How Cosworth aims to be a force again

The sport's landscape is changing rapidly for Formula 1's engine manufacturers with proposed new rules for 2013 and huge development taking place in the peripheral areas of the current 'frozen' 2.4-litre V8 units.

But while intense debate continues over the future regulation framework of engines, with the FIA insisting that its proposed KERS-assisted 1.6-litre inline four cylinder units become mandatory for the start of 2013 - in spite of opposition - Cosworth's general manager Mark Gallagher believes his company is in a strong position whatever the outcome.

In an exclusive, in-depth interview with AUTOSPORT, Gallagher explains why Cosworth is not opposed to any new direction the sport chooses to go in, only that it has to remain economically sound for independent suppliers to operate as a business moving forward.

He also talks about Cosworth's successful return to the top echelon of the sport and why he believes a return to the glory days of one of F1's most iconic engine builders is not far off the horizon.

Q. Cosworth is now well into its second season back in Formula 1. What's your verdict on the job you did last year?

Mark Gallagher: Looking back at last season we would summarise it as being very good for us, purely from the engine performance point of view. We achieved 100 percent reliability, which was one of our key targets, and I think we realised that having had six months to effectively reconfigure the engine to meet the new regulations - following the decision not to give the new teams any performance breaks - there was some concern that there might be a perception that we would rush the job and pay the price in reliability. That was a key metric for us, and I have to say it was very good.

Certainly at the beginning of the year we saw some issues in relation to power degradation, which particularly Williams commented on. We had a carry-over oil system issue at the very beginning of the season which we resolved quickly. I would say by race five or six of last season we had got on top of those early issues - which really came about because of the lack of testing. Winter testing in 2010 was wet and we didn't really get the cars running around at speed for any length of time. I think the first four races were all about us optimising the engine and learning what issues remained and needed to be sorted. From then on I have to say it was very smooth.

The engine itself is very competitive. We are very pleased with the power we get from the engine. If first in class is Mercedes Benz then we would be confident that we are second best. Our power figures are good, there is a good torque curve, and power consumption is good. I think we all probably suspected that Renault might be the best on that, but we are right in the mix there.

The point to understand is that engines aren't the key factor in terms of competitiveness. They actually are entirely interchangeable between teams - so if you'd put a Cosworth engine in a Red Bull or a McLaren, the result last Sunday wouldn't have been any different. Equally if you put a Renault or Mercedes engine in an HRT or a Virgin the result wouldn't be any different.

So engines are absolutely not an issue in terms of providing a competitive advantage. That tends to get lost in some of the discussions about engines. Actually the current regulations have done a magnificent job of enabling four engine manufacturers to produce different units that all perform to within one percent of one another, and there is really no disparity. If someone was running around with 710bhp you would really see it.

So in a nutshell, last year was strong for us. We always knew that the new teams would be at the back of the field and that proved to be the case. We always knew that would create reputational questions for us because when you look at a time sheet and the three chassis at the bottom of the list all have Cosworth engines, no matter what you say about the equalisation, there is the inference that somehow your engine is contributing to that performance. We simply don't believe that is the case and the evidence is all around us. Williams made good strides last year, particularly from mid-season onwards, and I think they scored every possible top ten points finish apart from a podium, and they wouldn't have achieved that if we weren't doing our job.

We came out last year aware that we'd had a good year but we were conscious that we were to some extent pigeon-holed with new teams in terms of performance.

The loss of Team Lotus was disappointing, but the settlement with Tony Fernandes in the end was very amicable. Nevertheless it was something that we would rather have not happened because we liked working with them and we did feel that they would continue to make progress this year - which they have done. Of course when that progress happens concurrently with a change in engines then again there is an inference that it had something to do with the change in power unit, so we are back to that dilemma.

Obviously the other thing as we reached the end of our first season back in Formula 1 was that we had Williams wanting to move to a KERS engine this year. So we then had to reconfigure the engine and have it homologated for a second time, and that was a big development. I am pleased to say that so far it has been completely reliable. So: so far, so good.

Q. With the engine freeze and the restrictions on development that creates, what areas and improvement tweaks did you make over the winter?

MG: Because we cannot mechanically change the engine at all, it is completely frozen, there is no scope for us to do anything. So what we did last year, for example, with those couple of early season topics, we made some minor changes to the oil system, and that was all approved by the FIA and our competitors.

In terms of actual development, our focus with the teams has been external to the homologated engine. Everything below the top of the airbox is frozen so you can't change trumpets, and you can't change any internal components. So it's really been exhaust work, blown diffuser work and air intakes. Then we have had a fuel and lubricant development programme, which again tends to get overlooked in the sport.

