The complex future of F1 engines

Once again the emotive topic of engine (un)freezes has reared its head, so much so that last Friday, Formula 1 tsar Bernie Ecclestone called a special meeting of all team principals to discuss the question of changing the current process by which engines can be upgraded annually.

In keeping with F1's best traditions of schizophrenically complicating even the simplest tasks, the meeting was hardly straightforward. The basic thrust was to amend the (decreasing) number of "upgrade tokens" issued to engine suppliers over the seven-year life cycle of homologated power units to enable Ferrari/Renault to play catch-up with Mercedes.

Basically, power units are divided into 42 categories, each of which has a weighting between one and three - providing a total of 66 "tokens" to be used for upgrades. Next year 61 items may be modified, decreasing at the rate of 10 each for 2016/7, a further eight in 2018 and down to only three each for 2019/20. See Page 89 of the 2014 Technical Regulations for details.

However, given that homologation and the token concept is enshrined in the 2015 Technical/Sporting Regulations and that any post-June 30 2014 change requires unanimous agreement at F1 Commission level - where all 11 teams have a voice - before being escalated to the FIA's World Motor Sport Council for ratification, any change always was going to be a long shot regardless of Ecclestone's intentions.

Complicating the matter is that of the 11 teams only two (Mercedes and Ferrari) produce their own power units, with Renault having been excluded since exiting team ownership at the end of 2009, and Honda, which (re)joins in 2015 with McLaren, not even being officially represented.

Ecclestone met with the teams in Singapore © XPB

Thus two fully fledged operations and nine customers were being asked to discuss a matter that directly affects four multinational companies, two of which were not even present or officially represented. Where one partnering team spoke on behalf of its absent supplier, another customer of the same operation invariably contradicted it.

A sure-fire recipe for disaster and little wonder Ecclestone did not obtain the consensus the 83-year-old called for when he opened the hour-long meeting attended by all teams, save Force India for reasons of (mis)communication.

Compounding this already complicated situation is that Mercedes and its three teams - Lotus expects to replace McLaren in 2015 - see no fundamental reason to change. Why should they: the Three Pointed Star did its homework ahead of this season, and is said to have a number of tokened upgrades ready for next year. Indeed, the word is of a 10 per cent power increase...

That said, the likes of Lotus and Sauber are way below their usual station, primarily on account of power unit deficits. It can be no coincidence that, as the constructors' race heads into its final quarter, four of the top six teams are Mercedes-powered, while the bottom five all have either Ferrari or Renault units.

However, the thrust of the matter was that some form of upgrade relaxation should be permitted, but that there should be no cost increases to the customers, nor should there be specification variance between power units - to prevent engine suppliers passing on costs on an option basis. "Same cost/same spec" was the byword.

"We do support the idea that development of an engine is allowed within certain given parameters but it not necessarily leads to the fact that we, as customers, should actually bear the costs for that," said Sauber team principal Monisha Kaltenborn when directly questioned by this column during the FIA's Friday press conference.

"Because that's something that is always taken for granted, that the moment we talk about engine development it's just a logical step next to say 'it'll get more expensive'."

The Indo-Austrian's logic is that her engine supplier - in this case Ferrari - is in any event undertaking upgrades on its own behalf as it chases ways and means of extricating itself from the embarrassing hole it dug itself into, and that customer teams should only pay the marginal costs of engines.

Unsaid is that Ferrari (and Renault) should always have supplied top drawer units at the asking price, and that customers should not be forced to pay extra to upgrade that which is sub-standard in the first place...

However, Renault does not have a team of its own, so, unlike Ferrari, has no team-centric reason to push for upgrades: all its teams are customers, even if some hold Platinum cards and others merely Bronze. Thus the cost argument is slightly more complex, although it goes without saying that the French company, with a recent run of four successive championships to its name, is honour-bound to provide the best it can.

Smaller teams support the engine unfreeze, but not at any cost © LAT

"Regarding a lift of engine freeze," said Manfredi Ravetto, (newly-appointed) team principal of Renault customer Caterham in reply to the same question, "I believe generally speaking everybody deserves a second chance in life so why not apply this to engine manufacturers?

"Having said this, I have to emphasise that the most important thing for a small team like Caterham is to keep costs under control. I remember times when we were using 60/70 engines per year instead of the number we are using now and the bill was very similar, so there must be something to readdress."

Ask Mercedes customers how they feel about a 'thaw', and one senses bristling. "No! We've got the Mercedes power unit and fortunately they've done a great job this year," was Claire Williams's immediate reaction in Singapore.

"I look back over history in Formula 1 when we have these kinds of conversations and, you had to enter the season with your race car. If you haven't done a good enough job, why change the regulations? Why should teams be allowed to do that?"

Then the de facto boss of her family's team softened slightly, albeit with a caveat: "If it's part of the conversation, then fine, we'll be involved in that conversation and we'll support it - but only based around what Monisha already said: As a supplied team, we don't believe those costs should be passed on to us.

"If the manufacturers want to spend money developing their engines, fine - but as a customer team we want to receive the same specification that the manufacturers provide, and at the same [£20million] cost that we have now."

