digg

Join DiggAbout

Introducing Digg Dialogg!
Check out the first Digg Dialogg with Nancy Pelosi. More guests to be announced soon!

F1 Bans Engine Developement! WTF

jalopnik.com — Is this the End? F1 Bans Engine Development for 10 Years

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • wohho, on 12/09/2007, -16/+156So what we're saying is that F1 is the new NASCAR
    • roosterjm2k2, on 12/09/2007, -34/+3That would be a good thing, a DRIVER might win a race for once, not a CAR...

      I like all forms of racing, but f1 is bad because its hard to get behind a driver...when so much of the winning (ferarri anyone?) comes down to the car and not the driver...
      • hereisjohnny, on 12/09/2007, -3/+23*****. It's a combination of the two. And hell, that's what make's it interesting to watch.
        • Tilon, on 12/09/2007, -14/+2Yeah, let's keep pumping exponentially increasing dollars into diminishing returns so that eventually we can have 50 million dollar Autos that the drivers are so scared as ***** of wrecking that you never see ***** anymore.

          Good call, genius. Cause that's where 'development' goes on cars.
          • scbysnx, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3no it isn't do yourself a favor and stop talking for a while it will make you look like less of a jack ass♠
          • Tilon, on 12/10/2007, -4/+3♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
            ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
            ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
            ♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠♠
      • choopie911, on 12/10/2007, -2/+12Wow roosterjm2k2, you're an idiot that clearly has no idea how hard it is to drive an F1 car. Hell, even watch the latest episode of top gear where Hammond tries to drive one.
        • roosterjm2k2, on 12/10/2007, -5/+2Well, when montoya can do well in f1, and barely be considered competitive in a stock car...yeah, i have an idea... THen when Jeff Gordon jumped in an f1 car at the brickyard and ran a competitive lap off the bat...

          When your car is doing more reacting to the course than the driver is...something is wrong.
          • Varnaskyrus, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Gordon's best lap was 1.3 seconds slower than Montoya's, which was 5 seconds slower than lap he drove in the same car the previous year. The car was seriously detuned with high downforce and understeering nature. It was nothing more than a show and not to be taken seriously. As far as NASCAR goes, I'm sure Montoya is extracting every ounce of performance out of his car. There is only so much you can do on an oval if you're already flat out.
        • J0415, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2here's the link to the youtube video of Hammod driving an F1
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vRoRz_WWto
      • smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7why not just have everyone drive the same car then?
      • replikhant, on 12/15/2007, -0/+1I don`t watch F1 for the for the drivers, I watch F1 for those slick machines,the team competition and the technical development each team provides. If everybody had the same car it would be ridiculous. Besides, it was amazimg to watch a team like Renault kick Ferraris ass for two years in a row.
    • rizzo2008, on 12/09/2007, -3/+9In the sense that all the cars will be essentially the same with no real technological development yes
    • dmoney22, on 12/10/2007, -5/+14What we're saying is: this is not a joke. I am the 10,000th visitor!
    • mightycbu, on 12/10/2007, -3/+16yes, like nascar: a multi-billion dollar merry-go-round :P
    • synik, on 12/10/2007, -4/+8at least F1 races don't go in circles.
    • Barbarino, on 12/10/2007, -12/+3There is no passing in F1, it's the only form of racing where you can only pass in the pits. Love the cars, but as a competitive sport it's lame.
    • fishbert, on 12/10/2007, -1/+6No, it will remain completely different from NASCAR... next week they'll announce that F1 races will only have *right* turns.
    • BigCheezy, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7Lets not be reactionary. Realistically speaking, more power in those engines will only result in more crashes. They can still innovate with respect to other aspects. It's not turning into NASCAR at all. The tracks are still much more interesting than an oval.
      • below413, on 12/10/2007, -3/+3Aren't the crashes the only reason most people watch racing sports?
    • daytona81, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0NASCAR makes endless rule changes, formula one just stopped all together pretty much. there go we have to different series which completely ignore the wants of fans
  • akapsycho, on 12/09/2007, -30/+6WOW NEWS!!!
  • gtluke, on 12/09/2007, -11/+1715 diggs and frotn page?
    sounds like they are trying to cut back on the spending to help other teams get in.
    • alexforcefive, on 12/09/2007, -13/+3Yeah, how did this get to the front page?
    • hove, on 12/09/2007, -2/+10How can other teams get in if they can't develop engines?
      • gtluke, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4the article is way too short, but i would imagine new teams can submit engines that can't be changed until 2018.
        same thing happens in WRC rally, they try and put limits on the high dollar items so it isn't so difficult for new teams or companies to join
      • AnalogueCharm, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6Most new teams will use another teams engines anyway (Red Bull for example). The real problem is that teams with lesser engines won't be able to make improvements. BMW was really on the rise last season and probably could have been a major threat to Ferrari and McLaren in a few seasons, but not if they can't continue development.
    • Salomas, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6A new manufacturer would be allowed to submit a new engine that follows the current engine formula, but out of twelves teams on the grid in 2008, only half make their own engines and the rest buy theirs off of them. The only engine manufacturer that I can see possibly entering F1 within this time frame is a VW brand, maybe Audi, but it's not very likely.
  • Carrot1991, on 12/09/2007, -9/+90But then how can we achieve Formula-Zero?
    • KaJuN4, on 12/09/2007, -4/+45Captain Falcon does not approve of these new measures.
    • yaazz, on 12/10/2007, -2/+28It never occured to me until now that F zero is a play on F1..... you just blew my mind!
      • adraft, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5And to be completely honest, it didn't occur to me until you pointed it out. You blew my mind and sent me into a depression all at the same time!
    • damawa42, on 12/10/2007, -4/+1Already exists. is a university zero-emissions karting thing. http://www.formulazero.nl/
  • trotskyist, on 12/09/2007, -13/+50Clearly they're trying to appeal to the redneck market.
    • milliamp, on 12/10/2007, -0/+4Formula One is already way more than 10 years ahead of NASCAR. The problem is that in Formula One development was moving so quickly that basically the team with the most money wins. The 2.4L F1 engine puts out about 750 HP, the car weighs only about 1,000lbs. (they were 1,000 hp but they had to lower the displacement from 3.0L to make the sport safer).

