers could drive the cars of the past. All I did was point out that it is more than being about the driving and that in the past there were far different mental aspects to the game.

              The fact is they are trying to make racing more about the driver in 2017, so referencing how it was in the past is not unreasonable. Nor was it unreasonable to reference JS’s era not Mansell’s since he was the one talking about LH. LH couldn’t handle a rocky relationship and many claim he unravels when all the ducks aren’t in a row, so how would he have fared under the far far more stressful times of JS? That’s what JS must be wondering.

      3. @beneboy The nature of Lewis Merc success undermines his achievements, anyway I don’t think that fact undermines Hamilton’s skill. He’s quick, he’s in control, these days he deals well with the pressurer and he has a sensible f1 mind.

        1. @beneboy The nature of Lewis Merc success undermines his achievements”

          And what nature is that? Is he cheating? Are Mercedes cheating? Has been driving recklessly endangering everyone? Please elaborate.

          Because his success is no different compared to any other champions of the past. They were all given top machinery and they went out and drove those cars to championships. Is that not what you’re suppose to do when you’re in the best car? That’s what Michael, Senna, Prost, Piquet, Mansell, Fangio etc etc etc. So why is Lewis’ success with Mercedes viewed differently.

          I’m sure if Nico was putting the beat down on him, everyone would lay into him with the usual rhetoric of how he’s overrated blah blah blah.

          So I can’t see how someone doing what they’re suppose to do when given the right tools, that success is undermined by because they’ve got the right tools.

          So come now, let’s not make ridiculous statements like that, because what Lewis is doing now, is nothing that we’ve not seen since the inception of motorsports.

          1. @Kgn11, welcome to the F1 ‘fan club’. Where people hate success. The only ‘sport’ in the world where winning is boring. Bolt wins the 100 meters and every one loves him and want to see him demolish is own records. A football team wins a match and the fans get silly drunk and praise their heroes. In F1 if you win you are despised and ‘lucky’ or privileged in some bizarre way, you are hated by the majority who can’t wait for you to lose. Welcome to F1, welcome.

            1. welcome to the F1 ‘fan club’. Where people hate success.

              I really couldnt have said it better. This single statement encapsulates ALL that is wrong with F1.

            2. @Tiomkin

              If Keith had installed a like function for comments, I’d click it as many times as I’m allowed.

              You have summed it up perfectly.

            3. One bitter, unjustified remark about Hamilton’s achievements does not come close to justifying the sweeping and obviously ludicrous statement that F1 fans “hate success”.

        2. Reading and listening to his interviews from this weekend so far, he genuinely comes across as a far more balanced and complete human being than his “wilderness” years.

          The Lewis of old was clearly affected by events off the track. I mean, having to end the professional relationship with the manager who meticulously crafted his path to F1, who also happened to be his old man. I mean, it had to happen, it was enviable, but it’s really hard core on a personal level. Also splitting up with your first proper and serious girlfriend is one of the most painful things you deal with. Well, it was for me. And my first girlfriend wasn’t a pussy cat doll.

          I’m not a massive fan of Lewis, some seasons, I actively disliked his over arrogant attitude, but fair play to him. Love him or hate him, begrudge his life style, or be happy for a lucky young man who has turned a corner and in terms cognitive metal handling and is taking do advantage of the lifestyle he’s been afforded. What ever, you have to give it to him. He is beginning to fulfil all of that unwelcome excessive ITV hype bestowed up on him in his rookie year. If I had the opportunity to hang out with notable figures at exclusive parties and provide photographic evidence via the medium of embracing social media networks (to perhaps cynically to make my ex jealous, anybody else do that ever?), I would do it too. And with enthusiasm.

          You simply can’t deny that he’s grabbing all of the opportunities that cone his way with both hands. Even if you deduce his advantage to simply having a dominant package, compared to everyone, including his team mate. He’s still, most the most part, untouchable.

          People should give him a break.

          Just because his celeb lifestyle rubs folk up the wrong way, there’s no reason to call in to question the calibre of driver he has become.

          1. Well said, Andy.

          2. Agree with that. HAmilton seems to really have “found himself” and it shows in how he gets on with the things he does!

