Formula 1's looming engine debate

To catch a glimpse of the envisaged cars that will compete in Formula 1 from 2013 - 2017, simply page back to 1998.

That might sound a touch facetious perhaps, but the bottom line is that regardless of the outcome of the present wrangle over four-cylinder turbocharged 'green' engines v retaining the current 2.4-litre V8s that have their roots in V10s introduced in the closing years of the last millennium, the fact is that the 'new' generation cars are likely to be anything but.

As variously predicted by this column since September last year, then further analysed by Tony Dodgins this week, the teams' engine suppliers and the sport's governing body are split over the direction of F1 beyond 2013.

Of the four current engine suppliers - and no convincing newcomers have indicated any discernible level of enthusiasm for the green machines - three have significant concerns about the costs of developing and supplying the new technology.

In fact, in the Barcelona paddock last weekend, one insider said: "Cosworth could easily bankrupt itself if it commits itself to the new formula. Then we'd have one less engine supplier when we actually need two more".

Given that news broke a fortnight ago that the engineering company intends become public, any form of unacceptable risk is obviously a no-no. However, the Initial Public Offering aside, the numbers hardly add up for a non-manufacturer company. Development costs could initially amount to anything up to US$100m and the organisation would incur further development costs over the five-year period, adding approximately $10m per annum to the total plus an equal manufacturing and supply annual cost.

That pans out to $40m per annum, and given that Cosworth's three customer teams; Williams, Virgin and Hispania, currently pay around $7m each year for an engine supply, the anomaly is blatantly clear. Surely this can only be rectified via subsidy (from a public company perhaps) or by a 100 per cent price hike.

But can the teams or Cosworth can afford to absorb any such shortfall, and the answer is obvious given that Cosworth's customer base is, by definition, the independent squads that do not enjoy manufacturer backing, and are thus reliant upon sponsors in what are hardly flush times. Ask a Virgin or Hispania whether they have a spare $15m per year knocking about; The answer has four letters.

Cosworth already supplies three F1 teams with powerplants © Sutton

The next obvious question is why Cosworth - under such circumstances - enthusiastically embraced the proposed formula. The answer is simple; the company aimed to go back to the future. In 1967 Cosworth entered an F1 it dominated for many years via a commercial partnership with Ford. The engine was a Cosworth DFV, but the tappet covers said 'Ford', endowing the Blue Oval marque with marketing kudos for the next two decades.

The 2013 plan was therefore straightforward; commit to the regulations and design accordingly while wooing a deep-pocketed partner. Korean, German and Indian motor manufacturers are all believed to have been targeted.

However, it soon became apparent that in the current economic environment, there was little or no enthusiasm for the technology, or the potential for a global partnership at manufacturer level. F1's image as a politicking, brash display of excess hardly did Cosworth any favours.

When Audi last month went public about its objection to F1, and with Hyundai remaining schtum on its possible involvement, it became clear to Cosworth that the expected interest in a 'green' technology (by the governing body) simply did not exist. At least Cosworth is hell-bent on remaining in F1.

So, one down, three to go. In fact, make that three down, three to go.

Ferrari's objection to the rules has been discussed in this column before and therefore requires no amplification other than to add that the Italian manufacturer is fully within its rights to object to the regulations on the basis that they are barely compatible with the company's marketing objectives - namely selling top-end, mechanically sophisticated sports cars powered by multi-cylinder engines.

A 1600cc turbocharged four-pot hardly fits that business model. Ferrari is in F1 to move expensive metal. While there is little doubt that la passion is omnipresent at Maranello, the company's raison d'être for remaining in the sport is bottom-line driven, as it should be for any commercial organisation with a responsibility to shareholders suppliers and employees.

Many accuse Ferrari of myopia or even selfishness, yet just as the new engine formula is incompatible with Ferrari's marketplace, the same can be said for Audi. By that logic, the hi-tech diesel-orientated German manufacturer should be accused of the same thing equally stand accused of selfishness/myopia for failing to embrace this 'F1-lite' - yet there has been not a whimper. Fortunately Ferrari is doing everything in its (considerable) power to remain in F1. Four down, two to go.

Mercedes cannot be faulted for wishing to stick to existing technology. The company employs 400 staff at its High Performance Engines division in Brixworth, and its V8 is an absolute gem, with - allegedly - the highest output, best fuel consumption and lowest cooling requirements on the grid - the last point being a crucial one for aerodynamics and weight.

Given that retention of the current engine formula - as lobbied for by Cosworth, Ferrari and Mercedes - would include F1's infamous 'freeze' clause, probably in conjunction with retuning or one-off upgrading, the best engine would remain the best. Thus Mercedes would have an advantage. Why voluntarily relinquish that, particularly as the alternative is to spend at least $150m no guarantee of success.

Again, is Mercedes being selfish, or simply pragmatic? Equally, the company is doing everything in its power to remain in F1, and if that constitutes selfishness, so be it. In any event, F1 has never been an altruistic pursuit?

