Current F1 Power Supply Units

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by wnut

the engine manufacturers must not be allowed to dominate F1 for F1s own good!

So you would rather have the current bunch of greedy financiers with all the power than the manufacturers????.
I think you are picking the wrong horse.
At least the manufacturers have interests beyond a quick quid.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by bjohnsonsmith

Ferrari say Bernie should pay for budget F1 engines.

http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/122436

IMHO a key point buried in the article. Bold/underline is mine...

"If you go to Mercedes and you tell them 'please give us a group of engineers to develop in a parallel mode a different engine, different to that of Mercedes that is compliant with the F1 rules and that costs a certain amount' then I think FOM should cover that amount of money," said Marchionne during Ferrari's Christmas media briefing.

They speak to building PUs that are to the rules. So I would say that the manufactures have zero interest in a series in which there are parallel engine specs with the one they are to play by is to the regulations plus being expensive to develop and lease and the other not to the regulations but is cheap (or cheaper) and the two specs somehow being "performance balanced".

So the deadline for a counter proposal by the manufactures is Friday. I will have to put my thinking cap on to try to guess what they will propose. The article above sounds like no parallel engine solution, but rather for BE to subsidize those who want "cheaper" engines. Basically set whatever price he wants for them, but for him to pay the difference between his fixed price and what Mercedes, Ferrari, etc. are saying is the "true" or "actual" cost.

Richard

[chillibowl]

in a round about way, is Marchionne suggesting that the smaller teams should be getting more money?

for the truly small teams thats great and something most if not all of us have been saying for some time...so a) its surprising that Ferrari would be the ones to suggest it but b) im surprised that Marchionne would make a suggestion that would seemingly imply that if Red Bull chose a 'cheaper' engine from Merc, then Ferrari has made a proposal that would essentially free up more money for RB to spend in other areas (aero) while directing these FOM subsidies towards Merc who can then spend that subsidy money as they see fit (presumably on their engine department).

since when was Ferrari so magnanimous towards its competition?

always games within games so naturally there is an aspect here that i really do not understand.

[Mike Harte]

Chilibowl, I think what Marchionne is saying is that if BE or the FIA want to have a second tier engine then he is sure that Ferrari or Mercedes would happily supply it as long as Ecclestone is picking up the tab for developing it and subsidising them for use by the minor teams.

He appears to be saying in an oblique way that it would be totally wrong for the FIA/FOM to now introduce an "inexpensive" PU, when the manufacturers, following the dictat of the FIA, spent a fortune developing the current units and are now possibly going to be punished for it.

I have some sympathy for his point of view, because the manufactures invested heavily, especially Mercedes, in producing the PUs that propel today's cars, using technology that may well be the short to medium future for road going vehicles only for the regulators to try turning the clock back to encourage the use of older technology.

[BSchneiderFan]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

He appears to be saying in an oblique way that it would be totally wrong for the FIA/FOM to now introduce an "inexpensive" PU, when the manufacturers, following the dictat of the FIA, spent a fortune developing the current units and are now possibly going to be punished for it.

I have some sympathy for his point of view, because the manufactures invested heavily, especially Mercedes, in producing the PUs that propel today's cars, using technology that may well be the short to medium future for road going vehicles only for the regulators to try turning the clock back to encourage the use of older technology.

Amen. The manufacturers have spent fortunes on the current spec of engines, and can hardly be expected to sell them at a loss to the smaller teams. that doesn't make financial sense, and all the manufacturers have to have regard to the bottom line.

[wolfhound]

It appears that there are moves among the PU manufacturers to reduce the cost to customers. This might be partly achieved through standardizing some of the components. It would however kill off demands for new engines or Bernie's 2.4 V6's.

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016...nt-of-engines/

It will be interesting to see how all the other the unequal payments to teams will be solved as that will have to come from Bernie's coffers.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Chilibowl, I think what Marchionne is saying is that if BE or the FIA want to have a second tier engine then he is sure that Ferrari or Mercedes would happily supply it as long as Ecclestone is picking up the tab for developing it and subsidising them for use by the minor teams.

agreed on what he is saying, but taking it to the next level and given that Merc have more engine contracts than Ferrari do (and to be honest they are, historically, a better engine partner compared to Ferrari), it seems to me Marchionne suggestion would see Merc getting more FOM subsidies (via having more contracts) then Ferrari would receive and that to me seems like Ferrari is suggesting a course of action that would be of greater advantage to Merc and that is to put it mildly very uncharacteristic of Ferrari.

hence my question, what are Ferrari playing at now?

