Formula One's Engine Crisis

[horse]

I just read a news report on Autosport where Renault CEO Carlos Ghosn states that

"We will honour our contracts, no problem, but the occasion of Renault as a developer and supplier of engines stops."

See the full story here.

My interpretation of this quote is that Renault are stopping developing the V6, even should they re-enter as a works team.

I think this an extremely disturbing situation that formula one has found itself in, having one engine (Mercedes) which is extremely superior to the others and being run by a works team that will not get beaten by others running their own engine.

There is one other engine (Ferrari) that is nearby, but again this is run by a works team that would not wish to be beaten by customers.

With Renault pulling out and Honda missing the mark, we end up in a situation where only 2 teams can compete for wins of GPs whilst excellent teams like Red Bull face being relegated to the mid field with a year old engine spec.

I really think the FIA need to have a plan going into 2017 to improve both the parity and availability of engine supply or F1 might just have to give up and have a contracted engine supplier not associated to an F1 team (which would be the last we would see of Ferrari).

Someone has to take some action, because the original plan has obviously failed.

[mrluke]

More evidence that stricter regulations neither reduce costs nor increase competitiveness.

[bhall II]

It just means Renault will no longer be a supplier à la Cosworth.

“Our future is the subject of detailed analysis and renegotiating. We will either exit or run our own team. We don't have a clear decision yet,” [Ghosn] said.

[horse]

I just think the formula has completely lost its balance. I mean, for me, the engine equalisation programme for the V8s was a good thing. The differentiator was then just (ish) the chassis, which is somewhat observable by the public at large. But also the fresh aero regs made 2009, 2010 and 2012 so interesting, because there was a lot of innovation throughout the field and interesting ideas coming from many teams.

Now a team is powerless (McLaren) or possibly made (Williams) by their engine supplier, but the current state of affairs makes it super hard to congratulate or criticise a team for anything. You can't innovate chassis solutions to get around a not Mercedes engine, and if you did create something brilliant, it probably wouldn't make a difference, anyway.

It just means Renault will no longer be a supplier à la Cosworth.

But to not develop the engine is to not use it, right? Or is that poor choice of words do you think?

[motobaleno]

it is really interesting how different among F1 lovers are views:
very differently from you I think that the real SOUL of a car is its engine so I prefer a F1 where both engine and chassis are subject of competition
but if I'm compelled to choose I choose the engine!
the theoretically perfect F1 for me is one where there are no engine supplier: If you are not able to project and build your own engine than you not deserve to compete in F1...
of course the real world is pretty different

[PlatinumZealot]

My inyerpretaition is that redbull will almost certainly drop renault because who wants to use an undeveloped engine?

[horse]

If you are not able to project and build your own engine than you not deserve to compete in F1...

I get your point but these are the first two constructors champions in F1:

Season | Constructor | Engine
..1958......Vanwall.......Vanwall
..1959......Cooper.......Climax

So the idea of having to supply your own engine isn't something fundamental to F1 as I see it. For me, its supposed to be a mix of ground breaking motor-racing technology (the V6 is certainly this) and high frills competition (which 2015 certainly isn't).

Really, the racing is key and if they can't widen the field of drivers who have competitive machinery by sorting out the engines, then the racing will continue to suffer.

[Jolle]

Sounds to me more that marketing gigant isn't doing or hasn't done any marketing for Renault the last six years, like for instance, McLaren did in the past with Mercedes and Honda and Williams with Honda and, very important, with Renault.

I've read the article, and it sounds like Renault doesn't want to be dependent of a team for its marketing. So it's their own team or non at all. But, Renault have been in and out of F1 before, as a constructor, a engine supplier. So whatever they decide, it's temporary....

[dans79]

The issue with F1, isn't the engines, it's all the cost saving/cap garbage. Let the teams spend what they want, when they want and everything else will work it's self out. F1 did just fine the first 40+ years when teams could spend whatever they wanted.

[bill shoe]

The issue with F1, isn't the engines, it's all the cost saving/cap garbage. Let the teams spend what they want, when they want and everything else will work it's self out. F1 did just fine the first 40+ years when teams could spend whatever they wanted.

Yea, cost caps or lack of them are not the problem. The problem is that F1 has put itself in a position where the minimum cost of engines for a year is $20-30 million (depending on who you ask).

The critical factor for a full and healthy F1 field is the minimum spending to field a team, not the maximum spending that is allowed. I think these two opposite ends of the spectrum get confused because they both involve cost.

[Jolle]

The issue with F1, isn't the engines, it's all the cost saving/cap garbage. Let the teams spend what they want, when they want and everything else will work it's self out. F1 did just fine the first 40+ years when teams could spend whatever they wanted.

Yea, cost caps or lack of them are not the problem. The problem is that F1 has put itself in a position where the minimum cost of engines for a year is $20-30 million (depending on who you ask).

The critical factor for a full and healthy F1 field is the minimum spending to field a team, not the maximum spending that is allowed. I think these two opposite ends of the spectrum get confused because they both involve cost.

Indeed!
The biggest problem is that, even as a very small team are forced to lease the same (expensive) engine as the top teams. If you want to operate a team just inside the 107% rule, almost all your budget goes to the engines, while historical a 50/50% split between engine and chassis development is much healthier.

Even in the last turbo era there was still the DVF to go to

[wesley123]

The "issue" here is that the PU is something that is delivered as-is. It's the whole package, and that is something only manufacturers can deliver. To have a whole turbo engine+the whole ERS system is simply something that you can't deliver as a smaller engine manufacturer(ie. like cosworth).

It would probably be healthier if the systems were apart. that way, someone can deliver an engine alone, or a ERS package. it opens the road for manufacturers that might not have the expertise to do both.

[Tim.Wright]

The issue with F1, isn't the engines, it's all the cost saving/cap garbage. Let the teams spend what they want, when they want and everything else will work it's self out. F1 did just fine the first 40+ years when teams could spend whatever they wanted.

That formula nearly killed the sport. It was actually the teams themselves who were begging for cost reductions because unregulated it was simply bleeding the sport dry. It was so bad the teams all agreed, unanimously, to push through cost cutting measures such as the testing ban, cfd restrictions and wind tunnel restrictions. Get your head around that one... when was the last time the teams ever unanimously agreed on anything???

If you take away the current restrictions, costs will skyrocket and half the grid will fold. You only need to look at Lotus's recent problems and William's resistence to any cost increases for 2017 to know that most of the grid are already at their limits in terms of financial stability.

I'm interested to hear your logic as to how it would just "work itself out" when clearly it didn't work last time...

[sgth0mas]

I still think the prius engines are the problem. Go back to real racing engines.

Wasnt it renault that played a large part in driving the change to the V6t? Im glad they are getting what they deserve, but i also feel the change to these crap engines has hurt the sport a lot.

[horse]

It would probably be healthier if the systems were apart.

I think the idea of modularising the engine is a good one, but politically difficult as manufacturers want to build integrated power trains. I'm not sure how easy it would be to make a modular MGU-H either, for instance.

Still, I don't think a change in the engine design will address the immediate problem, which is that F1 is heading towards having just two viable engine suppliers each with works teams already.

The critical factor for a full and healthy F1 field is the minimum spending to field a team

I think reducing costs is important as more teams means more engines, but I also think they must do more to regulate the engine spec, so a new supplier could possibly match existing units. Obviously, an easy start would be to properly control the output of the MGU-H.