Ferrari F2012 engine

F1 engine costs could triple in 2014

F1 Fanatic round-up

Posted on

| Written by

Ferrari F2012 engineIn the round-up: The new engine formula for 2014 could cost teams dearly.


Top F1 links from the past 24 hours:

F1’s plans to avoid a financial storm (Autosport, subscription required)

“Some are talking of price increases of 300 per cent, or from the current FOTA-negotiated V8 units at ??7m/annum for a year’s supply to ??20m, which would cripple all but F1’s best-funded operations.”

“Thor” Heading To Formula One (Big Lead Sports)

Chris Hemsworth (who plays James Hunt in Rush): “For those in America, they may not know the history of Formula One yet that well, but the guys who raced in the 1970?s were real daredevils, and the threat of death on the race course was very real.”

Red Bull could still lose Monaco win (Pitpass)

“Red Bull’s results are therefore safe, but only for the moment. It could be almost six months before an official protest is lodged.”

Rules… (Joe Saward)

“Some websites are reporting that Red Bull might lose the wins in Bahrain and Monaco. I think this is tosh.”

Nico Rosberg Twitter Fan Q&A (Mercedes via YouTube)

Ricciardo’s Canadian Grand Prix Preview (Toro Rosso)

Daniel Ricciardo looks ahead to the Canadian Grand Prix and talks about driving the wrong way through Eau Rouge in an F1 car.

Comment of the day

Toro Stevo on two-times Monaco Grand Prix winner Mark Webber’s record at the track:

Webber seems to be a bit of a Monaco man, and his results would be better if not for car failure in the early years. But relative to the car he?s been in, and the results at other tracks, he?s always very competitive there.

He won there in F3000, was running best of the rest in 2003 until hydraulics failure, third in 05 with Williams (his team mate passed him by being called in a lap early), qualified second there in 2006 and was on track for another podium before car failure, qualified high (for the RB3) in 2007, finished fourth in 2008 (his best position of the year), and pole and wins in 2010 and 2012. Even in 2011, he qualified pretty close to Vettel time-wise (closer than he got most races that year). That?s why I?m not reading too much into his win at Monaco, he?s always done well there.
Toro Stevo

From the forum

Happy birthday!

Happy birthday to Ratboy!

If you want a birthday shout-out tell us when yours is by emailling me, using Twitter or adding to the list here.

On this day in F1

Gunnar Nilsson scored his only F1 win 35 years ago today in the Belgian Grand Prix.

The Swedish driver died from testicular cancer the following year.

Here’s Nilsson winning in the rain at Zolder after team mate Mario Andretti collided with John Watson at the start. Niki Lauda was second ahead of Ronnie Peterson:

Image ?? Ferrari spa/Ercole Colombo

Author information

Keith Collantine
Lifelong motor sport fan Keith set up RaceFans in 2005 - when it was originally called F1 Fanatic. Having previously worked as a motoring...

Got a potential story, tip or enquiry? Find out more about RaceFans and contact us here.

Posted on Categories F1 Fanatic round-upTags

Promoted content from around the web | Become a RaceFans Supporter to hide this ad and others

  • 58 comments on “F1 engine costs could triple in 2014”

    1. Just asking, but isn’t it rather obvious that the new engines would cost a lot more to the teams than current engines?

      Afterall, they’ve been running the same engines since 2007. So there’s hardly any cost in development (as it’s freezed by the rules) and all.

      For example, how much did they spend back in the days when engines were developed like the rest of the car? I bet it’s around 3 times the price they pay right now to suppliers.

      1. When quite a few teams budgets are in the $80-100m range, it’ll hurt hard when they suddenly lose almost $15m.

        If HRT does survive until then, I doubt they will be in it come 2014, or even Marussia perhaps.