      By comparison NASCAR uses a ~1,000 HP engine but the cars weigh > 3,000 lbs. Already F1 has about 3 times the power to weight ratio as NASCAR, there isn't much need to improve a great deal on it. Also, while F1 engine design is basically frozen, other aspects of the car are not.

      NASCAR tracks are one of the few place outside of a museum where you can still see cars using carbonated engines. Even grocery getters have pretty much been using fuel injection since the 70's (before I was born).
    • yesimahuman, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1By capping the engine development? I thought rednecks like fast stuff? They probably want a jet engine on dem babies instead.
      • adraft, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1The cars were getting too fast for their own good, making safety an issue, and now the race depends more on the driver and the way he and the pit manage the race.
  • miztaken, on 12/09/2007, -11/+72Such a shame. Now we have two NASCARs. Guess it wasn't bad enough just having one.
    • asoap69, on 12/09/2007, -1/+23Well I guess that you don't really follow Formula 1, so let me give you the run down. Every year F1 does a survey, and every year it's revealed that technological development is a huge factor for viewers. The FIA being the ones who issued the survey, knows this and isn't going to shoot themselves in the foot. Now the real reason why they are doing this. Formula 1 is currently in a push to turn toward green technology, what they call energy recovery devices, like hybrids. They want the teams to start developing this technology now! But because the motors are not currently 100% frozen, teams are still spending millions of dollars trying to improve what little bit that they can change. They are spending an obscene amount of money making something like a water pump more efficient. So they've put in this freeze so that teams can't waste their money, and can start working on this new technology. Which will be hopefully be in the rules in a few years. Then you will see massive amounts of development.
    • mightycbu, on 12/10/2007, -2/+3take of the wings and all the fun will be back again!
  • a235, on 12/09/2007, -21/+10 They instituted the ban to refocus r&d dollars on environmentally friendly technologies. Honda alone spends 200 million on engine development in a year and F1 hopping that 200 million applied to hybrid or electric power trains will do more good.
    • ferrariman60, on 12/09/2007, -7/+4What? What are you saying? That money that would go into F1 will now be redirected to R&D for road going cars? I don't think so. They stated themselves it's to make smaller teams more competitive, but it isn't going to achieve that goal.
      • Salomas, on 12/10/2007, -1/+10Racing engine development has long ago hit the wall of diminishing returns. Millions of dollars spent on these engines only buys you a tiny increase in performance, but that doesn't stop the engine manufacturers from paying whatever it costs. It's a horribly inefficient way to spend your racing development dollar, but in order to stay competitive you still need to match your opponents' spending. So, now we have a total ban on engine spending to stop the foolishness, and starting in 2010 there will be kinetic energy recovery systems on the F1 cars, just like you'd see in road going hybrid. This doesn't sound too exciting as a common motorist, but if you think about it, what it means is Renault, Ferrari, Toyota, Honda, BMW and Mercedes will be spending about a quarter of a billion dollars EACH on figuring out the best way to make electric engines as absolutely crazy as possible. It's a new field, with boundaries that haven't even begun to be pushed. You will see some crazy ***** turn up in those first few years, and the best thing is that in no time you'll be seeing it on your street cars as well.
    • MadOgre, on 12/09/2007, -9/+6Who The Fuq wants to watch hybrid eco cars race? I want to watch unadulterated raw power and grace going fast as hell and using every trick in the book to get there first.
      • Ultramagnus0001, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3Who cares if it's hybrid or not just make it faster any possible
      • smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -1/+6yes, because being environmentally unfriendly makes a car perform better. that's why the tesla roadster will smoke most ferraris in a quarter mile...

        combustion engines are a technological anachronism. the only reason the fastest cars right now are all combustion engines is because up until recently there's been little to no research & development being put into alternative vehicles. it's been simpler and cheaper for car companies to just increase the engine displacement to add power (at the cost of overall performance) rather than develop better technologies. but now that there's starting to be more incentive for manufacturers to develop electric/hybrid alternatives, people are realizing that there are far more viable technologies than the antiquated, and incredibly inefficient, combustion engine.

