50 replies to this topic

[wrcva]

Williams finance director, Alan Kinch  (May, 15 2015)

 

"Costs went up by about £20m and the reasons for that were three-fold," Williams finance director, Alan Kinch, told the Independent. "The first one and the most significant one of all of them was the increase in costs in the power unit. So, moving from the traditional V8 engine to the new V6 hybrid essentially doubled the costs of the power unit and that was the biggest chunk... we have got a long-term contract with Mercedes – I wouldn’t say it is at a fixed rate but it is at a stable rate year on year.” However, any change to the engines would boost costs and this could be on the horizon.  (link)

 

Ecclestone  (Oct, 1 2012)

"I listened to the noise of the engines in (Ferrari's headquarters at) Maranello the other day, the new engine and the old engine, and even Luca di Montezemolo said it sounded terrible and didn't like it," Ecclestone said. "(Todt) will get rid of it. I think Luca is also saying we should suspend it for two or three years. I think it is sensible to get rid of it and stick with what we have got. It is much cheaper than the new one. It probably could be 30% of the price."I blame the FIA for this stupid engine formula. It really wasn't [Todt's] fault, (former FIA president Max) Mosley started the engine and then he got carried away... (link)

 

What say you?

[SealTheDiffuser]

I'd say: "Burn the witch!"

[Tourgott]

Get rid of these crap V6.

[Nonesuch]

The increased costs have been covered in great detail both before and after the introduction of the engines, so it's not much of a surprise. I'm not sure how much point there is (was?) in pointing back to Mosley when he had been gone for years by the time the FIA and manufacturers finally agreed on the details of the 2014 engine.

I also think Kinch should stop using the word 'essentially' in this manner.

[Clatter]

The increased costs have been covered in great detail both before and after the introduction of the engines, so it's not much of a surprise. I'm not sure how much point there is (was?) in pointing back to Mosley when he had been gone for years by the time the FIA and manufacturers finally agreed on the details of the 2014 engine.

I also think Kinch should stop using the word 'essentially' in this manner.

Because he started the ball rolling.

[KingTiger]

V8s were crap.

[saudoso]

V6s are crappier...

[wrcva]

When you think about it, at the time, even Luca could have done something about it (veto?).  I guess all went with the flow.   Todt stayed indifferent and here we are.   Bernie has been consistently against it and he is still trying to get Todt to act on it;

 

"If Jean was happy to fall into line, then yeah, there would be no problem at all. We don't have to talk to anyone. He's happy to do that, and we have done that, but what he won't do is really stand up and say 'this is how it is'. With me, if I was a doctor and I knew I had to cut off somebody's arm to save their life then there wouldn't be a discussion. The problem is we have with this democracy in our sport, and in our case it's even worse because you have people in competition with one another.  Obviously you are not going to do anything to help somebody to beat you, so it's very difficult. But I'll speak with Jean and we'll see what happens." (link)

 

[GrumpyYoungMan]

How much was the FIRST v8 versus the first v6?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 19 May 2015 - 17:16.

[Kalmake]

How much was the FIRST v8 versus the first v6?

DFV for Lotus in 1967, about £1,7M in today's money.

[wrcva]

How much was the FIRST v8 versus the first v6?

 

Don't know the cost of first ones but this 2014 article says; 

 

(Component cost of a) V8 is over $170,000 each, and F1 seasonal car engine budget can reach $1.75 million...  It is estimated that the five gearboxes allocated per car cost a combined $530,000  (edit:these are 2008 costs).

 

They probably amortize to collect R&D part of it in some declining cost schedule from year to year I assume... so these costs could be for the "last" of the V8s...  

 

edit: if you take Bernie's math (30% number for V8) in today's prices each V8 (component cost) would cost, say about $117,000 while each V6T would cost ~ $390,000 (but the 1st year pricing could be x 2 or 3 or more per engine with the R&D costs recovered up front relative to number of engines produced and used internally or leased).  Engine development estimates range between $100-$200 million, so take your pick.  Plus, customer leased engines also have a dedicated engineering resource team that works at customer facilities (not sure if human resource costs are a part of the component costs mentioned above).   So, each engine costing several millions of dollars is not far fetched...  

Edited by wrcva, 20 May 2015 - 01:54.

[Kristian]

I think this V6 is more challenging for the drivers with the torque and power output; then again the V8 would have been fine without the rev limiter - it was so frustrating seeing drivers bounce off that. 

 

I'm all for these engines - the tech blows my mind, and it is keeping manufactuers interested - but there must be some way F1 can subsidise the cost for customer teams. There's enough money swilling around.  

[V8 Fireworks]

The price of an engine lease should quite simply be capped. 

[Alexandros]

 

What say you?

 

 

Maybe they should try making their own engine, or collaborate with 2-3 other teams to make an engine, if they think they can get it cheaper.