      2. You’d have thought so. But as always, common sense is in short supply in F1. What is needed is the engine manufacturers to have freer reign on engine design, so the engines make enough of a difference that those manufacturers will be more heavily promoted by supplying engines, and therefore the positive brand image means they can justify selling to teams at a loss.

      3. iirc it’s the bottom half of the engine that’s frozen. of course further work is allowed for reliability and efficiency improvements, and any extra horsepower is just a happy accident

      4. To me its pretty obvious it will cost more as well because the EUR 18 million that the Renault, Mercedes and Ferrari ask is not just he engine, but engine and integrate KERS/HERS systems.

        Currently the only teams that are paying those 8 million are teams not using KERS, if we add up engine and KERS system the price hike is far less dramatic (from 7+6 = 13 million to 18 million EUR.). Still its a big step up to pay another 50% extra.

    2. interesting about red bull and this years Monaco race… but i don’t see any team protesting as that would cause some serious negitive press for who ever protested it

      1. Maybe the FIA should have anonymous protests

      2. It would be interesting if “FOTA” protested. Every team would gain something but RBR. If the FIA would disqualify both cars from Bahrein and Monaco, that would put RB to 5th position, behind MCL, FER , LOT, MERC. So that four team gains a lot in an instant, you could measure it in millions of $$$. But the other teams are interesting too. Sauber would approach Williams to one point, and FI would make up leeway approaching Sauber to four points.

        The WCC table should look like something like this:
        1. MCL – 117
        2. FER – 101
        3. LOT – 100
        4. MER – 76
        5. RBR – 72
        6. WIL – 46
        7. SAU – 45
        8. SFI – 41
        9. STR – 8
        10,11,12 CAT MAR HRT – 0

        1. @bag0 – punishing Red Bull would be unjust; they were after all running it legally with FIA permission. If they were to strip Red Bull of their points (bearing in mind the hole probably isn’t much of a performance advantage) it would seriously harm F1’s image.

          1. @vettel1
            I did not say it would be just, but it is in every other teams interest, and I looked at what result it would have on the WCC standings.

            1. But they don’t even have a case to protest against; it was declared legal after the races in BAH and Monaco, and a clarification just means they can’t run it anymore.

    3. Happy Birthday Ratboy!

      As many movies as he’s been in lately, I think people are going to get sick of seeing Chris Hemsworth everywhere. Can’t wait to see Rush though!

      1. Happy birthday @Ratboy !

        1. Cheers guys :D

    4. “Some are talking of price increases of 300 per cent, or from the current FOTA-negotiated V8 units at £7m/annum for a year’s supply to £20m, which would cripple all but F1′s best-funded operations.”

      i think they missed a big opportunity here. instead of genuine innovation being forged in the crucible of formula one, we’ll have the same old “cuckoo clocks” (ross brawn’s term).

      1. What’s that a reference to?

        1. in a quote from years ago i’m unable to find, he said the rules were too restrictive and everyone builds the same contraptions

      2. yep same old story…

      3. @f1yankee It depends what you class as innovation. I imagine it’s relatively easy to build a powerful engine, but to build one with turbos, ERS and to have high efficiency is somewhat more of a challenge and ultimately more innovative, in my opinion.

        1. @andrewtanner innovation would be something different from what everyone else has, and that is usually frowned upon

    5. Ricciardo is ALWAYS smiling! Can’t help but have a chuckle and smile when I watch his interviews lol.

      1. He’s hilarious on Twitter, too. :-)

      2. xeroxpt (@)
        5th June 2012, 3:53

        It’s like if he it is talking with his friends very natural.

      3. Jayfreese (@)
        5th June 2012, 15:45

        I was in Spa this weekend for the F2.0 & F3.5 Championship Race 2, the weather was light rain but the fog and sprays made the visibity so poor! Both races have been red flagged because of massive crashes on both categories. However, Ricciardo drove the car sideways under the rain at Turn 1 and went the good and wrong way multiple times through Eau Rouge ahead of us. It was great fun as always with Ricciardo!