        if we'd instead been developing electric vehicles instead of internal combustion engines for the past 200 years, then the fastest cars today would be electric vehicles. so despite what you may think, there's absolutely no logical correlation between environmental unfriendliness and car performance.
      • jstone, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5Electric engines actually have better characteristics than a gasoline engine does, most notably full torque at any RPM. Some very fast vehicles use electric engines: The TGV train goes around 200mph (a modified one hit a world-record speed of 357mph,) and it ways over 400 tons. So electric engines are still "unadulterated raw power," just not the kind you're used to. In fact, a Popular Science article about the possible future of high-performance racing cars said that a hybrid system using a gas-turbine (jet) engine to run a generator and powerful electric motors, complete with regenerative breaking, was likely, due to performance advantages over gas engines.
        • adraft, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1Lets rewind a second, you just compared a train to a car. Of course there's going to be more power and top speed in a large train which has room for a large engine. But I'm not betting on a train if it ever went against a car at a drag track.
        • jstone, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2@adraft: Yes, but the thing can haul. The fact that those engines have enough torque to haul that kind of weight at over 200mph says a lot about the power of electric engines.
          Also, the Tesla roadster has blazing 0-60 times; it uses an electric engine and only has a two speed gearbox. The torque advantages of an electric engine are overwhelming. The only downside is power storage; you either have to use a gas engine to run a generator, or use batteries that won't last very long.
    • protogenxl, on 12/09/2007, -2/+6well they don't allow hybrid engines in F1 cars so what's the point? If they had not banned the gas turbine engine in the 70's we would all be driving turbine hybrid cars with staggering efficiency figures.
  • charlesray, on 12/09/2007, -9/+91This is probably the oldest news ever post on Digg. They've been planning this engine freeze for years, in addition to stricter testing rules and stricter aerodynamic development, in an effort to reduce cost and increase competitiveness. The author of the article is insane, he says that one of the reasons he stopped following F1 was because it was too boring. Beside the fact that the last season was anything BUT boring, the intended effect of the freeze is to make F1 LESS boring.

    Jeeze. People can be so ill-informed.
    • mem2, on 12/09/2007, -13/+4He is hardly ill-informed simply because he finds it boring.
      Jeeze, Some people need to grow the ***** up.
    • ferrariman60, on 12/09/2007, -2/+5I don't think so. They did implement a development freeze for something like 3-4 years, but for a decade? That's new news, man. It won't reduce cost, we all now that. It won't make teams more competitive. That's just an ebb and flow, we've seen it time and again. The teams just need to make their own series, and give the FIA a big old "***** YOU!" God knows they deserve it, bunch of political bastards.
      • charlesray, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2It won't reduce cost? They don't have to develop engines anymore. I don't know if were aware, but engine development is done on hopes and dreams. It requires money, money that is now free to buy popsicles and soda for Alonso so he stops crying. EVERYONE WINS.
        • ferrariman60, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Lol, good point on the Alonso thing, anything to just shut him up would be worth it. But it won't reduce costs in the sport, because no matter where the FIA tries to restrict them, teams will always find ways around these rules, and will spend money there. I appreciate that they are trying to make it less boring, but this last season was the most exciting in years for me. A rookie almost wins it all?!!? Unheard of! The appeal of F1 is in the technical development manufacturers get- if they can't develop new tech, then why even participate? It's already a pretty sketchy business proposition as it stands, with the benefits of advanced technology. But without the development? What good is it? I also love the technology involved, and from what I've seen/heard, a good percentage of the fans love the technology as much as they love the racing. But again, if it makes Alonso stop talking- I think it's worth it. :)
    • perhapsimcrazy, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Agreed, people are being retarded.
    • thesimo, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4at last, 40 posts down, and finally someone who knows what they are talking about!
      It now makes the playing field more even, this year has been incredibly even compared to previous years, and that only makes it more exciting. can only get better
      • CrashKC, on 08/25/2008, -1/+6That was one of the nice things about F1, and one of the incredibly boring things about NASCAR. In NASCAR, all the cars are essentially the same; there's no innovation or growth.

        In F1, it was a more open playing field, and teams could be as innovative and creative as they wanted to be within the bounds of the rules and their budgets. Was F1 prohibitively expensive? Yes, but there's nothing wrong with that. Racing is expensive, ask any weekend club racer. I wanted to see the best drivers paired with the best teams staffed by the most brilliant people.

        Now, it's turning into an open-wheel bubba-fied spec series. ***** that.
        • fafaforza, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0The cars are already very close in performance. Freezing engine development will allow them to ban traction control and not face the task of auditing 12 different software platforms. And banning TC will put more emphasis on driver skill and tire management. So I'm pretty excited about this.
      • hasbeen, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1"this year has been incredibly even compared to previous years" Are you joking? The season was about 2 teams, and 2 teams only. I believe that every single race was won by a driver from one of those 2 teams. There are 10 teams in f1, so I'd hardly call that even, even compared to previous years. Last year it was also between 2 teams, and the same thing the year before that.
        • fafaforza, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0No. Last year was about 2 drivers, not 2 teams. With a few races to go this year, all 4 were challenging for the title, and Reikonnen ended up winning it with a finish that no one would have dreamed to predict.
        • SpeedyG, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Every team except McLaren ended the season having scored points. While it may have been a four-horse race for the drivers championship most of the season, practically every single team further back in the pack had their day in the sun in one way or another. Nothing like the Red vs. Blue battles we've had the last couple seasons.
    • aelias, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2They need restrictions to keep teams from throwing an unlimited budget at the problem. Standardize everything but the car, I say. Tires, testing facilites, materials even. If they restrict aero development time, they should loosen up on the physical limitations to allow for ingenuity. Split Box Wing anyone?
    • smackhero, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3why not set an R&D quota instead of freezing engine development then? or perhaps even subsidize the R&D for smaller teams? i understand the reasoning behind the decision, and agree with it in a way, but it is kinda sad to see them put a stop to the technological development that the competition spurs.
    • daytona81, on 12/14/2007, -0/+0i hope you mean freeze in development and not freeze of the motors, because those already get froozen. you should use a different choice of words.

