[billybone]

Those classics were undoubtly beautiful cars, championship winning cars.. with 4 cylinder engines but they weren't classed in Formula 1. The most dangerous period in F1 was with turbocharging so we all know what a couple of hairdryers can do so I'm all for forced induction period...  But my arguement is based on why was there a need for such a change? It's a sport and like many other sports it has its responsibilities, its market share etc so to risk interupting a multi-billion dollar business, Jean Todt would like to introduce into the sport the world's enviromental issues?

Cmon guys I understand we need to learn to preserve our heritage and how our enviroment is in such bad shape and we all need to play our small parts in producing less emissions and better means to fuel effeciency on and on and on  The problem is far too great and far to long-term and irrelevant to make these sort of changes with motorsport? Yet each and every day in every part of the world at the same time we can only imagine the shitboxers that are out there producing so much emissions that are really making the difference.
I would love to see someone try and make enviromental changes to NASCAR with their small block 8's, insane cams and there still CARBY!  These solutions should be inverted in our daily lives not applied to 24 cars racing 20 times a year for just over a hour..

Ultimately why compromise on history and reduce or downsize I should say to what we've been acustom to, 'cause really nothing compares to a Ferrari V8, V10 and V12 @ full song  Lets just hope Toyota don't return and do a remake of their 4AGE to kick our asses! 

[billybone]

I feel kinda left out 

Sorry Jim I apologise mate, most of the threads I've been reading included those guys the most but needless to say I'm sure you were suppose to be in the list and scud too so shouts out to him too, Sorry fellas! So what do you of the new 2013 engines for F1??

[billybone]

They are going to be Hybrids by all accounts or has that idea been scrubbed????

I read an article stating that there will be:
Turbo Charging
Energy recovery systems - with power to be harvested from the brakes and exhaust gases.
And electric motors - which will exclusively power the cars until they rejoin the racetrack during Pit stops.

Not to sure Mondi, who knows what the hell there doing, they say one thing yet do another, when the idea was first introduced they even mentioned bringing back ground effects aerodynamics.. now they've decided against it and to retain a similar aero set up like we have in 2011. Hypocritical? now we are told that these changes will have there investments due to further potential such as attracting new sponsors and inviting new manufacturers into the sport with the likes of Hyundai and VW being mentioned as inspiring new entries which is fine, but it also shows us a different direction being steered here don't you think??

[Stingray69]

I'm a traditionalist too, so I empathise with the points you are making with the proposed turbo rules in 2013 but I think you miss a few important points regarding the 2013 rules.
First, F1 is the most watched form of international motor sport and as such popularises new technology. F1 didn't introduce turbocharging to motor sport, as it was already being used in sport car racing and Can Am well before Renault introduced it into F1 at the British GP in 1977 with the RS01 but it did popularised it and sped up its development during the late seventies and eighties. Witness the number of turbo-charged road cars introduced during that time.The same with semi automatic gearboxes. That great British F1 designer, John Barnard introduced semi-automatic gearboxes  to F1 with the achingly gorgeous Ferrari 640 in 1989  but Porsche was already using such gearboxes in 956/962 Group C cars in the eighties. However, its success in F1 meant that having such gearboxes in road cars became acceptable. In fact, its application to road cars has been so successful that Ferrari no longer offer a manual gearbox (whether this is a good thing is highly debatable), nor do a large number of other exotic car manufacturers. Without F1, I suspect such gearboxes would be deemed as a "hairdressers option" but now, everyone thinks they are like a F1 driver by having it on their car.
Secondly, is a 4 cylinder engine, let alone a turbo charged 4 cylinder a lesser engine then a v-8. v-10 or v-12 from a driving experience point of view. Certainly, a v-8,v-10 and v-12 provide a more unique and dare I say it a more unique driving experience but there have been a great number of brilliant driving cars that were 4 cylinders-think any Alfa twin cam, Lotus twin cam, Pug 205 GTi, BMW E30 M3, Toyota AE 86 and the original MR-2, X1-9(that one is for you Ash) Honda V-tec.....the list can go on. And then add a turbo into the equation. Would the F-40 be as great a supercar if it had a v-12. For some people (may I add, not me), there is nothing quite like the rush when the turbo's come on boost. This may add or detract from the driving experience, depending on your point of view.
Sorry for the rant-it just my point of view. Really, one can go on to do justice with this debate.

[Ferrari Fissatore]

, John Barnard introduced semi-automatic gearboxes  to F1 with the achingly gorgeous Ferrari 640 in 1989  but Porsche was already using such gearboxes in 956/962 Group C cars in the eighties. However, its success in F1 meant that having such gearboxes in road cars became acceptable. In fact, its application to road cars has been so successful that Ferrari no longer offer a manual gearbox (whether this is a good thing is highly debatable), nor do a large number of other exotic car manufacturers. Without F1, I suspect such gearboxes would be deemed as a "hairdressers option" but now, everyone thinks they are like a F1 driver by having it on their car.

Several trucks and buses have had it since the thirties.