    6. I often run on tracks in reverse in rFactor and find some tracks more interesting and also alot more challenging… I have wondered in the past why they haven’t trailed a few tracks that’s have been typically difficult to overtake on to see how it goes… It may have spicen things up a little a caught a few teams out on setup.

      1. I thought that too until I tried it on F1 2011. No run-off would be the first issue, and the tracks have been designed to be run the way they are.
        I suppose we’d get lots of hairpins onto long straights…

        1. I agree with the safety aspect and i do like fast flowing corners onto straights however I think we already have alot of tracks with hairpin type corners leading onto straights… For example: Sepang, Canada, Silverstone, Nurburgring, Hockenheim, Hungary, Belgium, India & Abu Dhabi…

          1. I think he was saying it’s the other way round, and all the tracks you mention are the other way round: straights leading to hairpins. If tracks are run in reverse, then we’d have hairpins leading onto straights…

            1. Straights onto hairpins… hairpins onto straights… why don’t we just call the whole thing ’tilke’…

            2. @graigchq
              He is right those circuits does have hairpins leading onto straights in the normal racing direction.
              Canada – second to last corner onto the back straight.
              Silverstone – Luffield is pretty much leading onto the S/F straight.
              Nür – Last turn onto the main straight.
              Hockenheim – T4 leading onto the straight till T5 (albeit in reverse T4 would lead into a much longer straight)
              Hungary – Last turn onto the main straight.
              Spa – First corner to the run down to eau rouge.
              India – T3 down to T4 (though it is the same in reverse)
              Abu Dhabi – T7 to T8.
              Sepang – T15 to T1.

            3. Spot on Mads.

    7. xeroxpt (@)
      5th June 2012, 3:45

      It’s obvious that the engines would cost more development and possible change in yearly allocations for strong teams that dont oppose any issues to budget, some teams might get sponsored to use certain engines (ex:RedBull) the objective is to move foward and try to give back some of the life F1 had lost, engines should be development parts they should be relevant, the true reason behind the move is to get more exposure from F1, better publicity (no one buys a car because it has good aerodynamics) and more external back up more brands more money, especially if they can make the Americans to byte into F1 with perhaps Chevy units.


      Here’s a picture I took of Ricciardo last Saturday.

      1. Amazing! Thanks for sharing.

      2. Well this has happened so many times now.
        Every year with the demo’s.
        And years back when toyota did some testing here. (and a shakedown)

    9. Vettel will appear on “late show” with Letterman. It’s gonna be a funny episode.

    10. @keithcollantine An increase in 300% means quadrupling (4x) instead of just tripling (3x)! … Title should be changed. :)

      1. because 7m to 20m is triple… it’s been explained perfectly. If there is an error its in saying the cost will INCREASE by 300%, when it will actually go up TO 300%, but as Keith is quoting somebody else, it’s their mistake, so no action needed IMHO.

      2. @fractal On reflection perhaps that part of the quote should have been left out as I can see how it has the potential to confuse. But the headline refers to the specific values given so I’m happy with it.

    11. I tired to go through Eau Rouge backwards once, my car got airborne at the top, did some flips and eventually landed at the bottom, upside-down at about 300km/h.
      Ricciardo is lucky to be alive.

      1. A lot better to try that on a computer than in rl!

      2. I have a feeling it’s something many of the drivers who run demonstrations at Spa have done. The first time I saw it was last year, when Bruno Senna recorded it on his phone! (He even listed “Eau Rouge (backwards)” as his favorite corner in F1 in one of the F1 Racing magazines last year, I think, which made me laugh.)

