Renault may not be the only engine builder wavering over its F1 future

2019 F1 season

Posted on

| Written by

Renault’s disqualification from the Japanese Grand Prix, for a breach of Formula 1’s driver aid regulations, took the team totally by surprise. Sources with knowledge of the technology indicate that the team first used the device possibly as early 2013 – prior even to Renault re-acquiring the team, which was then racing as Lotus.

During a select media briefing during the Mexican Grand Prix, managing director Cyril Abiteboul admitted that the team had used the device ‘prior to this season’, adding they had not approached the FIA for an opinion on its legality – as is the usual procedure – as they believed firmly its legality was beyond doubt.

Whatever the merits of Renault was referred to as a “subjective” judgement – despite, rather curiously, admitting in a subsequent statement that the device did constitute a ‘driver aid’ – the main issue facing Renault F1, and by extension its parent, is one of image. The brand is under enormous internal, external, political and commercial pressures, all coming just 10 years since being implicated in the notorious ‘Crashgate’ scandal.

The Suzuka disqualification could not have come at a worse time for the team for in a call to investors last Friday interim CEO Clotilde Delbos, who was appointed to the post alongside her role as Chief Financial Officer earlier this month after dramatic boardroom upheavals, made an eyebrow-raising comment about its commitment to F1.

“I’m not specifically targeting [Formula 1 and the niche sports car brand Alpine],” she began. “But clearly the review of the ‘Drive the Future’ plan means we put [them] on the table.”

“It’s like a normal process – it’s not a minor review. We’re launching a deep review of the ‘Drive the Future’ plan in order to take into account the new context of the market, the change in usage, mobility, etc., and the current situation of the group.”

Cyril Abiteboul, Renault, Singapore, 2019
Abiteboul criticised the decision to disqualify Renault
What went unsaid was that profits could slump by as much as €600m, an increase of €100m over previous forecasts. Also unsaid was that the motor industry is rapidly moving away from purely fossil-fueled cars, with the switch to electrification stretching the research budgets of even the most profitable makers.

Although Abiteboul does not believe that “Renault will make a decision based on [losing] nine points,” he admitted that, “it doesn’t help.”

“We have been in the sport for 42 years,” he added, “and we genuinely believe it adds something to the marketing of the brand and to tell a story regarding technology.”

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

However, during that time Renault’s teams exited F1 twice – in 1985 and 2010 – although it did continue supplying engines sporadically. Thus Renault’s tenure in F1 as a team runs to exactly half that.

Patrick Tambay, Renault, Estoril,1985
Renault first left F1 in 1985
Although Abiteboul downplays the effect of its last remaining engine customer McLaren’s coming defection to Mercedes after the 2020 F1 season, Renault’s chances of procuring a replacement seem slim, leaving the French team politically exposed and short of a partner with whom to share developments and running time.

Abiteboul also revealed that the F1 team is committed to the sport until the end of 2020, with a separate engine supply agreement locking the brand in to 2024. But according to a team boss with knowledge of the contractual situation – in terms of F1’s agreements the details of all side deals are shared amongst signatories – it is a “soft contract negotiated by Carlos Ghosn.”

Formula 1 was a pet project of the Renault-Nissan alliance’s former chairman and CEO. He who is now facing criminal charges in Tokyo, which he is contesting, and is currently out on bail. Whether Delbos sees the sport in the same light as the man who recruited her in 2012 remains to be seen, particularly as F1’s 2021-25 commercial offers were sent to teams only last week, while the new Financial Regulations have been markedly diluted.

Should F1 be worried about Renault’s predicament? Not taken in isolation, but maybe so given that almost concurrently Honda’s president, representative director and CEO Takahiro Hachigo addressed the media during the Tokyo Motor Show on Honda’s 2030 Vision, dubbed e-Technology, with key words being ‘Electrification’ and ‘Energy’.

According to Hachigo, Honda “plans to electrify two-thirds of its global automobile unit sales by 2030”, with e:HEV – Honda-speak for “hybrid systems for vehicles driven mostly by electric motors” – being the company’s primary focus. How long before Honda enters Formula E, one wonders…

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and go ad-free

In a 1,400-word summary of Hachigo’s speech, not once are the terms ‘F1’ or ‘sport’ mentioned, despite Honda supplying two (sister) F1 teams with power units, one of which this year delivered the first two Honda-powered F1 victories for 13 years.

