Formula 1 teams have been told their drivers may use extra power unit parts without penalty this year.
An update to the sporting regulations has increased the number of internal combustion engines, turbochargers, MGU-Ks and MGU-Hs each driver can use during 2023 from three to four.The revision comes after several drivers have already begun eating into their limited supplies of power unit parts three events into the 23-round championship.
Following the Australian Grand Prix, both Ferrari drivers have already taken new engines, and Charles Leclerc is on his second MGU-H.
Honda RBPT-powered driver Nyck de Vries has taken a complete new power unit, as has Mercedes user Lando Norris. A second Mercedes-powered driver, George Russell, is expected to take a new power unit this weekend after the failure which put him out of the Australian Grand Prix.
Renault is the only supplier whose drivers remain on their original power units, with Alpine duo Esteban Ocon and Pierre Gasly being the only two on the grid to use Renault engine technology.
Other rules changes were agreed today by the F1 Commission and subsequently approved by an electronic vote of the World Motor Sport Council. They included revisions to F1’s sprint race format which will be used for the first time this weekend.
Teams have been told that costs related to some sustainability initiatives will be excluded from the budget cap this year, “with particular focus on environmental concerns” according to the FIA. Among the exclusions are “costs associated with installing sustainable infrastructure, auditing and monitoring of competitors’ carbon footprint, donations to charities engaged in the promotion of environmental sustainability projects and carbon offset programmes”.
The regulations have also been updated to included the revised definition of what constitutes “working on a car” which was clarified following the controversy over Fernando Alonso’s penalty at the Saudi Arabian Grand Prix, which was later rescinded.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2023 F1 season
- FIA president cleared of alleged interference in two 2023 races
- First week viewing figures for new Drive to Survive season fall again
- Max who? Drive to Survive season six prefers its favourite faces
- RaceFans’ complete 2023 season review
- The F1 drivers who pulled off the 10 biggest charges through the field in 2023
SjaakFoo (@sjaakfoo)
25th April 2023, 17:38
Should have been done years ago, how they figured they could keep increasing races without adjusting the allotment reasonably as well is beyond me. Glad it’s finally been addressed now.
bosyber (@bosyber)
25th April 2023, 17:45
Yeah agreed @sjaakfoo optically it might go against their ‘we want to be sustainable’, but that’s really mainly about what the whole circus/organisation does in terms of logistics in getting to/from and around the world and how it organizes the visitor traffic.
And looking over last years, though yes, not literally everyone had PU penalties (though it seems to vary per season a bit), the majority did in the end take some penalties, while quite a few were moreover accident related rather than due to unreliability too. Also, since we have the cost cap now to limit costs, I’d think that if some use too many engines now, make sure that their costs are still counted usefully in the budget and in time we might just be able to get rid of the extra rules around the PU and gearboxes altogether.
MacLeod (@macleod)
26th April 2023, 8:16
I think the sustainable Fuel gives to much problems (Heat) that the big reason was to give more engines.
Baleux (@baleux)
26th April 2023, 17:33
F1 cars don’t run on sustainable fuels yet.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
25th April 2023, 23:22
I absolutely agree that it is the right decision, but it is at the wrong time. Since we can’t go back in time to the beginning of the season, it seems to me that such rule changes should wait until next year. This is not a safety issue.
SjaakFoo (@sjaakfoo)
26th April 2023, 2:18
This benefits everyone and disadvantages nobody since no penalties have been received for going over these limits. So I don’t really see where you and some of the people below are so worried about, to be honest.
MacLeod (@macleod)
26th April 2023, 8:18
Charles had all ready a penaulty due too much components so that reason is nihil.
MacLeod (@macleod)
26th April 2023, 8:19
Asanator said:
I don’t think anyone has had engine related penalties apart from LeClerc who has used 2x control electronics which is not on the list anyway (probably because of this).
So what i said is mote and your reasoning is still solid.
Mayrton
26th April 2023, 8:53
I agree. This is an unfair advantage, which undermines the championship conceptually. Last season we had the porpoising/ride height thing, the year before the in season tyre compound change. It all breathes unprofessionalism and favouritism and there is a trend into who it benefits most, so I would advise some other teams to step up their public affairs game.
Puffy (@puffy)
25th April 2023, 17:53
These all seem like solid rule tweaks.
The PU penalties were getting rather silly, and especially now with the budget cap in place, if teams have to spend more on new PU components, that’s just less to spend on development, which seems a fair trade off and is good for the racing.
I also like the stand-alone sprint race format, at least it will actually be a race now and not just a prolonged red flag.
Markp
25th April 2023, 18:38
Should have waited until next season. Really moving the goal posts during the season. Some teams already had penalties they would not have done with this change for 4th race of the season.