        1. WOW! that video was amazing! thanks for share!

    12. Have a great birthday @Ratboy!

    13. F1 needs to move away from normally-aspirated engines; if it wants to improve its environmental image and remain to be a test bed for automotive technology it needs to invest in fuel-saving technologies. KERS is a start, and it’s effectiveness will only improve (especially when the maximum power is increased to 120kW), developing turbocharging technology is another step.
      What the FIA should do in my opinion though is give the engine manufacturers more freedom in design (whilst still abiding by the fuel-flow restriction & reliability requirements) to allow for more heated competition: in my opinion the best way to increase the development pace.

      1. @vettel1 Agreed. I’m really looking forward to these new engines and how they will change Formula 1.

        1. Agreed!

          Cap the HP & torque output & let each manufacture decide the rest… There was something nice about having 6, 10 & 12 cylinder engines kicking round at the same time.

          Id go one further & give teams more aerodynamic freedom so we could see some real innovation rather than this expensive tedious game they have to play to find loop holes within the convoluted rules. For example I think it has become rather unexciting to see continues minute tweaks to the floor & front wing end plates. All the cars are virtually clones of each other. It used to be so exciting each year to see a new car roll out to see what new innovated ideas they would bring to the table. Nowadays its all about refined evolution rather than revolution. I would allocate each team an amount of material area (on top of the monocoque) and what they choose to do design & where they chose to place that design (as long as it passes safety tests) is really up to them… If a team chooses to use all of its material area in the rear as apposed to an even balance well thats up to them. It would be really interesting to see the different approaches each technical team would take in there design.

          btw i do love modern F1 but i do feel for some of the clever engineers out there that are not really getting to show us there innovative ideas.

          1. @ming-mong – the days of the garagistes were the heyday of technological innovation; Lotus & Colin Chapman on a minimalist budget were beating the automotive giants of Europe. Sadly, this is no longer possible with ever tightening rules.
            There is a problem though that giving the designers freedom may cause many problems with safety and budget restrictions, and teams who have been there for a while may have an advantage due to previous experience, such as Ferrari, Williams & Mclaren (and Red Bull to an extent since they have Adrian Newey).

        2. @andrewtanner – Only thing I might miss is the noise of the V8, god they sound good!

    14. What will the package of engines contain? I know it contains ERS and a certain number of engines for the season and testing but I’m curious how many they will actually get for the season to be used in the races. At the moment the allocation is 8 and I’m sure I’ve heard that this number is set to fall again, owing to supposed higher efficiency? I don’t imagine it will fall from 8 immediately in 2014…

      1. I would imagine they’ll only start to get stricter on the engine allocation after the manufactures have had time to improve engine reliability

        1. @vettel1 Stick a turbo in the mix and I’m sure it will be fine ;)

          1. @andrewtanner – if they are to be anything like the ’80’s ones I’d expect to see a lot more retirements! I’m not sure what the boost pressure is limited to, that could also affect reliability. The engines do rev a lot lower however…

    15. They’re saying that engine costs will triple, but forgive me for saying I’m baffled as to where this extra cost comes from. Obviously, they’ll cost more, but 3x more seems improbable.

      I say this for two reasons: the first is that IndyCar has introduced an entriely new engine formula this season, but engine prices can’t have risen that much or we would have heard about it. The other is that engine development is constantly ongoing in Le Mans, yet again, engine costs aren’t spiraling to my knowledge. I know there is precious little common sense in F1, but surely…

      1. @lin1876 I believe it’s to do with ERS and the heavy dependence on them. Things like KERS are extremely expensive and they’re planning on working them into the engine, rather than just the ‘bolt-on’ approach used now.

        1. @andrewtanner Ah. I hadn’t thought of it like that. Cheers.

    16. Teams will save money on fuel though, with the more fuel efficient tree hugging V6s. So after 30 seasons they’ll get their money’s worth.

      Will engine development resume after 2014, or will the new engines be homologated and frozen again? Anyone know?

    17. The cost of the new engine’s will be high initially but the cost will decrease as the years go on.

      Same was true with the current V8’s, Initial development cost’s were high but as the years have gone by the cost’s have gone down.

    Comments are closed.