New engines ‘ten times too expensive’ – Head

F1 Fanatic Round-up

Valtteri Bottas, Williams, Monte-Carlo, 2014In the round-up: Former Williams technical director Patrick Head says the 2014 engines cost far too much.

Links

Your daily digest of F1 news, views, features and more.

Ex-Williams director Patrick Head says F1 engines are ‘too expensive’ (BBC)

“You could produce 800 horsepower for €2m a team each year and I think the teams are having to pay ten times that amount.”

Marquez meets Alonso, would like to try F1 (Crash)

“Marquez then revealed that he would like to follow in the footsteps of Valentino Rossi by trying an F1 car. ‘Someday I would like to try. I don’t know when. Not early [soon].’”

Did Hamilton send his ‘truce’ tweet and choose the perfect picture of himself and Rosberg all on his own? (Daily Mail)

Niki Lauda: “I spoke to Lewis he said he would speak to Nico. From my point of view there are no negatives.”

Mercedes feud: Monaco is just the start (Autosport, subscription required)

“Amid the row afterwards, sources suggest that Hamilton was mortified at accusations that he had effectively been accused of cheating [in Spain], for he felt it was just part of an increasingly tough on-track battle where a driver is allowed to do all it takes to win.”

Tweets

Comment of the day

This weekend’s Caption Competition proved one of the toughest to pick a winner for as there were loads of great captions. NJB, F1alex, Magnificent Geoffrey, Bruno, Tyler, Electrolite and Schooner all wrote really good captions.

But there can only be one winner and this week it’s Tasimana:

Nico Rosberg, Mercedes, Monte-Carlo, 2014

“Now where’s that silver spoon?”

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Josh, Kevin Hodge and Christos!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is via the contact form or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Happy birthday to Martin Brundle who is 55 today!

Image © Williams/LAT

Advert | Go Ad-free

68 comments on New engines ‘ten times too expensive’ – Head

  1. Gareth J (@gjessopp) said on 1st June 2014, 0:11

    I’m no expert but I’m sure that the cost of the power units will go down because teams are surely having to pay for the initial cost of designing and testing the “1st gen” of these new engines. One they have been perfected, wouldn’t the cost of each unit go down because there would be no more development costs?

    • PeterG said on 1st June 2014, 0:23

      Cost’s will inevitably decrease, Was the same when they switched to V8′s, An initial cost increase which decreased over time & engine cost’s were the lowest they had been for a long time by the end of 2013.

      I would guess that much of the cost from these new power units comes from the energy recovery systems & all the new technology which has gone into them.

      • Irejag (@irejag) said on 1st June 2014, 0:30

        This just feeds my belief that KERS would have been a better way to go then a full hybrid engine. The teams were familiar with the KERS system and in my opinion, KERS is a technology that could have eventually been passed down to even the most basic of road cars.
        I feel that they just scratched the surface with the technology. Each year the KERS tech could have grown more and more important to F1 teams until finally it naturally became a hybrid unit. But jumping straight into a Hybrid power engine was too quick and now we are stuck with having to endure an entire calender year before we see the other teams make any real improvement.

        • Lord Stig (@lord-stig) said on 1st June 2014, 1:47

          KERS and hybrid are the same thing. It is simply a difference in nomenclature and arguably a big failure in the marketing department at FOM and the FIA. The general public has heard of hybrid’s due to marketing by automakers. However, they haven’t got the slightest clue of what ERS-H and ERS-K is. The main difference between 2014 and 2013 KERS/hybrid systems is the electric system that aids the turbo. The 2014 KERS system that provides additional power to the engine directly is the same as last year but with additional capacity in the battery and additional power in the motor. The turbo system is a bit complicated but I think doing the change all at once was probably the best option as otherwise a 1.6L displacement would not have been sufficient to provide F1 levels of power.

          • SteveH said on 1st June 2014, 13:52

            Maybe not at 100 kg total fuel or 100 kg/hr flow rate, but 1.6L capacity with a turbo certainly could easily provide way more that 800 hp. Just look to the previous 1.5L turbo formula.

