The FIA has reaffirmed its commitment to the 2013 turbo regulations – but hinted that there could be a postponement of their implementation.
The FIA says that there could be a vote this month to move the date, but clearly, staying that, “in consultation with the main stakeholders, and following the outcome of this consultation, a fax vote by the WMSC could be considered by 30 June latest to redefine the implementation date of these technical regulations.”
As had previously been suggested, there won’t be a dramatic change to the aero rules after all, with the 2011 package forming the basis of the 2013 regs.
The FIA has confirmed the 2013 rules as follows:
– Power units will be four cylinders, 1.6 litre with high pressure gasoline injection up to 500 bar with a maximum of 12,000 rpm, with extensive energy management and energy recovery systems (now known as ERS), reflecting the decision taken by the WMSC in December 2010
– The aerodynamic regulations have been based on 2011 rules, with modifications in order to improve the aerodynamic efficiency: together with the power train rules, this will enable a 35% reduction in fuel consumption
– The height of the tip of the nose will be limited to ensure better compatibility in a T-bone style accident
– A limitation on transmissions (gear ratios, number of gearboxes) in order to decrease costs
– The overall weight of the car must be no less than 660kg
Adam Cooper F1 
I don’t see where returning to the use 4 cylinder engines would be progressing the sport. I say let sports car racing have a direct link to road cars. One can more easily relate to a sports car because it actually looks like a vehicle they can purchase. Formula 1 should be about exotic race cars that have nothing whatsoever to do with road cars.
12,000 rpm…
Why should the engine manufacturers have to pick up the bill for developing an engine which, in most cases, is of no use to them outside motor sport? Is this edging towards the idea once put out there by Max that there is one engine for all, you just tinker with the turbo. With all the other problems which need sorting, I would have thought the engine expense, not to mention the costs of redesigning the back of the car to suit, could perhaps be left for the moment. At least there is some stability in the aero rules but otherwise it seems every three years or so the teams are told to spend another fortune. We have seen this year that relatively evenly matched cars can have a good race by changing tyre strategy and isn’t good racing what it’s about?
Yes, quite. And then the teams are criticized for their overspending. Of the areas teams spend money, engine development was singled out as the most costly hence the engine freeze.
I read this thread after reading the comments of Mark Webber on the Bahrain GP. It was also Mark Webber who has commented that the pace of Formula One is nearing that of lesser series/formula. It is inconcievable to me that Formula One would require turbocharged four cylinder rev-limited engines, whilst keeping Renault V8’s in GP2. Furthermore, I think that for the efforts at making the Formula appear to be enviornmentally aware is simply that; an appearance. Yet the dirty little secret is that Formula One burning up a bank of batteries per car per race; that the formula one teams undoubtedly consumed far more natural resources energy and time developing KERS than the race fuel consumed had they allowed the teams to raise their rev limits occasionally to get an extra burst of power. Other than Renault and Team Lotus, I cannot think of any team that from a product standpoint benefit from the millions spent to built a 4 cylinder engine. Will a 4 cylinder Renault/Lotus sell more Twingos or an Exige? Will the 2013 Ferrari formula one car sell more Fiat 500’s or Pandas? No, if it sells anything it’s its sponsor’s products and Ferraris. The only person who seems to be ideally placed should the new engine spec go through is Tony Fernandes, who now owns Caterham-they’re already placing the Team Lotus F-1 car alongside the 7’s, how much sweeter could it be if they were able to get Ford on board as a sponsor? Other than that the new engine spec is more for appearances than anything else.
Absolutely, Stone the Crows.
The engine change is window dressing at its worst. This is a poor route for F1 to go down, and it’s pretty surprising that people closely involved are suggesting it at all.
F1 could do a lot to reduce its carbon output: group races geographically, work with circuits to reduce the impact of spectators’ travel, but if you’re going to reduce the engine that much, then why have F1 anyway? why not standardise chassis and aero too, as that would greatly reduce the energy consumed in car development?
For 24 cars to drive round for a few hours the fuel saving will be tiny, especailly when set off against the energy cost of developing new engines.