Jump to content


Photo

Problems with introducing 2014 engines?


  • Please log in to reply
65 replies to this topic

#1 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 12 June 2012 - 17:39

I couldnt find a relating thread, so i start a new one since my good friend Andrew Benson reports there are problems behind the curtains over the new 2014 engine format.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...tens_f1_sc.html

My biggest suprise: customer teams pay five million euros for a supply of 16 engines a season now? And they wanted to cut costs? 10 years ago customers got 48 engines a season for 10 or 12 million dollar. :drunk:

Advertisement

#2 pingu666

pingu666
  • Member

  • 8,756 posts
  • Joined: October 07

Posted 12 June 2012 - 17:50

wouldnt the best situation be the teams pay say 6million per season, and the manufactorer will have to cover the extra costs, or devlop the engine less

#3 RealRacing

RealRacing
  • Member

  • 1,753 posts
  • Joined: February 12

Posted 12 June 2012 - 17:58

The issue is complicated. On one side, the new engines would keep manufacturers interested (or even in) F1. On the other, the increased costs threaten the smaller teams.

I for one would rather see many other changes before engines: aero the main one (FIA owes us from 2009). If the races are improved thanks to new car design, I don't care if they have to push the car with their feet...Having said that, I'd rather have a smaller championship with Renault and Mercedes in it, than a bigger one with Marussia, Caterham and HRT. So, if the costs are low enough to keep the likes of Sauber, Williams and FI in, fine. If not, I would not mind a split series TBH...



#4 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,698 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 12 June 2012 - 18:24

As Ross said, the V8s can't be around forever. They have to change eventually. Tear off the bandaid.



#5 Romulan

Romulan
  • Member

  • 325 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 June 2012 - 19:11

As Ross said, the V8s can't be around forever. They have to change eventually. Tear off the bandaid.


All true.


#6 Bartel

Bartel
  • Member

  • 887 posts
  • Joined: April 12

Posted 12 June 2012 - 19:53

Benson is such a tit. Why he is still writing about F1 after his winter I have no idea. The first response under the article, i agree.

#7 Puhoon

Puhoon
  • Member

  • 236 posts
  • Joined: March 10

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:17

Can't wait to get rid of these current crap-engines. The sooner the better.

#8 jee

jee
  • Member

  • 718 posts
  • Joined: October 09

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:19

10 years ago customers got 48 engines a season for 10 or 12 million dollar. :drunk:


That were not even sufficient to compete for points...

#9 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:27

We NEED those new engines ASAP.

If Bernie doesn't like it, he can create a new championship and find new teams to ripoff.

#10 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:30

That were not even sufficient to compete for points...


Rubbish.

#11 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:33

I thought the idea was that these engines could be used in other series with only minor tweaks therefore off-setting the cost.

#12 ForeverF1

ForeverF1
  • RC Forum Host

  • 6,524 posts
  • Joined: February 09

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:35

I thought the idea was that these engines could be used in other series with only minor tweaks therefore off-setting the cost.


I believe you are correct, was it not touted under the 'World Engine' banner?

#13 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:42

I believe you are correct, was it not touted under the 'World Engine' banner?


Yes. http://www.motorauth...ia-world-engine

#14 sharo

sharo
  • Member

  • 1,773 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 12 June 2012 - 20:52

The V6 turbo engines with KERS and TERS are a revolutionary change. No doubt there will be a lot of problems to solve and research to be carried out, respectively a lot of money invested.
This makes me think wasn't it possible to make the change less abrupt. V8 can't accept turbo at its current state but broadening the scope of the KERS rules would surely allow the manufacturers to discover and iron out problems with its more intensive usage. Not to speak that it is a very suitable field for technical competition among them instead of, say DRS.
Placing some cap on fuel but freeing the KERS utilization would be a very good preparatory step. And instead of DRS they could allow a bit higher engine revs while KERS is being used.

Edited by sharo, 12 June 2012 - 20:53.


#15 ViMaMo

ViMaMo
  • Member

  • 5,034 posts
  • Joined: September 03

Posted 13 June 2012 - 02:53

They should allow 1 season for development before freezing the designs. If they freeze it in the first year they maybe disparity and lot of unreliability.

Edited by ViMaMo, 13 June 2012 - 02:54.


#16 BigCHrome

BigCHrome
  • Member

  • 4,049 posts
  • Joined: July 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 03:07

The best part about the new engines is that the gearbox ratios will be set before the season. Therefore, they will have to be long, and cars won't be hitting the rev limiter when trying to pass with DRS in the race.

#17 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:29

The best part about the new engines is that the gearbox ratios will be set before the season.


