Formula One's Engine Crisis

[FoxHound]

The backdrop to this is pressure for manufacturers to reduce the costs of their pus.

That's the issue. Who bears the cost?
Do manufacturers bear the cost of supply, to subsidise units as they do, with FIA pressure to further reduce the cost to customer?
Will the FIA? The customer? Or the FOM?

Customers already bear a large burden, ruling them out.
The FIA have an economic clause in the engine regs allowing changes to happen for cost purposes (ie cheaper to produce), neatly absolving them of it.
Manufacturers(unsure of Ferrari) already supply at a loss, so would baulk at further subsidies.
Leaving the FOM and the pugnacious Bernie, which is not happening any time soon.

[ScottB]

The backdrop to this is pressure for manufacturers to reduce the costs of their pus.

That's the issue. Who bears the cost?
Do manufacturers bear the cost of supply, to subsidise units as they do, with FIA pressure to further reduce the cost to customer?
Will the FIA? The customer? Or the FOM?

Customers already bear a large burden, ruling them out.
The FIA have an economic clause in the engine regs allowing changes to happen for cost purposes (ie cheaper to produce), neatly absolving them of it.
Manufacturers(unsure of Ferrari) already supply at a loss, so would baulk at further subsidies.
Leaving the FOM and the pugnacious Bernie, which is not happening any time soon.

Does a difference of a few million per customer make much of a difference to the balance sheet of any of the engine manufacturers?

That doesn't mean to say they'd agree to it easily, but I can't imagine any of them would start cutting their budgets in response. Hell, between sponsorship and 'Bernie money' Ferrari's F1 program is basically paid for!


The ideal is probably that the teams got a much bigger share of the sports revenues, then it wouldn't matter, but Bernie and CVC aren't going to give in enough there, so presumably the ridiculous Indycar engine idea is intended to bully the manufacturers into accepting price cuts, lest they lose even more by having the results of all their expensive R&D rejected in favour of 'cheap' engines.

[NL_Fer]

What makes the price of a customer engine. Pure manufacturing alone? Then it would be 12M for 8 engines, 1,5M per engine, not enough? Ok if they also account some r&d costs, would that be fair?

[FoxHound]

That doesn't mean to say they'd agree to it easily, but I can't imagine any of them would start cutting their budgets in response. Hell, between sponsorship and 'Bernie money' Ferrari's F1 program is basically paid for!


The ideal is probably that the teams got a much bigger share of the sports revenues, then it wouldn't matter, but Bernie and CVC aren't going to give in enough there, so presumably the ridiculous Indycar engine idea is intended to bully the manufacturers into accepting price cuts, lest they lose even more by having the results of all their expensive R&D rejected in favour of 'cheap' engines.

Not that I'm disagreeing, but to what extent do manufacturers need to subsidise at the expense of the team?
The issue has glaring failings if distribution of cash is being used as the stick.
Firstly, Honda and Renault don't get anything other than brand exposure. Renault get money from supplying, but not enough to justify the cost of their engine programme, which could be a reason why they're looking at getting a team.

Secondly, Red Bull and McLaren get high income from the FOM and cannot be leveraged as they are not manufacturers.

The whole is issue of cheap supply needs to be balanced with cost cutting in other areas. Red Bull proposed a windtunnel ban, which was dismissed out of hand by a financially struggling Force India. The idea being that Force India would need to spend more to catch up using other expensive means such a upgradeds CFD and it's associated costs.

Chassis development has been called for on these pages for years, but even in stringent formula rules we are being told that the costs are still too high.
FRICS was outlawed, mass dampers wayyy before that and still we see high costs. Mercedes couldn't even get a supplier for some materials related to the EBD in 2011 due to exorbitant costs, the cost outweighed the benefit, hence burnt bodywork and less than ideal positioning of the gases.

So when everything is viewed as a whole rather than in isolation, you begin to see the issue is more than just the expense of engines.

[ScottB]

That doesn't mean to say they'd agree to it easily, but I can't imagine any of them would start cutting their budgets in response. Hell, between sponsorship and 'Bernie money' Ferrari's F1 program is basically paid for!


The ideal is probably that the teams got a much bigger share of the sports revenues, then it wouldn't matter, but Bernie and CVC aren't going to give in enough there, so presumably the ridiculous Indycar engine idea is intended to bully the manufacturers into accepting price cuts, lest they lose even more by having the results of all their expensive R&D rejected in favour of 'cheap' engines.

Not that I'm disagreeing, but to what extent do manufacturers need to subsidise at the expense of the team?
The issue has glaring failings if distribution of cash is being used as the stick.
Firstly, Honda and Renault don't get anything other than brand exposure. Renault get money from supplying, but not enough to justify the cost of their engine programme, which could be a reason why they're looking at getting a team.

Secondly, Red Bull and McLaren get high income from the FOM and cannot be leveraged as they are not manufacturers.

