Formula One's Engine Crisis

[Facts Only]

Frank is the longest privateer currently competing, but he's a businessman also. If Williams performance didn't turn around with the Mercedes PU, he probably closed the doors also.

Dont be so ridiculous, thats just utter rubbish based on nothing but you trying to make a point.

[FoxHound]

Manufacturers don't decide who's competitive any more than aero engineers.
Each manufacturer has the same opportunity as it's opponent to get the job done. And you cannot have a sole supplier, lest it become a spec series.

Therefore, and using a teeny bit of foresight, you'd understand there will be discrepancies in performance from supplier to supplier.
Just as there always has been.

We can look over the years at teams who have suffered due to not having the best engine. Ferrari, McLaren, Williams and Mercedes all suffered extended periods of uncompetitiveness due to engines. In some cases, the best part of a decade.

So to isolate this as an issue only affecting independents is once again, plain wrong.

[Andres125sx]

Phil, I must admit you have a point there

But I still think most of you are being too alarmist. IMO F1 only need to free up development so manufacturers can match Mercedes perfomance faster. All your argument start from the point of Mercedes dominating the grid like if that will be the rule of thumb forever, but it will be reduced season by season, and with free development the process would be much faster, what is a must, that´s true.

That should be the target, not modifying the sport again, they (FIA, FOM...) should have learnt at this point that big changes always end up with some team dominating. To stop Mercedes domination another big change cannot be the solution, but the other way around, keep some rule stability and allow the teams and manufacturers do their job with free development.

That´s the only way to stop domination, because the problem is not Mercedes domination, the problem is any team´s domination and that will continue while they keep changing the rules each few years

[Phil]

I guess we are talking about slightly different points. I agree that freeing up development is required - it's the only way to give those behind a chance of closing the gap. I also hope that the design choices that Ferrari, Renault and Honda chose are good enough to reach parity - or that they realize it soon enough to make required changes. As I said earlier - diminishing returns is inevitable if the regulations stay unchanged. But it's not set in stone how quick diminishing returns set in - that depends on the scope of available development and it also depends on how much potential there is still left in these engines. Time will tell.

We do need to realize though that freeing up development restrictions equals higher costs. And with Ferrari exercising its veto to block a maximum price cap for engines, it puts the smaller teams at risk that they might not be able to afford these engines without giving more power to their suppliers by having to do certain deals for cheaper engines etc.

I'm also concerned about the impact of reaching parity has on the teams that don't actively manufacture engines. The longer it takes, the worse it is for them. My posts are also more in regards to the impact these engines have had on who dictates what. I stand firm that engine manufacturers should not have the dictating power they have - the explicit ability to dictate who they choose to supply with competitive engines, who they supply with B-spec engines (which seem to be allowed for next year) and who they refuse to supply. This is how monopolies and domination is formed - by taking a form of control in influencing who can compete and who can't.

As I said, I find it worrying for example that currently only Mercedes and Ferrari can use the latest spec engines. While Williams hasn't officially complained, nor has Force-India, I can only assume that they too would have an interest to have the best possible PUs to enhance their competitive advantage over the teams they are in close contention with. With next year seeing rule changes that enable B-spec engines, what's to stop Mercedes i.e. refusing to supply Williams with the higher spec engines if they are suddenly deemed too competitive? Not saying they will - not publicly nor do they have any reason to; I see no reason that Williams will be more competitive than they have. It's still a question of principle.

It also raises the question again in regards to RedBull and their dilemma of not finding competitive engines. It will likely turn out that they will leave the sport or they will be forced to run on B-spec engines, handicapping them to a degree that they will not be a risk to the factory-team. Is this right? Not in my eyes.

Now before this talk hits rock bottom again; I don't blame the manufacturers for doing what anyone in their shoes would - I blame the sport as a whole for letting it come this far and IMO it is the sport that will need to come in and fix it. Which is what the FIA & Bernie are doing, even if the latter is looking out for his own interests in this powerstruggle, with the proposition of bringing new engines as a viable cheaper but competitive alternative for 2017. It's a logical consequence and the next chess piece in a power struggle between taking power from the manufacturers back to the rulers of the sport.

