Why Porsche is key to F1's engine future

Formula 1's current engine regulations were first framed in 2008, and "finalised" in late-'09. No sooner had they been approved than controversy erupted - Ferrari, then Mercedes, lobbied against the four-cylinder format on the basis that they could not see their ways clear to producing high-performance road car engines to that configuration.

Renault threatened to exit F1 should the sport revert to V8s, with a kinetic-energy recovery system (KERS), as demanded by commercial rights holder FOM and others. Eventually a compromise was reached: F1 would adopt 1.6-litre V6 engines supplemented by kinetic- and heat-energy recovery systems, with introduction delayed by a year to 2014.

Renault agreed to the change although its management had originally punted a straight-four as the most relevant architecture for its road cars. Why the agreement? According to an insider, Renault's engineers figured that the configuration created major installation issues for the torquey engines due to having only two main mounting points - top and bottom of the block.

Thus a cradle, as used by Brabham for its 1.5-litre BMW turbos in the 1980s, would be required, adding weight and complexity. V6 units provide three mounting points - at the base, and tip of each V. As students of maths learn, triangles provide the strongest geometric shape.

The flawed perception is that current FIA president Jean Todt is the "father" of the current engines, but as he told Autosport in Melbourne, the concept was devised during the Max Mosley era, with the Frenchman inheriting the hybrid concept after his 2009 election.

"It is not true, I am not the father, I'm a supporter," he said. "My predecessor Max Mosley was talking about introducing new rules, and then at the time, all the engine manufacturers were presented to propose the next step of the engines.

"And what came out at the time, was a turbo energy recovery four-cylinder engine. I got elected as president of the FIA, and I was very happy to secure this continuity, which I felt was the right direction."

The net effect, though, was that during that six-year process the three initial suppliers - Honda joined two years later - spent an estimated $1billion (£800million) on development, with the Japanese effort adding at least a further quarter of that to the total despite a compressed timeframe.

Todt has not hidden his admiration for Porsche's two-litre LMP1 power unit, and in Melbourne he again sang the engine's praises: "Incidentally, I saw Mark Webber on the plane, we were together flying from Hong Kong to Melbourne on Thursday night, and he was telling [me] how good the Porsche engine was in sportscars.

"Four-cylinders, turbo, engine, recovery, so I really think that was probably the most appropriate choice. We had to finally get to this engine."

Its installation features KERS on the front axle, and two turbines in the exhaust system, the first a conventional turbo driving a compressor, with the second turbo linked to a generator. That means the unit recovers energy more flexibly.

Complex, yes, but reliable enough for the Porsche 919 Hybrid to win the Le Mans 24 Hours second time out after running at the sharp end during its maiden outing.

If Mercedes believes it worked wonders with its dominant F1 powerplant, its close Stuttgart neighbour performed miracles with its ultra-reliable, 1000bhp, four-wheel drive (via the front motor-generator unit), winner of Le Mans and the World Endurance Championship with, amongst others, Webber.

All this is particularly relevant in view of last week's meeting, called by the FIA, of current and potential engine suppliers. Not least because the chief architect of that engine, said to be the most complex race car engine ever built, was present, apparently as consultant to the FIA. Even more salient is the fact that its configuration is V4, providing triangular mounting points despite having only four pots.

It was not all plain sailing for Porsche, though. After initial tests, a major redesign including a change in the firing order, was commissioned after vibrations - an inherent shortcoming of V4s regardless of the V-angle, and likely the reason why only two major motor manufacturers, namely Lancia and Ford, adopt this configuration for mass production - caused components to literally shake themselves to pieces.

With the current F1 engine formula expiring at end-2020, it has already cut its consultation period extremely fine, and, in fact, this writer had previously called on the FIA to get the ball rolling. Better late than too late.

The meeting had been alluded to by the FIA's F1 race director Charlie Whiting during his media briefing in Melbourne, and confirmed by Todt on the Sunday. The roll call is illuminating, not so much for the attendance, but rather for those manufacturers and potential suppliers who are conspicuous by their absences. Honda's travails could arguably be blamed for a distinct lack of interest.

Apart from Todt and Whiting, the FIA was represented by the head of its F1 technical department Marcin Budkowski, safety director Laurent Mekies and head of engine Fabrice Lom - plus Wolfgang Hatz, who recently resigned from VW Group in the wake of the diesel emissions scandal, having since 2011 been Porsche AG's board member responsible for research and development, and head of engines and transmissions development for the entire VW Group.

There is no suggestion that Hatz was responsible or even knew about VW's diesel shenanigans, but that particular buck stopped on his desk, so he departed. That he is a big loss for VW, more particularly Porsche, is an understatement, for, besides being the architect of the LMP1 programme, he devised the 918 Spyder and Mission-E concept car.

Mercedes and Renault were represented by their respective team bosses Toto Wolff and Cyril Abiteboul, Honda's interests by F1 head Yusuke Hasegawa and Ferrari's flag flown by team principal Maurizio Arivabene and technical director Mattia Binotto. Ross Brawn attended on behalf of FOM, but was said to be rather quiet. So far, so predictable.