 

Development will always cost more. Frozen engines were of course way cheaper. And most of the V8 costs were already paid during the V10 development cycle, as the V8s were more like V10's minus two.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Maybe they should try making their own engine, or collaborate with 2-3 other teams to make an engine, if they think they can get it cheaper.

 

Development will always cost more. Frozen engines were of course way cheaper. And most of the V8 costs were already paid during the V10 development cycle, as the V8s were more like V10's minus two.

So isnt a v6 the same principle a v8 minus 2?

 

What is the REAL cost of this new v6? Is it all the hybrid stuff the actual ICE part is cheap?

 

So in real terms how much more money is the v6 (first generation) compared to the old (first generation) v8? Inflation corrected?

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 19 May 2015 - 19:00.

[Alexandros]

So isnt a v6 the same principle a v8 minus 2?

 

What is the REAL cost of this new v6? Is it all the hybrid stuff the actual ICE part is cheap?

 

So in real terms how much more money is the v6 (first generation) compared to the old (first generation) v8? Inflation corrected?

 

V6 is entirely different architecture due to the turbo, lower revs, recovery systems, cooling systems, exhaust systems, software to coordinate everything, different fuels... pretty much everything changes.

 

I have no idea about the real cost, but it definitely requires tons of money in R&D to get a new motor like that up and running with top hp & reliably.

[Nemo1965]

The costs of the PU may have risen, but as a percentage of the whole expenditure per team the cost has gone down.

[Fastcake]

The price of an engine lease should quite simply be capped. 

 

Indeed, but that is far too sensible a proposal to discuss.

[GrumpyYoungMan]

Indeed, but that is far too sensible a proposal to discuss.

They will/would find a way around this like, upgraded parts, no software (basic/performance), etc... bare engine(PU), no wiring, etc and anything else that is left grey...

Edited by GrumpyYoungMan, 19 May 2015 - 20:33.

[KingTiger]

The price of an engine lease should quite simply be capped. 

 

The amount of money Bernie gives Ferrari and Red Bull should be capped. 

[FerrariFanInTexas]

The amount of money that Bernie and CVC take out of the sport should be capped.

 

Honestly, Ferrari and Red Bull at least produce revenue for the sport.  In a very real sense, they are (in part) the sport. 

 

I'm not opposed to putting a cap on how much "extra" the big teams get, but CVC could easily give back some of their profits and contribute to keeping the smaller teams in the game.  Hell, it would represent CVC making a real investment in the sport, which would be refreshing.

[Wuzak]

The price of an engine lease should quite simply be capped. 

 

As the V8s were, which makes the comparison slightly unfair.

[shonguiz]

As the V8s were, which makes the comparison slightly unfair.

Where did you read that ? Anyway, for the V6 price, i am sure they are the most expensive during the first years so that R&D costs are aborbed but that they will eventually become cheaper with time.

[tmekt]

The price of an engine lease should quite simply be capped.

Are they overcharging currently? The costs are high so the price is high as well.

[GTRacer]

As the V8s were, which makes the comparison slightly unfair.

Indeed, The actual cost of the V8's was in the region of £16m per season but the teams were only actually playing £8m.

 

That was down to a deal Max Mosley did with the manufacturer's, They would be allowed to supply engine's to more teams (There used to be a limit) if they supplied those engines at a reduced price.

 

 

That deal ended when the V6's were introduced & as I understand it the engine manufacturer's are not keen on doing that sort of deal again in part because of how much of a loss they were making under the deal the last time. That loss would also be larger now because the new formula is still in its early days so there spending a lot more in R&D than they were with the V8's which were essentially technology that was well known & the engine freeze was also reducing R&D to basically reliability & reducing friction via different oils (Something Shell & Ferrari have spent a fortune on the past 10-15yrs).

 

 

Something that the critics often forget about the cost is that everyone knew engine cost's were going to go up & nobody really complained about it until it was too late to change direction (When millions had been spent in R&D & V6's were already in production & in some cases been dyno tested). As I think it was Pat Symmonds said last year at the time the teams agreed to go down this engine route the financial situation was very different because the world economy was better, When the economy went down the smaller teams lost sponsors & then started to hit financial problems which is when the extar cost started to look like a real problem.

[CoolBreeze]

Well done FIA!

[garagetinkerer]

Well done FIA!

Hey, there are some in another thread (iirc one about 2017) who're suggesting that costs would come down. I hope they do read this thread.

 

In my opinion, for manufacturers? Yes, as they would recuperate their costs and possibly even turn a profit on investment, but the costs for smaller teams may not go down. 

Edited by garagetinkerer, 20 May 2015 - 04:59.