        3. OmarRoncal - Go Seb!!! (@)
          24th October 2015, 14:12

          @beneboy What is funny ia that now many LH fans cry to the sky when somebody says “it’s just the car”, but they have forgotten when just a couple of years ago they made me see red with their endless “it just Newey”.
          I am not justifying what happens now. But now they know how it feels :)

          1. @omarr-pepper
            That has always been, and will always be a common complaint in F1 due to the difference between cars. That’s not really the point I’m making though.
            For as long as I’ve been watching F1 former drivers, such as Jackie, have always talked up British drivers, even average drivers such as Blundell and Herbert were talked about as if they’d be world champions, if only they could get into a top team, while Hill and Mansell were made out to be some of the greatest drivers of all time because they won a title.
            Lewis has won 2 titles, will soon win a 3rd, and is one of the most successful British drivers ever, yet Jackie, and some others, can barely hide their contempt and never give him the credit he deserves.
            I’m not even that big a fan of Lewis, mainly because I’m more interested in the cars than the drivers, but even I find their lack of support to be strange, and bordering on being irrational.
            Love him or hate him, senior figures in British motorsport should be talking him up as a means to promote motorsport in Britain, and Britain around the world, just as others talked them up when they were competing.

    4. that 2010 article, though:

      The Ferrari driver now holds the upper hand, having pulled 11 points clear with just two races remaining in 2010.

      I always forgot how close Alonso came to actually winning its third title with Ferrari…

      1. As a Ferrari fan, 2010 was pretty sour, but with Vettel leading the entire race and Alonso in no position to win the championship after the first pitstop, at least you had the race to mentally prepare. 2012 was a little more heavy in my opinion, with Vettel being in an incident on lap one, Alonso running high, but the title going to Vettel in the end. Ironically it was Alonso who gave me the same feeling after taking the title race to the final race of 2006 with Schumacher as well, and now it might be Vettel who might lose a title for Ferrari some day. Irony..

    5. I’m all for a Red Bull-Honda. Having two teams would probably help Honda refine the unit.

      Also it’d be interesting to see – out of Red Bull and McLaren – who would build the better chassis.

      Though it would be a shame to see a second ‘frontrunner’ playing dodgems at the back of the pack for at least another year or two.

      1. @rocketpanda I wrote a forum thread on this subject 7 months ago. It’s always McLaren the side that comes out worse from this predicament. I’m sure Honda would supply up-to-date hardware and software to both teams but only one can decide what philosophy to pursue.

        1. @rocketpanda @peartree Although I think Honda would be the one that profits most from this deal [more money and data to build its unit], McLaren may also gain something out of it…

          If McLaren is serious about doing a long-time partnership with Honda [and, let’s be honest, they don’t appear to have any other options at the moment], letting they supply Red Bull will probably speed up the development quite a bit. This also shouldn’t stop McLaren and Honda from being BFFs, since RB-Honda [quite like the name, actually…] would be only a stop-gap measure. Sure McLaren will have to face the risk of being beaten by a team with the same engine and admit that its chassis is not as mighty as they claim, but for this they should get a better engine and a chance of being on top a few years from now.

          If anyone should be fuming about this, though, is Alonso. Not only he’s facing the very real possibility that McLaren will still be nowhere next season but, if this comes true and for some unknown miracle Honda produces a class of the field engine for next season, there’s also a big chance that he’ll go back exactly to where he was at Ferrari: staring at rear-wing of a Red Bull! =P

      2. Seeing how Renault seemed to struggle from Red Bull pushing them to speed up more than they were able to manage, I am unsure that the RBR boiling kettle on Honda will be of great help to them @rocketpanda. Also, I am not all that sure the rumours are more than that (rumours) at all at this moment

      3. I can’t believe McLaren don’t have an exclusivity deal with Honda, but I guess they do not. I thought that was the whole reason for the change.

        1. I thought engine suppliers were required to supply other teams starting in the second year if they were asked?

        2. @john-h
          I think the point was that they wanted to be a partner rather than a customer. With Mercedes taking over their own team McLaren’s importance to them disappeared. I doubt they’d be too happy about Red Bull joining them in the Honda stable though, it certainly threatens their position as top dog (or horse I suppose).

        3. They had 2015 deal, but after that open.

      4. @rocketpanda
        I don’t see the benefit for Honda in this deal. Surely they’ll get more data for their development, but it’ll hinder their development as well if they would have to supply 2 teams (rivals) with the same-spec PUs.
        If Honda wants to make real progress they will have to put their emphasis on “the better team”. Just imagine it would be RB as the leading team and their official factory team McLaren becomes the customer.
        I just can’t imagine RB or McLaren playing second fiddle to one of their main rivals.