Really? Thatl be nice at Monaco vs Monza, Spa.

#18 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:42

[...]

My biggest suprise: customer teams pay five million euros for a supply of 16 engines a season now? And they wanted to cut costs? 10 years ago customers got 48 engines a season for 10 or 12 million dollar. :drunk:

Of course they're going to be more expensive in the beginning, they're supposed to be cheaper in the long run.

#19 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:45

So far rthere is not enough enthusiasm accross the track about this engine change. Except that it comes from New FIA regeme, there is less credible argument to pursuit this extra costs. Rid turbo and maintain status quo, do something more about aero, change DRS zone and how it works that wil bring more racing than changing engine. doing engine change in this climate will not suit the agenda. Postpone it, bin it do what ever.

Advertisement

#20 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 June 2012 - 08:46

Of course they're going to be more expensive in the beginning, they're supposed to be cheaper in the long run.


That's no use if the cost forces teams out in the short term.

#21 TheBunk

TheBunk
  • Member

  • 4,083 posts
  • Joined: May 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:08

Of course they're going to be more expensive in the beginning, they're supposed to be cheaper in the long run.


The five million euros is for the current engines. Thats €312.000 per engine that is frozen in development.

The new engines are gonna be even more expensive.

#22 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:13

That's no use if the cost forces teams out in the short term.

What's the alternative, though? We can't run the V8s for forever and there will always be teams like HRT and Marussia on the brink of extinction. The engine manufacturers - minus Ferrari and Cosworth of course - want the V6Ts to happen now, Renault already threatened to leave over another delay iirc and we already have a new manufacturer with PURE - though i admit that i'm not sure what to think of them.

So either the new engines are introduced in 2014 and we might lose some teams and probably Cosworth, but gain at least PURE and maybe some new outfits like those that applied for 2010. Or, we keep the V8s, lose Renault, while definitely not getting any new engine manufacturers, and still risk some of those financially questionable teams folding and taking Cosworth with them.

And then we'd still have an 8 year old engine design which would have to be replaced at some point.

@TheBunk: Right, i thought you were complaining about the cost of the new engines.

Edited by dau, 13 June 2012 - 09:14.


#23 David1976

David1976
  • Member

  • 841 posts
  • Joined: September 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:28

Much as some don't like to admit it, F1 has to remain relevant for engine manufacturers.

Turbo's and energy recovery to increase fuel efficiency is exactly what is needed today. And nothing can develop these areas quicker than F1.
For sure the cost will initially be higher, but there is the potential for real payback on road cars for the manufacturers.

I say introduce them a.s.a.p.

Turbo's are far easier to regulate than N.A. engines anyway, and with fuel flow regulators we will see tremendous gains in efficiency. The torque on a turbo engine should make the cars just as entertaining as the bonkers high rev nature of today's engines, and I personally think that people will be surprised at the quality of noise they can make.




#24 hotstickyslick

hotstickyslick
  • Member

  • 3,393 posts
  • Joined: April 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:36

Looking at MotoGP, I don't see how listening to manufacturers will do any good in F1.

#25 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:41

What's the alternative, though?


Obviously to keep V8 and increas KERS capacity. Odd thing of this turbo idea is that no car makers except Porsche was ever enthusiastic in intorducing turbo into their standaard engine line up. Currently it is going clearly into electric hybrid, so it makes more odd move to bring turbo in. V6 1,5 litter plus huge KERS is more interesting but that singlehandedly increases the development cost truly sky high.


Much as some don't like to admit it, F1 has to remain relevant for engine manufacturers.

Turbo's and energy recovery to increase fuel efficiency is exactly what is needed today. And nothing can develop these areas quicker than F1.
For sure the cost will initially be higher, but there is the potential for real payback on road cars for the manufacturers.

I say introduce them a.s.a.p.

Turbo's are far easier to regulate than N.A. engines anyway, and with fuel flow regulators we will see tremendous gains in efficiency. The torque on a turbo engine should make the cars just as entertaining as the bonkers high rev nature of today's engines, and I personally think that people will be surprised at the quality of noise they can make.


I can hardly see the argument to intruduce turbo in a normal vehicle. THe likes of Espace do have one, as well as large Trucks in order to cover up the engine size. Turbo was in any case invented to boost performance in high altitude aircrafts' performance. On the ground there is no such need to boost. It cost more and will deliver less advantage. mass production never needs turbo anyways, but hybrid is.

#26 Scotracer

Scotracer
  • Member

  • 2,698 posts
  • Joined: June 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:44

Yes. http://www.motorauth...ia-world-engine


That was the plan when it was a 4-cyl turbo. Now that they're a V6 Turbo, which will be a stressed component, it's not easy to make it work for everything.



