What makes F1 engines more complex and expensive than a similar output roadcar engine?

[trishnafile5]

There are a few cars which put out Formula one numbers in terms of horsepower, and also incorporate a hybrid system. What exactly makes Formula One engines more expensive to develop and make? Is it the technology, or just that there is no economy of scale to absorb the costs of developing an engine?

[Maritimer]

Are they actually more expensive as a whole compared to road engines though? Cost per unit is obviously higher since they make less than 50 a year I'm assuming, but road engines get lots of development time and money as well.

I'd say its economies of scale as well as the extra effort that goes into finding the tiny gains all over the engine, chasing decimals for tolerances and such.

[Just_a_fan]

I think it's the restrictions placed on the engine that make it expensive. In a road car, they can whack big radiators on the car, the engine bay can be nice and big and well cooled, there are lots of well known and used techniques to improve performance that aren't allowed in F1 - VVT, for example.

Oh, and those horsepower figures in road cars aren't usually attained from a 1.6 litre V6, they're usually multiples of that capacity with two (or more) turbos.

[CMSMJ1]

There is also the weight element. It is not cheap to produce the power and efficiency in a (relatively) lightweight unit.

e.g - the Veyron engine - W16 - it weighs 700KG!!

That would not be any use for F1 even with the huge power output..it is an anchor

[rscsr]

There are a few cars which put out Formula one numbers in terms of horsepower, and also incorporate a hybrid system. What exactly makes Formula One engines more expensive to develop and make? Is it the technology, or just that there is no economy of scale to absorb the costs of developing an engine?

There is no inherent cost to develop something. You can always optimise more. Test more. Try more things. Do better quality checks. So it is not a matter of cost, but how much money you got.
And since F1 has such a huge following it has a tremendous marketing value, which in turn is going to increase your budget.
I think Toto said something along the lines, that they get 1.5B USD in marketing value from their last year in F1. So a total budget of 500M USD is a very good investment. And therefore they can throw more money at their development.

[Rodak]

There is also the weight element. It is not cheap to produce the power and efficiency in a (relatively) lightweight unit

Except that a minimum engine weight is defined, as is the c.g. and crank hdight - the engines could be made much lighter if it were allowed.

[Big Tea]

Also fuel flow and energy deployment. To have an equivalent MPG a road car could be heard drinking it

looking back to the old non hybrid engine it was said to be close to 1000hp/ltr in qualli

[Ringleheim]

Materials, not to mention TIME/LABOR which is the single biggest cost that goes into any manufactured thing.

This is why you can buy quality parts for a Fender Stratocaster costing less than $1,000 US and, taking your time and lovingly tending to every step of assembly, end up with something at least as good as what is sold for $4,500 US from the Fender Custom Shop.

You can take as long as you like to make your own guitar; Fender can't.

It's all about time/costs of labor.

[TNTHead]

And let's not forget the degree of complexity is quite a lot higher: it's a highly efficient ICE combined with hybrid technology with dual harvesting (kinetic and heat energy to electricity) coupled with a load of software for optimisations unparalleled in a road car (yet).

[Big Tea]

Materials, not to mention TIME/LABOR which is the single biggest cost that goes into any manufactured thing.

This is why you can buy quality parts for a Fender Stratocaster costing less than $1,000 US and, taking your time and lovingly tending to every step of assembly, end up with something at least as good as what is sold for $4,500 US from the Fender Custom Shop.

You can take as long as you like to make your own guitar; Fender can't.

It's all about time/costs of labor.

Also the amount of time and effort ensuring and proving it fits 'EXACTLY' to the very tight limits supplied. And it can not be done with a dremmel

[henry]

The duty cycle for F1 is considerably higher than for a road car, no matter how hyper. The F1 engine has to be designed to run at 75% of their max output whilst being marginally cooled and experiencing very high G forces in all planes. And the max output is at the peak of what’s possible from their capacity. And they’re very compact. Making miniature things is always expensive.

[Greg Locock]

Kinda falls down when you realise the standard development test for a new engine design is to hit 100 hours at full power without failure. Then you go on to develop the rest of the engine, in the knowledge that you are dealing with a robust platform.

[henry]

Kinda falls down when you realise the standard development test for a new engine design is to hit 100 hours at full power without failure. Then you go on to develop the rest of the engine, in the knowledge that you are dealing with a robust platform.

Fair enough.

Do they apply that to the 1000hp motors the OP mentioned? I don’t know if they’re expected to meet the sort of life requirements of a standard production motor. But when I think about it 100 hours at autobahn speeds, at least as they used to be, is not much mileage in relation to life expectancy of a modern vehicle.

[Greg Locock]

I'm talking about OEM engines, so the Veyron, yes.

Road cars spend very little time at full power, many never get near it. I think in a million seconds of driver data I interrogated, there was 70 seconds at full power. Whereas in a durability test we have a very heavy trailer with a huge frontal area that is designed to force the car to run WOT in 3rd gear (on a 4 speed box), as a fast stress test on the cooling system and driveline.

[JordanMugen]

There are a few cars which put out Formula one numbers in terms of horsepower, and also incorporate a hybrid system. What exactly makes Formula One engines more expensive to develop and make? Is it the technology, or just that there is no economy of scale to absorb the costs of developing an engine?

I think you could probably go to AER or Judd with "just" 15m GBP (inclusive for R+D and the actual supply) and ask them to deliver you a Formula One 1.6 hybrid power unit and they could probably deliver it.

You'll probably be 300+hp down on the others (i.e., hopelessly uncompetitive), but you would have a (probably very unreliable) power unit that complies to Formula One regulations which you could put in your car and be race legal

Thoughts?

And let's not forget the degree of complexity is quite a lot higher: it's a highly efficient ICE

If you are happy to be 300hp down and way off the pace, you don't need to reach 50% efficiency!

You only need to achieve those lofty goals if you actually want to be competitive.

What exactly makes Formula One engines more expensive to develop and make?

I'm not so sure does that it does cost less to develop a road car engine than a F1 engine. Costs of $400-700 million seem to be bandied about for a new road car engine family design including all the tooling and so on. Obviously the unit cost of the F1 power unit is a lot more, but that's not unremarkable.