2014-2020 Formula One 1.6l V6 turbo engine formula

[WhiteBlue]

You can implement cost controls on the engines.

I'm glad you agree to that point. Let us keep that in mind. The key to doing it with the right approach is by splitting cost in different blocks. There are design and development cost on one side and production and service cost on the other. Both would be separately accounted for.

I would cap the sales price at between 2-4 times the production and service cost. That is approximately what the customer teams pay today and perhaps a little bit more initially. Obviously the excess of the cost would be there to cover for a moderate return on development cost for independent power train suppliers. Over three years this cap would gradually be reduced to the lower range which would reflect the minimum ongoing development cost.

But, you run the risk of causing companies like Renault and Cosworth to pack up and pull out if they are losing money on every engine they build. Really, would would the incentive be to supply engines at a loss?

I would set the sales cap high enough that a company like Cosworth which budgeted engine development at € 20m would recover on their cost by supplying two or three customers. That obviously would not be the kind of money Renault would pour into their F1 engine development. But that is not a question under consideration here. Renault have in the past used F1 to promote their core roads car business and so they would write their excess cost off as another form of sponsorship.

But there is still the need to put a total cap on development cost or resources. You simply have to do it in order to stop the manufacturing teams to start a cost race and run away with a competitive advantage that is unsuitable to the business model. It is ok if Merc and Ferrari or potential future players like Bentley, Ford or Honda gain a relatively small advantage from using their own engines in their teams. Rich works teams do that currently with the chassis. So why should they be stopped to do it with the engines. But the advantage must be relatively small. If the smallest player can initially spend € 20m I would cap the development budget at three times of what he can afford. The ongoing development cost would be limited in just the same way.

F1 will still be using V8 engines come 2014 because the financial considerations are what really matter.

The cost issue can be solved as I have shown, but the question is: Would all players agree to some limits that will let their competitors stay in business, competition and keep it sustainable? That is really the question which will have to be answered by the F1 commission. They have the ultimate responsibility to work out something that will keep F1 sustainable and entertaining while keeping it relevant and innovative. It will not be easy and the jury is still out over the question. Personally I'm inclined to believe that they will eventually find a compromise and that we will see the new engines on the grid.

[Sombrero]

Less VIP, less motorhome if there is a cost problem. It's about time to introduce the V-6 HT : F-1 is not yet BES or WTCC.

After the first oil crisis 1973-75, the motorsport was a bad shape but manufacturers kept going developing a full breed of new turbo engines at cost that were never seen before...

[Tommy Cookers]

After the first oil crisis 1973-75, the motorsport was a bad shape but manufacturers kept going developing a full breed of new turbo engines at cost that were never seen before...

costs were lower then, because expectations were much lower

F1 reliability/durability was 1 order of magnitude lower than today's (Renault's 2 orders lower)
Renault had (nominally) 9 staff in their competition dept (that won Le Mans, then went F1)

Renault and Honda both went turbo with converted F2 V6 engines that existed because their F2 engines were based on road V6 engines that existed because they both had road V8s that went into production only 'cut down' as V6s due to the oil crisis

the forced aspiration option had always existed in F1, and was conspicuously generous (from the 1964 announcement of this 1966 '3 litre' F1) to help transition to the new F1 (eg to allow conversion/derivation from existing N/A F1 engines)

F1 has always had this compromise/transition approach, until now
(on the basis that '1 size fits all' only deters interest)

the modern high level of reliability/durability is hugely costly, but is expected
(it alway was costly, eg MB in the 50s)

[rjsa]

Less VIP, less motorhome if there is a cost problem. It's about time to introduce the V-6 HT : F-1 is not yet BES or WTCC.

After the first oil crisis 1973-75, the motorsport was a bad shape but manufacturers kept going developing a full breed of new turbo engines at cost that were never seen before...

Don't be silly.

The VIPs and motorhomes are in fact the ones paying the bill. The inviting of the sponsor's top clients into the closed barriers of the F1 paddock has a great value.

[SeijaKessen]

You can implement cost controls on the engines.