        • Breno (@austus) said on 1st June 2014, 2:10

          Its important to keep in mind some of the teams took few years to get KERS up and running.

        • mateuss (@mateuss) said on 1st June 2014, 12:44

          Crofty, is that you?

        • BasCB (@bascb) said on 1st June 2014, 12:50

          The old KERS system was less inventive and effective when it was thought up even compared to the first generation of Toyota prius at the time @irejag. It was just a gimmick.

          The new powertrains really go a lot into efficient use of the combination of the strenghts of electric motors and combustion engine and make a huge amount more sense.

        • nidzovski (@nidzovski) said on 2nd June 2014, 9:41

          I agree with you but I think that the evolution of KERS would work with naturally aspirated engines. With this new turbo engines it would be stupid not to harvest the energy, which would otherwise be lost energy from the turbo shaft.

    • GeeMac (@geemac) said on 1st June 2014, 12:49

      That’s very true, the costs will come down in time and that is good. What isn’t good is that we may well lose teams before the costs start falling….

    • oliveiraz33 (@oliveiraz33) said on 2nd June 2014, 0:53

      Even when the cost comes down, you’ll be paying way too much compared to earlier days because you’re basicly paying for 2 propulsion systems…. And engine+electric engine can never be cheaper than just an engine…

      What I hate in modern racing is that the competition managers think that they need the manufacturers more than the Fans…. F1 can exist without official manufacturers, but it can’t exist without fans… Bring back the exciting engines.

  2. HoHum (@hohum) said on 1st June 2014, 0:19

    When are we going to see the headline “Bernie and CVC 10 times to expensive”

    • gwenouille (@gwenouille) said on 1st June 2014, 0:32

      That’s the real problem isn’t it ?

      • Brad said on 1st June 2014, 0:46

        I totally agree. Do you notice all the negatives about the new engines are from the older brigade. These people need to learn we are in a new world. Le Mans are looking to the future with their hybrids. If F1 stayed with V8s they will eventually become irrelevant in the future.
        Take the pain today for a better outcome in the future.

        • anon said on 1st June 2014, 7:38

          You’re right that a lot of the complaints begin with comments along the lines of “I’ve been watching the sport for [say, 20 years] and…” and many of their suggested “remedies” basically entail forcing the sport to become a replica of what it was when they were watching it as a child? The world has moved on to 2014, but in their mind they want to force it back 30 years to 1984 instead rather than accept those days have come and gone.

        • JCost (@jcost) said on 1st June 2014, 18:17

          Indeed. Humans by nature struggle are not change friendly but some resist more than others. A good way to make your resistance heard is pointing out all the negatives and silence the positives that come with change. History has thought us that novelty usually survives naysayers…

  3. Ron Mon (@henslayer) said on 1st June 2014, 0:58

    So the limit now is 5 “power units” per season, right? That equates to about 4 race weekends per unit. I’d bet that it would be cheaper to produce twice as many that would only last two races each. The added costs of engineering and exotic materials for very little extra longevity is not at all economic.

    • Breno (@austus) said on 1st June 2014, 2:12

      I doubt any of the manufacturers would want engines to last only 2 races, given how worried they were about reliability.

    • anon said on 1st June 2014, 7:34

      It might not necessarily be cheaper, since there would still be a relatively high cost associated with research and development efforts for the new engines.

      Mario Illien, who founded Ilmor Engineering (which was eventually bought out by Mercedes to become Mercedes HPE), commented a few months ago about the cost of the new engines and suggested that he could have built 100 engines for the price of five engines today.
      However, it is worth noting that he was comparing the cost of engines today to the early 1990′s where, between their race team and testing teams, most teams probably would have gone through around 100 engines a year (one early cost capping proposal from 1993 suggested limiting engine allocations to ‘just’ 60 a year) – so, in reality, there probably would have been no cost savings given the drastic reduction in operating life would force you to use that full allocation anyway.