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

I have some sympathy for his point of view, because the manufactures invested heavily, especially Mercedes, in producing the PUs that propel today's cars, using technology that may well be the short to medium future for road going vehicles only for the regulators to try turning the clock back to encourage the use of older technology.

i too have sympathy for Ferrari and Merc, but for Ferrari's part they have been instrumental in only looking for increased funding for themselves and never for other teams let alone the small teams....that the smaller teams dont have enough money for their engine deals is as much of a problem for FOM as much as it is a problem that Ferrari helped to create imo.

beyond that, i also question to what extent Ferrari and Merc's R&D programs should be subsidized by its F1 customers vs its customers for its future road car offerings. typically speaking, R&D investments are long term in nature. requesting short term repayment of investments from R&D without distributing the IP rights associated with said R&D is kind of unheard of in most industries no?

[bjohnsonsmith]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

It appears that there are moves among the PU manufacturers to reduce the cost to customers. This might be partly achieved through standardizing some of the components. It would however kill off demands for new engines or Bernie's 2.4 V6's.

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016...nt-of-engines/

It will be interesting to see how all the other the unequal payments to teams will be solved as that will have to come from Bernie's coffers.

Aren't Bernie and the FIA pushing for a 2.2 L, V6 turbo? I saw this back in October last year?

http://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/fi...turbo-package/

[Mike Harte]

chillibowl, I think that you need to seperate in your mind the present PUs that are being used, and a possible 2nd tier that BE/FIA are talking about. It seems to me that Ferrari's position currently (and possibly Mercedes') is that they are happy to continue as is, and that they would welcome any other PU manufacturer that were providing units that comply with the rules/regulations that came into force in 2014 and were due to remain until 2020 at the earliest.

However, if FOM/FIA decide to impose a second tier PU, then Ferrari (and he believes Mercedes) would be prepared to provide those new units providing that FOM pay for the development costs for the new 2nd tier units, and that they should also subsidise the lower order teams that want to use those less complicated units.

In other words, Ferrari is happy if nothing changes, but all bets are off if the new old style units are imposed on F1. These are really just gentle warning shots across the bows of the good ship FOM that the manufacturers are not going to take the imposition of the 2nd tier units lying down. As Ferrari have already made clear, there are other racing series that could take the place of F1; I am sure that the WEC would warmly welcome them, and that is probably more relevant to the road car business than GP racing. And the same applies to Mercedes when you think about it. And further, there seems to be more rule stability in WEC at the moment, and the rules don't suddenly change at the whim of an 84 year old patriarch.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by wolfhound

It appears that there are moves among the PU manufacturers to reduce the cost to customers. This might be partly achieved through standardizing some of the components. It would however kill off demands for new engines or Bernie's 2.4 V6's.

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016...nt-of-engines/

It will be interesting to see how all the other the unequal payments to teams will be solved as that will have to come from Bernie's coffers.

The concept spelled out in Joe's post is a compelling argument around how to lower costs for the smaller teams. But it clearly leaves out a detail which is that these units would inherently be at a lower performance level. It seems that the manufactures would NOT use the standardized components in their own teams that would be in the cheaper customer unit. The only reason why has to be performance. The expect that their current solutions is better even if more expensive. And it is clear that both (current and reduced cost customer) solutions are designed to the current regulations and not something like the BE "alternate" PU solution with two different engine specs. I also assume that these customer units would be homologated separately than the ones the manufactures use for themselves even if Joe says they will share the combustion engine part.

This can solve the need for the smaller teams, but they would be hobbled from a performance perspective and this would not be a solution that RBR would like (if they are looking for a competitive customer engine)

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

These are really just gentle warning shots across the bows of the good ship FOM that the manufacturers are not going to take the imposition of the 2nd tier units lying down. As Ferrari have already made clear, there are other racing series that could take the place of F1; I am sure that the WEC would warmly welcome them, and that is probably more relevant to the road car business than GP racing. And the same applies to Mercedes when you think about it. And further, there seems to be more rule stability in WEC at the moment, and the rules don't suddenly change at the whim of an 84 year old patriarch.

Agree.

