The Weekly Grapevine

Honda, Toyota and Mosley's idea

During last year's British Grand Prix weekend, in the immediate wake of 'Indygate' and his refusal to meet with David Coulthard over safety during testing, FIA President Max Mosley disclosed to selected members of the British tabloid media that Formula One's governing body was investigating the introduction of regenerative energy systems - aka energy storage devices.

Mosley's interview was given little coverage in the specialist media, which had other fish to fry during that rather heat up weekend, but this column did touch on the matter, concluding that:

"... at least two engine suppliers have reason to rejoice at the notion of regenerative power hitting Formula One - intriguingly, those two are outside what was GPWC - whilst the balance would do well to embrace its inclusion, for there exists little doubt that it will be the next Big Thing in automotive trends".

Those two manufacturers are, of course, Toyota and Honda, both of whom were at that stage outside of the 'Grand Prix World Championship' organization - which had mutated into the Grand Prix Manufacturers' Association after they had, a few months earlier, aligned themselves with the 'rebels'.

And, rather interestingly, these two outfits were the subject of much speculation at Silverstone.

Subsequent to Mosley's 2005 briefing, the subject of regenerated energy was not touched upon again in F1 circles - not by the Formula One Commission, nor F1's Technical Working Group or the newly-formed Sporting Working Group.

In fact, a fortnight ago in Monaco an interview for an upcoming feature was conducted with an eminent Formula One engine designer, and he was somewhat taken aback when the subject of regenerative energy was raised.

Max Mosley at the 2005 British Grand Prix © XPB/LAT

Then, on Friday last at Silverstone, shortly before the Grand Prix Drivers' Association was scheduled to further discuss safety during testing and yet another 'Gate' - this time the Rascasse incident - Mosley addressed the media on various engine-related aspects.

That included 'an idea' to introduce energy storage devices from 2009-onwards, then fielded questions, including one related to the possible withdrawal of two manufacturer-owned teams from the sport over their dissatisfaction over Formula One's governance, particularly with regard to technology freezes.

The teams referred to are, of course, Toyota and Honda, who, according to last week's Autosport magazine, are "considering withdrawing from Formula One in protest against what they see as botched plans to 'freeze' engine specifications".

Mosley was fairly sanguine over the threats as published.

"I think we are completely prepared to face the possibility if somebody did want to pull out because the truth of it is that all we are trying to do is moving the research from a completely sterile area which serves no manufacturer any purpose," he said before suggesting that "if they use the new rules as an excuse to pull out, I think one could only conclude that the true reason for pulling out would be something quire different".

Between the statements, though, he did allude to their research in the area of stored energy, and quite right, too, for with the former's Prius and the Insight from Honda, the two motor giants are way ahead of the rest of the pack when it comes to hybrid cars, and both companies having recently introduced additional dual-energy models to their ranges.

Plus, intriguingly, Toyota's up-market Lexus brand has joined the swing to Green with two heavyweight contenders, and there exists little doubt that Japanese engineering, lead by these two companies, leads the way in the area.

And, rather deservedly, too: according to independent, but well-placed sources, Toyota's spend on Prius technology "is estimated to be in the hundreds of millions to $1 billion", with a Credit Suisse First Boston equity analyst suggesting during the introduction of the first generation Prius in 1999 that Toyota needed to sell 300,000 units annually to pay off their investment.

Saliently, excluded from Toyota's hybrid engineering budget was the cost of the storage units themselves - nickel metal hydride electric battery packs - which were developed by Panasonic, better recognized as title sponsor of the Formula One team.

The hybrid Lexus GS450h © Reuters

Given that their billion dollar budgets have been spent on what, put simply, boils down to the harvesting, conversion and storage of energy generated as heat under zero-load driving conditions, what are the chances of such developments coming cheaply when applied to Formula One - where weight, efficiency and performance are paramount?

And, then, what chances of such systems being developed by other than motor manufacturers, given that the FIA has regularly accepted that they may all leave the sport? What benefit, for example, in Red Bull or Midland contributing zillions towards such a system, for, regardless of whether the team or engine supplier develops the technology, it ultimately needs to be paid for out of income?

And, whilst relative crudities such as massive battery packs have no place in Formula One, some or other form of safe storage device will have to be developed, and, again, who will pay for that? Teams? Engine suppliers?

These of course, will have to be higher than hi-tech, particularly given the safety and packaging standards demanded of contemporary Grand Prix cars, and, as proven by Toyota and Panasonic - amongst the most efficient companies in their respective spheres - such technology does not come cheaply.

However, Mosley believes "an ace system" could be developed "at quite modest cost", and that the chances are pretty good that small companies will develop the technology and teach the manufacturers a lesson or two.