I'm glad you agree to that point. Let us keep that in mind. The key to doing it with the right approach is by splitting cost in different blocks. There are design and development cost on one side and production and service cost on the other. Both would be separately accounted for.

I would cap the sales price at between 2-4 times the production and service cost. That is approximately what the customer teams pay today and perhaps a little bit more initially. Obviously the excess of the cost would be there to cover for a moderate return on development cost for independent power train suppliers. Over three years this cap would gradually be reduced to the lower range which would reflect the minimum ongoing development cost.

But, you run the risk of causing companies like Renault and Cosworth to pack up and pull out if they are losing money on every engine they build. Really, would would the incentive be to supply engines at a loss?

I would set the sales cap high enough that a company like Cosworth which budgeted engine development at € 20m would recover on their cost by supplying two or three customers. That obviously would not be the kind of money Renault would pour into their F1 engine development. But that is not a question under consideration here. Renault have in the past used F1 to promote their core roads car business and so they would write their excess cost off as another form of sponsorship.

But there is still the need to put a total cap on development cost or resources. You simply have to do it in order to stop the manufacturing teams to start a cost race and run away with a competitive advantage that is unsuitable to the business model. It is ok if Merc and Ferrari or potential future players like Bentley, Ford or Honda gain a relatively small advantage from using their own engines in their teams. Rich works teams do that currently with the chassis. So why should they be stopped to do it with the engines. But the advantage must be relatively small. If the smallest player can initially spend € 20m I would cap the development budget at three times of what he can afford. The ongoing development cost would be limited in just the same way.

F1 will still be using V8 engines come 2014 because the financial considerations are what really matter.

The cost issue can be solved as I have shown, but the question is: Would all players agree to some limits that will let their competitors stay in business, competition and keep it sustainable? That is really the question which will have to be answered by the F1 commission. They have the ultimate responsibility to work out something that will keep F1 sustainable and entertaining while keeping it relevant and innovative. It will not be easy and the jury is still out over the question. Personally I'm inclined to believe that they will eventually find a compromise and that we will see the new engines on the grid.

WhiteBlue:

You are aware that the process regarding the development of the turbo engines is underway right? I ask because, well, it's sort of difficult to cap costs when you are in the middle of an engineering process.

Not to mention, engineering is not always a straight point A to point B road.

Along the way, things can go wrong. As such, time and money are required to rectify such incidents. What happens when an engine supplier has to redesign something, but is now unable to due to a cap on spending?

[Tommy Cookers]

I cannot see how the old naturally aspired engines can substantially profit from the use of fuel limitation rules. Without turbos, direct injection and heat energy recovery the potential for efficiency improvements is very small. The engines are simply not suitable for high efficiency.

F1 has always (well 95%) been fuel quantity unlimited, rewarding power not efficiency

right now the N/A engines mostly run about 15% rich ie that 15% of the fuel energy is going unaccessed
a fuel limit could stop that tomorrow, ie giving about 10% improvement on present efficiency ... tomorrow

if the 2014 style DI were applied to N/A engines (injection/combustion rates ideally matched to CR/piston movement), surely another 10% gain is available ? (2014 specifies 15000 rpm max, does this injection exist ?)

IMO you have said that exhaust energy (much in excess of the turbocharging needs) is recoverable
I have said this is 12% notionally in any engine (even N/A) with a decent CR
(less some loss of ''tuned exhaust' effects, that benefit power more than efficiency)
(the Wright Turbo-Compound gets its famous efficiency running at 0.15 bar boost, the same deltaP as N/A F1)

F1 is quite efficient, with 14:1 CR, and uses (fast-combusting) fuel significantly under 100 Octane Rating
(the rules have now waived the upper limit of OR, presumably for the benefit of 2014 turbo engines)

the above gains are possible with a 2014 style fuel rate limit applied to N/A engines
(much of this is lost at part throttle, clearly the turbocharged engine is better suited to this (road) use)
the technologies are not in principle the property of turbocharged engines

[WhiteBlue]

WhiteBlue:

You are aware that the process regarding the development of the turbo engines is underway right? I ask because, well, it's sort of difficult to cap costs when you are in the middle of an engineering process.