        Plus, we’ve all seen and heard how RB (especially Marko & Horner) have treated Renault over the last two years and now we can see a similar treatment from McLaren to Honda.
        Does Honda really want to create a situation in which they get public criticism from two sides?

        1. They could probably triple the mileage seeing how McLaren keeps messing their cars up and double the chances for podiums (and perhaps ultimately wins and championships).

          Although I agree that RBR isn’t a partner that you can really benefit from. Perhaps they can put it in writing that performance related claims should be discussed behind closed doors?

    6. Pseudo-Indycar engine (same capacity) with eight speed flappy paddy-box & hybrid..?
      Nobody cares.

      1. I care if it’s competitive and gets more manufacturers into the sport. Sadly, it’s most likely just hot air.

        1. Alex McFarlane
          24th October 2015, 11:02

          I agree, especially if it provides a good cost/performance ratio, something akin to the Cosworth DFV of old.

          While they’re at it, I wouldn’t mind seeing DRS replaced with PTP.

      2. I care. And I suspect Merc, Ferrari, Renault and Honda will care after all their investment in the hybrids. It’s probably just a bargaining ploy by Bernie and CVC to get the engine suppliers to reduce the cost to the customer teams. Thereby getting them to subsidise the customer teams instead of redistributing funds more fairly between the teams. If it becomes reality I can see the existing suppliers packing F1 in, except for Ferrari because F1 is there primary form of advertising. The others are all in hybrid technology because it is the current cutting edge of engine development. Going back to dinosaur turbos which are twenty years out of date (like so much US auto technology) would take away F1s claim to be the technical pinnacle of motor sport and handing it to FormulaE.

    7. Thanks for the COTD Keith, on top of that also linking to a forum topic I made, I think I might have to watch out not to run out of good fortune!

      As for the two-tier engine system, I don’t think I’m a fan of the idea. While manufactures could enter F1 easier than now, why would they? If Chevrolet decides to run a pseudo-Indycar engine with a midfield team, what chance does it have of beating a midfield team with a ‘top tier’ engine? If we look at the Tubro vs/ Naturally Aspirated era of the 80s, all the NA teams ran Ford engines and only Tyrrell seemed to be able to make something of it. I would very much like more engine manufacturers in F1, but I’m not sure if having a second tier is the way to go. If it’s not the way to go with teams/chassis’, why go that way with engines?

      1. It is very easy to tweak output of turbo engines, allow them more fuel, more boost and presto more competitive. Some equalistion must be in place… Maybe base it on top speed compared to works teams, or simply laptime.. Each tenth down, allow 1 tenth bar more boost. Many options exist and smart F1 engineers would be able to enginerr engines to propel midfield to within 1s of fastest car. Or better, have fastest midfielder equal fastest time.

    8. For those who don’t know, Mark Gallagher is referring to Chevy and HPD. Twin turbo, 2.2L V6 engines are the Indycar spec. I’m sure Chevy and HPD would love to sell engines to some F1 teams, since it is widely believed they lose money on the cost capped, engine leases to Indycar teams.

      They never release official figures, but the most common reported numbers are that the engines make between 750 to 850 hp, depending on whether they are setup for a road/street course versus a super speedway. I’m pretty confident that the engines could easily make over 900 hp. There isn’t a maximum number of engines that a driver is allowed to use each season, but there is a minimum distance that an engine must be run before it can be replaced without a penalty. I believe that number was 2,500 miles for the 2015 season. My rough math is that would equate to 8 or 9 F1 race weekends, so it should be possible to tune them for higher performance and still last 4 or 5 races. Also, Indycar uses E85(ethanol) fuel, and the engines would instantly generate more power running on gasoline/petrol.

      Like I said before I’m sure Chevy/Ilmor would sell their engines. I bet HPD(Honda racing USA) would too, but I don’t know if Honda Japan would allow it. Supposedly Cosworth also has an Indycar V6 engine design, but could never get a manufacturer to fund the testing and production of it. If I’m RBR(and the rule change actually happens), I’d start paying Cosworth to develop and build a V6 engine for me that no one else could have(making me a defacto works team again), at a fraction of the cost of a hybrid power unit.