Max Verstappen, Red Bull, Red Bull Ring, 2019
Honda’s F1 programme is finally bearing fruit
Again, it would be leaping to conclusions to read Hachigo’s address as a precursor to a Honda exit from F1. But, equally, F1 does not appear to have back-up plans in place should either or both these manufacturers depart after next year. Honda F1’s managing director Masashi Yamamoto recently told RaceFans in an exclusive interview the company was not in a position to confirm its plans beyond next season.]

However, he did state that Honda would not be prepared to expand beyond its two teams in the near future. “We think it’s very difficult because we don’t have enough resources in terms of people and also facility,” he said, adding that it was a concern that the company, as engine supplier only, did not qualify for a share of F1’s billion-dollar revenues.

As the sport prepares to finally reveal its much-debated regulations package for the 2021 F1 season this week, it will be anxiously hoping it gets a swift vote of confidence from at least two of F1’s engine suppliers, unless the sport is to become a Ferrari/Mercedes duopoly.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month

>> Find out more and sign up

2019 F1 season

Browse all 2019 F1 season articles

59 comments on “Renault may not be the only engine builder wavering over its F1 future”

  1. However, during that time Renault’s teams exited F1 twice – in 1985 and 2010

    Forgetting (end of) 1997, are we? Unless you are including “assisting Mechachrome” as remaining…

    1. @ho3n3r I think he’s referring to them as a ‘works team’, Renault were just an engine supplier in the 90’s (albeit a very successful one).

  2. How can a team have an illegal system in its cars for 6 years without anyone noticing?

    That’s astonishing to me. I assume someone have noticed it earlier if they were winning races, but it still makes you wonder what else is there.

    1. @paulk since it’s not the system that changed, it’s the observer. And we have a long backlog of inconsistency in this sport.

    2. I’m sure we only hear about a fraction of the actual cheating that goes on. Nowadays with all the technical and computer detail, it will only be harder and harder to find cheating – so I wouldn’t be surprised if multiple teams have been cheating for an extended period of time

    3. @Paulk

      Technically, it wasn’t an illegal system until last week. A better question is how it can be legal for six years and then be deemed illegal without the rules having changed.

    4. Based on what came out about this system so far it (IMO) should have led to a clarification rather than a DSQ, @paulk.
      Others most likely will also have systems ‘aiding the driver’ which are not widely known. And I wouldn’t be suprised if there are even systems/designs on the car which contravene the technical directives (leaking oil into the pre-mix anyone?).

      1. The problem here is that when FIA scrutinizes a system they can declare it illegal as of the next race or next season or..
        In this case it was brought to the stewards of the meeting who declared it illegal and as a result a DQ. ( for that race only)
        But no one will re-use a system when its declared illegal, so effectively for the season.

    5. It’s not illegal until they made that determination recently.

    6. @paulk, if it was being used in 2013, then the system would have been fitted to a race winning car – don’t forget that Kimi won the Australian GP that year, and in the early part of that season Kimi was one of Vettel’s closest rivals in the WDC that season.

      That said, the system was one that the FIA’s own tribunal process showed did comply with the Technical Regulations – if Racing Point had made their challenge purely on technical grounds, they would have lost their case and Renault’s system would have been declared to be legal.

      The system was only declared illegal based on the FIA’s reinterpretation of their own Sporting Regulations – as Dave and others note, it’s more of a case of the FIA changing their mind to decide that they wanted to make that system illegal by changing their definition of the Sporting Regulations.

    7. Its not illegal under the technical regulation, only the sporting regulation as it is classified as a “driving aid”. The problem is that classification is broad.

      Granted Renault should have gotten it checked and approved by the FIA first, which they didnt. When you have a system NOT approved by the FIA, you risk stuff like that.

  3. As far as I know not a single car manufacturer is investing in any major ICE tech, it’s all just tweaking now. All the big money is going into alternatives like electric or hydrogen. Car sales globally are down a bit over all with sales predicted to continue to cool over the next yr or so. So it’s not just Renault and Honda who will be reassessing their commitment to F1
    Having said that I have read the Renault are not going to have a evolution of their 2019 car for next yr but are going ahead with a completely new car for 2020. So I’m guessing that for Renault next yr will be make or break as far as F1 is concerned.
    Not mentioned in the article is Mercedes has brought forward its electric car program with I think 10 new electric vehicles due for release in 2022. So I would expect some hard number crunching and a lot of market research will be done between now and 2021 to determine the level of any participation in F1 racing programs.

  4. The most important step for F1 is to get the budget cap and profit distribution system sorted out. This way it should be possible for all 10-13 teams to be profitable.
    It’s much easier to sell a profitable team than to sell a money pit.

