The Honda Alternative

In mid-February, FIA President Max Mosley told journalists that the sport's governing body planned to introduce a three-year 'engine freeze' as part of the 2008 regulations.

Not surprisingly, the suggestion, driven by a need to cut costs, caused a stir among members of the Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association - BMW, Honda, Mercedes, Renault and Toyota - who, together with non-members Ferrari and Cosworth, supply the units powering the sport's 11 teams.

With the 2008 technical and sporting regulations having to be finalized by 30 June, the GPMA has a little over two months to persuade Mosley of a viable alternative.

Thus far there is little evidence of progress, but Otmar Szafnauer, Vice President, Honda Racing Development Ltd and Management Board Member, Honda Racing F1 Team, believes the company has a solution, one which will cut annual engine budgets without 'dumbing down' F1's engines.

Q: The engine freeze regulations are what we would like to discuss. When is the next Technical Working Group meeting?

Szafnauer: The Technical Working Group meeting hasn't been called yet to talk about the engine freeze regulations for 2008, because, I think, first the FIA have to announce who the 12 successful entrants are, which happens on 28 April. Thereafter I would imagine the FIA will call a TWG meeting to talk about the changes to the technical and sporting regulations for 2008.

Q: But you as manufacturers, the GPMA, have had your own meetings...

Szafnauer: As manufacturers, as members of the GPMA, the next meeting is tomorrow (Sunday), but that is not called by the FIA, it is just a meeting amongst all the engine manufacturers, and the meeting was called by the GPMA.

Q: And who is invited, only GPMA members or others as well?

Szafnauer: All GPMA members are invited, and it also includes Ferrari and Cosworth.

Q: The 'freeze' that has been proposed, in what could be called homologation of an engine for a period of time, how does Honda feel about this freeze?

Szafnauer: Well, we understand the reason for it is cost-cutting, and Honda understands the need for cost-cutting, but we don't want to take value away from the fans and the sport in general, and having an engine freeze will, I think, degrade the value of the sport, and therefore we're not for an engine freeze. Also, Formula One needs to remain the pinnacle of motorsport, and therefore we think that freezing the engines for three years is anathema to Formula One, and is not what Formula One is about.

Q: Should an engine freeze as proposed be introduced, would Honda consider withdrawing from Formula One?

Szafnauer: Well, I hate to speculate about the future. But I think the right thing to say is that we need to work hard at offering an alternative to the FIA as the sport's governing body, such that you can reduce costs without having an engine freeze. So there does not even need to be talk of withdrawing, but to getting to a solution which everybody is happy with without having an engine freeze.

Q: Has a solution been put forward?

Szafnauer: Not yet, and that is one of the reasons for the meeting tomorrow, to see if the seven manufacturers can find a solution we're all happy with, and put that one forward.

Q: Some people are talking of engine budgets of $100 to over $150 million, whilst others say they can build a competitive engine for $20 million. Where does Honda stand in relation to that?

Szafnauer: Well, it is fair to say that we're probably not the most expensive, we don't spend the most money on engines and from what we understand we don't spend the least, we're closer to the $150 figure than we are to the twenty ($20m). But we are not the most expensive, and it is fair to point out that perhaps, if some engine manufacturers spend, as you say, twenty million and if they do, we're all pretty close in terms of performance. So, if you can do a good job with twenty million today, then I don't think an engine freeze brings you that much (saving).

So, if you leave the engine regulations a they are today, and somebody is doing a brilliant job with twenty million, then that should be okay.

Q: What then would Honda see an ideal way of cutting costs?

Honda Racing F1 Team's Chief Executive Officer Nick Fry, Executive Advisor Yasuhiro Wada, and Senior Advisor Yosuke Sekino unveil the new Honda RA806E V8 at a news conference in Tokyo February 20, 2006 © Reuters

Szafnauer: I think an ideal way of saving costs is to limit the number of engines we need to build. Engine costs money, that's obvious, and the bigger teams probably build around 200 engines a year. And if you limit the numbers of engines to say 40 or 50 for the season, and you use them as you wish for testing and racing, it will naturally bring about longer life engines so you can use them in testing, and it will definitely save money because you're only building 40 engines as opposed to the 200 you built in the past. And it is easy to police.