      F1 is somewhat boring, except for which ever race it was where kimi was battling heidfeld out of the last turn going off the track and still gaining the position as well as rosberg and kovalainen doing the same further behind. that was the best F1 race EVER
  • ogmak, on 12/09/2007, -3/+34From the F1 site:
    The planned aerodynamic testing restrictions in full:
    - Teams to use no more than one wind tunnel.
    - Test fluid to be air at atmospheric pressure.
    - Maximum test section wind speed 50m/sec.
    - Maximum model scale 60 percent.
    - No more than one model to be tested during a run.
    - Maximum usage to be equivalent to 15 runs per eight-hour day on five days per week for team F1 purposes. Tunnel may be contracted out at other times.
    - Aerodynamic testing may only take place in wind tunnels if at reduced scale or at FIA approved test tracks if full scale. Full size testing to be subject to the F1 testing agreement.
    - Full scale specific aerodynamic testing is to be reduced to 5 days per year.
    - Restrictions will be imposed to stop shift of resource from wind tunnel testing to CFD.
    - The number of people involved in CFD development will be limited to a number to be agreed.
    - CFD computer systems will be characterised in order to set hardware performance limits but growth will be allowed year-on-year to allow for hardware / software development.


    Next year's gonna bloowww
    • Pake, on 12/09/2007, -2/+14Why? Because after the first 3 laps someone might pass someone now? Looking at it from a competition side, F1 blows hard. Yeah, it's great to watch the most advance machines drive around a track, but F1's turned into a glorified time trial and the racing died 20 years ago.
      • kcchan1, on 12/09/2007, -5/+5Obviously you haven't watched any of the races this year...
        • Pake, on 12/10/2007, -2/+7Actually, I watched a bit more than half of them and half of those I fell asleep slightly after the start (since the start times are early in the morning in the USA) and when I went on later to check the results, maybe two positions from 10th back changed and most of the time that was from someone wrecking.
          • fafaforza, on 12/10/2007, -3/+1Funny, cause I clearly remember drivers moving up 10 spots or more in more than 1 race. Maybe you're only remembering the bad parts? I'll agree with you that the competition hasn't been jam packed into each race, but it's been a LOT better this year (maybe the spec tire had something to do with that) and with the banning of traction control next year, it should get better. I don't want F1 to start artificially changing the formula to come up with an entertaining show. 'm talking about stuff like "boost" that's present in A1 (I think), or ballast systems they use in DTM.
          • Pake, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3Like I said, after the 3rd lap, the racing is nonexistent. Those 10 spots all happened within the first 3 laps, sometimes if you're lucky they make it to 5 laps!
          • kcchan1, on 12/11/2007, -0/+2Did you watch the race in Nurburgring or China? A lot of crazy things happened past lap three..
        • ogmak, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Agreed. Some of the most exciting races in the last 5 years happened this years. Notably, the last race, Canadian Grand Prix....
    • SpeedyG, on 12/10/2007, -1/+8Four words for you:

      No More Traction Control. Next season's gonna be fun to watch.
  • limezor2, on 12/09/2007, -31/+2Who watched racing anyway?
  • jferrari, on 12/09/2007, -14/+69Good way to kill innovation, most F1 development eventually filters down into road cars to make them safer, more efficient, faster etc... this is just dumb.

    What they should do is enforce rules to make them environmentally friendly or use some sort of hybrid - I guarantee in a year they will have engines that outperform any of the current hybrids out there.
    • warriorscot, on 12/09/2007, -3/+10Hybrid in an F1 car just doesnt work, it would make them allot slower, the things get their speed from their high power to weight ratio, making it hybrid would lower the power to weight ratio by allot as there is no technology that can circumvent the weight increase by going hybrid.

      F1 does improve things in normal cars eventually but the idea behind this is that money is better spent going DIRECTLY into road car research as most of the F1 technologies being developed will never be seen on a road car as they only work in F1 they would be impractical anywhere else. There is no reason why a road car development can't then be used in F1 as far as I can see as long as the research wasn't for F1, e.g. new materials innovation to lighten the engine.
      • jasmus, on 12/10/2007, -1/+7Making them slower isn't really a good point. People race mowers, and get just as excited over the race. A big bottleneck in Hybrid cars is the weight of the batteries, and although I'm sure someone is investing in research to lower that weight, you can be pretty confident that if they needed to make an F1 car go faster, those lighter batteries would be here a lot quicker.

        As you said, not all F1 innovations translate to road cars. They've already gone through that stage, and possibly innovated as much as economically possible (on a very old engine design). Introduce hybrids, and they will start pushing the newly developed technology down stream.

