Engine homologation: complete cost control failure

[Pup]

Renault has been making a fuss over how much it spends in F1 and how maybe it should get a piece of the action or something. Regardless of what you think about that, the thing that should pop out to everyone in the sport are the figures they're using...

“Renault Sport F1 is spending 150 million euros per year, and you can imagine… if you just make a very quick calculation about the price you can imagine divided by four teams, for example, and you will realise that Renault is paying a big contribution”.

150 million euro, or close to $200 million dollars.

And according to this: http://www.crash.net/f1/news/187703/1/m ... of_f1.html , Mercedes is spending $175 million a year on it's engine program...

That slight fall is nothing compared to the 54.2 per cent increase in spending on the engine division, however, which rose to a total of £116.4 million.

Back when Mosley was banging his drum about homologation, the argument was that the manufacturers were spending between 100 and 200 million euro a year and that this wasn't sustainable.

I would remind you that the reason for homologation was that we want to eliminate engine development costs where the major manufacturers are spending between 100 and 200 million euros per year. Indeed more than that in some cases – and that is quite clearly unsustainable when the outcome of all that expenditure is just to make the engines run 200-300rpm faster each year. It’s not sustainable and can’t continue.

So, here we are, with homologated engines that supposedly are cheaper to produce and the manufacturers are still spending the exact same amount, if not more. And for what? Where is that money even going? Imperceptible tweaks that are of no benefit to the fans whatsoever? Seems that we've given up the screaming 20,000rpm V10's for nothing.

Personally I think this all goes back to my argument that F1 spends way too much time concentrating on the spending side of the equation and far too little worrying about the income. Teams and manufacturers will spend what they will, regardless of what regulations are in place. Their tolerance for cost will always be dependent on what benefit they receive.

[MOWOG]

Ah, Max Mosely, the brilliant visionary who brought us such wonders as grooved racing tires and new teams that serve only as rolling chicanes at the back of the field.

One can only wonder what economic benefit Renault gains from building Formula One engines. Is it prestige? Is it a matter of national pride? Does anyone other than the rabid fans found here even KNOW which engine is in which car? Or care??? Do we ever hear about one engine being superior in some performance parameter compared to the others? Sure, one might get 0.007% better fuel mileage or anther may have a torque advantage equivalent to the combined efforts of 1000 South American butterflies beating their wings in unison.They might all be manufactured by Jean Todt using a Craftsman socket set in a garage in Transyavania for all anyone cares.

That the sport can continue to convince large corporations to invest hundreds of millions of Euros/Dollars for little or no return is a great mystery to me.

As someone who used to be able to tell the sound of a Cosworth V8 from a Ferrari flat 12 from a Maserati V-12 down the front straight at Watkins Glen, I sure do miss the old days.

[timbo]

This seem stange. Maybe they counted their V6 programs in? Cause with only minor changes allowed and only around 30 powertrains per team they really shouldn't spend that much.

[marcush.]

400 + headcount at Mercedes AMG HPP...thats an estimted 40millions euro in HR alone - if there was an 8 hour job...

[Cam]

That the sport can continue to convince large corporations to invest hundreds of millions of Euros/Dollars for little or no return is a great mystery to me.

That Bernie isn't already in prison is an even greater mystery. This little 'unpleasantness' in Germany is probably just the tip of the iceberg. He's been using that silver tongue to great effect for decades convincing all manor of people to poor cash into his pockets. People want easy cash. That's why Nigerian scams work so well. F1 could arguably be the biggest Nigerian scam in history IMO. 'Investors' hand over copious amounts of money - believing they'll make lots more money. All the while the people receiving the money are forcing stakeholders to dance like a marionette with regulation changes that encourage massive additional spending - requiring more investment - while preaching cost cutting.

Renault does have a big problem - branding. RedBull have the glory, mixed with a Infinity/Renault tag. I sure as heck have no idea how they're making a return on that cash. Maybe every Renault sold is 20% more expensive than it needs to be?