#27 KirilVarbanov

KirilVarbanov
  • Member

  • 849 posts
  • Joined: March 11

Posted 13 June 2012 - 09:56

Please excuse me if I will steer the thread away for a while, but in that relation I'm hearing (early projections) that in 2014 the teams will have more freedom when setting up SECU? Something like 25% of the options being available for alteration?
Does anybody knows more about it?

#28 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:29

What's the alternative, though? We can't run the V8s for forever and there will always be teams like HRT and Marussia on the brink of extinction. The engine manufacturers - minus Ferrari and Cosworth of course - want the V6Ts to happen now, Renault already threatened to leave over another delay iirc and we already have a new manufacturer with PURE - though i admit that i'm not sure what to think of them.

So either the new engines are introduced in 2014 and we might lose some teams and probably Cosworth, but gain at least PURE and maybe some new outfits like those that applied for 2010. Or, we keep the V8s, lose Renault, while definitely not getting any new engine manufacturers, and still risk some of those financially questionable teams folding and taking Cosworth with them.

And then we'd still have an 8 year old engine design which would have to be replaced at some point.

@TheBunk: Right, i thought you were complaining about the cost of the new engines.


You don't have to think in terms of running them forever, but just because it's an 8 year old engine doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Changing just for the sake of it doesn'tmake good economic sense at this time.

As far as PURE goes, I'll wait until they actually have a viable, working engine and orders on the table before considering them a manufacturer.

#29 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:31

That was the plan when it was a 4-cyl turbo. Now that they're a V6 Turbo, which will be a stressed component, it's not easy to make it work for everything.


I don't think it would be that hard to use it in all the series originally proposed.

#30 FPV GTHO

FPV GTHO
  • Member

  • 840 posts
  • Joined: March 08

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:47

Really? Thatl be nice at Monaco vs Monza, Spa.


Theyre going to an 8 speed gearbox though so i wouldnt expect there to be much of a fuss. Theyre also allowed to change the ratios once during the year IIRC so once they get past Monaco they'll probably make a change.

#31 MrMontecarlo

MrMontecarlo
  • Member

  • 546 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 10:54

Theyre going to an 8 speed gearbox though so i wouldnt expect there to be much of a fuss. Theyre also allowed to change the ratios once during the year IIRC so once they get past Monaco they'll probably make a change.


So what if it's an 8 speed gearbox? They still have to make a compromise.

#32 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:07

Sorry for jumping on,... buut could not stop...


From Wiki on Turbo

Forced induction dates from the late 19th century, when Gottlieb Daimler patented the technique of using a gear-driven pump to force air into an internal combustion engine in 1885.[4] The turbocharger was invented by Swiss engineer Alfred Büchi (1879-1959), the head of diesel engine research at Gebruder Sulzer engine manufacturing company in Winterhur,[5] who received a patent in 1905 for using a compressor driven by exhaust gasses to force air into a diesel engine to increase power output but it took another 20 years for the idea to come to fruition.[6][7] During World War I French engineer Auguste Rateau fitted turbochargers to Renault engines powering various French fighters with some success.[8] In 1918, General Electric engineer Sanford Alexander Moss attached a turbo to a V12 Liberty aircraft engine.


Got to see the reason why Turbo is now on thecard, the reason is apparently turbo being not belonging to Ferrari, but to Daimlar and Renault. It if Todt v.s. Ferrari (i.e. Bernie) as clear cut as that.

Edited by One, 13 June 2012 - 11:08.


#33 Cavani

Cavani
  • Member

  • 905 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 11:13

the good about a fuel efficient engine is the cars will start in a much lighter tanks than today's and we will see more flat out racing because of that

#34 RedWull

RedWull
  • Member

  • 120 posts
  • Joined: May 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:07

Theyre going to an 8 speed gearbox though so i wouldnt expect there to be much of a fuss. Theyre also allowed to change the ratios once during the year IIRC so once they get past Monaco they'll probably make a change.


It really is the most ridiculous thing to fix ratios though. They might as well fix aero too. With fixed ratios, teams will be very constrained on their aero solutions to a given track. For example a team with really good high downforce aero efficiency but poor low downforce efficiency, could compromise some top speed for better corner speed and adjust their gear ratios to get up to their (lower) top speed faster and hence make up for that low downforce aero efficiency. With fixing ratios, it takes one adjustable performance variable away and further makes aero performance even more important than it already is.

A bad move.

#35 OwenC93

OwenC93
  • Member

  • 1,850 posts
  • Joined: January 10

Posted 13 June 2012 - 12:11

the good about a fuel efficient engine is the cars will start in a much lighter tanks than today's and we will see more flat out racing because of that

There will be less time drop off from fuel lap by lap though so the undercut will be even more important.

