Teams barred from using old specification engines in 2016

2016 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Formula One teams will only be able to use current-specification power unit hardware during the 2016 season, the FIA has confirmed.

The latest draft of the 2016 sporting regulations*, published yesterday, states that “Only power units which are identical to the power unit that has been homologated by the FIA in accordance with Appendix 4 of these regulations may be used at an Event during the 2016-2020 Championship seasons”.

The rule applies only to the engine hardware, not the software, fuel or lubricants.

Mercedes has already confirmed Manor, which will use its engines for the first time next year, will use the latest specification.

Red Bull, which is expected to split from current engine supplier Renault but does not yet have a deal with Mercedes or Ferrari, has tried to make having access to the latest hardware a condition of their 2016 engine contract.

2016 to 2020 power unit homologation rules

Appendix four of the FIA sporting regulations stipulates how

1) An homologated power unit must include all the parts described as “INC” in the “App. 4 Sporting regs.” column of Appendix 2 of the F1 Technical Regulations.

2) Any manufacturer who homologated a power unit during the 2014-2020 period may re-homologate this power unit prior to the 28 February of each subsequent year in accordance with the table in Appendix 4 of the F1 Technical Regulations.

Details of all modifications must be included in a dossier supplied to the FIA 14 days prior to re-homologation. The manufacturer must hold a complete power unit to this specification in a container sealed by the FIA prior to the 28 February of the year of re-homologation.

3) Any manufacturer intending to homologate a new power unit during the 2016-2020 period must provide the FIA with full details of the power unit on or before 28 February of the year of homologation. The FIA must be satisfied, at its absolute discretion, that such a power unit could fairly and equitably be allowed to compete with other homologated power units.
Details of the above power unit must be included in a dossier supplied to the FIA 14 days prior to the date of homologation. The manufacturer must hold a complete power unit to this specification in a container sealed by the FIA prior to the 28 February of the year of homologation.

4) Other than any parts agreed by the FIA at their absolute discretion to be solely associated with power unit installation with different teams, each manufacturer may supply only one specification of homologated power unit during any given calendar year, subject to any changes permitted by the FIA in accordance with the procedure set out in 5) below.
5) A manufacturer may apply to the FIA during the course of the homologation period to carry out modifications to their homologated power unit for the sole purposes of reliability, safety, cost-saving.

Applications must be made in writing to the FIA Technical Department and must provide all necessary supporting information including, where appropriate, clear evidence of failures. The FIA will circulate the correspondence to all manufacturers for comment. If the FIA is satisfied, in its absolute discretion, that these changes are acceptable, they will confirm to the manufacturer concerned that they may be carried out.

6) All power units must be delivered such that the seals required under Article 23.4 can be fitted. Both The manufacturer and users of a homologated power unit must take whatever steps are required at any time by the FIA, in its absolute discretion, to demonstrate that a power unit used at an Event is identical to the corresponding power unit held as required by either paragraph 2 or 3 above.

*PDF link

2016 F1 season

Browse all 2016 F1 season articles

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.

74 comments on “Teams barred from using old specification engines in 2016”

  1. Indication that the FIA is doing quite something to keep RB AND make them competitive – good.

    1. @xtwl Not necessarily – the only reason different specifications were possible this year was because of a ‘loophole’ the FIA wanted to close anyway. I wouldn’t necessarily interpret this as having anything to do with Red Bull, although it is relevant to them.

      After all, it may make the others less willing to supply them if it means they can’t just give them an old engine.

      1. @keithcollantine
        I wouldn’t be surprised if this kills off any chance of Mercedes or Ferrari supplying them with engines next season. Neither appear to be keen to supply them with equal equipment.

        1. Neither appear to be keen to have their names dragged through the mud, either. Which is something Red Bull are becoming quite adept at.

          1. Neither appear to be keen to have their names dragged through the mud, either.

            Irrelevant as both PU are the best available and miles ahead of the Renault. Where as Renault performed miserably Ferrari for example turned a bad situation into something quite amazing for 2015.

          2. As Renault have (rightly) said: it would have been nice of them to be as forthcoming with the praise during their winning years, as they were with the criticism in the last two.

            But I’m also talking about their vocal distaste for Ferrari’s attitude – before negotiations had concluded, no less! And since then both Mercedes and Ferrari have had another verbal lashing from RB.