    Next F1 might want to consider to move to a single PU formula. Purist will hate it (see the uproar about single tyre supplier). But with the market moving to hybrid and electric cars, F1 will lose (has lost) the ‘pinnacle’ position on that part. I doubt they will regain it on the PU front (FE is taken). Thus why not standardise the PU, and let teams focus on chassis, aero, and there might even be some room in gearboxes (the Taycan has one) and other powertrain bits.
    This would mean a significant cost reduction but staying away from becoming a spec car series.
    It might mean that Ferrari, Mercedes, Renault will leave but there will be enough garagistas (most bought their PU) who could step in.

    1. @coldfly the 2021 regs may put paid to the individual chassis concept depending on how strict the design boundaries are. Combine that with a single PU and a single tyre supplier and you have basically a spec series. No I think there are other solutions available.

    2. How is that a significant cost reduction when the PU costs $18 million a year?

      1. Quite – quite a few of those items that ColdFly lists in his post are much bigger costs, with aerodynamics being an order of magnitude more expensive than the engines.

        1. 18 million is just the start. To get the engine running and mapped you need a lot more money and engineers to set it up for every session and every race.

    3. @coldfly, The reality is that F1 would be fine with just AMG and Ferrari as engine suppliers, just as it was when the Ford-Cosworth V8 dominated, even though multiple engine formats and suppliers would be preferable.

  5. I still believe this electrification boom is going to crash down spectacularly, when it comes to battery supplied power. Germany is announcing that by 2030 it will stop producing fossil and nuclear power and switch to renewable only. At the same time, car manufactures say their production will be at least 50% electric by 2030. How is that gonna work when every evening 50 million Germans plug-in to recharge their cars for the morning commute? It is no coincidence that Formula E are not allowed to tap into the power grids of the race hosting cities, and must brig their own generators…and that’s only a handful of cars! The only viable future is power unit that generates its own electricity, whether by hydrogen cell or otherwise. Formula 1 should not ignore that.

    1. How is that gonna work when every evening 50 million Germans plug-in to recharge their cars for the morning commute?

      There is still a lot of spare electric power generation during the night hours (hence the low prices) when shops/factories are closed and people go to bed.

      re. FE not plugging into the local network. I doubt they’ll bring charged batteries, and can’t rely on solar for the weekend. Does this mean diesel generators? Not very green then.

      1. @coldfly , if this article is still applicable, the generators run on glycerine and and thus are emission-free. The actual reason for using the generators and not connecting to the power grid is that in most, if not all, countries where they race, the power grid electricity is not emission-free as part of it, or most of it, is obtained via fossil fuel.

        1. I wasn’t aware of this, it seems a bit “forced” to me. They should have put the glycerine generators in the cars and be done with it…

    2. @gpfacts You’re assuming people must charge at night—vehicles can charge during the day whilst solar is peaking.

      Electric isn’t the *only* solution for the future of transportation, but it is absolutely the primary player.

      1. Maybe, but overall energy demand is growing substantially and adding millions of cars to it must create problems. Besides, battery waste will be the next environmental calamity…

        1. @gpfacts, if that is the case I’m wondering why the lowest rate per kilowatt in nsw Australia is offered only to EV owners, and that is by the oldest power generator, not by some new “feelgood” start up.

    3. So what’s your solution. You always come in here and bag on anything that is not continuing with fossil fuels, but offer nothing but whining. I would like to be able to breathe at least in the cities where I live and the electric car will go a long way to that. I don’t have to breathe that battery waste.

      1. I am not nearly smart enough to know what the solution is, of course, but I believe battery powered cars are not it. You won’t have to breathe battery waste, because the industry is probably going to export it to Africa or Indonesia for “recycling” but that is just hiding the problem. Just like they are recycling old computers and phones. It just seems to me that electric cars is something that politicians started to push, because it sounds good, and the manufacturers jumped right on it…but there must be a better way, right?

      2. One more:

        All I am saying is that this is not necessarily an environmentally friendly solution, but all I hear about electric cars is how they are going to save the world and everything will be wonderful. Nobody really is ready to admit that there are substantial adverse effects that could potentially become enormous…

    4. @gpfacts, when you claim that “every evening 50 million Germans plug-in to recharge their cars for the morning commute”, that comes across as pretty hyperbolic.