And all this talk about "direct injection"... it's just diesel technology... again, been around for ~ a hundred years.

[Ferrari Fissatore]

Would the F-40 be as great a supercar if it had a v-12. For some people (may I add, not me), there is nothing quite like the rush when the turbo's come on boost.

Until you've driven the sublime engine/box combo in an F50, you just don't realise how rough and dumb an F40 is in comparison.

of course, an F40 is a simply wonderful car, and we'd all have one given half a chance... but sophisticated, they ain't.

[Stingray69]

Agreed. But for some people, they love that "rough  and dumb" feel. Whenever you read comparisons between a F-40 and the Macca F1,the two things that stand out in the F-40 over the Macca F1 (and even Ferrari's own F-50) is the steering feel and the coming on boost effect from the engine.

 And as FF correctly points out, its one thing reading a hand on love stick road test and quite another to actually own the thing or drive it yourself.

[Ferrari Fissatore]

I'm lucky enough to have driven numerous examples of both F40 and F50, and also 2 maccas.....

The F40 with non adjust suspension has wonderful steering, but the adjust cars are a bit meh....

The F50's are all great, they really are a giant leap forward in everything over an F40. Sure, the steeering is a touch heavier, and you don't get the turbo rush, but the F50 is quicker AND easier to drive, yet remains a very satisfying experience for a "driver".

The maccas are just something else again, but their big balloon tyres dull the feedback a little, kind of 288 GTO style.

I'd have 288 GTO over any of the above.

[billybone]

Thanks for your feedback guys.. Stingray.. on some points I do agree with you, but my arguement here is not based on "Can a 4 cylinder be a good engine"? or "Is a 4 cylinder a good engine"?. I myself have owned 'lil Fix It Again Tonys and your 'lil Alfa's in which I absolutly adored being so agile and full of life, I've even built a RB30 which produced 980 HP on 28 psi and was no way near its limit and that's out of a 6 cylinder, so I do understand that with today's technology regardless of cubes and number of cylinders you can make a killer engine.. even with character.

Power output for these 2013 engines will be the same as they are now @ 750 hp so I don't doubt that with all these years of experience they've accumulated and the extensive thought processes involved.. innovation has taken us this far, but  4 cylinders don't belong in F1, maybe in GP2 or GP3 but not in such a class of motorsport.. the pinnacle in such advancement and of course.. The Prestige.

Take for example the V8 supercar series and our Bathurst 1000? How do you think the Australian public would react if the FIA was to replace them with eco- friendly 4 cylinder engines? Ask those who follow it religiously why they love it so much, why they would go and watch every race and they'll tell you " 'Cause It's a V8", or " The sound of 'em", or " It's part of our history, part of our tradtion as enthusiasts". My point is simple, sometimes change just doesn't belong.

The beauty of F1 has come from innovation, I agree with you every step of the way, I still freak it when I think about how Mclaren managed to sneak in their fiddle brake system..  on how Tyrell's six wheeled car managed to word its way around the rules and regulations like the double diffuser in 2009. Look at the blown diffuser debate? with the exception of HRT and Virgin, all other teams are using what they call a "cold blowing system" and now we've learnt that Red Bull and I think Ferrari also, are using a "hot blowing system" for their diffuser which I understand it to be similar to Anti-lag ( Fuel + ignition + Retarded Timing )

The likes of Ferrari, Mercedes and even Renault incorparate what they learn @ the track into their road cars but obviously not all "helping aids" can be used. I remember there was much speculation during the development of the 458 being the first road car to have KERS. But then again we've seen Ferrari use ground effects on the F50, E-diff on the 430, carbon ceramic brakes etc and your right, the F1 paddle shift has become the standard to customers which was offered only as an option how ironic eh? I do agree that having that F1 feel was a major selling point for Ferrai based on the success of innovation brought from the track to the road, but  for some reason I don't quite buy the full value that dropping the stick shift is based on sales or customer demand, I think there's more to it or maybe it's just pure and simple.. Technology is driving us into the future.

[billybone]

I'm lucky enough to have driven numerous examples of both F40 and F50, and also 2 maccas.....

The F40 with non adjust suspension has wonderful steering, but the adjust cars are a bit meh....

The F50's are all great, they really are a giant leap forward in everything over an F40. Sure, the steeering is a touch heavier, and you don't get the turbo rush, but the F50 is quicker AND easier to drive, yet remains a very satisfying experience for a "driver".

The maccas are just something else again, but their big balloon tyres dull the feedback a little, kind of 288 GTO style.

I'd have 288 GTO over any of the above.
FF,
the 288 GTO is my all time favourite F-car, 0 -200 in 14.9 secs! not bad for a '85 model  but mate have to admit, to have driven both a F40 and a F50 I applaude you champ  Having said that I do agree with yourself and Stingray that what you consider a negative element in a vehicle could be a positive stigma in your driving experience.. As Jeremy Clarkson once put it, " the F50 felt like the engine had been bolted directly to your spine"  By the way hows the clutch feel on those things anyway??