Formula One's Engine Crisis

[Andres125sx]

if a company wants to stay in business it finds a way to cut costs , or make more money.

if only it would be that simple....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can-Am

1974 was the last year for the original Can-Am championship. Spiraling costs, a recession in North America following the oil crisis, and dwindling support and interest led to the series being cancelled and the last scheduled race of the 1974 season not being run

Looks like they were not able to stay in business cutting costs or making more money...

We will never know, but probably cost cap saved F1 from dissapearing during recesion as it happened to Can-Am

[KeiKo403]

I think the main problem here is that as Red Bull correctly/incorrectly slated Renault for the PU that has made Renault the last choice for a PU for any team.

Now Renault would have to take on the cost of building a chassis and PU (if it buys Lotus) but yet it can't afford to develop the engine on it own. For me Red Bull have done F1 a massive dis-service. In a lot of Team Pric press conferences we hear them go on about how bad the media is for slating the sport but Red Bull openly slate their own suppliers!

Who'd want to join a sport where the threat of not being good out of the blocks equals you getting bad PR, bad PR means lack of sponsers, lack of sponsers = lack of money, lack of money = poor pay drivers, poor pay drivers = DNF's....and so it goes.

That's what I see as 1 of many problems in modern F1. Who know's how to fix that though?

[graham.reeds]

Why didn't they do what the le mans series did for engines? It would be like the eighties with I4t, V10, etc.

The Le Mans is fuel limited as well.

I could run a Merc engine at Le Mans but not a Porsche engine in F1. Why not?

If you ran the Merc PU at Le Mans it would more than likely be completely noncompetitive.

Why do you think it would be uncompetitive?

Would it last the 24H? Maybe. Competitive? Definitely.

[alexx_88]

KeiKo403, surely you don't believe that Renault is being dropped by customers because of what RedBull said. It's for everyone to see that, for the most expensive PU of 2014, they are now behind both Ferrari and Mercedes. Why would you choose them, with or without what RB said?

Opening up development on all fronts would probably get F1 bust. As long as the avenues of development are very limited, pouring OEM money into the project is only set to bring you a very slight pace improvement. That gives a fighting chance for the smaller teams to get closer to the front. Remove all limitations and you'll separate F1 into tiers, almost like WEC. You'd have the top OEMs 2s ahead of everyone, then the midfield and then, another couple of seconds behind, the hopeless teams. That, imo, would be wrong. Good racing happens when driver skill can play a part, when luck is involved, as that creates drama, when the underdog can produce a surprise result, not when money is poured without limit.

[bhall II]

Ten teams in 2015 are set to spend what 11 teams spent in 2008 because PU are completely new with unknown technology and new R&D is needed, not because of restrictions as you said. Cost increase has nothing to do with restrictions, but with the need to develop completely new PUs.

Look at the big picture. Only automakers interested in marketing the technology have a "need" to develop current power units. The privateers just need horsepower, and 770bhp is available right now for less than $25,000.

Yes, that's an exaggerated example. But, it underscores my point that flexibility allows teams to pursue avenues of performance that more closely align with their own needs and expertise.

Put another way: Williams, Sauber, Force India, and Manor will never see a return on any powertrain investments that exceed the cost of the old V8s. Instead, they've essentially been asked to partially subsidize the advertising budgets of the automakers that will see a return on those investments.

[SectorOne]

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.

It´s funny to see the news outlets having taken the OP´s quote and simply ran with it to get some hits on their website.
Class A journalism as always in Formula 1.

[dans79]

if only it would be that simple....

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Can-Am

1974 was the last year for the original Can-Am championship. Spiraling costs, a recession in North America following the oil crisis, and dwindling support and interest led to the series being cancelled and the last scheduled race of the 1974 season not being run

That's some revisionist garbage, that literally got almost nothing correct. Can-Am went downhill for several reasons.

1. Despite the name, it was more European racing than North American, look at the cars. McLeren, Porshe, Lola, Ferrari, Alfa
2. A large portion of the American public turned off with regards to sports cars, because of the new safety standards, and ever tightening emission standards. Look at what happened to the Mustang, between 70 & 74, makes me want to vomit.
3. Nascar was catching on, and had a lot better TV coverage, and raced a lot more frequently.
4. Drag racing was popular in the 70's do to the abundance of cheap 60's muscle cars that could be easily upgraded.


Simply put, cost cutting measures will never work in an open formula series. What they really do is raise the cost of entry, and thus squeeze out the little guys.

[Andres125sx]

cost cutting measures will never work in an open formula series. What they really do is raise the cost of entry, and thus squeeze out the little guys.

Can you elaborate this? I fail to see any logic in that statement

[Andres125sx]

Ten teams in 2015 are set to spend what 11 teams spent in 2008 because PU are completely new with unknown technology and new R&D is needed, not because of restrictions as you said. Cost increase has nothing to do with restrictions, but with the need to develop completely new PUs.

Look at the big picture. Only automakers interested in marketing the technology have a "need" to develop current power units. The privateers just need horsepower, and 770bhp is available right now for less than $25,000.

What about the sport itself?

I get what you say and agree, but there´re more things to consider. F1 has always been about teams, engineers and development. Frozen engines on the suposed pinnacle of motorsport was the most antagonistic thing I´ve ever seen on any motorsport. Allowing development was a must. As it was using latest technology in engine department, something F1 forgot some time ago. With new PUs they solved both problems, some development is allowed, and technology is again the latest you can find on any other motorsport (not completely true, but at least today it´s debatable, oposite to frozen V8 era when it was 7 years old technology), even if small teams have serious problems to keep up it was a must. This is F1

Main problem is the recesion, with many teams with economic problems it was not the best moment to do such a big change, but considering all the rest, IMHO, it was a must.