I know there has been much talk of "breaking the stranglehold" that the manufactures have. I think that needs to be done, but I am doubtful this is the vehicle that will do it.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

chillibowl, I think that you need to seperate in your mind the present PUs that are being used, and a possible 2nd tier that BE/FIA are talking about. It seems to me that Ferrari's position currently (and possibly Mercedes') is that they are happy to continue as is, and that they would welcome any other PU manufacturer that were providing units that comply with the rules/regulations that came into force in 2014 and were due to remain until 2020 at the earliest.

and thats where the the disconnect comes for me.

they were not happy to continue as is. they lobbied to have the rules changed (successfully) to allow for the sale of prior year engines so its already a two tiered system.

if Marchionne had suggested that the small teams get more money then that one thing but since when did anyone ask Ferrari to run a parallel engine program...as far as i recall BE's suggestions always involved an independent supplier coming in to provide the cheaper supply. surely Ferrari are not advocating subsidies to a 3rd party?

anyways who knows what the final list of proposals will be come friday? but if it involves subsidizing Ferrari then they should call it by its technical name...corporate welfare!

[Oldtony]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

I know there has been much talk of "breaking the stranglehold" that the manufactures have. I think that needs to be done, but I am doubtful this is the vehicle that will do it.

Richard

Surely Richard the "stranglehold" that it is most important to break is the one held by FOM.
The people most likely to be able to do it are the Manufacturers.
That is the only reason Bernie is talking the show down instead of promoting as you would think he should.
Todt and the FIA are powerless. (and gutless).
The EU will take for ever if they can ever get a committee to agree.
The circuits and promoters don't seem to be able to talk to each other.
Who else but the manufacturers is in a position to push through any reform?

[GTRMagic]

Originally Posted by Adam43

Someone needs to tell all those Taxi drivers they don't know anything about running their own businesses and they need to sell those Priuses now. Which might not be a bad idea as they have held their value well. Get the application right and these cars are spot on.

What perhaps we need is a mix of diesel, petrol, hybrids and full EV in the world then sensible progressive people can make the right choice. Motor racing has since very early on had artificial regulations, limiting or encouraging a particular direction. At the moment they specify hybrids (with two recovery types) and turbos. Cool.

Toyota Australia has built a Camry hybrid, taking the guts of a Prius and welding it into a much larger, more practical body. This is the weapon choice for many cab owners, in Sydney anyway.

Isnt Le Mans the place to go playing with different powerplants & equivalencies of performance?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Oldtony

Surely Richard the "stranglehold" that it is most important to break is the one held by FOM.
The people most likely to be able to do it are the Manufacturers.
That is the only reason Bernie is talking the show down instead of promoting as you would think he should.
Todt and the FIA are powerless. (and gutless).
The EU will take for ever if they can ever get a committee to agree.
The circuits and promoters don't seem to be able to talk to each other.
Who else but the manufacturers is in a position to push through any reform?

Agree on FOM stranglehold comment. Such as the inequity of monetary distribution to teams. While the manufactures would love to tear down FOM power, I am not sure they would push for solutions that would help the smaller teams as it would likely also take some money away from themselves. It's more likely they would like to consolidate power amongst themselves (the manufactures).

Richard

[Pingguest]

Since the introduction of the current power units, the smaller teams complain about the engine costs. This has led to a widespread criticism about the current power units. It is said they are too expensive and too complex. However, I think most criticism is largely misplaced.

The former, 2,400cc normally-aspirated V8-engines were heavily subsidized, outdated and no longer a part of the competition, as they were equalized and 'freezed'. The engine situation was simply becoming untenable, if not untenable already. Renault and Mercedes-Benz were considering a withdrawal from the series. Hence, a change of engine regulations had become a necessity.

As the power units had to be developed, it was simply inevitable that costs would rise. However, the current power units cost about US$ 20 million a year, an increase of US$ 15 million compared to the former engines. But this does not necessarily make the current power units too expensive. Teams spend a lot more on aerodynamics, an area that is largely irrelevant and makes close racing virtually impossible - especially with the current set of rules. In this context, how could anyone maintain the current power units are too expensive?

The current power units are indeed very complex. But Formula One has always been about cutting-edge and therefore complex and experimental technology. When Renault introduced turbo-charged engines in 1977, those engines were considered to be far too complex. Six years later, however, no-one could win races with a normally-aspirated engine and manufacturers started to use turbo's for their road cars.