            No wonder no one wants to work with them.

          3. This rule is going to bite them in the back eventually – very silly.
            I thought F1 is the pinnacle of innovation and technology.
            This will stop that now – unless they come up with some very good software, fuel or lubricants.
            What about Honda?? Are they going to be stuck over the next 4 years to improve only with Tokens they get?
            Typical knee jerk reaction to a situation that is solely to blame to the arrogant position of RB that thought after winning 4 consecutive world championships they become invincible and can do what they like.
            Very bad RB management and unfortunately FIA rules are not helping.
            This is pure politics – and nothing to do with motor racing.

          4. Kirk, I’m not sure I understand the point you’re making about Red Bull. These were always meant to be the rules – the only reason why there was in-season development this year is that there wasn’t a set data for homologation which left it open for teams to spend their tokens through the year rather than use them all at the start. The rules specifically pertaining to one homologated specification were always there, but they didn’t make any sense when there wasn’t actually a homologation date – effectively the power units were considered developed versions of the homologated spec. They’ve simply closed this loophole down. The other proposal was to make further changes for next season to allow for a previous homologated spec to be sold to customers at a reduced cost. Clearly this has not been ratified by the WMSC (presumably it never made it past the Strategy Group) so the rules effectively remain the same. Nothing has been changed specifically for the sake of RBR.

          5. altitude2k,

            If that were really true Ferrari would have never approached RBR. It was Ferrari that went to RBR saying you can get one from us if you like already in June 2015.

            However the only way to get out of this with a straight face for DM would be (as I read from someone else, I guess on this site) to really get out of F1 temporarily, secure a deal with a different engine supplier like Cosworth to develop an F1 engine, and get back in F1 when they are ready. Obviously customer teams are not meant to fight for the title. It is a hard truth I learned now, and RBR seems to learn as well.

            BTW: I am not defending how they handled their relationship with Renault, but I am not defending Renault either, Lotus didn’t change to Merc for nothing.. So why would I blame RBR for looking for alternatives? The past is over doesn’t matter if it was successful or troublesome. You should respect the past for what it is and give credit where it is due, but future decisions have to be based on the present situation and the outlook for the future. This counts for Lotus just as it counts for RBR.

          6. Seeing this was brought out by the FIA ahead of a meeting with all engine manufacturers, I would say its more of establishing a base line: the FIA wants to close the in season development loophole and make sure only one homologated engine spec is used by each manufacturer during the year.

            The likes of Honda, Renault and Ferrari are going to try and argue for allowing development with a wide scope so that they can close the gap and Mercedes is rather likely to side with the FIA on this, but in the end I would think the outcome is probably going to be some compromise to allow more development with new limits.

            Then it will have te be agreed with the teams and by now its possible that Red Bull will hold out to block an agreed change unless they get an engine deal.

          7. There is a way out of it for Ferrari: demand that Marko and Horner be fired. These guys are ridiculous with their whining in a way beyond ridiculous.

      2. I guess this is for the good of the sport…

        But i suspect software could easilly limit power of engines. Like Toto suggested, limiting power modes could make 3 engines last entire season, making for cheaper contract.

        There are workarounds for all eventualities.

        But if anything, Ferrari would benefit supplying them. 1year contract, be nice, and maybe 2017.

        1. I understand that any costumer is obliged to provide the engine maker their SW settings, but the works teams are not. This is a huge advantage: the works teams get the others inventive tweeks, an engine customized for their HW/SW package and even a custumized fuel, as only they now the inner workings of the engine. This sport is doomed if those silly extra-expensive engines are not banned, so that new suppliers can come in.

      3. I suggest again the final outcome for RBR may be RB-Maserati or even RB-Fiat, an engine very similar to the final iteration of this years Ferrari could easily be homologated by Feb 28, this may not elevate RBR to the championship but it would surely keep them in contention for podiums while they shop around for a new engine partner.

    2. I actually see this as the nail in the coffin for RBR and STR. There was a good piece on JAonF1 yesterday ( listing the possible outcome of the Red Bull crisis. Many of them, such as Horner leading a buy-out, depended on the possibility of using old engines. Also, Ferrari’s argument that they could no longer supply 2016-spec engines because of the lead times involved may have been circumvented if they would start the year with old engines.

      The only possibility for RBR and STR is to continue using Renault engines, but I find that very unlikely.