      For a start, there aren’t even that many German citizens who are in work – you’ve overestimated the working population by nearly 15% (the working population is closer to 44-45 million) – and there aren’t even that many cars registered in Germany (there are only circa 46 million, meaning your “50 million” figure is also nearly 10% too high in terms of sheer numbers of cars in Germany). Furthermore, at least 20% of the German working population travels by public transport, meaning you only have around 35 million people commuting by car each day.

      Furthermore, you don’t have every single car driver in Germany try to simultaneously refuel their cars at the same time after doing their daily commute – why would every single person in Germany be trying to simultaneously charge their cars all the time? It’s not a realistic representation of how people actually behave in a wider community.

      Equally, when you talk about the use of alternative systems, such as hydrogen fuel cells, you’re not actually really eliminating that power issue – all you have done is substitute one form of storing and transferring energy (a battery) for a different energy storage device (such as a tank of hydrogen). That hydrogen does not magically appear into the world of its own will – you still need to expend energy in order to create it, it’s just that you’ve changed the point at which that energy needs to be expended to a different part of the supply chain.

      1. I admit that I did not conduct the demographic study and just made up those numbers as I was typing…my mistake.

        1. So really you’re @gponlyfacts.

          1. Good one :-)

      2. Both are forgetting all the service vehicles that need recharging overnight. Say (for example) a traffic policeman, drives his own car to the local station, drives a policecar all day and then drives his car home again. One person two vehicles.

        Same with the bakery delivery person bringing your daily loaf to the supermarket. Drives his own car to the bakery and then the delivery van to your supermarket. One person, two vehicles.

        And don’t forget to factor in those long distance lorries that venture across Germany. All need overnight (or day time) charging facilities.

    5. @gpfacts

      It’s important to distinguish between things that are hard to do, and things that merely require a relatively small change in how we do something. Increasing peak generation capacity seems to me to be in the latter camp.

      Talking specifically about the impacts of electric cars on the grid, people never get the scenario right. Mostly were not talking about empty batteries being plugged in to charge, so much as batteries connected whenever cars are parked – most of the time – and which can both draw power from the grid and supply power to it. The net effect of millions of electric cars would be to add huge amounts of grid-connected battery storage, which is very handy.

      Personally, I think it’s a dead end, because if solar keeps getting cheaper we’ll be able to make synthetic oil with the power – much easier to transport than electric current, particularly since we already have a distribution network. Back of the envelope calculation suggests that (conservatively) a carport sized area of solar panels would generate enough power – even in the UK – to synthesize enough petrol for average use.

  6. @gpfacts I posted about hydrogen just the other day, I agree it deserves to be investigated. It would need significant investment and development but where else but a race track would be better at that. And they could use ICE keeping the sound and excitement.

    1. Hydrogen ICE? @johnrkh
      I thought that was much less efficient than a Hydrogen/Oxygen Fuel Cell.

    2. @johnrkh Hydrogen engines provide power via electrolysis, so they’re effectively EVs with alternative different energy storage.

      1. @justrhysism Your talking about hydrogen fuel cell powering an electric motor I’m talking about a hydrogen powered ICE
        @coldfly At this time it is not as efficient as fossil based fuels but there is not a huge difference. They are not as clean running as an EV they do produce NOx at high temps. But like most things these issues can be overcome with technology.
        All this would take time and money but the ICE has been around now for well over 100 yrs and its a sound and cheap form of running machinery it just needs a cleaner more readily available fuel to run it.

        1. @johnrkh, there have already been examples of racing cars that used hydrogen as a fuel source, such as Aston Martin racing a car at the Nurburgring 24 Hours in 2013.

          The problem is, the Aston Martin project demonstrated quite how inefficient using hydrogen as a pure fuel source was. In order to store about 3.2kg of hydrogen at 350 bar required four large tanks that increased the weight of the car by around 100kg – it was a bulky and heavy system, and the car could only complete a single lap using hydrogen (the range was not formally confirmed, but Aston Martin did confirm it was less than two laps of the Nurburgring).

          As a pure fuel, gaseous hydrogen is a pretty terrible fuel source for cars – the energy density is low, meaning that the weight and volume of the storage vessels that are required render it impractical for most vehicles.

          1. anon I don’t disagree with what you say about the problems facing hydrogen fuel for ICE. The first petrol powered cars where very unreliable very slow and very inefficient. That’s why we have research and development and Motor Racing is a very big part of that. The hydrogen fuel cell is another alternative but as pointed out by @justrhysism they are EVs.
            Maybe I’m being over optimistic maybe EVs are the way to go when they sort out the inefficiencies of storage and recharge.