#36 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 13:48

the good about a fuel efficient engine is the cars will start in a much lighter tanks than today's and we will see more flat out racing because of that


That will make a car run FASTER that will be against the direction of the F1 direction at this moment.
And the skill of driver less important, because:
- there is indeed less diffrecens between the beginning of the race and the end of the race.
- tire will be less worned as the weight of the car will be less

All in all the racingwill not be less exciting. No go zone really.

#37 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 June 2012 - 13:49

Theyre going to an 8 speed gearbox though so i wouldnt expect there to be much of a fuss. Theyre also allowed to change the ratios once during the year IIRC so once they get past Monaco they'll probably make a change.


Under the current rules they can have upto 30 ratios to choose from and from 2014 only 8 fixed ratios. I can't see how they can possibly do that without significant performance compromises at certain tracks. The changing ratios rule is for 2014 only, after that it's fixed.

#38 One

One
  • Member

  • 6,527 posts
  • Joined: May 06

Posted 13 June 2012 - 13:51

Under the current rules they can have upto 30 ratios to choose from and from 2014 only 8 fixed ratios. I can't see how they can possibly do that without significant performance compromises at certain tracks. The changing ratios rule is for 2014 only, after that it's fixed.


Fixing of the gear ratin can be seen separately from what engine they run isn't it?

certainly there are elements of effectiveness in racing results, but the idea can be applied without new engine format.

#39 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 June 2012 - 13:51

the good about a fuel efficient engine is the cars will start in a much lighter tanks than today's and we will see more flat out racing because of that


Doubt it.

They will still start with less fuel than is required for flat out running to the flag and they will be into fuel saving mode as now.

Advertisement

#40 Clatter

Clatter
  • Member

  • 27,395 posts
  • Joined: February 00

Posted 13 June 2012 - 13:52

Fixing of the gear ratin can be seen separately from what engine they run isn't it?

certainly there are elements of effectiveness in racing results, but the idea can be applied without new engine format.


Yes, but it's another of the trench of rules being brought in at the same time in 2014.


#41 dau

dau
  • Member

  • 4,569 posts
  • Joined: March 09

Posted 13 June 2012 - 13:59

You don't have to think in terms of running them forever, but just because it's an 8 year old engine doesn't mean there is anything wrong with it. Changing just for the sake of it doesn'tmake good economic sense at this time.

As far as PURE goes, I'll wait until they actually have a viable, working engine and orders on the table before considering them a manufacturer.

Change just for the sake of change will never make economic sense. But this is not done for the sake of change, but for the sake of having a cheaper and more economic engine that will allow manufacturers to use F1 to better market their advanced technologies. A 2006 V8 doesn't make that much sense if you want to sell small capacity turbos in hybrid cars. The new regulations will also allow for a bit of engine competition after almost a decade of frozen V8s. Isn't that what fans called for since the announcement of the engine freeze?

I agree with you on PURE, but at least they did announce to build an engine and a potentially new manufacturer is better than definitely no new manufacturer.

#42 Cavani

Cavani
  • Member

  • 905 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 13 June 2012 - 14:44

good discussion here , i think we can see a scenario where pure engines wont be taken by no body and they are forced to buy a current team to run their engine

#43 Calorus

Calorus
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 14 June 2012 - 14:14

So what if it's an 8 speed gearbox? They still have to make a compromise.


No more of a compromise than The Title Winning Renault R25... in any given race they had 6 gears, now they'll just always have the Magny-Cours gearbox with the Monaco First and the Old Hockenheim 6th in there at the same time.

Edited by Calorus, 14 June 2012 - 14:15.


#44 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 June 2012 - 13:49

I couldnt find a relating thread, so i start a new one since my good friend Andrew Benson reports there are problems behind the curtains over the new 2014 engine format.

http://www.bbc.co.uk...tens_f1_sc.html

My biggest suprise: customer teams pay five million euros for a supply of 16 engines a season now? And they wanted to cut costs? 10 years ago customers got 48 engines a season for 10 or 12 million dollar. :drunk:

F1 in terms of the teams is poorer than ever. The vast majority of them probably can't or won't afford the new engines. You have to ask yourself how and why F1 is in this situation in the first place, where most of the teams can't afford to develop or pay for the development of cars anymore and so ask for everything to be banned and for the new engines to be scrapped.