    • BJ (@beejis60) said on 1st June 2014, 16:08

      @henslayer There is also technical regulations about what types of exotic metals are allowed in the power plants and what percentages they’re allowed to use.

  4. timi (@timi) said on 1st June 2014, 1:23

    While Adam Parr may have a point.. he might be slightly biased since he was the guy who gave Nico his F1 drive, if memory serves me correctly.
    Eitherway I’d actually say you need to be a bit temperamental to win a closely-fought championship. It’s the passion and anger that may spur Hamilton on to new heights.. some people thrive off that, whereas others crumble, and it seems to me as though Hamilton is the former. His temperament affects his interviews, but his driving? Apart from 2012 which was primarily due to Massa and Nicole, I’d say every time he goes a little crazy outside the car, he gets stronger inside! As Button mentioned earlier this week, an angry Lewis is an even faster Lewis. I can see him just running away with the championship now. Especially with Montreal, Silverstone and Hockenheimring coming up, not to mention Abu Double is also one of his stronger circuits..

  5. DaveD (@daved) said on 1st June 2014, 2:10

    Sigh. Cost go down as production goes up. Nothing new here.

    Ironic that his comments come out at the same time that Mercedes admits they almost dropped out of F1 because the old V8 engines were not relevant to them and their direction for road cars or performance cars.

    McLaren also announced that all of their cars would be hybrids by some time in the next few years.

    Technology is going to move forward. Lead, follow or get out of the way. Whining does not help.

    • Toxic (@toxic) said on 1st June 2014, 7:19

      The problem is that it may end up like with all previous engines changes. The prices always go down but when they actually are reasonable they come up with new engine regulations (this happens every 5-10 years). The whole circle starts all over again and it’s the teams that pay the price.

      • DaveD (@daved) said on 1st June 2014, 17:46

        @toxic I guess I should be more specific in what I’m saying and point out what I see as cause and affect.

        The cause: Mercedes and Renault were going to drop out of F1 because the V8′s were not relevant to them.
        The effect: F1 turns into a spec series with only Ferrari V8′s to run. Not that interesting, at least to me.

        If the costs are too high for the teams, then they can stop making “sea-changes” to the specs and start doing more year-to-year mods. For example, let them increase the capacity of the ERS from 4MJ to 6MJ over the next three years. Let them increase the allowed HP of the KERS from 120kW to 130kW in 2015 and 140kW in 2016. Let them take the max fuel flow from 100kg/hr up to 110kg/hr…and still keep the 100kg limit per race so they can get higher revs when needed yet still make them manage the overall fuel use. By the way, this would make the engines seem louder as the revs went up so it would help with fans who like the noise as well. But hey, why try to throw intelligence and logic into the equation?

        These things would all be very relevant to road use so the manufacturers could have more time to depreciate the cost of their work and more engines (including road going cars) to spread the cost among…rather than do a complete change of spec every 5 years.

        This is again, a failure of the FIA in my eyes. There are plenty of intelligent ways to make these things better but I have a feeling the politics of F1 get in the way of intelligence about 75% of the time.

        So I’m looking for someone with a spine to take over at FIA. I think the biggest help we’ll have is when LaFerrari really hits the streets and starts trying to compete with the 918 and the P1 for ‘Ring records and suddenly it’s in Ferrari’s interest to see these specs go forward in a sane manner. That alone would handle a great deal of the debilitating politics that hurt engine development in F1. Luca needs motivation to look to the future, not the past.

    • Eric (@) said on 1st June 2014, 17:55

      @daved

      Ironic that his comments come out at the same time that Mercedes admits they almost dropped out of F1 because they weren’t winning.

      There, fixed. :)

      • DaveD (@daved) said on 1st June 2014, 18:16

        hmmm, that’s a bit humorous…but I don’t believe accurate.

        They were second in the constructors championship last year and have been moving up consistently as well as supplying engines to plenty of teams. Looking at the facts of what they’re doing with their performance road cars, I am inclined to take them at their word: They are moving away from normally aspirated V8′s so why keep putting R&D into them?