    3. If the CO2 fuel people are to be believed, CO2 fuel may be the way to go for F1 as the claim is it can be used in current engines without modification. However any change of fuel would likely be a stop gap as the auto industry is charging headlong into EV technology and from an engine technology standpoint, F1 looks to be on the outside looking in.
      With auto manufacturers likely to leave and the push for cost cutting, I fear the future of F1 is to become IndyCar Europe.

      1. @velocityboy I think the auto industry, namely each manufacturer, has to make a percentage of their business electric, or appear to be environmentally unfriendly and be left out, but from my observation the demand for fully electric vehicles does not warrant that makers ‘charge headlong’ into EV. Therefore I disagree that F1 is on the outside looking in. I think technology such as F1 uses is going to be around for quite a while. Sure manufacturers will continue to head a good portion of their business towards electrification, but that doesn’t mean fully electric vehicles, but means introducing some electric power to cars ie, the hybrid format, which of course is what F1 is.

      2. @velocityboy, CO2 fuel ?? an engine that runs on exhaust gas, brilliant, but what happens to all the CO3 ?

    4. @johnrkh I dont think a hydrogen ICE is a good idea, its energy density is about 60% of petrol, hence you need to carry a large amount on board, or introduce refuelling. BMW experimented with this in the 00’s, they release a dual fuel 7-series that could tun on conventional petrol or hydrogen…it obviously did not take off.

      By energy (ahem.. oil) companies are betting on hydrogen. A lot of the processing and a distribution technology isn’t too dissimilar from LNG, so the tech is there. Once of the approaches being considered is to store the energy generated by solar or wind as hydrogen (meaning starting off with water). This leads to a few issues off course, use of freshwater for instance.

      I believe that in the medium term (say next 50 years), we will have a mix of energy streams.

      1. Once of the approaches being considered is to store the energy generated by solar or wind as hydrogen (meaning starting off with water). This leads to a few issues off course, use of freshwater for instance.

        If it’s used as storage, then this is not a problem, as it turns back into water when generating electricity, @jaymenon10.
        You might even use seawater and get desalination as a side product.

        But even disregarding the above it is not that much water in the bigger scheme of things.
        Total energy usage globally might be a whopping 140,000 TeraWatthours per year, and a days need can stored in 10 Million MT of H2, for which you need 100 Million m3 of water.
        But that is ‘only’ 14 Litres per person per day; less than what people waste when leaving the tap running when brushing their teeth.

  7. For me, historically I’ve generally supported Renault & Honda powered cars far more than Mercedes or Ferrari powered ones. If I’m honest, if both walked away and F1 became dominated by solely Mercedes & Ferrari powered cars… it would certainly dampen my interest in the sport. F1 certainly could do with more manufacturers and less dominance by one or two – I really don’t think losing them would be a positive thing.

    Also – if Honda, supplying two teams and being in the sport for a few years now does not qualify for a share of the money in F1 as it’s not a team, how on earth does F1 intend on ‘wooing’ more manufacturers? Come supply engines but get a pittance for it? There is a LOT of money in F1 and it all seems to go to the wrong places.

  8. Personally I’d intend to go back to smaller teams, rather than trying to attract manufacturers who intermittently exist for strange reasons. That’s easier said than done and untangling the mess with all the various financial interests involved isn’t realistic. F1 could have potentially gone in that direction post financial crash, but for various reasons it didn’t. Teams of 100 people, not 1000. That’s the scale I would like to be looking at, but you’re not going to get turkeys voting for Christmas either.

    1. @cevert73 But F1 has always had major manufacturers involved. As long as F1 continues to be an effective sales and marketing tool the big players will continue to be a part of it.

      1. @johnrkh I’m not against them being in the sport, I’m just against the sport going out of its way to attract them, and for what?

  9. If Renault and Honda leave, it’s not hard to imagine Formula E becoming the most prestigious series within just a few seasons. F1, with just two manufacturers producing obsolete engines, will seem as irrelevant as DTM comopared to Formula E with 10 different manufacturers producing road relevant engines.

    1. As I opine below, I don’t think they’re leaving and I think the current pu’s in F1 are far from obsolete. They’re closer to cutting edge than obsolete. I think small efficient ICE’s helping generate power for better and better batteries and electric motors is going to be the way domestically for quite a while yet, so F1 is relevant and will remain so for quite a while yet too.

