Top Car

22 TOPCAR.CO.ZA|January 2016In the face of exorbitant engine costsand uncooperative suppliers, Todt andEcclestone have proposed Indycar-basedunits, with balanc e-of-performancemechanisms similar to those used in theWorld Endurance ChampionshipIT SEEMS INCREDIBLE:After fiveyears in development, a billion buckscollectively spen t and less than two yearsafter intr oduction, Formula 1 seems hell-bent on ditching the exquisite 1600ccturbo hybrid power units in favour of 2.2-litr eV6 engines ba sed on common-or-gardenIndycar designs.What brought ab out this remarkable volte-face? In two words: eco nomics and politi cs.Some history: Back in 2009 when thecurrent units were formulated by the MaxMosley-era FIA, the plan was to attract motormanufacturers hoping to push ‘green’credential s. They would then, in theory,supply their own teams, and provide cut-priceunits to independents. Once the regulationshad been framed BMW, Honda and Toyota,though, exited F1 stage left, with Cosworthfailing to raise the necessa ry budget.Audi and Hyundai failed to join asanticipated, and the sport found itself withjust three engine suppliers – Ferrari,Mercedes and Renault – rather than at leastsix companies collectively supplying 12teams. After last-n amed dismally failed todeliver a competitive unit, th e independentsfound themselves held to ransom by theItalo-German duopoly.Not even Honda’s return – ayear into theformula – broke the stra nglehold, for theJapanese co mpany myopically granted a vetoover su pplies to additi onal teams to exclusivepartner McLaren – which team boss RonDennis immediately invoked when RedBull, having earlier resorted to vociferouspublic critic ism of Renault’ s engines afterpersistent blow-ups, came knocking.Where the teams had paid the equivalentof around R150m per annum for a two-carengine supply of the ‘old iron’ V8s(admittedly with rudimentary KERS)through to end-2013, the price doub led (moreDietTHE F1CRITIC er Renckencustomer base. It cannot be purelycoincidental that the Scuderia invoked theveto just days before it listed on the NewYork Stock Exchange. Clearly Ferrari’s daysas rampant stalli on are over; its mission nowbeing cash cow for the Fiat ChryslerAllian ce...However, opposition tothe plans forc edTodt and Ecclestone to seek alternatives, andthus they pr oposed Indycar-based units,with balance-of-performance mechanismssimilar to those used in the WorldEndurance Championsh ip, where 2.0-litr eturbo / 4.0- litr e petrol units take on V6diesels on equal terms, providing a levelplaying field. Price of said units? Projecte d atunder R100m per annum per team...During the Brazilian Grand Prix weekendthe FIA called for expr essions of interestfrom parties with th e technical expertiseand logistical structures to produce suchengines for 2017. Once final specificationsare 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 asimple attempt at forc ing the du opoly toaccept cost caps in the knowle dge thatspecification engines will not only lose themtheir customers base, but leave Me rcedesand Ferrari at the mercy of the governingbody, which alone will fix B-of-P parameters.Equally, development costs incurred to dateby Ferrari and Me rcedes will have beenwasted after just three years. Others, though, see the engine tender as adeclaration of war over controlof Formula 1after the power ba se gradually shiftedtowa rds the manufacturers, with th e cost ofengines simply providing Todt andEcclestone with an excuse to flex theirmuscles. Stand ba ck...tcin some instances) for the ‘green’ engines,pushing the independents to the brink.Within a year of their intr oduction theengine prices forc ed Caterham and Marussiainto liquidation, while Sauber, Lotus andForce India perennial ly find themselves indire stra its – with even Red Bull beingcritic al of the costs.Having effectively given up on Renaultunits, both Red Bull teams were left hang ingwithout competitive engines for 2016 – thatan operation could give notice of contractwithout lining up a viable alternativebeggars belief, but stra nger things havehappened in F1 team management – and, inone foul swoop, F1 faced losing half the field.Thus FIA pres ident Jean Todt and F1 tsarBernie Ecclestone were forc ed to intervene,calling for a halving of engine prices andeasing of supply lines. Instead Hondacontinued to focus on McLaren, whileRenault summarily electe d to withdraw fromcustomer su pply after deciding to supply onlyLotus should it complete its purchase of thebeleaguered team it once owned.Ferrari and Me rcedes used their votes onF1’s contentious Strategy Grou p to blockTodt’s plans, which proposed that engineprices be ca ppedat the equivalent of R180m.WhenTodt and Ecclestonethreatened to use their combinedinfluence to forc e the matter,Ferrari simply invoked itshistoric veto (that word again),granted in the 1980s to protectits sporting and technicalinterest during the rise of Br itishteams.The move marked the first timeFerrari had triggered its veto onpatently commercial grounds,arguing the price cap could costFerrari up toR400m across its ILLUST``````RA``````TION``````LY``````NN``````CE``````RFON``````TY``````NE