[V8 Fireworks]

Something that the critics often forget about the cost is that everyone knew engine cost's were going to go up & nobody really complained about it until it was too late to change direction

 

That means they are all idiots

 

 

The above engines cheap and they work.  Why must F1 be so STUPID and not use the simple, proven rules as abvove!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

[wrcva]

The price of an engine lease should quite simply be capped. 

 

Who do you think should pay for / subsidize the difference?   Theoretically that is no different than you and I insisting on buying a car we cannot afford at some taxpayer subsidized price to compete in races despite having no means to support that type of activity. 

 

Could it be that the real question or problem is why more manufacturers are not joining F1?   The main idea being the more competitors you have the lower will be the unit costs...

[Brazzers]

F1 is the worst company when it comes to cost reduction. 

 

 

They tried to reduce costs by going from the V10s to the V8s (which from memory also increased costs due to the development). With the V6s now, history is repeating itself.

 

 

Simply put, these bunch of idiots would make for terrible accountants. 

[Jon83]

Yeah but apparently they are all road relevant

 

 

The sooner F1 is rid of these rubbish engines and the joke of a justification for their use, the better.

[P123]

They won't get rid of them.  The manufacturers like them.  There may be limited justification for them in the eyes of some F1 fandom, but they obviously make sense to the manufacturers.

[GTRacer]

Yeah but apparently they are all road relevant

 

 

The sooner F1 is rid of these rubbish engines and the joke of a justification for their use, the better.

Not going to happen.

 

They won't get rid of them.  The manufacturers like them.  There may be limited justification for them in the eyes of some F1 fandom, but they obviously make sense to the manufacturers.

Additionally too much money has already been spent & the teams/manufacturer's have put far too much time into R&D to simply scrap them & go backwards.

 

Reminds me of the switch from V10>V8's, The 1st 2-3 years people were complaining about the sound (Compared to the V10s), They were complaining about the lack of torque & general lack of power at the low end (And again compared to the V10's) but after those initial few years it all died down & now people are even calling for a return of the V8's which were once so unpopular.

 

 

The V6 turbo hybrids are here to stay, They will get more powerful, They will get louder & in a few years the complaints will die down. Its early days in the formula so things are not perfect but things will improve over the next couple years.

[GTRacer]

 

The above engines cheap and they work.  Why must F1 be so STUPID and not use the simple, proven rules as abvove!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   

There producing less power than the current F1 engines.

F1 around 850bhp right now (Mercedes may be closer to 900), Indycar's V6 Turbo engines are producing 700-750bhp depending on boost levels.

 

But then its worth remembering that the hybrid tech used in F1 is adding an extra 160bhp & if the regulations on the hybrid tech is opened up there is a lot more power that could be produced. The Toyota WEC Hybrid system is adding something like 400Bhp extra, Thats where most of the engine performance increase in WEC the past 2-3yrs has come from.

Edited by GTRacer, 20 May 2015 - 14:12.

[sabjit]

Have they doubled per unit or overall? If it's per unit then the net cost is zero as the number of units used is half.

 

 

Get rid of these crap V6.

 

 

I have said to you before, these engines are here to stay, get over it.

[Szoelloe]

Yeah but apparently they are all road relevant

 

 

The sooner F1 is rid of these rubbish engines and the joke of a justification for their use, the better.

 

Get used to it. V6's are not going away.

[Atreiu]

The old engines were exactly that, old and outdated and unsuited. Plus they held F1 in a competitive stranglehold.

Any replacement would have resulted in elevating costs and one manufacturer dominating early. The problem is that the regulations remain so tight that there is not enough room for development and a natural shift in the competitive order.

[Tourgott]

I have said to you before, these engines are here to stay, get over it.

 

Is that you, Jean? Otherwise stop claiming things you are completely clueless about.

[Fastcake]

Is that you, Jean? Otherwise stop claiming things you are completely clueless about.

 

Oh you're right, eventually the V6 turbos will be replaced.

 

Probably by a turbocharged four-cyclinder engine, with an even greater amount of power delivered from advancing hybrid technology.

[sabjit]

Is that you, Jean? Otherwise stop claiming things you are completely clueless about.

 

You are more qualified than Jean Todt on this because.......?

[Tourgott]

You are more qualified than Jean Todt on this because.......?

 

I am not but I do not claim things which are not true.

[David1976]

The teams are committed to these V6's now.  Changing them now would be counter-productive due to the development costs associated with any new power unit.

 

My opinion is that the cost of these power units could recede once they have settled on the design and have limited development tokens remaining - perhaps in a few years time?  While the engine rules are still new they will be expensive as the technology is fast evolving and relatively unknown.  It often takes years before suppliers can offer discounts based on not having to modify tooling/design etc and the man power associated with this.

 

Perhaps a maximum cost should be fixed for 2018/2019?