      1. Could they run at those outputs and still meet fuel flow and quantity limits?

        1. I seriously doubt it. These new hybrid power units are so much more efficient. Even if the cars were fitted with an old style KERS unit, they still wouldn’t be competitive if they were held to the same fuel flow limit. The only way this will work is if the FIA starts to balance or adjust performance of the different engines/power units(like they and the ACO do for the petrol versus diesel P1 cars), most likely with different fuel flow rates. Also keep in mind the non-hybrid engine cars would most likely need a bigger fuel cell(which comes with additional weight) in order to finish a race.

      2. @forrest, with regards to your comment about power output and fuel type – firstly, just out of curiosity, do those power output figures take into account the fact that drivers are allowed to temporarily increase the boost level of the engines using the “push to pass” system? That alone could skew the power output figures by around 100bhp.

        Anyway, I would say that there would be some uncertainty, since we do not know the exact composition of the fuels used by the teams, but I would suspect that the power output would probably fall, not rise, if they redesigned the engines to run on petrol.

        One of the advantages of using ethanol is the fact that ethanol has a higher octane rating than most of the common hydrocarbon constituents of petrol. That, in turn, increases the resistance to autoignition and therefore allows the teams to run with a higher compression ratio, generally resulting in an increase in the power output.

        Also, with regards to your mileage calculation – have you taken into account the amount of mileage that the teams will do during the practise sessions of a race weekend when calculating how long one of those engines could last?

        1. Yes, that is probably with push-to-pass enabled. I wasn’t able to find what the “normal” boost pressure limit is, but an Indycar page says the maximum boost level during PTP is 161 kPa. Indycar varies the PTP boost level from track to track. PTP also allows the engines an addtional 200 RPM to 12,200 RPM. Also, there is no PTP on ovals.

          I didn’t think about the anti-knock properties of ethanol versus gasoline, so I’m sure you’re right about that. Gasoline is a more energy dense fuel than ethanol though, so there is more power to be extracted per the same volume of fuel.

          I don’t really know how many miles the typical F1 team racks up during the 3 practice sessions and qualifying, so that was just my best guess. I would assume the average Indycar team puts more miles on their cars over the course of the year, since they run a couple of 500 miles races, practice for the Indy 500 is almost a month long, and Indycar allows their teams to test more than F1 currently does.

      3. The Indycar engines are nowhere near 800bhp.

        There between 700-750bhp & that figure doesn’t change much from circuit type to circuit type because the engine specifications don’t change with the exception of extra boost for Indy 500 qualifying (A boost level they apparently couldn’t run at for a full race).

        In terms of just using those engines in F1, Can’t see Honda doing it because it would distract from the current 1.6ltr power unit & i’m not sure Chevrolet would want to distract from there existing programs.

        As to Cosworth, They already have a design for an engine that meets current F1 regulations but no team has partnered with them which is the only reason there not still in F1. There V8 engine was considered the worst on the grid in just about every area & they never had the budget to develop it to get it & that put a lot of teams off gambling on there V6 unit.

    9. “sport for billionaires”

      After a slightly awkward question on how F1 could be made more appealing to black youths or something cringe-worthy along those lines Hamilton hit the nail on the head.

      For other sports kids can go and buy a ball and replicate what they see down at the park. But for motorsport you either have to come from a privileged background, or show enough determination for what you want to do with the rest of your life at an age where most of us struggle to decide what chocolate bar we want that your parents would get behind you like Hamilton’s did.

      Computer simulations are bringing it closer to the average person, but it’s probably at too late an age to really give hope to opening the sport up to average folk.

    10. That mudbath parking tweet reminded of Silverstone 2000. Had to get towed out by a friendly 4×4 and if there hadn’t been a few dozen tractors helping out there’d still be cars stuck there now… British GP in April, not the best idea!

    11. Not that I really care, but in reference to COTD I think Palmer, as an ex-GP2 champ probably deserves his seat as much as anyone. If winning GP2 does not warrant a promotion to F1 I can’t think of what should. Although Maldonado also won GP2…

      1. @clay Because he barely won it. Vandoorne had a more impressive GP2 season that year than him. It took the Belgian half as much seasons to win more and claim the title. Palmer is a paydriver, and not even an exciting one either…

      2. Not all teams at GP2 are equal, when he went to DAMS he delivered at the same year, and took the championship rather easily, with amazing consistency.

        Somehow there seems to be an uproar for Palmer getting a racing seat at a midfield, something that in my eyes he clearly deserves and has a chance to prove next year.

