The FIA has revealed Ferrari blocked plans to impose a maximum price on a Formula 1 power unit/gearbox package, leading to a push to introduce a budget engine from 2017. The intention to introduce the budget engine has been confirmed by the FIA after the plan was revealed during the United States Grand Prix weekend. Motorsport's governing body has been frustrated in its attempts to impose cost cuts, and now sees a cheaper engine as a viable alternative to run alongside the 1.6-litre V6 turbo-charged systems introduced at the start of last year. The FIA has revealed Ferrari used its right of veto after it and Formula One Management "suggested the principle of setting a maximum price for engine and gearbox for client teams" at the last Strategy Group meeting. At present it is understood customers of engine manufacturers Mercedes, Ferrari and Renault pay around €20million per season for a power-unit supply. It had been suggested the trio should charge less than half that in the interests of keeping costs as low as possible, only for Ferrari to say no. A FIA statement claims "these measures were put to the vote and adopted with a large majority. "However, Ferrari SpA decided to go against this and exercise the right of veto long recognised under agreements governing F1. "In the interest of the championship, the FIA has decided not to legally challenge Ferrari SpA's use of its right of veto." The FIA has confirmed it is to "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," said the FIA statement. "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. "It asks all of the teams to make a positive contribution to the success of this approach through proposals and initiatives in the interest of the Championship and its continuation over the long term." The prospect of a different engine still has numerous hurdles to clear, but if tenders are eventually sought it could see the likes of Cosworth putting in a bid. http://www.autosport.com/news/report.php/id/121526
There's many problems here. That a team can be allowed to veto something they are a competitor of. Cough cough come on now EU That the FIA want to effectively bin these PUs. Yup that'll encourage manufacturers. Come spend millions and then we'll tear it up for you early. That the FIA got into this mess to start with. How hard is it to apply common sense. Sunday showed how amazing F1 can be. But sadly the FIA and FOM want to chose the wrong option at every opportunity.
The current PU manufacturers business models is built on charging customers a certain amount. They each have contracts to supply PU to teams at £X. The FIA can’t force PU manufacturers to rip up their contracts and their business models. If the FIA actually want these changes then they have to give the teams notice of at least 2 years. It would be good to get a competitive PU produced by an independent manufacturer but who in their right mind would invest the sort of money that’s required when the FIA keep suggesting that they might change the PU rules? It's all Bernie and FIA smoke and mirrors. Neither of them have a clue what to do. They are running round like headless chickens. The new PU are great, hugely technically advanced. The problem is the tokens system that stops the teams catching up. The other problem is cost and if all teams are allowed any PU development they want the cost will spiral beyond control and no one wins. I think they really need to give these PU time. Look how well Ferrari have progressed, OK so Renault have stood still but they have become more reliable. I think Renaults lack of investment is all part of their plan. I think they saw how Red Bull behaved during 2014 so they decided to get out of the contract with zero cost to them selves, maybe even a payment from Red Bull. Then buy ideally Lotus and put an all new singing dancing PU and be challenging at the front in 2016. The VW scandal is helping Renault but it has also pushed Red Bull into a corner and they are winging and fighting to survive. So roll on 2016.
Just stick with these units and allow manufacturers to openly develop them... that should level the playing field fairly quickly and surely the longer these engines are around the cheaper they should become to produce I'd imagine.
A little known amendment to the 2016 rules that the teams allowed, not that they should be making rules, is that the token system will match 2015 levels. So there will be more scope for development than originally allowed. Season long development to.
It's hard to really judge the rights or wrongs of Ferrari's actions without knowing what it costs to supply a customer for a year. They charge about £14m per season for engines, that includes the ICE, gearbox, turbo, energy store, electronics, and MGU's. At the moment they supply eight race engines (four for each car) but if they need more than this they'd presumably provide that at no extra cost, so they probably budget for ten, plus a couple more for testing. Then on top of that they'd provide technical support, and personnel who work with the customer year round, both at and away from the circuit, which I would also assume is included in the agreed price. The FIA were pushing for a maximum price of £7m for a supply of new engines, and £5m for one year old engines. Is it even possible for them to achieve that without making a loss? £5m seems incredibly ambitious, especially as I see no real reason why the older engines should be cheaper to produce. Again I think the problem is largely one of the FIA's own making. There's a duopoly on engine supply at the moment and since one engine maker isn't going to supply nine teams they can charge what they like to the teams they do supply. If the customer teams had greater choice prices would come down because competition to supply teams would increase.
This is a handy fire for Bernie to stoke - it provides more opportunities for teams to turn against each other (divide & conquer), and it also shifts the discussion: away from 'engine affordability' (which could be addressed if the smaller teams received more money); to 'engine cost' (so the engine manufacturers become the greedy bad guys). As for Ferrari's action, I haven't often had much sympathy for them, but I do on this. They (and Mercedes) invest a lot in developing PUs - a lot of money, time, expertise, project management, supply chain management etc etc. This is money (and, to a lesser extent, time & management) that they might otherwise put into chassis / aero. PU customer teams avoid all of that investment and the other headaches. If Ferrari & Mercedes are suddenly expected to recoup less money from selling PUs, at what point do they say "forget it, we won't supply bargain PUs to our competitors - they can go cap-in-hand to Renault and Honda". Also, cheaper PUs would benefit the richer customer teams as well as the poor ones, which is also unfair on Ferrari and Mercedes. Much better (in my opinion) to return to the question of 'affordabilty'. Increase the payments that the smaller teams receive from F1, so they can afford to buy PUs while Ferrari and Mercedes still see a reasonable return.
Have to agree with Mr B, its ludicrous that smaller teams receive so much less money from FOM, and then have to hand over even more to the big teams for their second rate engines. The alternative, cheaper engine, I think thats entering a real minefield. It can't be as strong as the expensive engines, or there's no incentive for Mercedes or Ferrari to develop them. But they can't be much weaker or it creates a clearly divided two tier series. As to who makes the new engine, realistically it has to be someone like Cosworth, or (insert conspiracy theory here, Illmor). And if it's more than one manufacturer then the combination of low price and only a couple of teams to supply makes it difficult to produce the required engine and turn a profit.
