How will the FIA make each F1 teams’ engine performance equal in 2009?
Will all F1 teams have to use the same engines?
This brief statement marks an utterly radical change for Formula 1 and a major step away from being a series where car builders compete to create the fastest machine, and towards becoming something closer to a ‘spec series’, where all the cars are identical.
What are the implications of this change – and how will the FIA ensure all power units used in F1 give the same power?
F1 engine specifications were ‘frozen’ in 2007 in an effort to curb the amount being spent on engine development. However some manufacturers have improved the performance of their engines in other ways.
That led Renault’s Flavio Briatore to complain his team had been disadvantaged by obeying the ‘spirit’ of the rules and not chasing further performance from their V8.
The FIA’s decision to force all engines to have equal power outputs is an attempt to resolve this and allow teams to make further cost savings, as president Max Mosley explained:
The engine and gearbox together for an independent team is upwards of €30m a year. That could be done for probably 5% of that cost without the person in the grandstand noticing any difference at all. Even those big spenders, if they are given the opportunity to save €100-200m a year will do so.
But it raises some difficult questions:
How will equal engine power be achieved?
It seems to me there are two ways the F1 might achieve this:
1. Set maximum outputs for power and torque.
2. Have each F1 team use the same engine.
More technically-minded people might be able to give more insight into how these could work in the comments.
Option two would obviously be much more radical and I wonder if this is what the FIA already has in mind in terms of ‘future cost cutting measures’. Their reasoning being, if all engines are to have the same power output and power delivery, then what’s the point in having different designs at all?
How will equal engine power be enforced?
Presumably the FIA intends to monitor engine output using the standard ECU.
But having ‘identical’ engines can bring its own problems. In other series where participants have to use the same specification of engines it is not common for wealthier teams to acquire batches of engines and compare each one to find the most favourable unit – even if the differences are tiny.
What will the teams have to say about it?
Max Mosley originally tried to press the teams into agreeing to new regulations on engines at Monaco, during the height of the scandal over his involvement in sadomasochistic sex orgies. The teams asked for that meeting to be deferred, and subsequently set up their own body, FOTA, to respond to a request made by Mosley during the British Grand Prix to propose new engine rules.
We have not yet heard what FOTA wishes to propose. Last month I wrote, “the idea that six car manufacturers are all going to be happy to use the same engine just doesn’t seem realistic to me” and I still hold that thought.
Will FOTA fall in line with Mosley’s thinking? Or is he trying to pre-empt them to force them to agree to his own solution?
DG said on 8th October 2008, 11:38
Hmmm, but aren’t the KERS engines going to be delivering the same power anyway? Isn’t that the point? And then use the ‘boost’ button to overtake?
Or is this Max gradually building up to saying that KERS is too expensive to run as a racing engine?
So he has to find other ways to make all the cars exactly the same?
But this still won’t make the sport any less expensive to a new team trying to join, get its drivers licenced, find transportation, and all the other things that Bernie, Max and now FOTA charge them for…..
mani said on 8th October 2008, 13:03
I wouldn’t be happy to see F1 becoming another spec series!!! Bad move Max.
In my opinion, if thing go this way soon F1 will just become a driver’s event where teams play supportive role. Don’t really want to see such a thing happening to F1.
beneboy said on 8th October 2008, 13:03
Could Max Mosely please do the honourable thing & resign.
His reign as FIA President has been an unmitigated disaster.
If he wants a new set of rules for F1 then how about:
No wings & spoilers allowed
Massive slick tyres introduced
Ban carbon & ceramic brakes
Ban traction control & other electronic driver aids
Cars given a maximum/minimum height, length, width & weight
Bring back low fuel qualifying
Cars given a set amount of fuel for each race, each season this amount is reduced to encourage fuel economy
Cars must comply with crash test regulations
That would be it, just let the teams build what they want & get on with racing.
It’s bad enough that the cars are almost indistinguishable on the outside, if you make them all the same underneath too then what’s the point ?
If we wanted to watch a spec series then we’d all watch GP2 etc, F1 is meant to be the peak of racing technology.
The teams will always spend more than they earn & the smaller teams will always struggle, that’s life.