Not to mention, engineering is not always a straight point A to point B road.

Along the way, things can go wrong. As such, time and money are required to rectify such incidents. What happens when an engine supplier has to redesign something, but is now unable to due to a cap on spending?

They are obviously almost done with the 2012 budget. So any agreement now would only apply to 2013 expenditure and those years to follow. I agree that it is not an ideal situation. But it is still better to introduce cost control now than to let things slip. My comments were meant in a general way. One has to have inside knowledge to set sensible curbs to expenditure taking the actual figures into consideration. We do not know what they are spending but we know that F1 is heading into a dangerous unsustainable direction now. That should be fixed.

[SeijaKessen]

WhiteBlue:

You are aware that the process regarding the development of the turbo engines is underway right? I ask because, well, it's sort of difficult to cap costs when you are in the middle of an engineering process.

Not to mention, engineering is not always a straight point A to point B road.

Along the way, things can go wrong. As such, time and money are required to rectify such incidents. What happens when an engine supplier has to redesign something, but is now unable to due to a cap on spending?

They are obviously almost done with the 2012 budget. So any agreement now would only apply to 2013 expenditure and those years to follow. I agree that it is not an ideal situation. But it is still better to introduce cost control now than to let things slip. My comments were meant in a general way. One has to have inside knowledge to set sensible curbs to expenditure taking the actual figures into consideration. We do not know what they are spending but we know that F1 is heading into a dangerous unsustainable direction now. That should be fixed.

Why tell me WB, how do you plan on curbing costs when it's clear Red Bull just circumvents the entire thing...and so would other teams through creative accounting. It is impossible to control costs...the fact that it can be done is a myth.

If anything, history has proven having the largest budget doesn't actually buy success.

I seem to recall quite a few manufacturers running to the hills when they couldn't spend their way to victory.

[WhiteBlue]

F1 has always (well 95%) been fuel quantity unlimited, rewarding power not efficiency

right now the N/A engines mostly run about 15% rich ie that 15% of the fuel energy is going unaccessed
a fuel limit could stop that tomorrow, ie giving about 10% improvement on present efficiency ... tomorrow

if the 2014 style DI were applied to N/A engines (injection/combustion rates ideally matched to CR/piston movement), surely another 10% gain is available ? (2014 specifies 15000 rpm max)

IMO you have said that exhaust energy (much in excess of the turbocharging needs) is recoverable
I have said this is 12% notionally in any engine (even N/A) with a decent CR
(less some loss of ''tuned exhaust' effects, that benefit power more than efficiency)
(the Wright Turbo-Compound gets its famous efficiency running at 0.15 bar boost, the same deltaP as N/A F1)

F1 is quite efficient, with 14:1 CR, and uses (fast-combusting) fuel significantly under 100 Octane Rating
(the rules have now waived the upper limit of OR, presumably for the benefit of 2014 turbo engines)

the above gains are possible with a 2014 style fuel rate limit applied to N/A engines
the technologies are not in principle the property of turbocharged engines

I would disagree with your view. The old engines are air restricted by the rev limit and the capacity limit and the fact that they are not blown. Their whole design is optimized with air restriction in mind and unlimited fuel supply.

The new turbo engines are designed around the fact that air supply is completely free. There is no limit to the boost pressure and the amount of air you cram into the engine. The limitation is by fuel supply.

I don't want to comment your speculations about the effect of some design changes that you propose because I think the figures would not be very robust. I know that everything you do in addition (blowing, DI and other measures) will simply add more power to the engine all other things being equal. So you would exceed the desired level of power which is now pegged at around 750 hp for safety purposes afaik. The only way around this would be the introduction of fuel limits which would make the engine a bastard that initially was designed for air limitation and is then subjected to a combination of both. There are a bunch of main design parameters that would not fit. The piston l/D ratio, the cylinder count, the rpm level, strength of some components to higher pressures and a bunch of geometric data that influence the heat and friction efficiency of the engine. Needless to say that most experts think that such compromised design would not be able to fit the fuel saving guide lines issued by the FiA a long time ago. As I said I'm not going to speculate about figures but I'm pretty sure you would not reach halve the saving that the new engines are going to bring in the first step of their design. One should not forget that there are still a bunch of restrictions on the turbo design and other fields that can be freed up in the future to make further efficiency gains. In my view is would be very foolish to compromise that potential in order to bastardize an old engine that has no relevance for the future. If they want to continue with the old V8s they should create an equivalence formula by giving it an appropriate fuel flow above the V6 turbo flow. Everything else is a waste of money in my view.