        Maybe the racing would be slower, but the technology race would be much more exciting.
      • stoanhart, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3Hmm, maybe they could stretch metal meshing over all of the tracks, replace the engines with really high-power electric motors, and do the races bumper-car style! :)
        • Mononuclear, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2I want to see real cars race like the little electric race set I had as a child with wire brushes and the current in the track!!
        • 1randomnumber, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1so basically it would be which driver can sustain the most G-forces before exploding, breaking every bone in their body, or going blind? (since they'd be racing basically on rails)

          Sounds awesome to me.
      • Salomas, on 12/10/2007, -2/+4F1 cars are already hundreds of pounds lighter than minimum weight. They add ballast in different places to bring it up to minimum. They'll find room for batteries and electric motors, and they'll also find ways to make those components as light as possible. Adding the hybrid systems to the locked V8s will produce MORE power than the old V10s, which will be quite exciting.
    • Chuu, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5Actuially, think hard, what innovations have trickled down into street cars from F1 in the last ten years?

      These days almost every improvement that goes directly into our cars comes from Rally teams, not F1. F1 is still a great sport but really the trickle-down effect is hugely overstated.
      • mightycbu, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5even more innovations in street-cars comes from truck-development
    • LinuxGalore, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2Yes and another old wives tale unfortunately rears its head. The average 2007 F1 is virtually underivable by a normal person. I can happily bet you or any normal Joe/Jane of the street $10,000 that you cant drive a F1 car more than 100 feet without it stopping and win. F1 cars are so weird to drive (you could learn to fly a helicopter faster) that imagining any of the technology being used in a mum or pop car boggles the mind. Modern cars have little if any use for the technology in an F1 racing car because they have become to specialised.
      • J0415, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2They may not be derivable but can they be integrated?
        *digg me down
  • TheMidnight, on 12/09/2007, -12/+5I figure this has something to do with environmentalists, money or both. I don't follow F1 so I have no idea, but being a reasonably rational person, I can make these assumptions.
    • warriorscot, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3You would be wrong, they are trying to keep the sport going and get a bit more competition, that and if the cars get any faster they really will start killing people more often.
  • wipis, on 12/09/2007, -2/+11Oh the anger sharks are circling. I hope this is a false report. F1 fans are pissed as is over several rulings on spying and cheating this year and now this. First standard ECU now frozen engines. Their already taking traction control. Whats next? Uniform Chassis?

    I'm really hoping this is a false report. I suspect that this is going along with the FIA's plan to enforce the use of energy recovery technology (electric motors and steam turbines). If teams are focusing on that they may not be to concerned with their gas engine.
  • dsmx, on 12/09/2007, -8/+3F1 sucks at the moment, they've tried to make the sport safer by slowing the sport down. However all that does is make the F1 teams spend even more on R&D increasing the costs.

    If I was in charge of F1 the only rules I'd have on the cars would be no top speed above 200 mph and engines no bigger than 3.5 litres and no annual team budget may go above 30 million pounds (since most teams are in the UK it makes sense to put it in pounds). Seems like having these 3 rules would be a far better way of keeping costs down rather than having the stupid rules we have at the moment.
  • martynda, on 12/09/2007, -5/+7And I thought going to V8s was bad enough.
    Looks like they're trying to make it more accessible to smaller teams so that the FIA can make more money.

    RIP F1 1950-2007
    • Pake, on 12/09/2007, -2/+8More like RIP F1 1950-1990. There hasn't been racing in F1 for almost 2 decades now. It's one giant glorified time session after lap 3.
    • bj00rn, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, this will probably make me start watch F1 again. I was a huge F1 fan until the 90's, after that it was no longer about racing.
  • allaboutdatiki, on 12/09/2007, -10/+7Who wants in on a Tesla road racing series?
  • Skelly11, on 12/09/2007, -7/+4total BS, I want to see an F1 car above 19,000 rpm, that'd be amazing
    • jasdf, on 12/10/2007, -4/+1I agree, even 19,000rpm is insane though.
    • xNIBx, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Last year's cars hit over 19k rpm.
  • stegre, on 12/09/2007, -3/+12jalopnik.com , are you kidding me?

    I think F1 knows what's best. I'm not watching F1 for cars but for the best driver and racing team.
    • rotarychainsaw, on 12/09/2007, -2/+4And I was watching it for the cars. Actually I wasn't watching it at all now that I think of it. Lemans cars are where it's at for innovation.
    • jasmus, on 12/10/2007, -1/+5Isn't the best team the one that develops the best car?
    • KamikazeeDriver, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3then watch NASCAR and quit ruinin' F1
  • Sube6491, on 12/09/2007, -6/+7If F1 is being such a bitch about competitiveness, why don't they just give the same car to every team and see who has the better drivers?
    • Ibox, on 12/09/2007, -1/+12thats why no one watches IROC.
      • Mearn, on 12/09/2007, -1/+1No that's why IROC's dead.