You can’t cap budgets as the manufacturers just do work in their production factories and have it “off the books” on their F1 accounts.
Let’s hope FOTA fight this & have some better ideas themselves.
Sumedh said on 8th October 2008, 13:06
I don’t know why people commenting above me feel that putting a “budget cap” will solve all problems.
A budget cap is probably the most obvious solution; but also the most difficult one to implement. How are you to find out; what amount was spent when & when. There will be no secrecy between teams anymore then, as everyone will know; who is spending how much in what area.
About equalizing engine performance; the aim of of the 2007 freeze was the same; but the 2007 freeze has failed to achieve its purpose. So, Max is making a 2nd attempt I guess.
But as fans; I don’t think it is a matter of grave concern; teams found way around the 2007 freeze; and something similar will happen now; the ban will become a cavil issue soon
Stealthman said on 8th October 2008, 13:16
There are some very good ideas in there beneboy. I particularly like the second last one about fuel economising. However there are a few points that I find questionable:
1. Cars being given set dimensions to work with: I thought the F1 regs already stated that cars needed a max/min height/width, etc.
2. Banning carbon/ceramic brakes: The only option left after these are taken out of the equation is drum brakes, which are extremely dangerous when worn out.
3. No wings and spoilers: Without these aerodynamic devices, F1 would no longer be the fastest motorsport in the world and the cars would look like lumbering dinosaurs compared to other racing series.
But other than that, I like your set of rules. I would go for them any day. :)
beneboy said on 8th October 2008, 13:32
@Stealthman
You can still have disk brakes with steel, lots of other race series do. They increase the braking distance giving drivers the chance of outbraking each other.
As for dimensions, I just mentioned it as that is my complete list of rules, I don’t think we need any more than those given.
If we got rid of most of the aerodynamics the grip could be replaced with mechanical grip.
Bigger, slicker tyres, ground effect, active suspension & other methods could give the cars more grip than they currently get with wings etc.
The cars following would not be effected by the car in front, they’d just get the tow so you’d get more overtaking.
qazuhb said on 8th October 2008, 13:42
Many years ago (if I’m not wrong it was during the Piquet/Jones championships era), one of the Cosworth founders, can’t remember if it was Mike Costin or Keith Duckworth, came with what was in my view, a terrific idea: a fuel-consumption formula, based on a (standard) limiter valve that allowed only a predetermined amount of fuel to enter each cylinder per second. Teams would be free to use whatever device they could figure out to extract the maximum power they could get from that amount of fuel. It would be a great source of economy solutions for everyday’s cars. Really great idea! Of course, it fell on deaf ears and was never suggested again…
Smitty said on 8th October 2008, 14:04
All this talk about equalised engines, budget cuts and other regs that are difficult to write up and enforce, but banning refuelling? Oh no, that rule would be too easy.
Max isn’t going to resign next year, you just know he isn’t.
Scootin159 said on 8th October 2008, 15:09
A different idea: Force every engine manufacturer make their engines available to every other team, for a set (reasonable, but low) price, but allow the manufacturers much more leniency in how they make the engines – i.e. go back to a simple “3.0L n/a or 1.5L turbo” rule model.
The “engine” for the purposes of discussion here will include all ancillaries, the gearbox and all electronics needed to control the engine.
Some pitfalls:
1) Top teams would not want their technology getting into the hands of other teams:
Fix: Seal and secure engines in such a way that the customer cannot open or modify the engine in any way post-delivery.
2) Top teams will not willingly give their competitors “equal” engines.
Fix: Do some sort of random “lottery”, where the manufacturer won’t know which particular engine their cars will get – thus they will want to make them all as equal as possible.
3) Manufacturers can’t be expected to make 20 engines every weekend, only to have 18 go unused, if everyone picks a different manufacturer.
Fix: The unused engines can be saved for subsequent weekends, so they aren’t a complete waste. Also, teams could be required to ‘declare’ their engine a few weeks in advance, to give the manufacturer’s time to build the engines.
4) Engines aren’t 100% interchangeable
Fix: Make a defined set of guidelines for the important measurements (size, mounting points, etc.), which all engines must conform to.