    3. Their effort to save RB teams may well back fire…

      I hate the way RB representatives conducted themselves throughout this crisis (disrespecting Renault, bullying the whole paddock, etc) but I want they to stay but I’m losing hope.

      1. Or, as @keithcollantine said, it’s just them closing a loophole

    4. Not really. It could exactly the opposite effect.

    5. Not necessarily. If you need certain software to maximize the engine production and certain lubricants to get the most out of the engine, a customer can still be given a lesser engine by not giving them all of the things they need for the engine to run at it’s peak performance.

    6. No, only the engine supplied to Red Bull or STR is exactly the same, the software Mercedes, Renault, Ferrari, or Honda (or whoever) supply can be different, and probably is different because the car has a different designer and the components used are different.
      The problem for Red Bull and STR is now, no matter what engine they use, they won’t get the “premium grade” engine management software, just the “Home and Small Business” version, which will perform “only fractionally less” than the works team’s engine.
      As I see it, where they in terms of not having a guaranteed engine supply for 2016 was entirely avoidable, and they have only themselves to blame.

  2. Will be interesting to see Manor with proper engines.

    1. Will be a lot like peak Super Aguri. Incredible on the straights, horrible through the corners.

    2. They have to build a current spec chassis as well. So we’ll see how they go.

      1. They’ve had all year, so I expect it won’t be an issue.

      2. merc and williams are going to give them a hand so i think they will be very competitive next year

        1. Let’s hope they have drivers that can do justice to the chassis and engine.

          1. They going to have to hire a established driver…..although not many will want to pay to drive, unless its someone that Mercedes can help out…..but cannot think of a name that fits that scenario

  3. ColdFly F1 (@)
    14th October 2015, 10:32

    Good clarification – it describes what the FIA intended to do form the beginning.

    The clear loophole is still the ‘reliability, safety, cost-saving’ clause.
    If a manufacturer is not happy with a certain part, then it should just run it to fail, or get a quote that the new part is cheaper!

  4. I’m not so good with all these terms, but what about the token system? Is that gone as well?

    1. I think the in season Tokens were a loophole Ferrari found, it should be closed for next season. Although one of the articles in the roundup says that the manufacturers are having a meeting to discuss the possibility of changing the development rules to allow the other manufacturers to close the gap to Mercedes.
      As ever, no one really knows what’s going to happen until the rules are published and agreed by everyone concerned.

    2. ColdFly F1 (@)
      14th October 2015, 12:18

      The tokens are still alive and kicking!

      in accordance with the table in Appendix 4 of the F1 Technical Regulations.

      That’s the reference the token system (the FIA doesn’t call them tokens).

      1. @coldfly @force-maikel A little clarification there. The token system still exists, but only during the winter. In-season development of the PU is now forbidden, as it was planned for 2015 before the loophole.

        1. digitalrurouni
          15th October 2015, 22:50

          From this article seems like engine development in-season is open!!!!

          That’s great!

  5. I think this is good, especially for the competitional side of F1. Hopefully, Manor will reduce the gap significantly to the best car in 2016 compared to 2015.

    1. Manor were always getting the 2016 engine, so it actually doesn’t effect them, It seems at present the only ones it would effect would be RB & TR, and perhaps Sauber as I think they test quite a few different components for Ferrari before they go on the works car.

  6. So did the Strategy Workgroup not agree on this in the end? Didn’t they propose this as a cost cutting measure? Or did the F1 commission overrule their proposed rule change?

  7. I’m glad that common sense has prevailed. The proposed rule change was meant to provide a means for struggling teams to pay less for older spec engines, but it’s clear that every team on the grid is happy to pay for current tech. It closes off the possibility of Ferrari and Mercedes insisting that certain other teams only run older engine for competitive reasons.

    Still though, with the tokens loophole closed off with a set homologation date, it does mean that they’ll effectively run what they brung for the entire year, and there won’t be any opportunity for anyone to improve through the season. Which I think is a bit of a shame.

  8. Sorry Keith, but it’s quite old news. The moment that hole in the rules was plugged around 8-9 months ago, it was clear they would be locked back into that. The FIA confirming it, is quite pointing out the obvious from their part.

    It’ll be however interesting to see what that manufacturer meeting brings. If they decide to allow in season use of the tokens, they’ll have to change that exact same rule again to accommodate it. Assuming of course all teams vote in favour, which will of course not happen.