However, VW Group was in attendance, sending former Ferrari team principal Stefano Domenicali (formerly special projects head for Audi, now Lamborghini CEO, and concurrently the FIA's Single Seater Commision), and so was Alfa Romeo, represented by Fiat Chrysler Automobiles chief technical officer Harald Wester.

The German was previously VW's head of research, Ferrari's director of product development, and CEO of Alfa Romeo, Abarth and Maserati - on more than nodding terms with Todt, Hatz and Domenicali. He is ideally placed to spearhead FCA (and Ferrari) CEO Sergio Marchionne's stated objective of returning Alfa Romeo to F1.

No Korean manufacturers pitched, nor any Japanese brands save for Honda, while independent supplier interests were represented by Mario Illien, formerly of Cosworth and Ilmor/Mercedes, now an independent consultant. That only VW Group, FCA and Ilien showed interest in what was an elementary kite-flying exercise speaks volumes about F1's lack of acceptance at manufacturer/independent level.

A bullish FIA media release was distributed after the meeting, stating, among other things, the meeting resulted in broad agreement for the future evolution of Formula 1 engines, with all parties seemingly aligned in their focus on:

* A desire to maintain F1 as the pinnacle of motor sport technology, and as a laboratory for developing technology that is relevant to road cars

* Striving for future power units to be powerful, while becoming simpler and less costly to develop and produce

* Improving the sound of the power units

* A desire to allow drivers to drive harder at all times

The outcome was that delegates were granted a two-month window during which to frame proposals for a new engine formula, with a follow-up meeting scheduled for early May and regularly thereafter. However, the meeting broadly agreed that whatever is adopted should be attractive (and economically viable) for independent suppliers to prevent teams being held to ransom by manufacturers.

They also agreed that some form of hybrid system was crucial to maintain manufacturer interest, with Porsche's front-wheel KERS being favoured. This, though, could open a can of worms, for such systems are a precursor to four-wheel drive, which Audi would favour.

Apart from that, consider the complexities of brake-by-wire on all four wheels: three years after the introduction of rear-axle brake-by-wire, certain teams still experience issues, so imagine the havoc front systems could cause. As pay-off for additional KERS generation, whether via front or rear axles or both, F1 would drop its noise-absorbing, costly and complex MGU-H systems.

To further reduce costs and provide a level playing field, the meeting suggested increased standardisation of engine components, plus largely-standardised hybrid systems. While anathema to purists, the fact is that sharing occurs across the board in the real automotive world. The end objective is a 1000bhp engine producing double the noise of current units - at £10m for an annual two-car supply.

As an alternative, VW Group is said to have punted a "world engine", the base of which could be applied in F1, F2, F3, WRC, WEC and any number of international series. This is, though, not a new concept, having been tabled in 2009 as the "universal motorsport engine" following studies undertaken by automotive consultancy Ricardo.

Documents obtained by Autosport at the time show that the original two-litre straight-four engine could produce between 160kW (212bhp) and 500kW (665bhp) with a mild hybrid boost. Add in F1's recent experiences with energy recovery, and 1000bhp is feasible.

The study concluded that such a concept ticked all road relevance, cost and efficiency boxes given that straight-four, two-litre turbo engines are expected to increasingly be the norm in premium and high-performance cars within 10 years. The final question, then, is: V4 or straight-four?

The former's configuration provides little in the way of road relevance save for Porsche and Subaru, both of whom produce flat-four/six units, which effectively have 180-degree V-angle architecture. To persuade Renault or Mercedes of their road relevance will not be the work of a moment, so straight-four (with support cradles) is likely to be the way forward.

All well and good, but we have been here before. Consider the number of broken promises when it came to regulation changes. Indeed take the 2017 regulations: where are the low profile tyres on 18-inch rims, ground-effect venturis and noisier cars?

Therein lies the rub. F1 has, at enormous cost and effort, developed highly advanced internal combustion engines capable of delivering thermal efficiency indices of 50% - up from what was considered a remarkable 40% five years ago. Porsche, Mercedes and Ferrari cracked the code; only Honda and, to a lesser degree, Renault, failed. Yet this technology is due to be chucked out with the bath water.

True, at £18m per two-car annual supply the current engines are expensive, yet still a bargain in real terms. As Todt explained in Melbourne: "The price for the team for engines now is quite high, but the teams who have to pay for an engine pay below €20m, so it means that it's 12% of a €150m budget and on €400m budget it's 5%."

Given that manufacturers incurred all the heavy costs for their current engines, surely it would be more cost-effective to extend the formula for five years, with engine suppliers reducing pricing to, say, £10m and absorbing the difference, rather than suffering the costs and pains of entirely new concepts. Come 2025, F1 could consider a universal (or world) engine across the board - but start framing the specification now.

Not only would that lengthen the runway for incoming manufacturers, but increase return on investments for existing suppliers. That, surely, is more crucial for the health of F1 than a bit of extra noise.