        It's why nobody watches ChampCar
    • majmera, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2That is because it is not a competition between the drivers. It is a team event which also involves who can come up with the most creative ways of shaving off the last 1/10th of a second from the lap time.
    • Ellord, on 12/10/2007, -0/+7That's what the A1 GP is for.
  • DeFex, on 12/09/2007, -3/+3this is extremely retarded. the F1 bosses have made so many stupid rule changes in the past but this one looks like the final nail.
    maybe whoever makes the best engine would like to sell them to the other teams, and they gave someone some money to make a rule change for them. kind of like how most governments work.
  • fhernand, on 12/09/2007, -6/+2what if a new team enters in, say, 2012? will they have to buy one of the available engines? what if the other teams dont want to sell their engines? this sounds really bad..
  • inputname, on 12/09/2007, -8/+19I'm the 10,000th visitor, and its not a joke!!!!!
    • alanr19, on 12/09/2007, -2/+8I'm the 999,999th!!!!!! I keep refreshing the page to be the 1,000,000 but it doesnt change. must be the cookies.
    • Xinareiaz, on 12/09/2007, -2/+3I blocked that image sever after seeing it on digg a couple times, Anything that obnoxious is not allowed on my screen.
  • GeorgeClayton, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3All these rules and regulations on racing are funny. Smaller less restricted race series will probably gain ground because of stupid stuff like this. Fair is ovrrated; if they really want fair, give them all the same vehicle.
  • br0wnstar, on 12/09/2007, -2/+19It doesn't really matter, Lewis Hamilton is entertaining even in a Suzuki Liana...
  • philodox1, on 12/09/2007, -4/+2The photo they use for that article is horrible.
  • alanr19, on 12/09/2007, -9/+3Buried as inaccurate. You retards
  • Viriatus, on 12/09/2007, -6/+3since Ayrton Senna died, F1 doesn't appeal me as much as it did then.
  • protogenxl, on 12/09/2007, -1/+6Here is a list of some of the things that have been banned by the F1 organization.

    http://www.f1fanatic.co.uk/category/regular-featur ...

    Really if they are so concerned about fairness why do they let teams build their own cars?
  • NSResponder, on 12/09/2007, -2/+9Isn't technological development the whole reason for auto makers to be involved in racing?

    -jcr
  • MadOgre, on 12/09/2007, -4/+3They are trying very hard to push F1 racing into the US, where it just isn't popular like it is in EU. This will help that. Here in the USA we like even playing fields where the racing is more about the driver. Hence the IROC series and the homogenization of Stock Car Racing where nothing is Stock anymore.
    WRC isn't that popular here either... I used to race in SCCA Performance Rally, but SCCA killed that program and all that's left is Rally Cross, which is like Rally Special Olympics. I sold my Quattro and havn't raced since.
    • Jugalator, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2"Here in the USA we like even playing fields where the racing is more about the driver."

      Doh. Many do that "here in Europe" too. Careful with the generalizations there.

      The tough part is how to best improve the competition, while preserving the spirit of F1 and pioneering car technology.
      • Ibox, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1so why don't they limit the width of their tires ( more)... they don't have as much traction it wont matter how much they spent on their engines, and then they'll have to drive the damn car.
    • Ibox, on 12/09/2007, -1/+3If they wanted to push F1 in to the states Bernie wouldn't have pissed off Tony George. F1 in U.S. is dead, long live... moto GP?? :(
      • fafaforza, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1Bernie said on t.v. that the US market wasn't all that important to him when they were negotiating with Indy this year.
  • cypherspace, on 12/09/2007, -4/+3As has been said, this has been planned for years - this is not news. Development funds will be focused on other technologies. There's nothing bad about that, and it's not going to kill Formula 1 as a sport - driver aids such as traction control have also been banned, and likelihood is it's going to make the races way more exciting!
  • Ansible, on 12/09/2007, -6/+3They should make the cars remotely operated and put the technology pedal to the metal. Then you could have 400 mph cars, etc, really show off what the latest tech can do. Of course that would get rid of the gladiatorial aspect, with the occasional driver death. Is that so bad? I'm curious to see what modern tech could do without all the handicaps of modern F1.
    • MadOgre, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Remotely Operated? You are Dugged Down for that. Go play with your RC and leave real racing alone.
  • DarkDx, on 12/09/2007, -10/+58…………………..,-~*’`¯lllllll`*~,
    ……………..,-~*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll¯`*-,
    …………,-~*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll*-,
    ………,-*llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll.
    …….;*`lllllllllllllllllllllllllll,-~*~-,llllllllllllllllllll
    ……..lllllllllllllllllllllllllll/………;;;;llllllllllll,-`~-,
    ……...lllllllllllllllllllll,-*………..`~-~-,…(.(¯`*,`,
    ……….llllllllllll,-~*…………………)_-..*`*;..)
    ………..,-*`¯,*`)…………,-~*`~.………….../
    ………...|/.../…/~,…...-~*,-~*`;……………./.
    ………../.../…/…/..,-,..*~,.`*~*…………….*...
    ……….|.../…/…/.*`......……………………)….)¯`~,
    ……….|./…/…./…….)……,.)`*~-,……….../….|..)…`~-,
    ………/./.../…,*`-,…..`-,…*`….,---…...…./…../..|……...¯```*~-,,,,
    ……...(……….)`*~-,….`*`.,-~*.,-*……|…/.…/…/…………
    ……….*-,…….`*-,...`~,..``.,,,-*……….|.,*...,*…|…………..
    ………….*,………`-,…)-,…………..,-*`...,-*….(`-,…………
    ................f`-,………`-,/…*-,___,,-~*….,-*……|…`-,……….
  • britkev1, on 12/09/2007, -2/+6And here comes the start of a true monopoly. One team will likely dominate the next ten years.
    • MadOgre, on 12/09/2007, -1/+4Like Ferrari?
      • britkev1, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2That would be my best guess.
      • dsmx, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2well since most rule changes are made to benefit ferrari it wouldn't suprise me. Incidentally pit stop fuel was added just so ferrari could use there thirsty v10's.
  • epj3, on 12/09/2007, -4/+4This is actually quite smart for the sport. It means the teams will be focusing much more time and energy on the chassis and their driver's skill than on the motor.
    • pileofstraw, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2yeah i agree. expenses are ridiculously high in F1.. this might help
      • epj3, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2Not sure why we both got dugg down, but whatever. I just think they need to spend more time on the chassis - there's much more left to be done to it.
  • londubh, on 12/09/2007, -3/+2Well, I'm no expert and here is my uneducated guess based purely on paranoia and conspiracy theory. There were green changes coming down the pike (or noise of) for F1 such as either sustainable fuels, hybrid, or even all electric.