And then of course, as an engine supplier, you are always working with the teams on gearbox development. Obviously Williams has come up with a radical box which is very small and we have undertaken a lot of gearbox testing with them, so there is never a dull moment. But in terms of the engine we are simply not allowed to do anything unless you have a reliability problem, and with the reliability we've had it's not been an issue.

Q. The blown diffuser issue blew up prior to the Spanish Grand Prix. How much work did you do initially on that last year, and how expensive was it to match what others were doing?

MG: Let's be clear, this is a multi-million dollar development - it's not a simple task. So, when Sam Michael says that Williams asked for a clarification on the legality for financial implications he was 100 % right. If you are going to spend millions of dollars on something you have to be sure that it is the right thing to do.

If we rewind, we started looking at blown-diffuser strategies in the first half of last year. We were then requested to develop a strategy for Williams which was introduced in Spa very successfully, and we were pleased with the outcome. Then really once the hot-blown strategy was looked at - obviously our own calibration engineers had been looking at that for some time - it's very clear this is a requirement the teams have, and it's not something an engine manufacturer would want to do to an engine because it creates some potential issues. You're asking an engine to do something it fundamentally wasn't designed to do, but it is possible, so we developed an approach to hot-blown calibration. The simple fact is it's up to our customers whether they want to implement it or not.

Now obviously by implementing that, Williams would have to invest in it and so what's happened is they have asked for a clarification. We are ready to implement a hot-blown strategy and do what is required but we have the pause button pressed because there is uncertainty over it. We have seen the FIA's banning of it, and then their U-turn, and we are waiting to see what happens next. Obviously [HRT team principal] Colin Kolles and Virgin have spoken to us about this as well, and I think Colin has made his views pretty clear on the subject.

Q. How complicated are these systems?

MG: It really does enter the realms of escalated development in an area which no one foresaw not very long ago, and you can see some quite extreme forms of it on the horizon. This is a benefit which is significant and if you said to your aerodynamicist 'I've got something that is going to give you half a second', they are going to jump on that.

This is not a small matter, it's not hundredths of seconds, there is a good chunk of time to be had, and therefore it has the potential to be exploited. Of course looking forward to potential new engines, if you designed one with this kind of strategy in mind, I think you could take it on to another level again. So the question is whether the FIA determines this is a cul de sac and we are not to go down it any further. Because if the road is left open, not just for the current engines, but for potentially new engines in the future, it's an entire new area of development which you can go on to.

I think, as Ross Brawn said the other day, exhaust gases have always been used to some extent in recent years, and then you think of the updates that McLaren developed, but I think the fundamental thing is that their primary use should be to get the exhaust gases out, and not provide aerodynamic aid. That's the general feeling, so we'll get the clarification. Certainly we have got [the system], we can implement it, but we just need the customers to be told that it's legal and they want to proceed with it.

Q. How is the market panning out going forward for Cosworth, given that Renault and Ferrari have indicated they want to expand their customer programmes and Craig Pollock's PURE has come over the horizon? Is it getting tougher?

MG: I don't think it is getting tougher because actually we have had very constructive dialogue with the three other engine manufacturers. There is a new company looking to come in which has never produced a Formula 1 engine before, and never produced a motorsport engine before, and if any team is prepared to look at that I would be surprised. But we are never complacent about the potential to have new competition come into the sport, so we will see what happens with that.

I think at this point in time we will concentrate on the fact that there are four competent engine manufacturers in F1 at the moment and quite likely it will remain that way. Also, in the case of Mercedes Benz and Ferrari both being engine manufacturers and team owners, they have different things to be concerned about because I suppose their principal reason for being in F1 is to win, and they look at their engine supply agreements in relation to the impact they might have on their overall programme.

It's been made absolutely clear by Mercedes Benz and Ferrari that they have no plans to increase their involvement in the sport. Renault have said they want to have four teams, and I have spoken to them about that and we've discussed the implications for Cosworth if that was to happen. I think the key thing is that so long as there are 12 teams in the sport, and so long as there are teams that require engine supply we are ready to do that. So I am supremely confident that in 2013, '14 and '15 we'll be in F1 and we'll be supplying multiple teams.

All the indications are there that that will be the case and the teams have said that two us. In all our discussions with the other manufacturers and with FOTA it's very clear that Cosworth is needed in F1 and not just to make the numbers up.

One of the points we've been pressing is that in order to secure our long-term future we have zero interest in supplying teams at the back of the grid. If you look at the timing screens and you see Cosworth engines parked at the bottom, ultimately over a long period of time that's going to erode people's confidence in us, whether it's founded or not.

I know we can be at the front of the field and obviously we want to get there with Williams and we have that determination. Williams is a great team, we enjoy working with them and I think with the changes they have made recently they have obviously grasped the nettle and they are determined to get back to the front.