If Mercedes, Ferrari, even Honda would be happy to supply RedBull with their latest, best PUs - there would be no reason for Bernie and the FIA to come and propose new engines - other than perhaps on the basis of lowering costs for the smaller teams.

[dans79]

Which is what the FIA & Bernie are doing, even if the latter is looking out for his own interests in this powerstruggle, with the proposition of bringing new engines as a viable cheaper but competitive alternative for 2017. It's a logical consequence and the next chess piece in a power struggle between taking power from the manufacturers back to the rulers of the sport.

They aren't going to be competitive, they will always be at-least a step behind, they will be cheaper though. Jean Todt will not allow them to be be better, as he was a big proponent of the hybrids , isn't dumb enough to piss off all the manufactures at once, and he doesn't get along very well with Bernie anyway.

If Mercedes, Ferrari, even Honda would be happy to supply RedBull with their latest, best PUs - there would be no reason for Bernie and the FIA to come and propose new engines - other than perhaps on the basis of lowering costs for the smaller teams.

Again, RBR's problem is their own creation. They made their bed, and now they are whining 24/7/365 because they don't want to lay in it. It's a free market, and burning bridges between you and everyone around you is never a good idea.

[Phil]

....which is why I see the proposed alternative engines more as a single chess piece in the bigger picture. The goal is to get to a maximum price cap for engines. If you have that, and assuming this doesn't provoke any cartel like investigation, the manufacturers would then be free to spend as much as they want on any development race, it will not impact the smaller teams and force them into bankruptcy.

As for "RBR's problem is their own creation", dans - I'll say it again; if the problem can be applied to other teams on the grid, that simply are less vocal for very obvious reasons, it isn't a solely a problem of "RBR's own creation" - which is why my points have always included and argued on behalf of all customer teams reliant on their suppliers.

[dans79]

....which is why I see the proposed alternative engines more as a single chess piece in the bigger picture. The goal is to get to a maximum price cap for engines. If you have that, and assuming this doesn't provoke any cartel like investigation, the manufacturers would then be free to spend as much as they want on any development race, it will not impact the smaller teams and force them into bankruptcy.

It's never going to happen, as it's not in F1's DNA. People trying to force F1 into Egalitarianism is whats killing F1, because it's slowly but surely turning F1 into a spec series.

You used to be able to show up and only run a handful of races a year if you meet the regulations. You used to be able to run only one car if you wanted. You used to be able to buy anything from a few parts to an entice car if you wanted. at one point F1 had two completely different engine regulations at the same time. It was cheap and no one had a problem with it.

[alexx_88]

Show of hands for anyone who thinks RB's problems have nothing to do with them being very powerful in building cars and everything to do with the fact that they complained about Renault.

To the people who thinksRB's behavior is at fault for not being able to get engines: how would you explain the fact that Ferrari were more than willing to supply 2015 PUs, but not the new spec?

[dans79]

Show of hands for anyone who thinks RB's problems have nothing to do with them being very powerful in building cars and everything to do with the fact that they complained about Renault.

I'd be more willing to accept that as as several have suggested, from Merc's side it's more about payback for Horner's actions during the 2013 tire test trial. As they say, payback is a bitc..........

[dans79]

This is a really interesting read, related to this topic.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121538

[Andres125sx]

Maybe more teams are not happy with this, but it´s only RBR who complains for a simple reason, they´re the only team aiming for championships with no engine manufacturer deal.

Williams, FI, etc. would prefer A-spec engines, obviously, but their target is not fighting for titles, they know they´re on a different league so they´re fine with B-spec engines while their real competitors (the rest of midfielders) also have B-spec engines. But RBR tries to compete with works teams, without the investment and development involved when you´re a work team That´s the reason they´re vocal while the rest don´t.

If you want to compete with works teams, you can´t seriously expect one of those works team will provide you his best engine so you can beat them. McLaren got it and did the necessary effort to solve it, and we all know it was a big effort.

RBR should take note and do the same, quit, or shut up

[ClarkBT11]

Bernie Ecclestone's Formula One Management [FOM] - agreed to set "a maximum price for engine and gearbox for client teams in the last Strategy Group meeting".