    NASCAR got it's start by moonshiners souping up their jalopies. Why not treehuggers start souping up sustainable cars? Or building their own racers using sustainable electric (wind/solar) powered and/or biofuel powered cars.
    • maxberrevoets, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2I think an electric series is just what racing needs. It would spark massive interest with all this 'green' talk going around, and it would be a good place to develop batteries and electric motors. Plus having all of your torque at any given time is pretty appealing as well. Just imagine superconductor motors cooled by liquid nitrogen. It would be something.
  • 15charmaxwtf, on 12/09/2007, -8/+6Why stop there? F1 should ban racing!
  • GarageBattle, on 12/09/2007, -2/+1id assume its to keep companies in the game that don't have the same budget as other teams. after all, if only a few can spend the extra millions to keep an edge, eventually others will just drop out.
  • HalsMyPal, on 12/09/2007, -1/+2im all for evening the playing field a little bit so its not always a ferrari out in front (which in the last 3 or four years has been getting better) but becoming NASCAR isnt the answer, having strengths and weaknesses thoughout the teams is part of what makes it interesting.

    the teams should be free to develop inside the rules set by the fia, these rules should be there to keep the competative spirit (basically meaning keep ferrari from lapping all the other teams).
    • damawa42, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0You didn't notice this year that McLaren were neck and neck with Ferrari?
  • godisdead, on 12/09/2007, -5/+5What a CRAP story. "A dearth of personalities"? Last year's season came down to the wire, with 6 young electrifying newcomer drivers giving the best performances of their careers so far, with more to come next year and the year after that!

    Why is it that the people who don't understand F1 are the only ones anyone listens to about "the state of F1". It's the greatest sport in the world and it's never been in better shape. Stop your internal dialogue, watch the freakin' races and THEN decide for yourself, instead of spewing out received opinion on a sport you demonstrably know nothing about.

    COME ON LEWIS!
    • fafaforza, on 12/10/2007, -1/+2I would kinda agree with 'derth of personalities." F1 teams these days have so many lawyers and PR people coatching drivers on what they can and can't say, they end up regurgetating the same stuff like "we're hoping for great result," "we'll do our best," etc.

      Compare that to MotoGO where the riders are a lot looser and outspoken. They'll tell you exactly why their qualifying wasn't that great. They had trouble on friday, had to toss out what set up they had and qualify with default settings, for example. Or a temperature change caught them with their pants down and they were qualifying blind. F1 drivers sound like they're repeating prepared statements.
  • Tserk, on 12/09/2007, -3/+1Old news, but still worth a Digg.
  • KiwiUK, on 12/10/2007, -4/+2What is the author on about? It's been the best damn season in F1 history according to Sir Jackie Stewart. Very highly competitive. I cannot help but feel that the views the author expressed on the sport are old-fashioned from the Schumacher era.
  • stuy486, on 12/10/2007, -2/+5There are so many comments to this that are ill-informed it's not even silly. Being an avid F1 fan myself I was originally very skeptical about this was announced (more than a year ago, I might add), but when you take into consideration what the FIA is trying to do with the sport it makes sense.

    If the purpose of the sport is to develop technologies that eventually filter down to road cars, then further engine development is ludicrous because what road car really needs to break 20,000 rpm? Most car companies are putting money into hybrids and other types of fuel efficiency technology, and are getting no help from the technical developments of F1.

    With this engine development ban, and the future regulations that might allow for a sort of "boost" that would run on hybrid technology, the contributions to automobile industry will be much greater. Also, with the aerodynamic regulations allowing cars to follow each other more closely, the races will be much more exciting (rather than the races we see today with virtually no competitive passing.)
    • jasmus, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3I don't watch F1, or follow it at all, but I'm pretty sure the car's engineers are working on more than just "how high can we get the RPM". Maybe things like "how do we keep our power output, but reduce the amount of fuel we use?". Those are the developments that filter down.
      • stuy486, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1I'm sure that's true, but there is really only so much more they can do, and the proportion of money spent to developments that help the automobile industry is quickly raising. If they F1 teams were spending all of that money elsewhere, which is what the FIA is trying to get them to do, the amount of useful contributions to road car technology would be much higher.
      • fafaforza, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0RPM has a direct relation on horse power. It is very much on the minds of engineers. Two years ago, they were maxing out at 18000 (if I remember correctly). This year they were nearing 20000, and this increase didn't happen by accient.
  • Majhem, on 12/10/2007, -2/+13Quite obvious there are few real F1 fans here, at least few who have a clue what the sports governing body's administration (the FIA) have been doing for the last 20 years...