        Common sense would seem to indicate they were being honest in that assessment, especially when you consider they didn’t whine about it last year as RBR were dominating. But more admitted to it this year now that they are already dominating and they did not use it publicly to damage the sport or try to garner support for their view of where F1 should go.

      • Eric (@) said on 3rd June 2014, 9:54

        @daved

        Every team is here to win. If they don’t they either complain, point names and name fingers or pull out.
        I clearly remember the articles about Mercedes’ head honcho’s stating they wouldn’t allow the Mercedes GP adventure to go on if they didn’t start bringing in good results. That was in 2011 I bellieve.
        Last year we didn’t hear complaints (except about the tyres) because they were, in fact, winning. Remember Hamilton had realistic prospects of challenging for the title before the summer break. And once Vettel started his winning streak Mercedes had already decided to go full assault on 2014.

        I think that if they hadn’t won anything last year and this year turned out to be a failure they would have pulled out, V6T or not.

        • DaveD (@daved) said on 3rd June 2014, 19:35

          @baron-2
          Eric, You could be correct. But it always felt to me like Merc were genuinely unhappy with the team’s performance after they bought out Brawn, and not using it politically to try and change rules in F1. Of course my “feeling” is from afar, quite afar, as I have zero insight to what is said behind closed doors at Merc. :)

          But in the end, Merc and Renault are both going more towards hybrids or even some outright electrics. And McLaren have announced that all their vehicles will be hybrids within 10 years.
          So relevance to road cars surely must mean something to the teams and where they put their R&D now.

  6. greg-c (@greg-c) said on 1st June 2014, 3:44

    Nico may have been born with a silver spoon , maybe not,
    he may have had plastic ?

    But he is tearing that basil ,
    Not cutting it !

    This man is no fool

  7. DK (@seijakessen) said on 1st June 2014, 4:26

    The truth is, this was an unnecessary formula change. If F1 really wanted to foster innovation, they would have copied what the ACO did for the 2014 LMP1 regulations in some aspect. But F1 isn’t about innovation, and hasn’t been for a long time. These engines have virtually no road relevance unless someone has enough money to purchase a Ferrari or McLaren, which most of the planet do not have. I wouldn’t have minded the switch to these engines had teams been free to pursue their own designs instead of being forced into following a paint-by-the-numbers technical regulations that offers none of what made the prior turbo era so unique to see.

    The trouble with F1 at large is when a bad idea comes along, no one really seems to be willing to do something to try and nip it in the bud. Instead we get Patrick head after the fact yammering about how it’s too expensive. I do agree with him that it is too expensive for what we see. Limiting engines to be used was another of Mosley’s idiot ideas that showed his inability to understand how basic economics works. Costs might’ve been saved had teams still been running V10′s…but costs don’t go down in the real world unless a great deal of something is produced. The costs of these engines is not going to come down in any meaningful sense any time soon. F1 has become a sorry sight to see when one considers how we haven’t seen a V12 engine in almost 20 years now, and never will again. The 3.5L formula was the greatest formula F1 ever had, and it’s something that can’t be conveyed through just YouTube videos. Car development, engine development, pre-qualifying, full grids, fat tires, most of the modern F1 fanbase will never know what the excitement of those days was like. A shame really.

    • Megatron said on 1st June 2014, 21:22

      The unfair prequalifying was great??? I hope thats a joke. And F1´s best time was between 1983 and 1987 with the unrestricted turbo engines. Almost everybody will tell you that.

  8. Irejag (@irejag) said on 1st June 2014, 5:08

    As far as I am concerned, this year is a waste of money. Racing is supposed to be about entertaining the masses, and this is far from entertaining. These engines and this season is making a mockery of racing. I would even go so far as to say that it is an insult to the rest of the auto racing world to say that F1 is the “pinnacle” of racing.
    At the rate things are going, we will be lucky to still have F1 at all in a few years time.