  10. Personally, and of course I can only go by a gut feeling on this, I don’t think Renault or Honda will be leaving F1 any time soon. For me, there is a big difference between fully electric vehicles, and introducing electrification to a percentage of a manufacturer’s fleet…ie. hybrid.

    Just speaking from observation and a minor amount of reading on the topic, the demand for fully electric vehicles is still very very low, and even if it is growing it is not growing in leaps, and represents a very small percentage of users. So when makers talk about going electric, I don’t believe they think there is suddenly going to be massive demand for purely electric vehicles. Hybrid on the other hand keeps the practicality and thus maintains the demand in a vehicle concept. And that’s what F1 is…hybrid. To me, F1 with their current hybrid pu’s is very relevant to the domestic car market, so I see no reason, at least from the market aspect, why the likes of Renault and Honda would consider leaving. I think it is going to be quite a while yet that we will be hybrid in our domestic car choices, even if fully electric cars improve as do their sales. It is always going to be a multi-faceted approach that will tackle environmental concerns.

    1. @robbie Some good points that I won’t disaargue with. I’ll add a different perspective as someone who has followed the electric car trend quite closely. I do think electric car demand is there and will increase as vehicle costs reach parity with ice and hybrids, which is estimated to be in 2023. The tesla model 3 had the same range as my ice car at 620km. Electric cars are becoming more and more visible where I live I’ll happy join the ranks when I can afford to. In NZ the telsa model 3 was the 3rd most popular car sold in September (this maybe a little skewed due do availability though factually true). We are still in the infancy of electric vehicles and more importantly their battery technology. I expect by 2025, new electric vehicles will easily out range ice & hybrids, be as cheap to purchase and much cheaper to run. The only thing holding them back currently seems to be price and attitudes.

      1. @antznz Back at you regarding the good points. Some further perspective from my stance in Canada, north of Toronto.

        Regarding parity in pricing, when our government recently took away the (fairly hefty) rebate program for EV buyers, the already small percentage of buyers dwindled largely. I believe sales here hover around 2% of the market. Without the rebate electric cars are quite expensive relatively.

        The range issue has been a biggy for people I believe, and certainly for me I could not possibly deal with the lesser practicality and convenience in an electric vehicle, but hybrid, yes for sure. For now I believe the figure of 620 km range to be in ideal conditions and perhaps only for Tesla, who I believe are on the cutting edge, but not nearly so much for cheaper brands. I have heard only stories of disappointment in the range of ‘average’ EV’s that, once air conditioning or heating is needed, have a range of barely 200km. In a large country like Canada…let’s just say on average we have to drive pretty far to get anywhere, lol.

        Hey, I’m all for EVs, once they are much closer to offering the practicality and convenience I personally need, For now they need to be better, and I’m sure they’re getting better, and I do hope your 2025 projections come true, even if I think it will take longer than that, at least for the practicality and convenience aspect.

        1. @robbie your spot on, geographical location will play a big part in adoption rates, as well as personal travel habits. For me I fill up only once or twice a month so an EV would not be inconvenient. There is much awareness that rural areas and pick ups are going to be a very tough market to crack for EVs and I expect very little progress in these areas likely for decades. I expect the EV market to leave these areas alone until technology has matured quite a bit more.

          I know here we are finding that the 10-15 year old Nissan leaf is down to about 75-80% its ideal range which is about 200km. There are battery replacement options and I suspect aftermarket batteries will be a popular option for those that require excessive range. We have a company here that retro fitted our local bus fleet, so again, it might come down to support there is locally. Time will tell. The one thing I’m certain on is that it is one of the most interesting periods in automotive and that I’m enjoying the show. I would also bet that I’ll have an EV before you!

          1. @antznz Good stuff. I think it should be a no-brainer at this point that public transit and couriers etc etc be EV as they can accommodate the size and weight of a ‘rangey’ battery setup. Couriers especially, the more and more people order from Amazon et al.

            I bet you will have an EV before me, too. But I wouldn’t mind a hybrid as a next vehicle.

  11. To be honest Alfa Romeo may not be overly bolted on either. I wouldn’t be surprised to see sauber becoming Sauber again, Alfa is losing money hand over fist.

  12. There was also a problem persisted from the sides of FIA either, that political side have denounced by some accounts of critics were overstated their formulae restrictions to constrict the other growing contenders has slimmed the chances nurtured by the FIA class regulations (Force India, Toyota, Super Aguri and Honda) to developed much profitable sources, it seems FIA restrictions were in favored to capital the two elite F1 automobile giants.

Comments are closed.