    Concorde Agreements... 10-year-plans brokered by teams and the FIA to outline the sports direction, and to keep it in touch with any technological advancements. This system has been in effect for about 20years now and is the driving force behind Formula1's innovative nature. Through such aggreements we have seen Turbos drop to 3.5litre Normally Aspirated engines, the 3.5ltr down to 3.0ltr, and now the 'old' 3.0Ltr V10's have been upgraded to the 2.4litre V8 format we have today! Engine rule changes are generally taken in 5-10 year blocks so as to fully evaluate their performance and effect and importantly to keep research and development costs down to an acceptable minimum (keep in mind the 3 major teams spend more on their racing than many small nation's GDP!).

    This is in no way detrimental to the sport, or its viewability, on the contrary. All proposed regulation changes are only ratified once both the teams, and the FIA are satisfied it is in both the sport's, and racing's best interests. Todays 2.4Ltr V8's put out more Horsepower and weigh far less than the 3.5litre V12's of old... and its using 98octane Gas-station-quality fuels, not the racing methanol fuels Cart and Nascar need to run to get half the performance of F1 cars...

    Formula 1 is, and will remain the pinnacle of motor engineering and racing... nothing else comes even close.
    • Dezelon, on 12/10/2007, -0/+3best post by far
    • DewCrew88, on 12/10/2007, -0/+2traction control off will separate the men from the boys next year.

      im excited to see the races on speed in HD next year i have to say
  • jasmus, on 12/10/2007, -1/+3Possibly not related, but is there a race or a set of races where there are no limitations set on cars? I would love to see what people come up with when they aren't restricted in any way.
    • Majhem, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1they come up with billion-dollar over-powered monstrosities... I believe that there is a class in the US like that. Heard its just stupid and dangerous.
    • Number23, on 12/10/2007, -1/+4It happened, it was called Can-Am. Porsche showed up with 1000+hp 917s, won everything and everybody went home.
    • molochi, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1The 60's/early 70's CanAm started out "unlimited" but still banned stuff. The Chapperal cars came up with some very innovative stuff, like adjustable wings and their vacufan car, both got banned. The Porsche 917 was just the last (and fastest) "unlimited" car to dominate. CanAm was ended by politics in 1974. Really the issues were eerily similar to the ones facing F1 today.
  • kroni, on 12/10/2007, -3/+2F1 is dead since Fangio times. Those times were the last times the F1 was interesting. Currently is no more than a tech display. We need back the good old races, go as fast as you can and nothing else matters, drivers risking their lives at every corner, and the best thing was to go in a blaze of glory. Now the F1 is taken by boring drivers like Schumacher (a douchebag who cheated as often as he legitimately won) and such scum.
    • Majhem, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1Yeah, Senna was a pussy and Schumacher was skill-less
      • kroni, on 12/10/2007, -0/+1well, actually you are right. Senna sucks too.
    • pileofstraw, on 12/10/2007, -2/+2I agree. F1 is so boring these days. I quit watching 4 years ago. I heard McLaren was disquialified last season for spying. haha. It sure helped for the show... Ferrari, the untouchable, should melt in lava.... booooring.
  • GeneralKickass, on 12/10/2007, -1/+8Engine Nazi: "No engine for you! Come back 10 year."
  • J4k3, on 12/10/2007, -4/+3Hahaha...what a joke. F1 is dead and buried now. Instead of the bastards allowing turbo's, wings, etc. they ban them. Stupid FIA mother *****. Someone should just come out with another F1 but which allows everything except driver aids (auto-launch from dead-stop etc.), THEN you'll see some crazy car/engine designs and maybe they'll revolutionize the stagnant auto industry.

    With this latest ***** rule, EVERYONE, from the car makers themselves to sponsors and fans will leave the sport by the millions. Goodbye, F1. Hopefully another institution which does not require asinine regulations will spring forward and give the fans what they've been clamoring for for years.

    /rant
    • fafaforza, on 12/10/2007, -0/+0Funny, cause everyone complained 2 years ago that the cars were so powerful, passing ws nearly impossible. And try getting all the power down to the tarmac. You'll need some sort of software, otherwise you'll just bake your tires while going sideways. That means computer controlled traction control. Sounds like F1 in 2004, with everyone clamoring for change.
  • JoshChan, on 12/10/2007, -2/+1How can they ban something that is entirely private? I think the change is new race car could only use the exiting models.
  • 3leggedHorse, on 12/10/2007, -1/+1 Ever since Schumacher lorded it over F1 they have changed rules to stop that kind of thing.
    Now I guess they have preempted Lewis Hamilton doing the same, and said right lets stop that now.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 82 of 82 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.