    1. @turbof1 (and @sasquatsch) Not so: The relevant section in the previous (July) draft of the 2016 sporting regulations was as follows:

      Only power units which have been homologated by the FIA in accordance with Appendix 4 may be used at an Event during the 2014-2020 Championship seasons.

      That phrasing does not disqualify teams from using older engines. You can see how the phrasing has changed in the new version, quoted in the article above, and is intended to prevent teams from using older engines.

      1. You say it yourself: draft. However, the decision both in the Strategic Work Group and in the WMSC was made I believe February. Usually it takes a while to make its way on official documents like the ones we can freely download on the site fia. Non publicly disclosed documents however are featuring it for 9 months aprox now.

        In doubt, ask yourself why it would be decided back then. All regulation changes have to be decided by March. If it was only decided a few weeks or even a few months ago, one veto from one team would have sufficed to make the necessary change.

        1. *to block the necessary change. Sorry for that and other errors; joys of typing messages on a smartphone… .

        2. @turbof1 Again, no, the latest version of the Sporting Regulations is based on what was agreed at the most recent World Motorsport Council meeting which was on September 30th. The lag on the new version of the regulations appearing is typically days, not months.

          1. I might be wrong on the WMSC, I can accept that. However I know for a fact the SWG decided it in february. Back then the fia already mentioned it “plugged the loophole”. The transition from informal-half formal to formal probably floating around for a while, but it was abundantly clear back then we weren’t going to get inseason development.

            Sorry Keith, but I must insist this was decided long ago already. I’m admittingly quite a bit confused myself on why it took that long to find it’s way into the official rulebook of the tech regulations.

          2. Hey Keith, just so you know:

            The FIA has closed a loophole in the power-unit regulations for 2016 that means no updates to the systems will be permitted beyond February 28.

            Before you try to point out “that’s not the same”. Well yes it is. It was the issue with the date of the homologation that caused both inseason development AND old-specification power units (this was because the changes only have to be homologated at the end of the year). The article I quoted dates from June. Although this does not directly prove that the decision was made in February (that’ll require more digging I’m currently not finding the time for), it does prove the decision was made much earlier.

            (Now give me my comment of the day mention :P.)

          3. One last reply and then I’ll stop: I have some side notes that needed some figuring out: first of all note that that regulation is in essence a sporting regulation, more precisely Appendix 4. However, since they forgot to adapt in time the date to this year, the whole of Appendix 4 became void due not able to apply on the current year. The only thing that used appliable regulation for this year, is Appendix 4 of the technical regulations, more precisely the title of 2015 tokens column (“2015”). If that table too was void, then the manufacturers would have been allowed to make as many and as often as they wanted updates to whatever part they want, of course within the prescribed technical regulations.

            Further, they also putted the same update to the sporting regulations, beneath that table in the technical regulations.

  9. This was already in the Sporting Regulations in February, so nothing new. The only news is that the WMSC did not talk about it last week, because the Strategy Group did not bring it to the WMSC. Only the changes to the engine tailpipes were being brought to the WMSC and ratified.

    I understand that the WMSC will reconvene within a couple of weeks and thus the use of 2015 spec can be brought on the table. But before that will happen all teams have to agree on that. So most likely discussions will still take place if necessary.

    Engine manufacturers will talk with the FIA about in-season development and maybe the use of 2015 engines, which (when in agreement) will also be brought to the WMSC, so that this can be included in the regulations for 2016.

    1. Well then speaking of coincidence: within 3 minutes 2 posts with the same content!

      I don’t think changes at this point is going to be a possibility. Ask any of the smaller teams if they want to give up their current situation where they get equal hardware. It’ll not happen.

  10. Makes it hard for Red Bull now, Ferrari had offered 2015 engines so this confirms that would never be able to happen. Maybe Honda can supply Red Bull or they can beg Renault, in fact if they want they do not have to sign anything and Renault are contracted to supply them. Jobs are not at risk as Red Bull have said all staff at both teams will be put to work on other projects but could not be LMP1 as they are not a manufacturer they are not allowed to use Hybrids so would not be competitive.

    The onus is on Honda and Renault if anyone, Merc and Ferrari are already supplying multiple teams, as it stands Renault and Honda supply 1 team as of 2016.