Adrian said on 8th October 2008, 15:41
I guess an adaptation of Max’s proposal that the manufcaturer teams might find stomachable would be for them to provide the independent teams with the engine and powertrain (as defined by the above poster Scottin159) free of charge. In return the manufacturer gets technical feedback from that engine user and also still gets the publicity when their engine wins.
But at the same time they should relax the engine rules a little. Okay, stipulate that it must be a small capity turbo-charged engine etc, but other than that allow the teams some room for innovation. Allow them free-reign so far as Hybrid technology is concerned and limit the amount of fuel they’re permitted to use during a race.
sven duva said on 8th October 2008, 15:55
I just wondering why F1 is still a FIA sanctioned series. FIA desperately need F1 to have glamour race event. Just imagine if WTCC or WRC suddenly was the highest ranked auto event for Max to show his face at! But, F1 clearly do not need FIA. With the same teams, the same drivers, people would still watch even if F1 wasn’t a FIA event. So why do they put up with FIA and their ideas?
Adrian said on 8th October 2008, 16:34
Yep, they could even call it GP1….
Though some would argue that it’s better the devil you know than the devil you don’t and there needs to be some regulatory body…
HounslowBusGarage said on 8th October 2008, 17:06
In some ways it does seem that Max wants to get rid of the Manufacturers from F1 racing. I can’t really imgine that Toyota, BMW, Renault et all would continue shoving in hundreds of millions each year if the engines that powered their cars were ‘spec’ engines from a central supplier, whoever that turned out to be.
But maybe that’s what Max now wants to do – getting rid of the largescale, argumentative manufacturers who currently stand up to the FIA’s imperiousness (eg Mercedes Benz) might prove to be a big advantage . . . and, as Ferrari aren’t a manufacturer (I remember it being argued), who better to supply a spec engine than Ferrari?
Thus Max gets rid of big-spending manufacturers and is able to control the smaller, independent teams who build cars around the single spec engine. And Ferrari wins every time.
F1 would be smaller without the manufacturers, but the sponsors would still pay mega-bucks to place their logos on the cars and Max wouldn’t have so many headaches.
Eddie Irvine said on 8th October 2008, 17:10
I have a good suggestion to make;
Two or three engine makers (Mercedes, Ferrari and BMW…or Renault) will be forced to sell their engines to whatever team demand it. The price will be standard for all tree engines and will be set by FIA.The engines will be the same ,for example Ferrari will have the same ferrari engine with Force India or Williams or someone else and McLaren will have the exact same mercedes engine with let’s say Honda or Super Aguri.It’s odd I know to hear Honda Mercedes or Toyota Ferrari But with this metre F1 will achive 3 things;
1)The costs for smaller teams will be reduced beacause only the top 3 manufacturers will spend money to improve their engine
2)The big manufactures will be dissapointed by the small space(only 3 teams) for their cars.Toyota will never be in F1 if Its name appeared as Toyota Ferrari.
The car companies will give a strong fight in order to be in F1 as chassis and engine manufactors like Honda, Toyota, Porsche, Reanault e.t.c.. So the independent teams ,which are the very soul of Formula 1, will be increased(big space for them) without keeping the money of car companies for research and evolution out of the game.
3)The engine will be constructed by the top 3 manufacturers so they will be pretty much the same and if they aren’t only two teams will struggled because the others will prefered the ‘good’ engine
I imagine a grid like this; (it’s just an example)
McLaren Mercedes
Williams Mercedes
Ferrari Ferrari
BMW Ferrari …or Sauber Ferrari(BMW out of the game in order to build a better engine which will be valued as top 3 by FIA)
Renault Reanault
Toyota Renault…or Jordan Renault
Honda Ferrari…or BAR Ferrari
Force India Ferrari
Prodrive Mercedes
Red Bull Renault
Torro Rosso Ferrari
Super Aguri Renault
GeorgeK said on 8th October 2008, 18:00
I wish I could be around another 50 years to see where the state of racing is. My guess? extinct.
Max is the harbinger of death for all competitive racing that has anything to do with internal combustion engines. And the bugger may be right, we race fans just can’t drink the Kool-aid just yet.