    • gzegzolek said on 1st June 2014, 8:39

      Totally agree.

    • Adam Hardwick (@fluxsource) said on 1st June 2014, 9:13

      Thank goodness you told me! I was suffering under the illusion that I was watching the most powerful F1 cars for years, with more torque than they can handle, that has produced a season that looks like the fight for the championship will ebb and flow through every race, and a rivalry that will likely be talked about for years. Silly me.

      You’re entitled to your option, but please don’t tell me that this is “far from entertaining”. You couldn’t be further from the truth.

      • Eric (@) said on 1st June 2014, 18:04

        @fluxsource

        One exciting race out of six and a hyped up ‘rivalry’ to try and reel in the 80′s enthusiasts. It’s a show I’ll give you that. Much like today’s reality TV shows.

        To each there own.

        • matt90 (@matt90) said on 1st June 2014, 22:55

          One amazing race and another two pretty good ones out of 6 actually. Which historically isn’t bad.

          • Eric (@) said on 3rd June 2014, 10:01

            @matt90

            But is it better? 2011 had 1 spectacular race and a few good ones in the first 7 races. Not exactly the most exciting season ever was it? Sure we’ve got a long way to go this season but from what I’ve seen so far the start of 2013 was far more exciting. That didn’t require road relevance, fuel efficiency or (a fake) inter-team rivalry.

            And I have a feeling this year will end much in the same way as 2013 did.

            Although there’s still the double jeopardy bonus round in Abu Dhabi…

    • Jules Winfield (@jules-winfield) said on 1st June 2014, 16:17

      So, you’re not watching then?

      But you comment, anyway.

      • DaveD (@daved) said on 1st June 2014, 18:19

        LOL Thank you, @jules-winfield I was about to ask the same question. It’s fun to listen to people who deride the sport for how terrible it is yet they seem to watch every race. Or else, they comment on it without watching the races. I’m not sure which is funnier.

  9. Aqib (@aqibqadeer) said on 1st June 2014, 7:10

    drastic regulation changes are always going to drive up the costs the smaller teams can do nothing other than wait for the costs to come down they should probably stay patient rather than pushing for more changes and i think pirelli needed testing this year

  10. craig-o (@craig-o) said on 1st June 2014, 8:36

    It would be incredibly cool to see Marquez try a F1 car out, maybe a McLaren-Honda in a few years time. How did Valentino Rossi do when he tried a Ferrari? And could we see Marquez ‘do a Surtees’?

  11. Ivan (@wpinrui) said on 1st June 2014, 8:40

    Don’t forget Ron Dennis! He turns 67 today.

  12. Eddie (@wackyracer) said on 1st June 2014, 9:05

    “Did Hamilton send his ‘truce’ tweet and choose the perfect picture of himself and Rosberg all on his own?”

    These articles about Hamilton are getting more and more ridiculous…

  13. Dan_the_McLaren_fan (@dan_the_mclaren_fan) said on 1st June 2014, 11:09

    This conflict resolution for Nico and Lewis seem weird and fake, as usual. It all looks like Mercedes have quickly resolved it by some magic. Sorry, it looks like the two mature drivers have resolved it themselves, and everything is magically back to normal.

    It reminded me on the conflict between Vettel and Webber after their crash in Turkey. Red Bull have quickly sent pictures that everything is back to normal and that Mark and Seb are the best friends. But we have seen in Silverstone later that year that the conflict wasn’t resolved at all. And even in Webber’s last race last year, we could sense that Vettel was far from being Webber’s best friend. But Red Bull needed to quickly show that the team was united, that there wasn’t any conflict in the team, because in our corporate society conflict appears like a weakness. That’s why it showed very quickly that there weren’t any conflict in the team. But, then it somehow denied the existence of a conflict between the drivers. And it stayed on for some years, and the conflict showed himself every time the two drivers were close on track.