She is correct in her assertion "if you haven't done a good enough job, why change the regulations", for F1 is littered with examples of disparity through sub-standard engines. In fact, when Williams won its first world title in 1980, the first three teams and from fifth to ninth were powered by Ford's Cosworth DFV (Renault placed fourth), with Ferrari and Alfa Romeo finishing 10th and 11th respectively.

No talk of unfreezes or thaws then, simply because this utterly unfathomable concept simply did not exist back in those relatively uncomplicated days...

Vijay Mallya, both Force India team principal and a member of the WMSC through his chairmanship of India's motorsport federation, is obviously split: on the one hand his team is capitalising on being Mercedes powered; on the other he fully believes in the need for more equal performance for the sake of 'the show'.

"The engines for 2014 are already a lot more expensive than in previous years and if unlimited engine development in-season is allowed," he says. "I agree with [Kaltenborn] that the teams, those sat around this [conference], shouldn't be burdened with additional costs.

Friday's press conference in Singapore © XPB

"But on principle, maybe I would agree to support maybe one in-season update [in addition to permitted 'token' development] of the engine in a very controlled and limited way, but I think it would not be appropriate to allow unfettered in-season development."

Some teams (and engine suppliers) are inclined to view the changes as a silver bullet aimed at Ferrari and Renault with the specific intention of aiding them with achieving parity with Mercedes ASAP. Certainly, that can be deduced from Franz Tost's comments in the press conference.

"First of all I must say that the parity of the performance of the engines is fundamental to increase the show. It cannot be that two cars are one-to-two seconds ahead of the rest of the field," said Toro Rosso's team principal.

"Fortunately and nevertheless we've had some very interesting races but the engine manufacturers should have the possibility - if they want - to come up with modifications but only if the additional costs will not come to the customers, because this is unacceptable.

"But generally, I think it's good that Ferrari and Renault can come up with new modifications for next year."

Just 10 minutes earlier Kaltenborn had expressed similar sentiments: "If we look at this year's season we're seeing that there's such a big disparity between the different engines. Formula 1 is not just about different engines, engines do play a role there but the gap should not be that big."

So, how do the manufacturers themselves feel about the situation? Marco Mattiacci is adamant that to Ferrari it is not a question of parity, but rather of innovation.

"We never worked from the scenic angle and the tactical angle and say 'Let's do the softening of the rules' just because we're going to catch up with Mercedes," he told this writer in Singapore on Sunday.

"[That's] totally untrue and probably would be misleading for my people. The starting point was that in Formula 1 I cannot see, and I cannot wait, one year to work on the engine or to work on the power unit.

"At least at Ferrari we do not believe that this is a magic bullet. If someone else believes it, [we do] not at Ferrari. It's a way to talk about innovating, keep working on the car during the year."

Cyril Abiteboul, managing director of Renault Sport F1 and former Caterham team principal - who thus understands the impact of having no direct say in F1's governance - sits between two stools.

Cyril Abiteboul © XPB

On one hand he acknowledges that "Mercedes are in advance, we are on the back foot and we need to catch up"; on the other the Frenchman is concerned that "we may even be in a worse position with that additional unfreeze than with the current freeze..."

He was somewhat wary when asked whether changes could be made in time for 2015: "I'm not sure. If we followed the old Concorde that unanimity of all teams would occur. With the new Concorde it may be something different, I don't know.

"Maybe we're turning to the grey area, maybe it's not that bad to have a grey area in the sport, because you must be in a position to govern the sport. We don't have the necessity to have the perfect type of system that you have in a country. I see the difficulty to change things in France. We don't want that in Formula 1."

But, the manufacturer with the biggest clout is currently Mercedes. Not only is it currently the dominant team, but its engines are worth their all-in 145kg weight in gold ingots. How do the championship leaders feel about regulation tweaks that could ultimately work to the company's disadvantage?

"It's difficult, because there are regulations in place and I strongly believe we need stability in the regulations," explained executive director Toto Wolff. "Of course, saying that as the leading power unit supplier, it's easy...

"So there is talking about, particularly from other engine manufacturers, 'how can we close that gap?' There are some of our competitors who wish to open up the possibility of innovation more.

"That means not making it free to develop, because that would be crazy, but maybe stretching the deadline from when on the engine is being homologated from end-February maybe towards more into the year."

The Austrian is not personally keen on such a step as it would "incur more costs", and additional development teams would be required to maintain the pace. He is equally unsure as to how costs would be affected and if everyone could be supplied to the same specification under those circumstances.

"It triggers just so many consequences, and you open up a can of worms by doing that. So we're trying to not be detrimental to the process. We understand that maybe some of our competitors got it wrong, or feel they got it wrong. Hence we're trying to be productive."

But the litmus test always was unanimity, and, like Abiteboul, he is wary whether that can be achieved in time: "Of course it requires unanimous agreement in the F1 Commission, which is the tricky bit because the F1 Commission is all teams and various other parties.

"Rarely have we seen unanimous decisions in the F1 Commission, but I think it's about forgetting you own agenda - and doing it for the benefit of Formula 1."

On such charitable thoughts does the future of F1's engine hinge...