It must be admitted that the current set of engine regulations are far from ideal. They are too restrictive in terms of design and development; its penalty system for exceeding power unit usage erodes Formula One's reputation. Regulations are necessary for the purpose of safety, competition and relevance. Ideally, any power train design should be allowed. Fuel-flow and/or fuel consumption limits, emission standards or a power out limit could be used to meet the aforementioned targets. Any of these option have their pro's and con's, but it would certainly allow more diversity and thereby more creativity, intelligence and relevance for a specific manufacturer - what's relevant to Ferrari is not necessarily relevant for Renault.
Passionately, I would love to see a true arm race. This includes an unrestricted power unit usage and development throughout the season. In fact, it would mean the return of cars specifically set-up or even developed for qualifying, resulting in the return of real qualifying laps. But such is undesirable from both an ecological and a financial point of view. Limiting power unit usage is sensible, but it should not effectively prohibit in-season development.

[chillibowl]

while i believe that engine costs coming close to doubling without seeing a doubling of revenues (prize monies etc) and a decrease in available sponsorship dollars means that the current engines are both absolutely and relatively too expensive for the small teams imo.

that said i largely agree with the latter portion of your post...if regulations were opened up to allow for new ideas to be tried then, just speaking for myself, i would have far fewer problems with the costs associated with the power units.

certainly i would think that if manus could directly purse the technology paths that they wanted (within the constrains you mention) and that they considered relevant to their own road car departments, i think (or rather would like to believe) that they would see the possibility to recoup those expenses in the long run and without the need to justify offsetting their R&D costs in the short run by charging such high prices to their F1 customers.

actually think such a course could satisfy both ecological and financial concerns.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

certainly i would think that if manus could directly purse the technology paths that they wanted (within the constrains you mention) and that they considered relevant to their own road car departments, i think (or rather would like to believe) that they would see the possibility to recoup those expenses in the long run and without the need to justify offsetting their R&D costs in the short run by charging such high prices to their F1 customers.

Unfortunately, therein lies the rub. Whilst the mass car/van/truck producers may well be able to recoup some or all of their R & D expenditure from their vehicle sales, the niche producers such as Ferrari possibly may not be able to do so. Also, although the likes of Mercedes, Honda and Renault need to follow an ecological path, the same imperative is not a priority for Ferrari. Even though Ferrari and their ilk do/will use hybrid technology in their power trains, this is almost all to do with performance gains and the associated bragging rights, and nothing to do with their green credentials.

And this is why, IMHO, Ferrari have been so vocal about the cost issue, and why they used their veto over that issue. With their limited road going sales, they cannot realistically recoup the costs from those customers; so, the racing teams have had to cover them.

[chillibowl]

but surely as emission standards, vehicle regulations, and purchasing patterns change in Europe and the USA (although China might be the bigger market for Ferrari now), Ferrari will also have to change what they are selling? of course the do still have a few V12 road cars (LaFerrari i believe) but for the most part are they not already moving more and more to various V6 configurations?

now that they have gone down the IPO route and will probably be ramping up to sell more road cars perhaps they will be willing to change even more going forward.

its a rub all right though!

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

but surely as emission standards, vehicle regulations, and purchasing patterns change in Europe and the USA (although China might be the bigger market for Ferrari now), Ferrari will also have to change what they are selling? of course the do still have a few V12 road cars (LaFerrari i believe) but for the most part are they not already moving more and more to various V6 configurations?

now that they have gone down the IPO route and will probably be ramping up to sell more road cars perhaps they will be willing to change even more going forward.

its a rub all right though!

It's a bit of an old article, but given design lead times it is appropriate for this discussion...

http://www.autonews.com/article/2014...os-and-hybrids

In short, it talks to how Ferrari will be implementing a turbo on all future V8 projects and hybrid on all future V12 projects. Here are some quotes from the article (from Vittorio Dini - Ferrari's powertrain director)...

"In the future, all of our V-8s will use turbos," Dini said, adding that Ferrari's next challenge is to decrease the displacement of its V-8s while adding even more power.

Dini said Ferrari would count on hybrids to cut fuel use and emissions on V-12 engines, which are found in its top-of-the-range F12 Berlinetta and FF models.

It seems to be about emissions and power/efficiency. We are starting to see now (LaFerrari and the new 488) the fruit of decisions made awhile a go. Progress slowly marches on.

Richard

[Oldtony]

Does anyone else get the feeling that we are victims of a giant snow job?
Certainly the current complex power units are costly when compared with the old lumps, but how costly are they when compared with the amounts being paid out to run aero computer and wind tunnel developments?
The current rules certainly present some very stupid regulations related to component changes and in season development. They in fact increase the costs they are supposed to limit, and stifle the efforts of those trailing to catch the leaders.
There is far more likelihood that personal transport systems will be improved by F1 being involved in Power Unit development than in seeking an extra couple of kilos of down-force.
Pinguest got it about right in his post, we need to free up the area of power systems within fuel flow, capacity, safety and cost limits.
Why not apply a freeze to aero to finance that freedom.
At present this whole "gotta look after the small teams" seems to be an effort by FOM and the financiers to cover their rip offs and maintain the power they have become accustomed too.