    Now I guess Mercedes is trying to do the same. Lewis is showing on Twitter that Nico is his best pal. Conflict? There isn’t any conflict in the team they think. They are in a very strong position, and conflict means weakness, so there is no conflict in our a dominant team. But the danger here is by denying the existence of the conflict between Lewis and Nico, it could express itself again, and we could see sparks next time…

    • Robbie (@robbie) said on 1st June 2014, 13:11

      Can’t say I agree. I don’t think RBR ever tried to convince us that SV and MW were the best of friends. And given the gap between them most of the time, usually with SV ahead, MW had nothing to say on the track really, in answer to SV. So there was only friction on occasion but in general an underlying mistrust on MW’s part that he was second fiddle on the team.

      At Merc the difference is they are so darn close to each other in terms of pace, and they in fact are friends from way back. Nobody said best friends as you suggest. Nobody said they hang out together. Merc is not trying to hide anything. And conflict does not mean weakness. Thank goodness Merc is willing to invite some conflict of a pretty healthy sort by letting these guys race. I think all Merc can and should concern themselves with is literal contact between the two drivers on the track.

      Of course there is a good chance that another issue may arise. BE would love it. But for now I’m willing to play the wait and see game rather than assume something fake about LH’s tweet. I doubt Merc forced him into it nor would LH bow to the pressure if he wasn’t feeling it.

      Conflict? Of course. This is racing and only one man will win the WDC. But that doesn’t have to mean something unhealthy or something to hide. There is no hiding from two drivers in dominant cars being this close and being allowed to decide everything on the track. Thank you Mercedes.

  14. dex022 (@dex022) said on 1st June 2014, 12:29

    As would Jeremy Clarckson would say:eco-mentalists….F1 is about POWER,big engines and racing.22 F1 cars for sure are less polluting then one jumbo jet going across atlantic ocean.

    • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 1st June 2014, 13:00

      @dex022 but they are powerful – more powerful than the outgoing engines – yet consume less fuel. Why would you not strive for efficiency? It’s ridiculous not to.

      • OEL F1 (@oel-f1) said on 1st June 2014, 16:13

        Ok so they are more powerful and consume less fuel, but they are much heavier, thus making the cars lap slower. But then of course, they’re probably a lot faster than last years cars would be over a race distance with only 100kg on board.

      • Eric (@) said on 1st June 2014, 18:10

        @vettel1

        Why would you not strive for efficiency? It’s ridiculous not to.

        That’s what I keep saying to myself every year as well. But every year they just keep making the cars heavier… It makes absolutely no sense.

        In fact, it’s the exact opposite of what car manufacturers do.

        • Max Jacobson (@vettel1) said on 1st June 2014, 18:18

          @baron-2 That I do agree with – of course safety features overrule such, but I don’t see why the cars are so heavy. Materials restrictions?

          • DaveD (@daved) said on 1st June 2014, 19:03

            @vettel1 @baron-2 @oel-f1 Now you are hitting on the salient questions and points for discussion going forward. As someone that has been involved with battery tech and the electric motors, inverters, etc, I have a perspective on this.

            The current cars are very heavy because they are being a bit conservative on their choice of tech. But they have to be! Much of the cutting edge stuff is still not proven and very expensive. But there are clearly new tech out there that they could partner with suppliers and get into F1 first as a proving ground.
            For example, the inverter unit which takes power to/from the battery has new tech available such as SiC. These could reduce the size and weight of the inverter unit by ~75%. The batteries and/or supercaps they use for energy storage (I can’t find good info on what they’re using here…other than it being standard issue from the FIA) could also be using some new tech that could cut the weight in half or more.
            I’d like to see F1 truly live up to their talk about being more relevant for road cars. Partner with some of these suppliers of the newer tech and let both share the costs. It helps F1 and it helps the manufacturer have one of the best test beds in the world. They could easily cut the weight 30KG in a year or two while maintaining or even increasing the power of these ERS units.
            Why aren’t we hearing about that? Is that a goal? I doubt it, because they don’t seem to be leaning in that direction. I haven’t heard anything about it in their “future plans” for the next 3-5 years.

