The hustle and bustle between the automobile manufacturers and the Formula 1 authorities looks set to take a new twist in a few days when the car manufacturers present their plans to continue with the current 1.6 litre turbo V6 hybrid turbos, but with the price being substantially reduced, to aid the small teams. If rumours are to be believed this will be a significant reduction. Much will depend on exactly what is included in the customer packages, as gearboxes and other paraphernalia can add to the basic cost, but it looks like the price will come down from around $25 million, to a much more affordable $13 million. The decision has been taken because the manufacturers do not want to have invest in completely new engines, as anything new costs a great deal more money. As part of the package it is expected that some of the elements of the power unit will become standardised. There is speculation that this could include elements of the power units. It is clear that the internal combustion engines (ICE) will not be standardised, but there are arguments that some of the other elements could be. The engines consist of four elements in addition to the ICE: the power source (read battery), the turbocharger, the Motor Generator Unit – Heat (MGU-H), which takes power from the turbine shaft, thus converting heat energy into electrical power, and the Motor Generator Unit – Kinetic (MGU-K), which takes recovered kinetic energy dissipated during braking and converts it into electricity and then adds additional drive to the crankshaft. The MGU-K is limited to 120 kW per lap, while the MGU-H is free. The MGU-H controls the speed of the turbocharger. This is valuable technology, but the MGU-K could be standardised quite easily, as it is already restricted and thus not really being developed. The turbocharger itself might also become standardised, while it is unlikely that the manufacturers would want to provide common energy stores as batteries are key for the industry. A great deal of the efficiency in these engines comes from the software that balances how, when and where the recovered energy is used. Overall, these combine to makes some of the most impressive engines in the history of the industry, with unheard of thermal efficiency figures and impressive horsepower numbers for the amounts of fuel being used. This progress can continue even if there are standard MGU-K and turbochargers. The key point is to keep the technical development in areas that the industry can use, much of which is in the software.
Bringing down the cost of the engines will not, however, solve the political problems that the sport has. The small teams will still be looking for more prize money, while the Formula One group and (perhaps) the FIA will still want to break the stranglehold on political power that the manufacturers currently hold. If they continue to fight for an independent engine supplier, then conflict will remain inevitable. The problem that Formula One and the FIA have is that we are now in 2016 and so negotiations must soon begin with regard to the commercial deals that are needed for 2020 and beyond. If the manufacturers stick together, then the others will have to compromise or risk not having any competitors in 2021. It won’t come to that, of course, as there will be a compromise along the way, but that compromise must involve the teams getting more and the commercial rights holder getting less.
joeblogsf1 
As time goes by I get increasingly more interested in the engine technology of F1, that information is mainly coming from you, and occasionally James Allen.
It is such a fascinating technology – it really is a crying shame the sport does not promote this.
It seems politics just gets in the way of producing a great sport.
Oh well, roll on Melbourne. I do love that race, something about the track layout seems to produce good racing…
It drives me that the “F1 authorities” are so useless at telling the world about the amazing things the sport is doing. Useless. The problem is that they suffer from profititis and having their heads rammed well up their own derrieres.
“It drives me xxx that the “F1 authorities” ” Missing word here, suggestions:
mad, insane, round the bend, up the wall, to distraction, to contemplate suicide, to go to lunch early, to buy a VW?
I know I’m picking up on a throwaway comment that’s slightly off topic, but I wonder whether the racing in Melbourne is good because of the track or because (for quite a few years now) it’s at the start of the year when teams are maybe a bit less sure of the data and the projections and the development of their cars and their rivals’ cars.
People with longer memories than me could judge much better – care to enlighten me anyone?
Haven’t Renault now signed *beyond* 2020? My guess that was on the provision that there would be stability in the direction of the power unit.
Yes, Renault has a deal but the others do not.
Joe,
in light of today’s breaking news implicating Renault in its own Emissions Scandal and attendant share price plunge – do you envisage this affecting their involvement in F1? How air-tight are these contracts?
Does that not weaken their hand and the unity of the manufacturers when the post 2020 commercial contracts come up for renewal? If Renault are already committed they will be out of step if the other manufacturers want to get heavy with the promotor by threatening to walk. Bernie may well just say, well sod off then, I only need one manufacturer to keep racing.
How much of a formula 1 car is standardized? Not that many I reckon. Should be a good move to standardize more components, for example exhausts, suspension.
I disagree! Already the engine management is a package supplied by McLaren Technology, that has cut out the competition between the minds of boffins who could have introduced many interesting but hidden features and possibly increased efficiency of the PU package. If you increase efficiency you can use less fuel and hence save weight, this allows better ballast distribution.