[old man]

I tend to agree with Pinguest and Tony, it is straight logic that the more freedom the designers have the more innovating they can be. Are the LMP 1 regulations not more relevant to this R&D development?

As to the relative budget spends on aero and PU, it is a fact that, as DC puts it, the teams will spend what they got! When testing was restricted the big teams just developed more and more sophisticated simulators.

But, as has also been said above if the cost of meeting regulations doubles and the rewards stay the same why would anyone accept the new rules, yet they have and we are now painted into a corner. I can only see that the FIA must somehow take control and alleviate the problem but I fear the Todt is too much part of the establishment to take firm control.

[wolfhound]

The cost of the new power units would not be such a big issue if there was a fairer distribution of the FOM $$$$$$$$. Ferrari gets from FOM, more than about half of the rest of the grids budget almost regardless of where they finish.
If my memory serves me correct Williams total budget is less than that which Ferrari gets from FOM.

I suspect the Ferrari take from FOM is more than the combined FOM money for 3 or four of the bottom teams

[Mike Harte]

Grandprix dot com is quoting a German publication that says that FIA (Todt) has now agreed terms with the 4 power unit suppliers over the PU costs, and that a proposal to maintain the current hybrid units until 2024 will be put forward. It would seem as though BCE's idea for a return to the older technology was not adopted, which seems to have upset Horner somewhat.

I believe that the Strategy Group is meeting today, and the above should go through with the vote at 11-7 in favour. The reduced cost is said to be €12 million per season, and I assume that that is per team not car.

I wonder if Red Bull have any agreement in place with Honda for 2017, as they would seem to be running out of otherwise?

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Grandprix dot com is quoting a German publication that says that FIA (Todt) has now agreed terms with the 4 power unit suppliers over the PU costs, and that a proposal to maintain the current hybrid units until 2024 will be put forward. It would seem as though BCE's idea for a return to the older technology was not adopted, which seems to have upset Horner somewhat.

I believe that the Strategy Group is meeting today, and the above should go through with the vote at 11-7 in favour. The reduced cost is said to be €12 million per season, and I assume that that is per team not car.

I wonder if Red Bull have any agreement in place with Honda for 2017, as they would seem to be running out of otherwise?

This seems to be the article...?

http://www.grandprix.com/ns/ns32905.html

It seems to be inline with what was talked about by Joe Saward on the previous page of this thread...

https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2016...nt-of-engines/

Items of note (quotes from the Grandprix.com article)...

This will reportedly be achieved by standardising certain parts.

To the questions I raised earlier. Is this the use of standardized parts on the customer only solutions? Or will those be standardized across all PUs regardless of team and source? In Joe's article he says that the ICE will not be standardized, but parts of the hybrid side will be (what parts are still speculation). Standardization across all PU suppliers makes it easier to manage and also helps prevent a "lesser" solution being offered to customers while the manufacture teams use something else (not that this still can't happen in general).

As mentioned this does little for RBR (nobody is going out of their way to help them and I am not surprised), but this quote is interesting...

"We no longer expect a positive vote on that," a Red Bull source is quoted as saying. "The only advantage is that new manufacturers can potentially now plan to build an engine for formula one."

There are a few different ways to read that. At one level it implies rule stability. So a traditional manufacture could feel confident about jumping it without things changing. Or... you could read into this that RBR itself could be the new manufacture!

In my opinion the largest roadblock to RBR having their own home grown PU solution was the complexities of the hybrid side. They would have to partner up with other vendors and the R&D could be costly to create a unique solution. But... the more of the hybrid components that are homologated, the cheaper it is to jump in because you have fewer problems to solve. So maybe RBR will give it a go alone, or partner with someone to create a bespoke RBR solution. Maybe those watch experts at TAG Heuer?! They seem to know something about F1 engines.

But I also agree with the post above that 2017 is not far away. And is to soon IMHO for RBR to build a competitive F1 PU. I had also speculated in the "Mindless Speculation" thread that RBR may be partnering with Honda in 2017.

Richard

[BSchneiderFan]

Do we expect the works team to be the only Renault-engined cars on the grid in 2017, then?