            I bet the drivers would love to see the weight of the total Power Unit drop by 30kg while the cars weight would drop by 20kg so they could eat a cheeseburger now and then! Plus, lap times would drop by nearly a second just from those weight savings alone. And think of the lower wear and tear on the tires throughout the race if they did that. They could make them stickier again without shredding them so easily. Perhaps another second a lap? Add normal clawbacks in aero and car tweaks and we’d be back in the area of 2004-2006 lap times…with 100kg of fuel per race.

          • Eric (@) said on 3rd June 2014, 10:10

            @daved

            The current cars are very heavy because they are being a bit conservative on their choice of tech. But they have to be! Much of the cutting edge stuff is still not proven and very expensive.

            F1 used to be all about cutting edge and unproven tech. That is what F1 used to be about. THAT is road relevance. Not this nonsense about fuel flow restrictions.

            But there are clearly new tech out there that they could partner with suppliers and get into F1 first as a proving ground.

            Exactly.

            I’d like to see F1 truly live up to their talk about being more relevant for road cars. Partner with some of these suppliers of the newer tech and let both share the costs. It helps F1 and it helps the manufacturer have one of the best test beds in the world.

            My thoughts exactly.

            Why aren’t we hearing about that? Is that a goal? I doubt it, because they don’t seem to be leaning in that direction. I haven’t heard anything about it in their “future plans” for the next 3-5 years.

            I won’t be surprised if they decide to make the cars even heavier. Maybe that’s what the FIA sees as road relevance, to have the cars weigh the same as a family sedan.

    • Jules Winfield (@jules-winfield) said on 1st June 2014, 16:25

      These cars have plenty of power. Blame the (overly-conservative) tyres. Back in the mid-1980s, the turbo Hondas were 1.5 litres – even less than now. Was that not Formula 1?

      If you’re going to quote that half-wit Clarkson, at least spell his name correctly. The manufacturers pushed for these engines. Look at their road car offerings. They are increasingly going to smaller-capacity engines with turbos. Manufacturers not in F1 like VW are going to smaller capacity engines. Even super-car manufacturers like McLaren have hybrid offerings.

      • DaveD (@daved) said on 1st June 2014, 20:07

        LOL Thank you for the laugh! Could not agree more about Clarkson. For goodness sake, at least recognize that Clarkson plays a buffoon on TV for entertainment purposes. I’m not sure if he is in real life or just enjoys doing it on the show. But either way, you can’t take the things he says on his show as anything serious. I would certainly not use him as a reference in serious converstations unless I was going for a laugh.
        Don’t get me wrong, I love the show….but you have to know what it really is: Entertainment/humor , not factual.

        As for McLaren, they’ve confirmed that all their cars will be hybrids in 10 years.

        http://www.gtspirit.com/2014/05/31/all-mclaren-road-cars-to-be-hybrid-in-10-years/

  15. timi (@timi) said on 1st June 2014, 15:00

    test

    • timi (@timi) said on 1st June 2014, 15:02

      *Testing times for the teams with regard to Engine costs.. but this was foreeable. I don’t remember Patrick Head voicing too many concerns a year or two ago. Besides, simple economics dictates engine costs will decrease once the initial R&D investement has been recouped by Merc, Ferrari and Renault. Calm yourself Paddy

      • Jules Winfield (@jules-winfield) said on 1st June 2014, 16:29

        Patrick Head is no longer involved in Formula 1 and hasn’t been for a number of years. He only offered his opinion because he was asked it by a BBC TV journalist. Why would anyone have asked his opinion?

        Engine costs may well decrease, unless the manufacturers get into a spending war, and assuming that the manufacturers actually decrease the price they’re asking.

        • timi (@timi) said on 1st June 2014, 19:48

          He retired from F1 in 2012, which is around the time new engines were being mooted, and I’d be incredibly surprised if a ballpark figure for costs hadn’t come up at the time..

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

All comments must abide by the comment policy. Comments may be moderated.
Want to post off-topic? Head to the forum.
See the FAQ for more information.