[timbo]

400 + headcount at Mercedes AMG HPP...thats an estimted 40millions euro in HR alone - if there was an 8 hour job...

But they are not only doing maintanance of V8s, no?

[FoxHound]

400 + headcount at Mercedes AMG HPP...thats an estimted 40millions euro in HR alone - if there was an 8 hour job...

But they are not only doing maintanance of V8s, no?

Yes, that's a good point.

EBD's, Coanda's, mappings etc etc all cost cold hard cash.
Also, engine depts. have been gearing up for Turbo V6s, with higher costs(Research/Development).

Homologation proves that cost control is a failure as is the FIA idea behind it. IF the cash is there, it's going to get spent on things like blowing a diffuser with exhaust gases. Clever yes, but better than a howling V10/12? Nope...

[bhall]

Bring on the "offcial" cost cap! That'll show 'em!

[langwadt]

400 + headcount at Mercedes AMG HPP...thats an estimted 40millions euro in HR alone - if there was an 8 hour job...

But they are not only doing maintanance of V8s, no?

Yes, that's a good point.

EBD's, Coanda's, mappings etc etc all cost cold hard cash.
Also, engine depts. have been gearing up for Turbo V6s, with higher costs(Research/Development).

Homologation proves that cost control is a failure as is the FIA idea behind it. IF the cash is there, it's going to get spent on things like blowing a diffuser with exhaust gases. Clever yes, but better than a howling V10/12? Nope...

I think that is where the V6s with all their added trickery has a chance to put the focus back on the interesting
technical stuff; how to get more power (unless the screw up the rules with too many limits on development )

why have the teams spend billions endlessly tweaking the shape and curves of carbon bits when you can have them
spend it on getting the most power out of a given amount of fuel

[Clew]

I understand it costs a lot of money to carry a team in F1....but I never hear any of the teams complain about sponsorship money they generate along with Bernie paying x-$dollars$ per WCC point

[coaster]

It's all about climate change i think, when the north sea stops freezing at winter F1 doesn't want to be seen barking 1000hp from 10 cylinders, i think the V6 turbo being quieter, equally powerful and a smaller cubic displacement will appeal to car manufacturers.
Mowog, the Transylvanian V6 makes the torque of a Mad Jacks pack mule from the Grizzly Adams tv show, I'm told.

(Mad Jack edited from Uncle Ben, confused with Uncle Jesse from the Dukes of Hazzard)

[WhiteBlue]

There appears to be cost control by a gradual freeze between 2015 and 2018 as AMuS reports.
From the AMuS Report

Ab 2018 soll die Entwicklung der V6-Turbos eingefroren werden, so wie das bereits seit vier Jahren bei den V8-Motoren der Fall ist. Wer später auf den Zug aufspringt, für den gelten nicht etwa die Regeln eines Neueinsteigers, sondern die Statuten des jeweiligen Jahres.

Im ersten Jahr des Turbo-Zeitalters sind den Herstellern die Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten praktisch freigestellt. Sie können nach Belieben auf technische Probleme oder auf einen Entwicklungsrückstand reagieren. Ab 2015 tritt eine Matrix mit Punktesystem auf den Plan. Die Motoren dürfen in rund 60 Bereichen verändert werden.

Jede Änderung wird individuell mit einer Punktzahl versehen. Vereinfacht gesagt: Eine Kolbenmodifikation wird höher bepunktet als ein Eingriff an der Ölpumpe. Insgesamt darf jeder Hersteller in der Saison 2015 eine Punktzahl von 32 erreichen. 2016 werden die Eingriffsmöglichkeiten auf 15 Punkte reduziert und 2017 sollen es nur noch 8 Punkte sein. Immer mehr Modifikationen sind überhaupt nicht mehr erlaubt. Zuerst fliegen konzeptionelle Maßnahmen aus Entwicklungsfahrplan.

Translation

From 2018 development of the V6-Turbos will be frozen like the V8 engine freeze since four years. Those who later jump on the band wagon are not treated as new entries, they are also subject to the regulations of the respective year.