A1GP has already been done, we do not need another spec series, F1 must stretch all areas to the limit of the widest (and most imaginative) interpretation of the letter of the regulations. (One day the regs will be written the other way round and truly restrict teams to the original intent, but today they are still formulated with too much engineering knowledge)
However,, to argue the opposite in a way, not the cars to have standard parts, but the wheels and the fuel should be standard and interchangeable between teams. Here couls be another FIA chosen and paid contract as per the tyres, but the FIA should get the fee. (say £10 per wheel per race would equal about £30,000 – £40,000 per year for the FIA) A similar deal per litre of fuel at a rate of 10p/Lit would bring another £15,000 or so. Then some teams would have less of an advantage.
Often the 13″ wheels are an integral part of the brake and suspension design so that might be a problem for some teams. However, if the wheels were to go to (say) 18″ they could use bigger less sophisticated brakes which might allow a standard wheel and cheaper brakes.
I can’t see those petrol companies such as Shell, Total and Petronas being too keen on standard fuel, nor the teams that they sponsor.
Well it seems logical since the tyre companies both proposed larger wheels to accept the increased torque. Using low profile tyres would mean perhaps less kerb riding and proper suspension that moves, returning.
If teh wheels were standard the brakes can still be deigned to suit.
The assumption in your first paragraph is far from correct. The engine control strategies is perhaps the key element that separates all teams and manufacturers from their customers.
If you are interested in the technicalities, have a look at this video that describes the work done by a team from Oxford University working for Ferrari.
You can see that the strategy is built up circuit by circuit and depending on the density of the mesh could be metre by metre. You can be at a severe disadvantage if you are looking at intervals of 10m, or 100m
Yes but the hardware and I believe the firmware is standard. Imagine what could happen if it were unrestricted.
Anyway I thought the number of engine maps had now been curtailed,ndidnt that happen two or three years ago?
An unfortunate mis-conception. Article 8.1 is your guide, but it is effectively a barn door that ensures the supremacy of the manufacturers.
If you remember last year, Ron predicted that no customer would ever beat a manufacturer. He would not have believed that had he been supplying the ECUs and control software.
The engines may run on special fuel, but they are powered by very complex algorithms. Their road-relevance is very limited.
There should be room for the teams to make a difference. But the fans do not care about which floor is used on a car. Nor the life cell (where the driver is seated). What about a fuel tank?
What if these components are build by the teams themselves?
The part I mentioned are not parts that are visible to fans. Also this would enable some more cost cutting.
Nah! The fuel bladder is almost standard too. V strict rules, here kevlar etc.
I’d love to know how you would standardise a “Hot V” Merc turbocharger, a Honda “In V?” I think it was called, and the Merc and Ferrari ones, but maybe for the next batch of regulations that could happen.
I’m sure there are reasons not to do this, but would seem more sensible to standardise the block and let the Illien’s and other manufacturers tinker with the heads, and where the innovation must lie in the Hybrid/Software systems.
The simplest solution is having an independent engine supplier who will supply engines according to the current rules, like Cosworth did in de V10 and V8 era. The problem is finding one. Maybe the FOM can persuade an engine manufacturer to enter F1 and subsidise the development cost.
You mean like Honda?
Yes, this is called competition and it will make the present engine players make adjustments, none of which will affect the game on the track.
A little off topic but why does “everyone” always write that the MGU-H converts heat energy into electrical energy? The turbo may use exhaust gases (and be hot) but it (and the MGU-H) converts the kinetic energy of the exhaust gas flow into the boost (and electricity). The temperature of the gases is irrelevant. The MGU-H has no way of converting the actual heat energy to electricity (which would required something like a thermocouple, Peltier junction or Stirling engine).
The hair has been split
“The hair has been split”
Not for me. I’m in Mike’s camp on this one. For me, it would be even more impressive if they recovered heat losses from the engine.
The sudo adiabatic Toyota (I think) WEC engine is probably an interesting line to investigate.
Mike if the heat makes no difference then why has Ferrari, for example, gone to such great lengths to keep the heat in the exhaust pipes? Not simply to stop the body melting. Because hot air is more energetic than the same air cold and thus converts to more kinetic energy! All down to the volume of the gas. Little air goes in, big volume, much hotter, comes out. Cool that air some and less volume comes out the exhaust. Spining turbine runs slower, less electricity is generated. So heat does make a difference.