[WhiteBlue]

Why tell me WB, how do you plan on curbing costs when it's clear Red Bull just circumvents the entire thing...and so would other teams through creative accounting. It is impossible to control costs...the fact that it can be done is a myth.

If anything, history has proven having the largest budget doesn't actually buy success.

I seem to recall quite a few manufacturers running to the hills when they couldn't spend their way to victory.

That is a question of opinion. I happen to believe that budget and resource restrictions can prevent unlimited spending. It was proven by the introduction of the limitations in 2010. The main problem wasn't so much in the principle of the limitations but in the lack of enforcing them by sanctions. Naturally one would have to consider more robust enforcements by the FiA if one wanted to make restrictions stick properly in the future.

The discussion about the link of budget size and competitiveness is a silly one in my view. I do not want to be involved in the circular arguments of that question. Obviously there is no guarantee that a big budget will always buy you competitiveness very quickly. It takes competence to win races and titles as well. There are examples that big budgets did not work for some time (Honda) but when they were prepared to pull out their last car was a world championship design. There is also the example of Red Bull who used their budget to buy competence and made it to the top in very few years. Generally it is well known that the three highest budget teams are usually capable of winning and the three lowest budgeted teams have never even made a point. It suggests that it takes money to win a championship and competence alone will not do. So it becomes very relevant if you open up the rules to award further competitiveness to teams which are prepared to lavishly spend on power train design. Have a read in this thread what the team principals think about that issue. There are enough quotes assembled here.

[SeijaKessen]

I hate to break it to you, but the double diffuser had a lot to do with the Honda/Brawn GP winning the title.

As for the team principals...you should know by now there is so much misinformation and disinformation with what they say, it can be hard to take it at face value.

But your point about Red Bull using their large financial backing to help the team is also why your belief that cost caps is misguided. Creative accounting helps.

[WhiteBlue]

I hate to break it to you, but the double diffuser had a lot to do with the Honda/Brawn GP winning the title.

So what? I thought the issue was the 1.6L turbo engine and that unlimited spending on developing it would damage F1.

As for the team principals...you should know by now there is so much misinformation and disinformation with what they say, it can be hard to take it at face value.

Sure. Everybody has his own agenda in F1. But we got some pretty strong points that sustainability is a serious issue in the face of an unlimited cost race.

But your point about Red Bull using their large financial backing to help the team is also why your belief that cost caps is misguided. Creative accounting helps.

That is not the point I was making. Creative accounting is not encouraged by spending limits but by lack of sanctions and enforcing spending limits. F1 hasn't even tried to seriously curb budgets by caps. So how can we say that it will not work? It is all speculation until you try it and find out.

[SeijaKessen]

I was simply pointing some of the fallacies in your thinking WB.

[WhiteBlue]

I don't know if fallacy is an appropriate expression. I thought I was expressing a well considered and balanced opinion.

[marcush.]

the question with cost caps is how to police and what is the consequence of not adhering to it.

In todays world of traceability one could imagine it could just be possible to police spending but a big ship like DAI how would you control them spending millions on entirely separate r&D work and leaving the results as proposals or suggestions
for starting points in development...it´s flatly impossible to grasp all this ...FIA will not even access to the company to take a look ----as MGP for example is a separate entity .
So who could actually stop an independend entity to startup a development project for Formula 1 funded by say Monster energy drinks to get some "coverage" and after two years of development they offer the results to Sauber .They would acoount for the money they actually paid ...and got a multiple of it as development result.I can´t see how this could be avoided..