In the first year of the turbo age the manufactuers have total freedom to continue development. They are free to react to technical problems or any development deficit. From 2015 a matrix with a points system will be introduced. Engine modifications from 60 different assemblies can be made.

Each modification will be rated by an individual point score. To put it simply: A piston modification will have a higher point score than a change to the oil pump. In 2015 each manufacturer may reach a total score of 32 points. In 2016 the development scope will be reduced to a total of 15 points and in 2017 only 8 points will be available. A rising number of assemblies will be blocked for development. The first things to get frozen are change of concept changes.

It is debatable how effective those regulations are. At least there is a form of cost control which is not available for aerodynamics and the chassis side. So once again the teams continue the policy of shooting themselves in the foot by failing to apply cost control to the most important sector of spending and restricting cost somewhere else where fans want to see more development. A great shame.

[MOWOG]

So once again the teams continue the policy of shooting themselves in the foot by failing to apply cost control to the most important sector of spending and restricting cost somewhere else where fans want to see more development. A great shame.

Well and aptly said, sir. I could NOT agree more.

[tathan]

There appears to be cost control by a gradual freeze between 2015 and 2018 as AMuS reports.
From the AMuS Report

Ab 2018 soll die Entwicklung der V6-Turbos eingefroren werden, so wie das bereits seit vier Jahren bei den V8-Motoren der Fall ist. Wer später auf den Zug aufspringt, für den gelten nicht etwa die Regeln eines Neueinsteigers, sondern die Statuten des jeweiligen Jahres.

Im ersten Jahr des Turbo-Zeitalters sind den Herstellern die Entwicklungsmöglichkeiten praktisch freigestellt. Sie können nach Belieben auf technische Probleme oder auf einen Entwicklungsrückstand reagieren. Ab 2015 tritt eine Matrix mit Punktesystem auf den Plan. Die Motoren dürfen in rund 60 Bereichen verändert werden.

Jede Änderung wird individuell mit einer Punktzahl versehen. Vereinfacht gesagt: Eine Kolbenmodifikation wird höher bepunktet als ein Eingriff an der Ölpumpe. Insgesamt darf jeder Hersteller in der Saison 2015 eine Punktzahl von 32 erreichen. 2016 werden die Eingriffsmöglichkeiten auf 15 Punkte reduziert und 2017 sollen es nur noch 8 Punkte sein. Immer mehr Modifikationen sind überhaupt nicht mehr erlaubt. Zuerst fliegen konzeptionelle Maßnahmen aus Entwicklungsfahrplan.

Translation

From 2018 development of the V6-Turbos will be frozen like the V8 engine freeze since four years. Those who later jump on the band wagon are not treated as new entries, they are also subject to the regulations of the respective year.

In the first year of the turbo age the manufactuers have total freedom to continue development. They are free to react to technical problems or any development deficit. From 2015 a matrix with a points system will be introduced. Engine modifications from 60 different assemblies can be made.

Each modification will be rated by an individual point score. To put it simply: A piston modification will have a higher point score than a change to the oil pump. In 2015 each manufacturer may reach a total score of 32 points. In 2016 the development scope will be reduced to a total of 15 points and in 2017 only 8 points will be available. A rising number of assemblies will be blocked for development. The first things to get frozen are change of concept changes.

It is debatable how effective those regulations are. At least there is a form of cost control which is not available for aerodynamics and the chassis side. So once again the teams continue the policy of shooting themselves in the foot by failing to apply cost control to the most important sector of spending and restricting cost somewhere else where fans want to see more development. A great shame.

I presume though that this is only enforceable as a "you must race with this engine" not "you are not allowed to develop this engine at the factory". I would expect that they will still do all of the possible developments they can, then assess what they get and spend their points on the best bang-for-their-buck ones.

So in effect, it will save nothing.

[Pup]

This seem stange. Maybe they counted their V6 programs in?

It's probable, but they were also developing new engines at the time they were debating the engine freeze, so the two time periods should be comparable.