If it boils down to the economy, then you have to ask if F1 should continue as a sport or whether it is simply not viable enough any more. If manufacturers are not interested, and private teams don't have enough cash to compete, then surely that's the end of that? What's the point of running around in a spec series with identical cars and 10 year old engines? Even then most of the teams will still struggle to be financially sound as it's not like the financial state of most of the teams are good even now with the current 'ban everything' rules...

I guess that's how NASCAR/Indycar survived, by destroying development and going down the path of a spec car and decades old engine technology so that teams could continue to participate in the sport. So theoretically F1 could do the same too. It's a shame that it has come to this, I've tried to get interested in NASCAR/Indycar but for me without the science to go behind it all it's just an empty shell to me. But it's the future of motorsports by the looks of things...for me anyway, this probably signals the end of my intellectual interest in the sport.

#45 Aieljose

Aieljose
  • Member

  • 676 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 18 June 2012 - 15:36

Not really a big deal imo. If you can't afford 5 million euros then you really shouldn't be in f1 in the first place. Think of how much it wold have cost these teams had they had to develop these engines themselves from scratch. 5 million is a bargain.

#46 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 June 2012 - 15:56

Not really a big deal imo. If you can't afford 5 million euros then you really shouldn't be in f1 in the first place. Think of how much it wold have cost these teams had they had to develop these engines themselves from scratch. 5 million is a bargain.

That's the issue, the teams can't afford that and no new teams/manufacturers that can are interested in entering the sport... F1 has long lived past its sell by date. It's no longer about teams scrambling to get into the sport for the prestige because it has lost it all, that's why the current set of midfield/backmarker teams can dictate that they don't want to spend any cash, because they know there's nobody else that can take their place and that they are doing the sport a favour by simply existing.

#47 Octavian

Octavian
  • Member

  • 703 posts
  • Joined: March 12

Posted 18 June 2012 - 16:04

I'm a big fan of the new engine regs - not only will they be road relevant but the tech is putting F1 back as the pinnacle of Motorsport and you know what? If the cost forces teams like HRT, Marrusia and Caterham et al out of F1 - GOOD!!
GP2 exists for teams which can't afford F1, in no way should F1 be shaped to accommodate teams which will be 2 seconds off the pace regardless of what engine they use.

It's sad that change has become so feared in F1 as change is what F1 used to thrive on. Change brings about innovation. Thankfully major players such as Ross Brawn still understand and want that.

Edited by Octavian, 18 June 2012 - 16:05.


#48 Aieljose

Aieljose
  • Member

  • 676 posts
  • Joined: April 11

Posted 18 June 2012 - 16:04

That's the issue, the teams can't afford that and no new teams/manufacturers that can are interested in entering the sport... F1 has long lived past its sell by date. It's no longer about teams scrambling to get into the sport for the prestige because it has lost it all, that's why the current set of midfield/backmarker teams can dictate that they don't want to spend any cash, because they know there's nobody else that can take their place and that they are doing the sport a favour by simply existing.

well if they can't afford it then well tough. They can't expect to get them for free. Any cheaper and it doesn't even make any sense for teams to develop engines at all. Why should ferrrari spend xxx million on reasearch and development when they can just get all their engines from renault at 2-3 million for a years supply?? Makes more sense to have all teams buy from a sole provider which would mean goodbye to the development race. I don't want f1 turning into a spec series.

#49 King Six

King Six
  • Member

  • 3,230 posts
  • Joined: September 09

Posted 18 June 2012 - 17:59

It probably will, the same happened with NASCAR/IndyCar. The teams couldn't or refused to develop the cars anymore so the series became a spec series with zero development, that sacrafice was made otherwise the series would have ceased to exist, and it obviously worked as the fans/sponsors didn't give a shit. F1 is reaching the end of its thread, especially with the current economic climate, but it's more than just that anyway.

It will come to be seen whether F1 fans/sponsors will be like their American counterparts and embrace stagnation with wide arms, but judging from what I've read over the years when it comes to innovation and the new engines in particular, most fans are angry with the progress and want things to stay the same, they only care about the drivers, there's like 10 threads here about Raikkonen and every aspect of his life. So I think people like us are in the minority, it's a shame, but this is the way the world is moving forward.

#50 Calorus

Calorus
  • Member

  • 3,395 posts
  • Joined: June 05

Posted 18 June 2012 - 18:28

well if they can't afford it then well tough. They can't expect to get them for free. Any cheaper and it doesn't even make any sense for teams to develop engines at all. Why should ferrrari spend xxx million on reasearch and development when they can just get all their engines from renault at 2-3 million for a years supply?? Makes more sense to have all teams buy from a sole provider which would mean goodbye to the development race. I don't want f1 turning into a spec series.


Because Ferrari are in F1 to advertise their brand. This would be significantly damaged by using a Renault engine.