As proof, he offered, somewhat inaccurately, the example of motor manufacturers having been shown the way in the science of four-valve technology by Keith Duckworth (of Cosworth fame). For the record, in 1912, Peugeot - then as now a major motor manufacturer - introduced multi-valve cylinder heads in the course of its Grand Prix racing programme, whereas Duckworth and Cosworth developed the FVA and DFV engines in the mid-sixties.

Modest cost though, is a relative term. Mosley suggested that there "should be a rule that anyone can purchase the system from anyone ... which should not cost more than, for the sake of argument, two hundred and fifty thousand dollars, just to take a figure".

Given that Prius' relatively unsophisticated system - by F1 standards - costs 4,000 times Mosley's suggested figure, the introduction of hybrid technology can hardly be considered a cost-saving exercise.

Whatever, the general feeling after the media briefing was one of confusion. That Mosley is an advocate of hybrid technology is proven by his choice of road cars - according to the FIA Communications department he drives a Prius in Monaco and utilizes a four-wheel drive Lexus RX400H when faced with longer distances - is obvious, and that the technology is the Coming Thing, even more so.

The Honda Hybrid pace car in IRL © LAT

That said, why no movement on the subject since Silverstone last year? Surely, whilst framing the 2008-onwards engine regulations - which have two weeks yet to be set in stone - specifying the inclusion of hybrid technology would have been the comparative work of a moment.

If F1 is to go green, the sooner, surely, the better? Already the British government requires that cabinet ministers choose between diesel- and hybrid-powered transport, whilst London's congestion charge is waived for the likes of Prius and Honda's dual-power Civic.

That Friday was the opening day of the FIFA World Cup would not have escaped Mosley's sharp mind, and what better method of ensuring that his sport remains on sport pages despite the four-yearly kick-along pageant, than by throwing a few juicy Formula One bits into the media mix?

Then, Mosley knew full well that 'Rascassegate' and the decisions of the FIA's stewards, plus testing safety, were down for general media discussion - as were the equivalents last year, when the Silverstone paddock, too, teemed with English-speaking press - and, as with last year, a diversionary tactic was required.

The overriding sentiment in the media centre, though, was that Mosley had returned to a topic he first touched upon close to a year ago in order to appease Honda and Toyota, both of whom were said to be seriously considering taking European Union legal action against the FIA over the 'freeze'.

By dangling before them the 'carrot' of a technology to which both companies are (heavily) paid-up subscribers could well appease them in the interim.

And, as a means of diffusing the situation it may well have worked, for how can Toyota and Honda afford to let the others get perceived jumps on them in the field of hybrid technology? Equally, how can the other motor manufacturers allow these two to walk the dual-power championship when, as seems inevitable, it hits Formula One?

The GPDA meeting

A week ago, "La Rascassegate" and Grand Prix Drivers' Association were being mentioned in the same breath.

Drivers were still fuming over Michael Schumacher's actions at the slow Monaco hairpin in the dying minutes of qualifying for the principality's race, and, went the stories, he would be called upon to come clean at a meeting already scheduled for Silverstone.

"There the fur will fly," said one source, whilst another suggested that the German would be forced into standing down as president of the drivers' body he funds rather generously. One driver even suggested that the seven-time champion would be asked to resign from the GPDA.

Michael Schumacher on the Friday of the British Grand Prix © XPB/LAT

This column last week wondered whether the GPDA would even touch upon the matter, such has become the level of apathy in the organization, which once concerned itself with all driver matters, not merely isolated outcries over safety.

It seems the GPDA did indeed have the courage to visit the question of Schumacher's remarkable antics. But, a brief visit is all the matter received, according to one driver who was present.

Mark Webber, who resigned as a director last year, did not bother to attend the meet - although, to be fair, the wiry Australian had earlier confronted Schumacher over the issue - whilst Jarno Trulli, another director, is said to have suggested that the matter be dropped and that members move on. The Italian had been, in Monaco, one of the most outspoken of drivers.

Jacques Villeneuve made the rather laudable decision to resign from the body in protest, then, rather uncharacteristically, refused to comment further. Maybe his recent marriage calmed the French-Canadian down, for, unlike Shakespeare's Falstaff, Jacques was not known as one who believed that the better part of valour was discretion.

About the only comment on the affair came from the remaining director - David Coulthard - who stated that "we cleared the air" Just how the air was cleared, and what explanations were offered by Schumacher went unanswered - leading to conclusions that the air had cleared itself via the simple expedient of being left undisturbed.

Those present did, though, discuss safety during testing, and, it seems, the GPDA will pay for increased measures, via driver contributions, presumably, then bill the charges back to the teams.

All of which sounds rather complicated, and begs the question as to whether the GPDA will ever see the money back in full. And, given that more than a few drivers pay their teams to test, will they be given a discount on the fee, or be charged a 'safety' premium?

Talk about a highfalutin, but ultimately toothless organization; one which failed to even address a highly controversial matter which led to a seven-time champion being branded a 'cheat' and impacted upon most of the GPDA membership...