Alternative engine configuration

[turbof1]

Yes, the current dominator - Mercedes - might not be happy, but at least 2 from those 4 engine makers are not winning and are far away from even being close to. They'd trade an alternative engine that's capable of winning and increasing their success with their own not working engines in a heartbeat. Look at Renault; They're in such a crisis, we're still not sure yet if they'll be around next year. Because the exposure they are getting with the engine is namely negative and the money they are investing isn't paying off. It's not helping them better their image nor is it helping them sell more cars. And at this point, it's not a given that the money they are going to have to invest will yield any reward, or indeed if they can close that gap - if its in their ability to. Honda might find themselves in a similar spot if 2016 turns out the same as 2015. Ferrari is a toss up; They've been in F1 long enough to understand why they are in here and it certainly hasn't got anything to do with hybrid engines they're not using to promote their sports-cars anyway. And even if they are like Mercedes do, people are not actually stupid enough to think they are buying Mercedes A class with actual F1 engines in there.

The current manufacturers are not allowed to built these alternative engines. I do not think they will accept as a manufacturer running a PU not made by themselves. Doing so would neither help them as they effectively tell the world "our PUs are shittier then the alternative engine, so we run the alternative engine not made by us. Please do not buy our cars unless it does not have our engine."

It's a baseline concept: you want to win, and you want to able to tell the world you did it with your own expertise. Even Red Bull is no exception to that; they do not built their own engines, but it never was their expertise to begin with.

[Phil]

Sorry turbo, I don't agree. What you are saying is that most people right now are thinking "Please do not buy Renaults, evidently the Renault PU is crap". Because people are smart enough to differentiate that the engine is but one component and there's a lot more to buying cars. It's an image thing. As I said, PR divisions will always spin it the way they can, as long as it enables them to sell more. It matters zilch which engine is in the back. If the engine is from the brand, great - they'll use it. If it isn't, they'll find something else, just like i.e. McLaren has been doing forever despite not building their own engines for their F1 cars.

Yes, it's nice if you have a formula where the engine have some road relevance and the R&D can be shared across markets. That was the whole point in bringing this new formula in the first place. But for most of these car manufacturers, 'winning' is more important and the baseline to promote your brand. There's lots of DNA in a Formula 1 car to make it more than the engine.

On a different note, McLaren not developing their own engine in F1 for like forever and it never stopped them selling some of the most exciting sports cars the market has ever seen; and among one, the F1, didn't even have a McLaren engine.

Yes, I'm not disputing they [the car manufacturers] would not be happy. Evidently, Mercedes above all won't be happy. But 2 of the 4 engine manufacturers who are struggling... well, publicly they won't be happy (anything other than would show weakness), but behind the scenes... I don't know. They're not really benefiting much with the negative publicity. And there can only be one winner, so it inevitable that some teams (the front runners) will benefit more on promoting than the others.

Anyway, this talk is pretty much redundant. I've never said it's a win/win situation. Every road leads to certain draw backs. I was merely pointing out that there is absolutely nothing stopping a works-team using the alternative engine if they deem that is their best chance of winning. In case of Mercedes, if they really do have the best aero, using the 'winning' engine is a no-brainer. For Renault, who knows - it might even be a no-brainer if they really lack the expertise to rival Mercedes and at some point deem they will never catch up. I certainly see those signs - as it's not at all clear how long Renault will stay in F1 and at what cost and that has a lot to do with how they are performing now, how much they think they need to invest and catch up and how likely catching up is.

[turbof1]

Sorry turbo, I don't agree.

No need to apology. Everybody is entitled to their own opinion, as long as it is rational and reasonable. You are correct to state that I have dumbed it a bit down there, although when it comes down to company images you usually do not want to get too deep into psychology and loose your way in it.

I think the best thing that can happen is that the alternative engine never happens. You'll always face a situation with one or more parties never happy or even leaving the sport. Nobody is going to use the alternative engine if it does not beat atleast the weakest PU, and if it beats the weakest PU you'll have a massive fall out from that manufacturer who spent dozens of millions on research and development.

I don't like politics in F1.

[wuzak]

On a different note, McLaren not developing their own engine in F1 for like forever and it never stopped them selling some of the most exciting sports cars the market has ever seen; and among one, the F1, didn't even have a McLaren engine.

McLaren haven't really developed any of their road car engines. It was contracted to Ricardo.

[wuzak]

Of the 4 manufacturers, two have teams, one may have a team next season, and the last does not have ambitions for that any time soon.

If a manufacturer were willing to have a no-brand engine in their own chassis, why would they ever bother building an engine for customers only - as Renault has done for the past few seasons, and Honda are doing now?

The answer is they wouldn't. And yet F1's history has been dominated by manufacturer or manufacturer sponsored engines. Cosworth, for example, has only ever been successful when sponsored/owned by Ford.