Yes, that's an exaggerated example. But, it underscores my point that flexibility allows teams to pursue avenues of performance that more closely align with their own needs and expertise.

Put another way: Williams, Sauber, Force India, and Manor will never see a return on any powertrain investments that exceed the cost of the old V8s. Instead, they've essentially been asked to partially subsidize the advertising budgets of the automakers that will see a return on those investments.

Because today they´re forced to use new engines. Wait two seasons and situation will return to normality. Those who want to compete for the championship will build their own PU investing all they want, while small teams will be able to buy older spec PUs and compete in the midfield.

That´s not posible today because if you buy past season PU you get Manor perfomance, at least 2-3 seconds slower laptimes, but once PU manufacturers solve their maturity problems, perfomance will get closer between them.

Then midfielders will be able to use older spec PUs investing a lot less, and still get much better perfomance (refered to the fastest car) than today. As it has always been, but allowing develpment and using latest technology, as it should have always been

[dans79]

cost cutting measures will never work in an open formula series. What they really do is raise the cost of entry, and thus squeeze out the little guys.

Can you elaborate this? I fail to see any logic in that statement

1. In season testing was done away with to limit costs.
2. requiring engines & transmissions to last multiple races (v8 era) was supposed to limit costs because you wouldn't need to buy as many.
3. equalizing the engines (v8 era) was supposed to lower cost, because development was severely limited.
3. freezing the engines during the season (v6 era) was supposed to lower costs, because it was supposed to prevent a development arms race.

In order to overcome the road blocks above the top teams/manufactures did the following.

1. spent vast sums of money on simulators, super computers, & wind tunnels.
2. The engine manufacture spent fast sums of money on R&D to come up with engines that last longer than the old throw away motors, but don't make any more power, and cost a astronomically more per unit lot more.


lets say a wind tunnel costs 20 million to build. None of the small teams have that kind of operating capital, so they are immediately handicapped because they will never be able to get a tunnel. Some of the mid size teams can afford it, but might not see any benefit from it for well over a year, so that hinders them as well.

Now consider what it was like when unlimited testing was still allowed. A small team could come up with a new front wing design that cost 200K to develop and build, spend another 25k to rent a track and test it. If it worked they could race it and move up the standings and get more prize money, or attract a new sponsor (more money), or entice a better driver/engineer to join the team etc etc.

All the cost cutting measures did was turn a lot of little individual bills spread out over time, into a few really large bills. It's easier/safer for a small team to make a lot of small cheap improvements, vs betting the farm on one or 2 really big ones.

[ScottB]

I like the new engines myself, and the sports failure to fully market the new technology is just one of the problems, anyway, at danger of going off course...

I'd cap the cost of the engines as far as the teams pay, I'd retain the 'token' system, but would allocate tokens based on the strength of the powertrain, so for next year, Mercedes would have the least tokens to use, Honda would have the most. Those allowing continued development, albeit restricting it to an extent, but without tying the hands of any manufacturer that had messed up. The current Honda situation isn't good for the sport, or likely to attract new manufacturers.

As for Red Bull and Renault, well, RBR are reaping what they've sown, years of continually complaining about Renault in public was always going to come home to roost. It's no wonder no new manufacturer is lining up to supply them with that evidence around.

[mrluke]

The whole logic between regulation restrictions and cost cutting is fundamentally flawed.

Say for argument you are running Mclaren and you have a £500m budget for the years racing.

You have undertaken an analysis which says you can save 2 seconds laptime from spending the full £500m. The analysis points out that if you spend £350m you can achieve a 1.8 second reduction.

Do you spend the £350m as its best bang for your buck or do you spend the £500m because you have it available and it gives the most gain?

----

All that strict regulation does is to protect the status quo. It avoids the situation where a small team can come up with a good idea that performs better than a well funded team.

The PUs are a great example they are so complicated and expensive to develop due to regulation that only two companies in the world are able to manage it. Take the regulation away and any aftermarket tuner can provide a 1,000bhp engine. The regulation effectively stops RBR developing their own powertrain and ensures that they will have to pay one of the manufacturers that wrote the rules a subscription fee if they want to continue to compete.

If regulations save money then F1 should be at the lowest cost to compete ever in its whole history. I would suggest that the opposite is true.

[sgth0mas]

The only absolute way to control costs is with a cost cap. Just like in the NFL.

[horse]

The PUs are a great example they are so complicated and expensive to develop due to regulation that only two companies in the world are able to manage it. Take the regulation away and any aftermarket tuner can provide a 1,000bhp engine.

I'm afraid I don't buy this. Pandora's box is open and you will not beat the V6 hybrid with any other engine and the amount of fuel it needs to win a race. Even if you had more fuel, you would be at a weight disadvantage for the whole race. Credit where credit is due, the W06 is the fastest car almost as fast as any car of this non-refuelling era of F1.

Minor edit....

[ME4ME]

Credit where credit is due, the W06 is the fastest car in this non-refuelling era of F1.

I'm not a stat guy, but just going by two Grand Prix that came to mind: SPA and Barcelona, both race times were quicker in 2010 than they were in 2015. Even Pastor Maldonado's 2012 time at Barcelona was quicker than Rosbergs winning time this year.