Heat is usually detrimental to electronic and mechanical systems. Keeping the heat contained is critical to cooling and packaging for Ferrari and all the other manufacturers. Also, as you alluded to, heat is indeed energy. Any heat that bleeds off reduces the energy of the exhaust flow and would not be desirable. However, it’s not the heat itself that provides the energy for the turbo and the MGU-H, it’s the flow itself (the heat of which is a byproduct of combustion).
Well said! It has always annoyed me too. The heat escape or rather heat removal is probably the greatest energy loss in the PU system. It is also extremely annoying that some people want to increase the loss through noise.
the kinetic energy is linked to the thermal and thats why it called MGU-H.
The higher the temperature of a certain volume the greater the kinetic energy of particles in said volume
MGU-K recovers (to be pedantic, kinetic energy) from mechanical elements and MGU-H recovers (to be pedantic, kinetic energy) from the excess temperature of elements
If i am wrong I look forward to the correction
We know what the machines do
Because the MGUH stands for Motor Generator Unit – Heat, perhaps?
Your last paragraph is the most important. All the talk of reducing the engine costs by $10 million per season takes away from the real problem, and that is the CVC sucking 37% of revenue out of the commercial rights, and the imbalance in the prize money.
Quick math: if CVC cut their profit sucking in half, that would leave approx $280 million available for team-distribution. Divided equally amongst all teams (11, including HAAS) is $25 million extra per team. Leave the rest of the points-money structure as it stands, and this is an automatically equalizing system that assures money to even the lowliest of teams. The absolute difference in dollars received between top and bottom won’t change, but on a percentage scale they will change significantly. Go ask Sauber if they could survive and be more competitive on an extra $25 million, pretty sure I know the answer.
The trickle down effect would be significant. Closer racing due to increased development at the back half of the grid. Fewer pay drivers, which would decrease the alienation of fans. More fans equals more viewership and more sponsorship funds available.
Then Bernie has to cut track fees. They aren’t sustainable. Just look at Texas. Fantastic track (one of the best newer ones), close to major urban area, grows the sport in North America. Promoters need to make a profit, and at Texas, if anything F1 should be adding a bit of subsidy to ensure growth in the US.
Highest bidder tracks means we’ll loose all the traditional tracks and end up racing at government sponsored weekend parties that happen to include a car race, like Ajerbaijan and Abhu Dhabi. This will be the death of F1 if it continues.
CVC reinvesting profits into the sport ? How cute
CVC has already sucked years of profits out by taking loans against future profit. My understanding is that CVC is servicing about $5 billion of debt, having paid that amount out to themselves. I suspect they might be hard pressed to distribute more money. When (if) CVC is ever sold the buyer better beware………..
In F1, as with most financial systems, the money flow is not happening in a closed system. The top teams will always have the affect of driving overall costs which will always affect the small teams, regardless of extra money to the smaller teams. Sponsor money will fund things the smaller teams cant afford regardless of a fairer pay system. A new tool or idea which costs money will not be an option for the small teams if they want to actually compete, new for McLaren and Ferrari will eventually mean new for the small teams too. Up and up the money spending goes…
The often repeated refrain regarding more money to teams is.. they will just spend what they are given. So more money just leads to more spending and more need. In an open system like F1 this means there will be more room for innovation and more room for new things to spend money on, which the smaller teams will have to eventually buy, so more cost to them. The loop goes round and round, more money more spending forcing the small teams to spend on stuff that will just keep them in the game, as in within just a few seconds of the top teams.
I have no problems with the teams getting more money but FOM with the help of the FIA really must mandate an adjustment of some costs because the small teams will always end up in the poor house if they simply want to be competitive. The FOM and FIA need to make F1 more of a closed financial system in order to have what you seem to envision.
Agreed
The customer PU cost reduction, plays straight into Bernie’s hands. Just as he, no doubt, planned.
No, I don’t think it does. He is still not in control
He may not be in control, but the cost reduction lowers the pressure from the customer teams for more money from FOM. Not by much maybe but I am sure Bernie will make a huge deal of it.
More like it plays into Todts hands
Perhaps
How?
You’re reading this all wrong. Bernie is the loser in this new twist. Todt gets exactly what he asked for. EXACTLY. Bernie get nothing he wanted which was weaker engine manufacturers. They still control who gets what engine and their customers support. Be interesting to see what Todt says now when Bernie asks for help in introducing a new engine. Because this does not help his pet team one jot.
We will see.
“…but the MGU-K could be standardised quite easily, as it is already restricted and thus not really being developed”
What is the motivation for standardising elements? I had assumed the manufacturers wanted to reduce development costs in order to lower the price the customer teams pay, but if the MGU-K isn’t a major development area then I guess standardising it won’t mean much in the way of savings?