However, Ferrari then exercised its right to veto any changes to F1 regulations, something which is part of its bilateral agreement with Ecclestone. In doing so, Ferrari was able to block the cost capping measures.

As a result, the FIA says it will investigate the possibility of allowing a cheaper power unit to be supplied by an independent manufacturer from 2017 onwards, a move which was reported earlier in the US Grand Prix weekend. Following its consultation phase, a tender is likely to be opened up.

The FIA's statement in full reads:

"The FIA has studied cost reduction measures for teams participating in the FIA Formula 1 World Championship which were not conclusive, including:

- a global cost ceiling

- a reduction in costs via technical and sporting regulations

- an increased standardisation for parts

"The FIA, in agreement with FOM, suggested the principle of setting a maximum price for engine and gearbox for client teams at the last Strategy Group meeting.

"These measures were put to the vote and adopted with a large majority.
"However, Ferrari SpA decided to go against this and exercise the right of veto long recognised under agreements governing F1.

"In the interest of the Championship, the FIA has decided not to legally challenge Ferrari SpA’s use of its right of veto.

"Therefore the FIA will initiate a consultation with all stakeholders regarding the possible introduction of a client engine, which will be available as of 2017. Following this consultation a call for tenders for this client engine, the cost of which would be much lower than the current power unit, could be undertaken.

"Supported by FOM, the FIA will continue in its efforts to ensure the sustained long-term development of the Championship and look for solutions enabling it to achieve this. It asks all of the teams to make a positive contribution to the success of this approach through proposals and initiatives in the interest of the Championship and its continuation over the long term."

http://en.f1i.com/news/30871-fia-set-to ... t-cap.html

[ScottB]

Maybe more teams are not happy with this, but it´s only RBR who complains for a simple reason, they´re the only team aiming for championships with no engine manufacturer deal.

Williams, FI, etc. would prefer A-spec engines, obviously, but their target is not fighting for titles, they know they´re on a different league so they´re fine with B-spec engines while their real competitors (the rest of midfielders) also have B-spec engines. But RBR tries to compete with works teams, without the investment and development involved when you´re a work team That´s the reason they´re vocal while the rest don´t.

If you want to compete with works teams, you can´t seriously expect one of those works team will provide you his best engine so you can beat them. McLaren got it and did the necessary effort to solve it, and we all know it was a big effort.

RBR should take note and do the same, quit, or shut up

Had they continued to work with their engine partner, as basically a works team, in a constructive manner, there'd be no issue to debate.

Red Bull's very public complaints about Renault has effectively alienated (or given an easy excuse to) the engine manufacturers. The rules allow for the supply of older engines, and despite their success, RBR have no right to demand anything from any of them.

You raise McLaren as an example, who will likely spend a good few seasons building towards challenging again, tough, but that's how it goes. Red Bull's argument seems to be based around a belief that they belong at the front, and any time spent away from there is unacceptable. Frankly this is a ridiculous position to be in, as any number of rule changes in future could shake up the order; will RBR threaten to leave if the 2017 regs see them drop back? Basically, if that's their true position, they should go, as sooner or later they will find themselves uncompetitive, whether through engine, aero or something else.

[FoxHound]

Show of hands for anyone who thinks RB's problems have nothing to do with them being very powerful in building cars and everything to do with the fact that they complained about Renault.

To the people who thinksRB's behavior is at fault for not being able to get engines: how would you explain the fact that Ferrari were more than willing to supply 2015 PUs, but not the new spec?

Out of courtesy and from there being a ready supply, in much the same way that Ferrari supplied Manor with 2014 engines.

As for a show of Hands, it's moot.
The history of F1 has never seen an independent team publicly humiliate their partners, ditch said supplier, with no replacement in place to replace their them, and then blame the Formula, the competition, and "fear" for not having an engine. Not just any engine, they demand a "competitive" unit.

It is unprecedented in the history of F1.

[FoxHound]

- which is why my points have always included and argued on behalf of all customer teams reliant on their suppliers.

Which has always been the case since year zero.