One to go. In Spain, during the Friday FIA press conference, it became clear that the only engine supplier marching in step is Renault. Its parent company has pinned its future on cars such as the quirky, battery-powered, Nissan Leaf recently launched by its Japanese sister, and sees a bright future in hybrid technologies. Thus the company intimated that it would depart the sport if the planned new regulations are scrapped.

Renault has sold its team, but is still an F1 engine supplier © LAT

Once again, that is its choice and its right should that come to pass, and yet one hears hardly a murmur of 'selfishness' about that possibility. And that's despite the company making it clear via a briefing by president Carlos Ghosn in Brazil last year that Renault views F1 very much as a profit centre, hence the sale of its resource-draining team to Genii Capital while continuing as engine supplier to three paying customers.

However, given the expected costs of the new formula, Renault faces two options. It can either ramp up its annual charges substantially - by between 300 and 500 per cent - or subsidise the units.

And then, rather conveniently, Craig Pollock arrived. The Scot recently announced plans for the PURE engine complying with the 2013 regulations. Many in the paddock are ultra-sceptical, pointing to the his previous F1 involvement as team boss of the ill-fated BAR team, which burnt through hundreds of millions of dollars from 1999-2001 and didn't even register a podium until its owner BAT appointed David Richards to restructure it following Pollock's departure.

With less than 18 months to go before the first 2013 tests, PURE has no factory, no engine and no infrastructure. Those canvassed in the Barcelona paddock were extremely sceptical about the company's ability to get off the ground. "Do you remember when Max Mosley was desperate to get entrants for his budget cap formula and pulled the entry closing date forward?" one team boss asked pointedly. "Suddenly he had 47 entries or whatever from paper companies. Convenient but pie in the sky, and this [PURE] strikes me the same way."

Still, PURE must be a considered a factor unless events prove otherwise. So, three to 1.5, and into the argument has stepped F1 Tsar Bernie Ecclestone, who sides with the majority on the very pragmatic basis of acoustics and spectacle. The 80-year-old believes that fans will switch off when faced with this 'F1-Lite', and he probably has a point.

Where does this leave the FIA? For starters, the new regulations were announced to much fanfare, making any U-turn rather embarrassing. Then there is the issue that the governing body must take the lead, and engines rooted in the late 1990s hardly project an image of a progressive sport - particularly in these times.

Thus the FIA allegedly offered the teams an olive branch. Both engine formats could run side-by-side for a period - possibly a year; probably longer. Unsurprisingly, this found no takers, for: "equivalence formulae never work, do they," commented Ecclestone, no doubt reflecting upon various attempts at finding equitable solutions to insolvable situations.

Think back to the 1980s, when 1500cc turbos destroyed 3-litre normally-aspirated V8s and V12s even after boost levels were turned down and fuel consumption limited; think touring cars, where diesels and petrols don't mix; think Le Mans, where constant bickering regularly threatens to kill the classic race; and finally, think Indianapolis, where pushrod engines destroyed overhead valve units after officials screwed up the equivalence formula.

Today's engine rules are rooted in those set out way back in 1998 © LAT

The proposal could also backfire if old metal consistently beats the new technology, or even result in existing manufacturers departing in droves if their engines are pegged back. Thus the score at present is three manufacturers plus the commercial rights holder v the governing body, a single manufacturer whose desire to turn a profit in F1 has led it to sell its own team, and a paper tiger - while (at least) two abstentions indicate the former group has it right.

Almost simultaneously it was revealed that the proposed ground chassis, first revealed by this column almost a year ago, would be dropped after consensus within F1's Technical Working Group, suggesting any new chassis will be designed to rules substantially the same as the existing framework. Therefore the 2013 cars will look very similar to this year's - regardless of engine architecture - for there is only so much a designer can do within the given parameters. And, of course, this year's cars are essentially the same as the 2010 models, which are the same as...

You don't stop until you turn the page all the way back to 1998.

So engines are likely to remain as V8s (if the majority sticks to its guns), chassis design is unlikely to change after 2013, while this column exclusively revealed that F1's much-vaunted and needed low profile tyres are likely to be canned as well.

"We've discussed [low profile tyres]," Pirelli motorsport boss Paul Hembery said, "but I don't believe there's any appetite whatsoever (within the paddock) to change. If for me it meant the cars were going to just evolve, it's a potential. But we need to change the cars so substantially to go to 18 inch (wheels) and that's the big thing. If it was just a case of the current car we're changing, that'd be fine, because we can take the current car, go testing and we'd be fine. But we can't do that."

So, F1's 'brave' new 2013 world will (probably) feature the same (old) engines, the same (old) chassis technology and the same (old) tyre dimensions - a virtual revisiting of 1998. Not bad progress for the world's fastest and most advanced technical sport, is it?

Will they ever learn?

For more about engine equivalencies in Formula 1, click here.