But whether it's with that team or another we want to get back to the front of the field and not just because we want the Cosworth name to be promoted but because ultimately we want to be attractive to teams. We want teams to want our engine as much as they want to have a Mercedes or any other and we also want, in the fullness of time, to attract a car manufacturer partner to our programme, because quite frankly we can provide a turnkey solution for a car company to be in F1 for a fraction of the cost that it would take them to come in on their own.

I believe in these days, where the automotive industry shares technology every single day of the week, platforms, ignitions, transmissions; I think the argument that a car company would never be able to come in and simply use Cosworth to go racing in F1 is rubbish. We represent a terrific opportunity so I believe there is a company out there to replace Ford and I would say that is one of my biggest targets over the next three years.

Q. Is there a minimum number of teams you need to supply in F1 for it to make sense and would you be happy to expand it if someone came along?

MG: We can supply one team, two is better, three is preferable. We came into F1 in 2009 with a clear business model of supplying three teams, we subsequently got four teams, when Team Lotus turned up. It went to five teams when Williams came along in November in 2009, so we went from a three-team model to a five-team model unexpectedly and we were able to cope with that because of the legacy of the investment in the facilities that Ford had made and that our shareholders have continued. If necessary we could provide the whole grid with engines.

So we went to five teams, then obviously US F1 fell by the wayside, and we ran last year with four. So this year we are running the number of teams that was in our original plan, and I think our preference would be to continue supplying three teams and go to four if we are asked to.

Q. Have you been asked to?

MG: If I took every discussion that I'd had it's about seven teams, but realistically everyone is looking at options for the future at the moment. I quite like the balance that has been achieved today where you have 12 teams, four engine manufacturers and three each.

Q. 2013 is one of the big talking points in the paddock. Where do you stand on the costs, where it's going, what should happen?

MG: The first thing is, as I said in the FIA press conference in Barcelona, we are not going to have Cosworth's position misrepresented. We can build the engine, we have been working on the engine and we have absolutely no issue doing the inline four.

But our customers don't want to pay for it, there isn't the money, there isn't the sponsorship in F1 particularly for the smaller teams, and therefore the business case for the new engine is suspect.

And that's what we have brought to the attention of the FIA. We spent over a year discussing the technical regulations, but in that year there were no conversations with the teams about the commercial implications. We have now had those conversations and the teams that we have spoken to have shown... when you are reducing your number of engines to the teams you are supplying from 16, then to 10 and now to eight, not only do they not expect to pay more, they expect to pay less.

One team principal said to me, 'Well it's four cylinders instead of eight so that sounds like half price!' That's not the case.

For a company like Cosworth which is a business that runs to make a profit, the cost has to have a margin, so we can then reinvest and develop. For the car manufacturers the model is different and it remains so, in spite of everything that has happened in the last ten years. The carmakers involved in F1 are there first of all for the purposes of promotion, which we are not. Therefore they can effectively sponsor their development and park all of that cost in to another area, and therefore the price they charge to teams bears no relation to the cost, it's just a price of the market as it stands. In any other industry that would be completely unacceptable because it's just subsidies being provided and questions would be asked.

The car manufacturers are involved so they can promote their brands, so the constructive dialogue that has been going on between us and the car manufacturers is really, how do you square that circle?

If Cosworth is going to be in F1 and providing up to 25% of the grid with their engines, we don't want to have a compromised product. We want a competitive product, but how can that be achieved for a price with the customers that actually enables Cosworth to do the programme? That's really the debate that has started now.

It's come to our attention that there is an enormous amount of money being spent by the car manufacturers on the development of the engine. We believe we can develop a competitive engine, relative to a car company, for somewhere between 30% of their costs. And that's simply because we have been at it for such a long time, it's what we do and we know how to produce good engines. Having said that, precisely what everyone wanted to avoid has now happened. There is a space race going on, with more spending, and everyone going off and doing what a year ago was being thought of as irresponsible.

What we have said is that given our customers don't want to pay for it, and given that our competition is spending money at an enormous rate, we think the brake needs to be put on. Our proposal is that the V8 engines need to be retained for a period of time.

Now the question that has come back is what difference does it make to your model? If it doesn't work in 2013, why would it work in 2015? Well the difference occurs for a number of reasons

First of all there will be a new Concorde Agreement in place, so presumably the financial stability of all the teams and our customers will have been settled and I think with that the sponsorship market will improve.

We know there is a lag in the sponsorship market, so today we are seeing sponsorship dollars reflecting where the world economy was two years ago, which was in the doldrums. I think in two years' time the sponsorship market will have recovered. That also includes the opportunity for Cosworth to continue working to find a partner for our programme.

The final strand in the benefit of a delay would be the opportunity for all the manufacturers to press the pause button on development, relook at the floor space, reconsider where the money is being spent, perhaps agree to share some of the technologies and outputs of the development such that it all stacks up a lot better for everyone.