    1. Someone is going to have one hell of a soapbox racer if Red Bull do pull out of F1 and deploy their staff on other projects.

      1. Including Red Bull because many of those people work for them because they wanted to work in F1. They won’t sit around making small planes or something if Red Bull gets out of F1. They will just accept propositions from other teams.

    2. I’m not sure you’ve got the rules right there about LMP1-H class cars. There’s nothing in the rules which say that only car manufacturers can enter cars in that class. The only reason you only see auto manufacturers entering into the ‘H’ classes is that there aren’t any off-the-shelf power unit solutions which would be competitive in LMP1, so any entrant would need to develop their own solution if they wanted to have any chance of winning.

      However, I do wonder what the future will be for the Porsche and Audi entries given the situation with the VW group at the moment. The monumental cost of running those two teams is surely the kind of thing they may think twice about, especially when the Audi entry is meant to be a showcase for the diesel technology which is at the heart of the controversy at the moment.

      Perhaps there’s an opportunity there for Red Bull to join up with the Audi team as a title sponsor – Audi designing the driveline systems and Red Bull providing the chassis and aero (and drivers?). Probably just a pie in the sky thought, but it would be great to see!

      1. No off the shelf hybrids so non manufacturer teams cannot realistically be competitive. WEC is often praised as what F1 should be when this is what is happening now in F1 and people are unhappy. One rule for one…..

        Still think it’s more for Honda or Renault to help if anyone. Giving equal engines to lesser teams is fine but to Red Bull it feels like how on occasion I would give a pound to a homeless person but not to someone who earns the same or more than me.

        Maybe Ferrari can run Red Bull as Red Ferrari B Alfa Romeo.

        1. I think the difference with the WEC is that the rules are open enough for people to at least come up with their own designs. While F1 is extremely prescriptive about what sort of engine they have to design. It wouldn’t be inconceivable to set up an LMP1-H car using an off-the-shelf ICE and then develop a bespoke hybrid system around it.

          I don’t agree with your analogy. Supplying customer teams isn’t a case of charity, it’s a case of selling a product. It grates that over and over again the word ‘giving’ has been used, when nobody is asking anyone to ‘give’ anything. Red Bull are a customer looking to buy a product from a supplier. They’re not asking for handouts.

          1. It is giving an engine as the amount the customers pay does not cover the costs of the engine. If you were a true supplier you would want to make a profit of it but no teams could afford to pay the amount it would cost for Ferrari and Merc to make a profit from their engines.

            WEC gives choice to manufacturers on power units as others cannot afford it and even then after a few years they will all dial into the winning format which is Porsches under the current regs. Toyota are moving towards a Porsche style power unit soon according to rumours. It would be a huge waste of money for everyone to do their own thing as then development would have to be free so they can all design the same format as the dominant power unit.

            It would not be inconceivable for small teams and Red Bull to pay Cosworth to give a rival engine to the manufacturers which is equal to all of them and the same spec for all of them a bit like the Ford DFV used to be used.

        2. So you say: RBR will want a GP2 engine? and race with McLaren in a different class under F1? I think it is brilliant idea having multiple classes hence no more backmarkers :)

    3. But even if they end up with Honda they’re not gonna have priority in terms of engines so their idea of being competitive in 2016 wouldn’t really work with Honda. To be honest, I wouldn’t mind if they leave as it may force the idea of 3 car teams next year so it is win win really, either we have competitive Red Bull again or 3 car teams, either way the sport will improve if you ask me.

  11. Well good, I expect Arden F1 to be quite competitive in the midfield with current spec Renault engines next year due to supreme aero.

    Hillfiger F1 (or whatever Stroll wants to call them) will kick their butts with their Ferrari but hey, them’s the breaks

  12. what if Ferrari decide to re-brand their 2015 engine as FIAT and enter as a new supplier?

    1. @barkun I’m not sure they’d even need to do that. Perhaps I need to have a thorough read-through of the rules here, but I can’t see anything which says that an existing engine supplier can’t homologate a wholly new design each year. Maybe the fact that nobody has done this implies that it’s not something they’re allowed to do, I just can’t see anything which explicitly says so.

      1. ColdFly F1 (@)
        14th October 2015, 12:27

        @mazdachris, you’re right it does not explicitly stop it.
        But FIA left its ‘joker’ in the rules:

        The FIA must be satisfied, at its absolute discretion, that such a power unit could fairly and equitably be allowed to compete with other homologated power units.