    12. Exactly what we need, formula 2.2, cost capped engines with 700hp+kers, teams capped with 30M€ per year budget, and more loose aero rulea.. Ea larger wings less restrictions and personel cap. Bring in GP2 teams, and give cheap power, whoever wants it.

    13. It would be terrible for the image of F1 to have drastically simpler, Indy-car-like motors as powerful as the technological marvels that are the hybrid PUs.

      1. @Albrecht: I think that´s the reason why Ecclestone wants it to happen.

    14. ColdFly F1 (@)
      24th October 2015, 10:19

      Having a low cost standard PU as an option is a great idea. This way all teams can decide to go for vanilla at low cost or pay for a more exotic flavour.

      The problem is that this engine will be 2.2 litres and I can only imagine what they have to do with fuel allowance and flow rates to make it competitive. Just like WEC we will soon have F1A and F1B classes.

      If they want to offer a cheaper option and make up the performance difference through regulations, then why not allow soapbox cars and give them a 1hr head start?

    15. That Mika blog is pretty amazing…

    16. They want use the same 2.2 liter v6 turbo, that Indy car use, but only Honda and Ilmor-Chevrolet make Indycar engine, of course Indy engine use methanol

    17. People like Omarr and Kingshark are the fairest they i think are Vet and Alo guys respectively but they have been fine to both rivals me i did not like Vet when he was winning but imo although it shoould be wrong to like Lewis winning titles. Lets remember it was only really after 11 people disliked him in 10 it was split. Also legacy has alot to do with it. Vet fans sometimes wind me up as there guy has 4 titles and he is 28 lol. Ham and Alo were on 1 and 2 and it looked like there era. Im so glad Vet never went too merc that would been an injustice im sorry.

      He will get 5 with Ferrari though which would be very special. Lets just hope Alonso fans get another too imo little seperates them. As it must been not great if you are just Alonso fan and no one else it has been since 2006 so that is why imo it is defo different to Ham fans enjoying it now. It is all about history and that is why Vet was not liked yet people love him now even me same with Alo. Alo won’t have the stats he deserves but still all time great. And Vet and Ham will be top 3 in virtually everything they nearly are now apart from in Lewis case championships. Hope we see Ham and Vet in same car i think Alo would lose again mainly because of qually being important and anyone can see he is not at 2012 level even in 13 you could see it.

    18. Mercedes stand to get an extra €30m p.a. from FOM now they have won 2 championships, so it is no surprise that Bernie wants to push them out of the sport by changing the regulations to handicap Mercedes. As for Jean Todt, he was the one who pushed for the current engines until 2020. Now he wants to renege. How can F1 progress if the people running the sport can not be trusted ?

    19. Strange how some people are stating the introduction of tuned-down engines like the Indycar-like ones they are talking about would improve sports and competition in F1 (again), forgetting that such an engine would be eaten alive by the PUs without being artificially favoured. Since when did an artificial manipulation improve fair competition???

      And why just 2,2 litres V6? Could it be that someone who is without engine partner now just because he was behaving unsporty, arrogant and aggressive, but is nevertheless the most reliable ally in Ecclestones divide et impera-policy should be helped in this way, as Mr. Illien is a long-time friend of the house?

      So they would be a lot cheaper, Ok. But I could imagine a re shuffled financial policy would even be cheaper for the smaller teams Ecclestone now pretends to take care of???

      We should have realised after so many decades that Ecclestones never did “anything godd for the sport” on purpose, only for his team, his allies and his companies. And of course for himself.

      Another ally of BE, Mr. Schmidt of german “auto motor and sport” constantly makes the manufacturers look like the scapegoats for all the evil in the world, denying that the alternative would be Ferrari and a bunch of privateers with Cosworth engines like 1970. Should this really become the perspective of the global sport F1 has become?

      Of course Ecclestone is fed up of the manufacturers who dare to play their own game in HIS sport. Looking back in 1982, it was almost the same situation: Ecclestone and the “FOCA” against the turbo-equipped manufacturers who had the NERVE to demand their share of the cake of the sport they were financing. So he scapegoated their Turbo-engines as “too expensive” and “too powerful”. To reach his goal he managed to charme away his former rival, FISA president Balestre (like now with Todt). But it all went wrong and we maybe had the best era of F1.

      Btw, we have ace of hearts as Ecclestone is 85 1/2 and not going strong as one hears….

    Comments are closed.