Q: So you're suggesting that, very similar to the way tyre quotas work with restriction for a race weekend, that there should be engine quotas for the season as well, for the entire year? If we extend that logic, should manufacturers with two teams be allowed double the number of engines, or how do you see it working?

Szafnauer: It should be not per engine manufacturers, but 40 engines per team.

Q: So something like 20 engines per car, or whatever.

Szafnauer: That's correct.

Q: How would it work if, say, towards the end of a season, somebody has used 38 engines or whatever, and they blow two engines in the second last race. What would happen then?

Szafnauer: Well, what happens to a team when it runs out of money. In this business you have to learn how to manage your resources properly, such that you never reach that stage. I am sure we can think of rules of what to do if you use an extra engine - go to the back of the grid, or don't score championship points, or whatever, there are many ways to handle that.

However if you say that an engine has to last two races, and you have 18 races in a season and say you allow 10% for failures that's 20 engines (for a two-car team), and if you give somebody 40 engines for the year for two cars, that's enough to be able to manage. Even if you can't make an engine last two races, you can only make it last one race, then you still have enough for the season, albeit without testing.

Q: Are you saying that Honda would like to see unlimited technology with a cap on the number of engines?

Szafnauer: Not unlimited technology, however, no more limits than we have today. Because you have to remember this V8 that we have has a lot of engine technology limitations. There are material specifications that are written in, there is a fixed V-angle, there is a fixed minimum weight, there is a fixed centre-of-gravity, there is a fixed bore size plus fixed bore spacing. Those are all technology limitations that have come to a Formula One engine since (the end of) 2005.

So, use those limitations because they're here today, and, yes, they will save people money, and as you say there are some people building engines for twenty million. And in addition to that make sure that we're not building 200 engines a year. With that I think you've got a low-cost engine formula that also enables some differentiation and some development to a point, and you don't have an engine freeze.

Honda RA106 © LAT

Q: And the common Electronic Control Unit aspect, how does Honda feel about a common ECU?

Szafnauer: I would keep the ECU as it is for a number of reasons. If you free your 'freeze' you build your own ECU. The control system of an engine goes hand-in-hand with that engine. They're designed together, the engineers understand each other, you make trade-offs, one for the other. At Honda we build our own (ECUs), and we have our own ECU design and development group that works for our road car business, for our other racing series and Formula One.

We don't spend any incremental money on designing and building our ECUs, if we had to buy from somebody else at a cost, then it would be more expensive than building our own. If they weren't working on Formula One anymore, they would just continue working with our normal business and on our other racing series. We wouldn't save necessarily any money if we didn't do our own ECU.

Those are some of the costs reasons why we believe a common ECU won't work.

Q: Given that the FIA would like to save costs, given that the GPMA members as they exist at the moment would welcome cost-saving on a properly structured basis, what would be for Honda the absolutely ideal Formula One engine formula?

Szafnauer: Given all those things and understanding where we are today, and 'ideal engine formula' isn't the way I would put it. But a compromise Honda could live with, if that's what you're asking, is to keep the engine formula as it is today, 2.4 litre V8, keep as it is because, mind you, change is a big cost driver, so changing all that will cost a significant amount of money again.

So, keep the technology as it is, but limit the amount of engines that we're building - mainly for testing - so that doesn't limit what we're here to do, which is racing, and you will save a significant amount of money and you don't have to take the technology to an even lower level. Then you don't have to put in artificial technology freezes that aren't quite what Formula One is about.

Q: Given that Honda is obviously in Formula One for research and development purposes in addition to selling motor cars, what is the ideal Formula One engine budget Honda would welcome?

Szafnauer: Well, we're all for saving money, and we've got to make this work economically for ourselves too, so if we cut the budgets by anywhere from 25 to 60% from where they are today, then I think we should be happy.

The following morning, Sunday, the seven engine manufacturers did meet to discuss various proposals, but no decisions were taken save for, according to Szafnauer, "defining our way of going about things for the next meeting, which will happen on the Friday at 09 00 at the next race (Nurburgring)".

That is less than seven weeks before 30 June - time truly is running out if the manufacturers wish to avoid the imposition of homologated engines come 2008.