There is one certainty in F1 - Ferrari will never accept an engine not of their own making (the one exception was the Lancia/Ferrari D50, and Ferrari took more than just the engine).

I very much doubt Mercedes would either. They would pull up stumps, and sell the team.

I also very much doubt that Renault or Honda would put their name to the no-name lump either. It would be admitting defeat as much as pulling out would, and the latter is more likely to happen. Renault said they would only say if these hybrid rules were adopted, Honda only joined because of these hybrid rules. They are not going to badge a dinosaur engine made by a third party.

So that leaves Ferrari as the only manufacturer. If they have no chance of winning against the alternate engine, then they too would pull out.

And F1 will be pretty much dead.

[Phil]

If a manufacturer were willing to have a no-brand engine in their own chassis, why would they ever bother building an engine for customers only - as Renault has done for the past few seasons, and Honda are doing now?

The problem is; They all want customers to spread the costs, but they want to cherry-pick them. Yes to supplying back-markers, midfielders that can't rival you, teams so desperate and dependent on having an engine (because they can't build them themselves) that they potentially even become loyal companions as a means of voting power. But to supply a top performing team that might rival the own team that would even have the means to pay more for those engines? Unthinkable. Of course no one wants that.

It's all a paradox, one you can't even blame them for. They are just being logical, predictable even.

If a manufacturer were willing to have a no-brand engine in their own chassis, why would they ever bother building an engine for customers only - as Renault has done for the past few seasons, and Honda are doing now?

You make it sound as if manufacturers are in F1 for mere entertainment or boredom. It's logical why they are in F1, I named the reasons above. They've been in the sport as engine suppliers (those that were mere suppliers) because it's 1.) exposure 2.) made business sense. That applies to pretty much all of them btw. Those two points are closely tied with each other. Business sense because on the broad picture, the rewards outweigh the cons. Perhaps it was even a money making business all on its own.

But since these new engines have come about, the stakes have risen, yes, even for these engine manufacturers too. Honda and Renault are learning the hard way that it takes more than to simply build an engine; it needs to be good too and this time, there is no parity on regulations. So the focus is on them to perform.

As for using an unbranded engine; As I said; the engine is but one component. If Renault could win the championship with their Enstone "factory" outfit using an unbranded engine, it wouldn't stop them from promoting the Renault brand for all other components that are stuck to the car and have as much common with their road cars than their engines do. It's all a matter of perspective. I really don't see the point in arguing history either if the dynamics of the sports change.

If there's one thing about F1, is that F1 never stands still. It evolves and the dynamics change. You evolve around it. But as always, the most important aspect of it, is winning. And if you can do that by buying cheap unbranded engines at a fraction of the cost they are currently pumping into erratic, unreliable and underperforming engines... I really don't see why they wouldn't. Because it would look bad? Looking "bad" but winning is a multitude better than looking terrible and far from winning (e.g. their current situation).

[Vortex Motio]

...You should ask the FIA if they considered alternatives and if they really needed to allow an alternative engine. I cannot speak for a corrupt and incompetent organ.

The FIA was fairly clear in their October 26th statement, which they titled, "Cost Reduction" as to why they want to introduce this alternative engine, and the other options that were also considered:

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 gear box for client teams
at the last Strategy Group meeting.

These measures were put to the vote and adopted with a large majority.

The proposal was $12 million for current specification power units and $8 million for year-old ones. Ferrari famously veto'd those measures, of course.

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.

Full text of that FIA release here: http://www.fia.com/news/fia-formula-1-w ... -reduction

Then, in an interview on October 31st, Todt indicated a bargaining position of not budging on price, but extending these engine regs in time to beyond 2020 to enable the road car manufacturers to recoup their investment.

And he stated more clearly the motivation for the cost reduction:

"If we are not able to get to this solution, we need to find another solution – because otherwise the risk is 10 teams being bankrupt."

Interview here: http://www.racer.com/f1/item/123199-eng ... be-offered

[turbof1]

The issue I'm taking is that they want to press the cost cap through in none-acceptable circumstances. From the point when these rules were written down -and earlier too- budgets were made with projected costs and projected revenues, based on the rules, market circumstances and R&D transfer. If they knew back then there would be a supply cost cap in place, the manufacturer atleast had the chance to incooperate that into their budgets, for example by:
-Reducing R&D costs
-Reducing activities in other areas of the company
-Budget a higher R&D transfer (always tricky though)
-Simply accept the lower revenue and stay with the same budget (that would be out of free will, and not obliged).

We are now in 2015, with a huge load of costs projected by the budget already forfilled. These are sunken costs and cannot be recuperated, changed or terminated by any means. It is spent. Future revenue however is not yet received, but that future revenue is a very important factor in the budgets.

Now the FIA wants to remove future revenue while past costs cannot be corrected for. That's very unfair. I know Todt wants to extent the rules after 2020 as a way to compensate, but if you do that, you should also have the cost cap be entered after 2020. Everything is budgetted until 2020 after all.