[quaint]

F1 is the worst company when it comes to cost reduction. 

 

 

They tried to reduce costs by going from the V10s to the V8s (which from memory also increased costs due to the development). With the V6s now, history is repeating itself.

 

 

Simply put, these bunch of idiots would make for terrible accountants. 

 

V10s were dropped to slow the cars down. The cost saving part was the engine freeze after '06.

[Nemo1965]

Ok guys, have a thinkie.

 

So Williams have spent 20 million more on the engines in 2014 than in 2013, right? I assume they have not spent much more on aerodynamics and staff - otherwise they could not have paid a larger 'chunk' for the engines. Through that investment Williams jumped from last-end of the midfield (9th) to third in the championship for teams. I dare say this was largely because of the engine.

 

Now we also know - I assume - that the costs of the engine as a whole of the total package is LOWER than ten years ago. Why? Because teams with more money than Williams (and especially Red Bull) spent massively on aerodynamics. Exactly the reason that Williams got spanked more and more the last past ten years.

 

So my thought: the engines got much more expensive between 2013 and 2014 but also meant that money spent on aerodynamics was less dominant and deciding than before. We are going to keep this engines, obviously, so that rise in cost is well the effort.

 

My five cents.

[KingTiger]

The old engines were exactly that, old and outdated and unsuited. Plus they held F1 in a competitive stranglehold.

Any replacement would have resulted in elevating costs and one manufacturer dominating early. The problem is that the regulations remain so tight that there is not enough room for development and a natural shift in the competitive order.

 

I don't think regulations are as tight as fans think they are. Honda have said that they're happy with the tokens they've been given, Mercedes said over the winter that the token allocation was generous. Renault and Honda are behind because they don't know how to fix their problems, not because they're limited by the token system.

 

V10s were dropped to slow the cars down. The cost saving part was the engine freeze after '06.

 

V10's were dropped because of costs and safety concerns. Tobacco $$ was about to be cut off, backmarkers were struggling mightily and yet Ferrari and McLaren were probably spending half a billion dollars per year on tires, engines and aero. 

[Clatter]

I don't think regulations are as tight as fans think they are. Honda have said that they're happy with the tokens they've been given, Mercedes said over the winter that the token allocation was generous. Renault and Honda are behind because they don't know how to fix their problems, not because they're limited by the token system.

 

 

V10's were dropped because of costs and safety concerns. Tobacco $$ was about to be cut off, backmarkers were struggling mightily and yet Ferrari and McLaren were probably spending half a billion dollars per year on tires, engines and aero. 

So you think that it was cheaper for the teams to produce a new engine spec rather than stick with the V10? The V10 went to reduce power, the cost savings came in a year later and could have been applied to the V10's.

[Atreiu]

I don't think regulations are as tight as fans think they are. Honda have said that they're happy with the tokens they've been given, Mercedes said over the winter that the token allocation was generous. Renault and Honda are behind because they don't know how to fix their problems, not because they're limited by the token system.(...)

 

I guess you're right. 

[Szoelloe]

So you think that it was cheaper for the teams to produce a new engine spec rather than stick with the V10? The V10 went to reduce power, the cost savings came in a year later and could have been applied to the V10's.

 

I t was not cheap to produce the V10's when they were new. But the V10's were dinosaurs THEN. Now they are fossils. To be fair, so are the V8's. To get back to the racing that made F1, we could(should?) re-introduce the 1994-1996 spec and rules. You still had to have big balls to take Eau Rouge flat-out, and you were still risking your life. It was exciting. Now, all of them are pussies. It is the basic problem with F1. The difference between real F1 drivers and sim racers is diminishing by the day.

Edited by Szoelloe, 20 May 2015 - 18:49.

[Clatter]

I t was not cheap to produce the V10's when they were new. But the V10's were dinosaurs THEN. Now they are fossils. To be fair, so are the V8's. To get back to the racing that made F1, we could(should?) re-introduce the 1994-1996 spec and rules. You still had to have big balls to take Eau Rouge flat-out, and you were still risking your life. It was exciting. Now, all of them are pussies. It is the basic problem with F1. The difference between real F1 drivers and sim racers is diminishing by the day.

So you think the fact they don't take Eau Rouge flat out (if that is indeed the case) is because they are scared and not because the equipment does not allow it?

[KingTiger]

So you think that it was cheaper for the teams to produce a new engine spec rather than stick with the V10? The V10 went to reduce power, the cost savings came in a year later and could have been applied to the V10's.

 

In the long run, it probably was cheaper to downsize to V8s. I don't know, but that was one of the reasons F1 gave publicly about the change. They were already looking into lowering costs, 2005 was the first year engines had to last multiple races. The V8s were very similar in architecture to the V10s, with less cylinders, so the costs couldn't have been that high.