        ‘absolute discretion’ is all they need to stop that from happening.

        It is the grey area though where FIAT/Alfa/Lancia were to enter (especially if it is next to Ferrari), when we can see how FIA will use its ‘absolute discretion’.
        Imagine Alfa homologating for next year an engine that looks/walks/quacks like a ’15 Ferrari engine, and offer it to STR.

        1. @coldfly I apprecitate that ‘absolute discretion’ implies ‘what we says goes, no arguments’ but I would have thought at the very least that the FIA would have to have some grounds for saying that it was unfair, or inequitable before actually rejecting it. A current manufacturer homologating a new design wouldn’t, on the face of it, be either of those things provided it complies with the same technical regulations as every else’s.

          On the other hand, a ‘new’ manufacturer being created which uses a design identical to an older spec from a previous manufacturer would surely be pretty unfair.

          1. I remember it happening in the 90’s with Mugen running year old Honda.

            On a plus side, this move would help a new engine manufacturer enter the scene with a ‘lesser’ investment and let it test the waters before coming up with its original design.

      2. @barkun STR (and RBR)-Maserati would be better…..

  13. bye bye redbull

  14. Renault or nought for Red Bull then.

  15. I see on Jonathan Noble is speculating whether Red Bull would go off and start its own series.

    Sounds good to me. F1 badly needs some competition.

    1. @lockup
      How many times have we heard someone claim they were going to establish a new series ?
      As much as I’d love to see it happening, I just can’t see anyone, even Red Bull, throwing that kind of money at a new series given the current state of motorsport.
      Established series are struggling to fill grids and attract new sponsors, and it took years to get Formula E started, even with various manufacturers and teams supporting it.
      The logistics involved with signing up circuits, putting together a coherent and attractive set of regulations, finding teams that are willing and able to sign up, and putting together media deals would be a Herculean task, and isn’t the sort of thing you can throw together in less than a few years.
      And that’s before we consider the amount of effort Bernie will put into sabotaging your plans, while there’d be no official attempts made, you can bet your bottom dollar he would be having a quiet word with all of the circuit owners and businesses associated with F1 and pointing out how easily he could replace them should they work with a rival series.
      I think the last best chance for a rival series was the threatened manufacturers breakaway from a few years ago. My memory isn’t great, but I’ve got a feeling Red Bull were one of the first teams to scupper that plan by signing a new, long term deal with Bernie (feel free to correct me if I’m wrong about that).

      1. Yeah I know what you mean @beneboy, and it’s not even Mateschitz saying it, just a journo with an idea.

        Still, if you were going to do it then an organisation with the marketing power and general pulling power of Red Bull would be a good place to start. They could probably get the crucial TV deals and some star drivers. Though whether it could be a prototype series and who would dare to take on Red Bull Technologies is a question, for sure.

        The main breakaway threat I think was 2005, and yes after some brave words they all bottled it. They all believe only Bernie has the magic.

  16. I’m a bit over the whole PU rules and regulations.

    The FIA introduced them to encourage more participation, but have made the rules so onerous, no manufacturer in their right mind would want to sign up.

    Look at Honda and Renault – clearly got it wrong and have damaged their brands, but the rules prevent them from any real chance of catch up in the current year, and in some cases, several years.

    If the FIA makes it more palatable, maybe we’ll see a return of more manufacturers but at the moment there’s no chance.

  17. So RBR get 2016 spec Renault engines. Wow………

  18. So a couple of news from today’s meeting in Geneva:

    – old-spec PUs allowed again
    – 32 tokens for 2016 instead of 25
    – in-season development allowed
    – no restrictions for which areas of the PU can be improved

  19. I say bring in the US style lottery draft system for engine selection.

    F1 needs to employ the US sports Draft lottery for engine supplies – The bottom 4 teams get to pick an engine from 4 engine manufacturers (with a cost cap on the most expensive engine, first pick). No engine manufacturer can supply more than 3 teams on the grid (works team, customer team, lottery team). The engines supplied has to be the same spec throughout the year. If any of the bottom four teams signed up as the customer team prior to the lottery with an existing engine manufacturer, the next team yet to enter a customer agreement enters into the lottery….

Comments are closed.