22 TOPCAR.CO.ZA|January 2016In the face of exorbitant engine costs
and uncooperative suppliers, Todt and
Ecclestone have proposed Indycar-based
units, with balanc e-of-performance
mechanisms similar to those used in the
World Endurance Championship
I
T SEEMS INCREDIBLE:After five
years in development, a billion bucks
collectively spen t and less than two years
after intr oduction, Formula 1 seems hell-
bent on ditching the exquisite 1600cc
turbo hybrid power units in favour of 2.2-litr e
V6 engines ba sed on common-or-garden
Indycar designs.
What brought ab out this remarkable volte-
face? In two words: eco nomics and politi cs.
Some history: Back in 2009 when the
current units were formulated by the Max
Mosley-era FIA, the plan was to attract motor
manufacturers hoping to push ‘green’
credential s. They would then, in theory,
supply their own teams, and provide cut-price
units to independents. Once the regulations
had been framed BMW, Honda and Toyota,
though, exited F1 stage left, with Cosworth
failing to raise the necessa ry budget.
Audi and Hyundai failed to join as
anticipated, and the sport found itself with
just three engine suppliers – Ferrari,
Mercedes and Renault – rather than at least
six companies collectively supplying 12
teams. After last-n amed dismally failed to
deliver a competitive unit, th e independents
found themselves held to ransom by the
Italo-German duopoly.
Not even Honda’s return – ayear into the
formula – broke the stra nglehold, for the
Japanese co mpany myopically granted a veto
over su pplies to additi onal teams to exclusive
partner McLaren – which team boss Ron
Dennis immediately invoked when Red
Bull, having earlier resorted to vociferous
public critic ism of Renault’ s engines after
persistent blow-ups, came knocking.
Where the teams had paid the equivalent
of around R150m per annum for a two-car
engine supply of the ‘old iron’ V8s
(admittedly with rudimentary KERS)
through to end-2013, the price doub led (moreDietTHE F1CRITIC er Rencken
customer base. It cannot be purely
coincidental that the Scuderia invoked the
veto just days before it listed on the New
York Stock Exchange. Clearly Ferrari’s days
as rampant stalli on are over; its mission now
being cash cow for the Fiat Chrysler
Allian ce...
However, opposition tothe plans forc ed
Todt and Ecclestone to seek alternatives, and
thus they pr oposed Indycar-based units,
with balance-of-performance mechanisms
similar to those used in the World
Endurance Championsh ip, where 2.0-litr e
turbo / 4.0- litr e petrol units take on V6
diesels on equal terms, providing a level
playing field. Price of said units? Projecte d at
under R100m per annum per team...
During the Brazilian Grand Prix weekend
the FIA called for expr essions of interest
from parties with th e technical expertise
and logistical structures to produce such
engines for 2017. Once final specifications
are agreed the matter will be put to tender,
with th e usual suspects expected to appl y- if, that is, the matter stretches that far.
Some in the paddock see Todt’s tactics as a
simple attempt at forc ing the du opoly to
accept cost caps in the knowle dge that
specification engines will not only lose them
their customers base, but leave Me rcedes
and Ferrari at the mercy of the governing
body, which alone will fix B-of-P parameters.
Equally, development costs incurred to date
by Ferrari and Me rcedes will have been
wasted after just three years.
Others, though, see the engine tender as a
declaration of war over controlof Formula 1
after the power ba se gradually shifted
towa rds the manufacturers, with th e cost of
engines simply providing Todt and
Ecclestone with an excuse to flex their
muscles. Stand ba ck...tc
in some instances) for the ‘green’ engines,
pushing the independents to the brink.
Within a year of their intr oduction the
engine prices forc ed Caterham and Marussia
into liquidation, while Sauber, Lotus and
Force India perennial ly find themselves in
dire stra its – with even Red Bull being
critic al of the costs.
Having effectively given up on Renault
units, both Red Bull teams were left hang ing
without competitive engines for 2016 – that
an operation could give notice of contract
without lining up a viable alternative
beggars belief, but stra nger things have
happened in F1 team management – and, in
one foul swoop, F1 faced losing half the field.
Thus FIA pres ident Jean Todt and F1 tsar
Bernie Ecclestone were forc ed to intervene,
calling for a halving of engine prices and
easing of supply lines. Instead Honda
continued to focus on McLaren, while
Renault summarily electe d to withdraw from
customer su pply after deciding to supply only
Lotus should it complete its purchase of the
beleaguered team it once owned.
Ferrari and Me rcedes used their votes on
F1’s contentious Strategy Grou p to block
Todt’s plans, which proposed that engine
prices be ca ppedat the equivalent of R180m.
WhenTodt and Ecclestone
threatened to use their combined
influence to forc e the matter,
Ferrari simply invoked its
historic veto (that word again),
granted in the 1980s to protect
its sporting and technical
interest during the rise of Br itish
teams.
The move marked the first time
Ferrari had triggered its veto on
patently commercial grounds,
arguing the price cap could cost
Ferrari up toR400m across its ILLUSTRATIONLYNNCERFONTYNE