The veto from Ferrari was very logical from that point.

It's a lack of foresight from the FIA. If they introduced the cost cap in the sporting rules back in 2011, then probably nobody would have made too many issues about it. The last thing you want to do as an authoritive organ, is to hamper very drastically with running budgets. It would also make running contracts void, at which point new contracts have to be negotiated. We all know negotiating contracts in F1 can take several months. Not always of course, but it's plausible.

I completely agree these PUs are too expensive. The issue simply is that investments are have been made, based on revenue. The investments cannot be turned back. It's pure incompetence from the FIA to not have foreseen the current situation. It might sound harsh, but if the FIA is that concerned with keeping the struggling teams in F1, then they should sponsor them.

[NL_Fer]

Since Sauber, Manor or Force India are not going to use this "budget" engine, we can assume FIA are pushing this to keep Redbull inside. So why assume the cost cap was serious? Didn't Fia mention the cost cap to provoke Ferrari into a veto, so they have some leverage to push the alternative engine?

[djos]

Since Sauber, Manor or Force India are not going to use this "budget" engine, we can assume FIA are pushing this to keep Redbull inside. So why assume the cost cap was serious? Didn't Fia mention the cost cap to provoke Ferrari into a veto, so they have some leverage to push the alternative engine?

We don't know that, it's entirely possible that a number of those teams do join RedBull in using them due to the dramatically lower costs.

Apparently the current PU's cost around 30 million per year! Especially for struggling teams like Manor and Sauber this would be a dramatic cost saving for them.

[wuzak]

Since Sauber, Manor or Force India are not going to use this "budget" engine, we can assume FIA are pushing this to keep Redbull inside. So why assume the cost cap was serious? Didn't Fia mention the cost cap to provoke Ferrari into a veto, so they have some leverage to push the alternative engine?

We don't know that, it's entirely possible that a number of those teams do join RedBull in using them dom due to the dramatically lower costs.

Apparently the current PU's cost around 30 million per year! Especially for struggling teams like Manor and Sauber this would be a dramatic cost saving for them.

Suaber are on a long term contract. As are Haas, Williams and Force India.

I'd be surprised if the Manor deal wasn't for at least 2-3 years as well.

That leaves Red Bull.

[Vortex Motio]

...I completely agree these PUs are too expensive. The issue simply is that investments are have been made, based on revenue. The investments cannot be turned back. It's pure incompetence from the FIA to not have foreseen the current situation. It might sound harsh, but if the FIA is that concerned with keeping the struggling teams in F1, then they should sponsor them.

It's true that errors were made when creating these regulations, as far as controlling costs. Blaming the FIA for that is correct.

It would be interesting to understand the processes and dialogues that went in to creating these regs. The FIA does consult with teams, manufacturers, and others as part of its processes.

Looking at this failure objectively, one would hope that a proper analysis is done to learn what went wrong. Was incorrect information received from some of the engineers and companies that were consulted? Were the erroneous assumptions made because of improper research (as in didn't talk to the right people, etc), or because the technology was too advanced to predict, etc? Was the FIA swayed in the wrong direction in their final decision for commercial reasons, or by a competitor, or for hubris, or etc?

In any case, the FIA and FOM believe it's important to continue to have multiple teams of various budgets, and reducing costs will help.

Road car manufacturers come and go from F1. They will absorb this pain. It appears they won't have a choice.

[Vortex Motio]

Sauber are on a long term contract. As are Haas, Williams and Force India.

I'd be surprised if the Manor deal wasn't for at least 2-3 years as well.

That leaves Red Bull.

It's an interesting assumption that such contracts won't be broken.

[wuzak]

Sauber are on a long term contract. As are Haas, Williams and Force India.

I'd be surprised if the Manor deal wasn't for at least 2-3 years as well.

That leaves Red Bull.

It's an interesting assumption that such contracts won't be broken.

It's an interesting assumption that breaking these contracts won't cost them more than they will save.

[djos]

Since Sauber, Manor or Force India are not going to use this "budget" engine, we can assume FIA are pushing this to keep Redbull inside. So why assume the cost cap was serious? Didn't Fia mention the cost cap to provoke Ferrari into a veto, so they have some leverage to push the alternative engine?

We don't know that, it's entirely possible that a number of those teams do join RedBull in using them dom due to the dramatically lower costs.

Apparently the current PU's cost around 30 million per year! Especially for struggling teams like Manor and Sauber this would be a dramatic cost saving for them.

Suaber are on a long term contract. As are Haas, Williams and Force India.

I'd be surprised if the Manor deal wasn't for at least 2-3 years as well.

That leaves Red Bull.

Contracts are easily broken, lotus broke their Renault contact to get Mercedes PU's.

Btw I don't include Haas in my comments as they are A/ well funded and B/ have a very different relationship with Ferrari than say Sauber do.