Cost reduction
Happy New Year Joe!
@DogNatural:
Even if they don’t want to develop them, they still have buy multiple units per year at whatever it costs to produce their non-standard MGU-K.
It would be cheaper to manufacture 100 x standard MGU-K each year for, say, 5 years than producing 10-20 of each design each year. So once standardised the cost to manufacture reduces and thus the cost to use reduces, albeit offset by the one-time cost of integrating the standard MGU-K into the design. In the long run it must be a cost saving.
@Mike Schriber:
On the subject of heat vs velocity I suspect the MGU-H is so-called as in thermodynamic terms it is converting between heat and electricity (though I know nothing of thermodynamics beyond the high level variables).
Thermodynamics views the system from the outside and doesn’t concern itself with gas velocity, etc.
Kelvin (apparently) wrote:
“Thermo-dynamics is the subject of the relation of heat to forces acting between contiguous parts of bodies, and the relation of heat to electrical agency.”
Considering it was written in 1854, it is an uncannily good summary of an F1 engine (and the whole car, actually)!
Hej-Hej
How about just dropping one of the power systems that feed the batteries. You want to cut costs, cut entire systems don’t standardizes them.
You want to keep technology not lose it.
An engine formula proposal:
Harmonise the current ICE units to whatever the Merc is currently producing.
Put a budget cap of $25 million a year on hybrid development, but remove development tokens. In the longer term, freeing up of Hybrid technologies in a similar way to WEC.
Propose that boost, fuel quantity/flow rate is to be reduced in future seasons so that if power levels too high, the architecture of the power unit will stay the same for at least 5 years, if not more.
Harmonisation worked in the 2009-2013 era. Forensic accounting would work for the budget cap. Red Bull would be happy as it wouldn’t be a pure engine formula and they could still spend 10 times as much on aero. New manufacturers would come in as their investment would have a long term outcome, not be potentially thrown in the bin after 2 seasons where they will have struggled.
Why would Merc agree to that?
“Harmonisation worked in the 2009-2013 era”
No it didn’t – it resulted in one team winni9ng all the titles in that period and no-one else getting g a look in, albeit the team that won it bent the rules so far backwards they were bent double.
One team is winning it again, the difference being this time, no rule bending has been going on. At least not in any way to the extent that Red Bull did it.
I used the word “harmonisation”? I doubt it. Was it an auto-correct glitch? I’d never use it. Horrible word.
‘Harmonisation’ is also the technical term for the process of gettiing all the weapons and sensors on a combat aircraft to point in the direction that they should.
On some aircraft it’s made more difficult because the underlying structure doesn’t hold the bits relevent firmly enough, or the whole structure is bent.
Does that start to sound like F1?
There’s no way that a cap can be enforced. Companies can set up shell companies, shadow companies, non-profit organizations, whatever they like to hide their spending. It’s not like a salary cap in team sports that’s easily track-able.
You don’t know much about forensic accounting, do you?
“but it looks like the price will come down from around $25 million, to a much more affordable $13 million. The decision has been taken because the manufacturers do not want to have invest in completely new engines, as anything new costs a great deal more money”.
Indeed, and the R&D boys and girls must be rubbing their hands in glee with the prospect of potential redundancies. Something has to give in cost-cutting… and that usually means (F1-pay-rate) job losses.
Talented people always find work
True, and hopefully at the rates to which they have become accostomed.
Can anyone put into numbers how much they think the owners of F1 should get from F1 as a percentage and how much the teams should get? In the abstract it seems to me 10% would be wonderful income for the owners. Unfortunately CVC seems to have screwed up and taken out such oversized loan obligations that they cant give more to the teams. These things happen, good investments going bad due to greed. At this point it looks like F1 must go into bankruptcy and clear out all the bond obligations, that is the real bottom line. CVC is going to get a really bad name from all of this, but F1 will be on a better footing in the end.
Keep in mind, the Carlyle Group, another much larger investment company like CVC bought Chrysler Motors and once the US government got through with them Carlyle lost all their money, (5 billion?) its not like every investment must come up a perpetual winner.
10-15 is reasonable, without loading the business with debt. That is unforgivable for me. The sport belongs to us all, not to such people.
I doubt CVC will agree to a large reduction in its cut – not without some compensation. For CVC to sell, someone has to force their hand – which is unlikely – or offer them a deal they can’t refuse (the secret Nazi gold from lake Toppitz, maybe), which is marginally more likely. Something has to give and, in the eternal parlance of F1, it will be “interesting” to see what.