The whole is issue of cheap supply needs to be balanced with cost cutting in other areas. Red Bull proposed a windtunnel ban, which was dismissed out of hand by a financially struggling Force India. The idea being that Force India would need to spend more to catch up using other expensive means such a upgradeds CFD and it's associated costs.

Chassis development has been called for on these pages for years, but even in stringent formula rules we are being told that the costs are still too high.
FRICS was outlawed, mass dampers wayyy before that and still we see high costs. Mercedes couldn't even get a supplier for some materials related to the EBD in 2011 due to exorbitant costs, the cost outweighed the benefit, hence burnt bodywork and less than ideal positioning of the gases.

So when everything is viewed as a whole rather than in isolation, you begin to see the issue is more than just the expense of engines.

Restrict any one area, and the teams (well, the richer ones anyway) will just find something else to spend the savings on. A budget cap would stop that, but is likely unachievable, particularly with the big car companies, I'd imagine it would be a bit of a nightmare to try and police such a thing.

Cap the costs of supplied parts, if the manufacturers want to cut the expense of their engines, they can, if they are happy to plough in money and sell them at a loss, that's their choice. Having the smaller teams effectively run at a loss is not sustainable though, and shouldn't be the ones carrying the can.

[RicME85]

They spent longer in R&D than the others so that's going to inflate the figures.
I'm curious to know how much of the cost of supply is actual engine materials and production cost and how much is R&D related.

[01j]

At the risk of being flogged for mentioning NASCAR, they really do have good point on engines. Simple, normally aspirated engines of 6-8 cylinders, fuel injected, V configuration, about 3.0 liters. Hey, wasn't that a Cosworth from the 70s?

[Nickel]

At the risk of being flogged for mentioning NASCAR, they really do have good point on engines. Simple, normally aspirated engines of 6-8 cylinders, fuel injected, V configuration, about 3.0 liters. Hey, wasn't that a Cosworth from the 70s?

In fifty years, if we're still burning hydrocarbons, we're doomed. The times, they are a changing, they have to. Get over it.

See: WEC

[ScottB]

At the risk of being flogged for mentioning NASCAR, they really do have good point on engines. Simple, normally aspirated engines of 6-8 cylinders, fuel injected, V configuration, about 3.0 liters. Hey, wasn't that a Cosworth from the 70s?

Your conclusion is exactly the problem; outdated technology. If F1 wants to be seen as the pinnacle of motorsport, copying NASCAR or Indycar is not the answer.

Plus the car manufacturers want the hybrid turbos as that technology starts to become more prevalent on the road, so there's both R&D benefits, and improving the image of them as they start appearing in road going sports cars. A switch back to simple, bigger V8s would only damage the sport long term.

[Just_a_fan]

Perhaps there is a way for the manufacturers to highlight the costs of development: have two prices for a customer engine. One "low" price gets you a season's supply of the Australia-spec motor. The higher price gets you a development package. The teams can then choose the option they can afford. If they find they have more budget than they expected that then they can upgrade their package - assuming the manufacturer can supply the requisite number of better units.

[Jolle]

I don't get the "everybody got to have a 2016 spec engine in 2016" rule. It's a waste of money and recourses. Up to the engine freeze of the V8 2.4's there has been different specs of engines all around the field. You get what you pay for or what you can afford (and make choices in that matter). If i was Manor, i would gladly pay less for a older spec engine.
For instance: 25 mln for a 2016 spec, 18 mln for a 2015 and 12 for a 2014 spec.
Even a B-spec engine which is 10kg heavier and 50hp less sound cost half from that of the latest spec.

[graham.reeds]

How can WEC produce a multitude of engines and unlimited spending but F1 can't? You don't hear them moaning about how much it is costing them and they aren't selling the engines to customers to defray the costs.

I find it hard to think engines cost €15m but I can imagine that the R&D costs that have gone into them would cost more (same way my suit has cost £500 per wear, the next time will be £333 per wear).

If there was a fixed price for the engines in the first place we would have this issue. Even if the manufacturers knew the engines were going to be fixed at the price of a bag of jelly beans they still would of spent the same because they need to be better than the other manufacturers.

F1 is badly managed this is just a symptom of that. Perpetual crisis.

[FW17]

Toyota will run a petrol powered turbo engine and also switch from a super-capacitor to a battery energy-storage system.

"In early October we had the engine running on the dyno, as well the new Hybrid system which will be connected to the new engine, so we are happy to be much better prepared for 2016,

So I wonder why F1 engine takes 3 years while the equally complicated fuel limited LMP engine takes just a year?

[Thunder]

DM at his best. Basically a big middle Finger to Renault and Honda and telling Merc and Ferrari to be scared and "As we know you can't buy courage or sporting spirit."

That Guy is something else.....

http://www.skysports.com/f1/news/12475/ ... es-in-2016
http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/mates ... ve-engine/
http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121633

[zeph]

I hope RedBull withdraws. Someone will buy the teams, and everything will continue as before, minus Mateschitz and Marko.

That would actually be an improvement, methinks.