Those have been the reasons, but that's just been our position. The FIA has made it absolutely clear that the rules are not going to change and we respect that.

So we come back to our starting point, which is that if the inline four is coming in 2013 we'll do it, but what we now need is the teams and the manufacturers to agree about who is using which engine and for us to have an economic model that works. So the pressure is on commercially more so than technically.

Q. How much more would an engine deal cost a team in 2013?

MG: It will double. Also bear in mind that an engine today does not include KERS, and an engine for 2013 will. One of the ironies is that although there will be fewer engines during a season, the fact that you have got to make them last for 5,000km means the amount of work that has to go into enabling that to happen increases your development programme significantly. Your producing all that power for four race weekends and, of course, they won't want any degradation because the teams won't want the fourth weekend to be pointless. So actually we have to spend quite a lot of money on that.

Q. Jean Todt's equivalency idea, for a year's grace for V8s, could that work?

MG: I think equivalencies seldom work very well. We were involved in an equivalency only five years ago and we were actually in a very good place to look at it, because we produced both the V10 and the V8.

One of the points of this which would need to be recognised is that I don't think there has been any suggestion of an equivalency, I think that is the wrong word. It's simply a transition year with those units that are available. There wouldn't be equivalency in performance, the V8 would be strangled to such an extent that it would be difficult to understand why anyone would want it. Particularly if a manufacturer would be prepared to supply you with a brand new unit for the same price. Again you come back to the economic argument, and knowing Colin Kolles, Nikolai Fomenko and Adam Parr as I do, I don't think any of our customers would accept running around at the back of the field for a year treading water.

It's an interesting thought and it certainly was appreciated when it was mentioned, but we will just continue with our discussions and I'm sure that pretty quickly a solution will be found to all of these conundrums because time is not on anyone's side.

Q. So what is the next step?

MG: There is a process underway which we are all engaged in with the FIA and with the manufacturers, looking at costs and ideas for a transitional year or two years or whatever. There has even been thoughts about alternative solutions in the medium term to try and stabilise the whole thing. I think fundamentally with the 2013 chassis regulations pretty well decided, this issue over engines needs to be resolved quickly. We've had meetings last weekend, this week and more next week and I'm confident that inside the next month the whole thing will be resolved one way or another.

Q. Renault is the only manufacturer dead-set on the switch. Is it involved in these discussions and open to a solution that is good for all?

MG: They have been terrific. They have made it clear that they support the new regulations, they want to build the new engine and they feel that it is in keeping with their road car business. Although it looks like from the outside that there are entrenched positions taken, we have a very good relationship with Renault as we do with Ferrari, and no one is trying to push Cosworth out of the door. We are not trying to push Renault out and say you can't have your new engine, we are all simply trying to find a solution that works for everyone.

It is quite complicated, every company has its own issues. Ferrari has made it clear that, as Luca di Montezemolo has said, multi-cylinder engines are what it produces, and an in-line four has no relevance to Ferrari.

Mercedes Benz has large engines and small engines so that's another point there; Renault is in another place; we are in an another place again with our independent status. So every company involved has its own agenda and its own business requirements that it needs to achieve through these discussions.

But we don't sit down and have arguments, we discuss the problems openly and it has been a very constructive process. I think there is a real determination to find a solution very quickly, and certainly the FIA's position that the decision has already been made means that there is a real urgency to ratify where we are with all of this and answer the question that we need answering - how can the economics work?

Q. It seems clear from the outside that Cosworth's return has been successful, so you are here for the long-term in F1?

MG: F1 is a key pillar of our business. We have zero interest in being out of F1. We want to see that 177th grand prix victory scored sooner rather than later. It's a source of enormous frustration to the racers in Cosworth that it's been a long time since we have won anything. And we do feel that we have got a hand tied behind our back because that just hasn't been possible in recent years.

The three years we were out of F1 were almost terminal in terms of our ambitions and, if the regulations had changed during that three year period, we wouldn't be here today I don't think.

Fortunately there has been stability, and because of that we were able to come back, and in a very credible way. But when you look at our business, F1 contributes in so many ways, not just in terms of the business we do in F1 but also the culture within Cosworth. When you then apply that racing culture to the automotive business that we do, it has a great impact. I absolutely see F1 being what we do going into the future, and looking at the automotive companies that we work with and are looking to work with, somewhere in those will be the Ford replacement. I'm looking forward to that day.

I want to see Cosworth working with a car company, providing competitive engines to a team at the front of the grid and for us to be back to where we really want to be. All of this is very necessary but nevertheless it's a distracting conversation about the economics and the regulations that we hope will eventually become a distant memory and we can just get on with racing, because that's what we are here for.

We want to hear from you!

Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.

Take our survey

- The Autosport.com Team

Read and post comments