Asanator
25th April 2023, 23:47
I don’t think anyone has had engine related penalties apart from LeClerc who has used 2x control electronics which is not on the list anyway (probably because of this).
Jere (@jerejj)
26th April 2023, 6:43
Perez for ES & CE last time out.
SteveP
25th April 2023, 21:01
Hmmm, have they by any chance timed the ““costs associated with installing sustainable infrastructure, auditing and monitoring of competitors’ carbon footprint, ” bit just right to catch the Ferrari spending?
I think AM and MB already passed through.
It’s fun being a cynic
János
25th April 2023, 21:12
Oh come, on! At least do it between the seasons!
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th April 2023, 0:11
I don’t like doing it inbetween seasons and occasionally it could give interesting races, such as when 2-3 drivers from top cars started from the back, although when there’s a big superiority, with drs and a decent track it’s impossible to keep them behind, see spa 2022, but someone made a good point about the budget cap, since teams anyway now can’t spend without concerns, or they risk exceeding it.
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th April 2023, 0:11
Don’t like doing it during the season*
Esploratore (@esploratore1)
26th April 2023, 0:12
And at least I suppose in a case like silverstone 2021, where a driver takes another out and the driver taken out has to suffer a grid penalty too due to engine destroyed, this penalty wouldn’t happen.
Short Circuit (@jjohn)
26th April 2023, 4:26
Is there a “deemed” amount applicable to parts . I thought I read somewhere that a replacement ICE ( over cost limit) was $15 million towards that expenditure limit. (I MUST be wrong,seems very high, )but I’m sure someone here will know.
Short Circuit (@jjohn)
26th April 2023, 4:28
*grrrr over the allowed allocation… sigh
DB-C90 (@dbradock)
26th April 2023, 5:13
Can someone clarify if engine costs fall within the budget cap?
I’m assuming they do, in which case I don’t see a problem if some team thinks a new PU every weekend will help them, but if not, the big teams will just use this to further their advantage.
Strange decision to make mid season but these days I don’t expect much else.
MichaelN
26th April 2023, 11:35
Not ‘the’ budget cap, but their costs are limited. That is, the specific engine parts themselves (not everything around getting them to and into the cars, either at the factory or the race weekends).
The FIA Financial Regulations note that the following is exempted from what is commonly called the cap:
Jere (@jerejj)
26th April 2023, 6:46
I agree with some posters above that such changes should come into effect between seasons rather than during as Leclerc & Perez have already had penalties for exceeding PU component allocations, so too late for them.
Not to mention, nothing was necessarily wrong with having three as the limit for the four relevant components.
floodo1 (@floodo1)
26th April 2023, 8:06
I’d prefer they remove the engine limit all together, but changing the limit mid-season is outrageous
Adrian Hancox (@ahxshades)
26th April 2023, 8:43
When the regulations change to remove a minimum car weight then let me know – otherwise we are just tinkering and tweaking for the show rather than the sport.
slowmo (@slowmo)
26th April 2023, 9:03
Lets be honest here, everyone knows the FIA were held to ransome to increase the limit in order to push through the change to add the extra qualifying for sprint race changes.
Personally speaking I would prefer they just remove the limit altogether and put a cost per engine onto the budget over the allowed allowance. So after you go through your allocation, your next engine costs 1 million off your budget to change. So put all the engines you want into your car but it’s going to cost you development time if you decide to go that route.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
26th April 2023, 10:30
That sounds sensible. I wish F1 management was more sensible and would deal with practical matters in a better way.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
26th April 2023, 10:25
Rules are written, teams prepare, and they go racing according to those rules. They can change those rules for next year, but what about the engine suppliers that designed their program to match the rules for this year? They are hung out in the cold!
I hope that some teams have a legal defense that can contest this ridiculous decision. F1 seems to be headed in a bad direction, in my opinion. This seems like an insult to those who agreed to follow the rules at the beginning of the 2023 season
MichaelN
26th April 2023, 11:32
There is less than 6 hours of tracktime in any given F1 weekend. That’s less than 150 hours over a full season.
These teams aren’t just too slow to compete with Red Bull, they can’t even make their engines last an average of 50 hours.
What are they spending all that money on?!
w0o0dy
26th April 2023, 12:21
Mercedes has again succesfully lobbied I see. Or was it Ferrari? In any case.. can we stop with the rethorics about cheating by Redbull? Throwing more engines at the season is just cheat that’s now made to be within the rules.
ferrox glideh (@ferrox-glideh)
27th April 2023, 14:00
Rules are written, teams prepare, and they go racing according to those rules. They can legitimately change those rules for next year, but what about the engine suppliers that designed their program to match the rules for this year? They are hung out in the cold!
I hope that some teams have a legal defense that can contest this ridiculous decision. F1 seems to be headed in a bad direction, in my opinion. This seems like an insult to those who agreed to follow the rules at the beginning of the 2023 season.