13 replies to this topic

[S2000]

Hi all,

As the title indicates, can someone explain to me what the 'works' word means, as compared to a non-works engine?

[Ross Stonefeld]

Its supposed to mean factory supported.

I look at it this way. A Formula Ford team that buys its cars and engines is a privateer team. A Formula Ford team that is given its cars or is supported by the factory is a works team. A factory team is a team run BY the factory. Obviously in F1 almost all engines are factory engines. I think im the only person who seperates works and factory

[Isamu]

Great Avatar S2000. Where did you find it?

[S2000]

Thanks for the explanation, Ross.

I'm still a little confused. So the only difference between a works and non-works engine is wether the team pays for it?

And on that logic, is it correct to say that BAR has a works engine, and Sauber/Prost/Minardi a 'non-works' engine.



Isamu,

Glad you like it. I made it myself, painstakingly.

[ray b]

ferrari has works [latest] motor now
prost has last years ferrari non-works motor.
when ford was on top this was a big deal
as more than 1/2 field had same motor. but
not all made same power as top teams had
the WORKS [latest experamental or development]
units to them self.
in cart with co. made to sell muti teams the motors
they still have works motors to one luckey team.

[MP4/?]

Yes, it's a official engine... The one that the factory supports...

[rek]

Originally posted by Ross Stonefeld
Its supposed to mean factory supported.

does it also necessarily mean that it's also factory-funded (ie the engine is at no cost to the F1 team, unlike 'customer' engines like the Supertec, etc)?

[Mikeis]

its termed a customer engine because the team buying it is a 'customer' ie. they're paying for the engines.

factory engines are factory produced for a specific car in mind...like the Merc engines are designed with the Mac chassis in mind,

works engines are designed without the destination car in mind ie. they're designed for the chassis to fit around them, not the other way around.

I think i have a clear idea of what the different types of engines are.

Ferrari - factory(Ferrari)
Mclaren - factory(Mercedes)
Williams - factory(BMW)
BAR - works(honda)
jordan - works(honda)
sauber - customer - works(Ferrari)
prost - customer - works(ferrari)
jaguar - factory(jaguar/ford)
benetton - factory(Renault)
Minardi - customer(european/ford)
arrows - customer - factory(asiatech)

i think this is right. if not plz inform me, i think almost all the teams who don't make their own engines pay for them from suppliers(Ferrari, Jaguar and benetton are the only two teams who don't pay)

[DangerMouse]

Mikeis, “Works” is the same as “factory” I think you mean “Customer” to mean works!


“Works” engines are supplied and maintained directly by the manufacturer to the “works” teams and are updated, developed and rebuilt to the manufacturers schedule regardless of cost. Works engines will of course always be the latest versions of the engine.

Customer engines traditionally could be various specs, for example;
If Minardi could only afford a rebuild every 2000 miles instead of the recommended 1000 miles, Cosworth would, in return, supply an engine with a lower rev ceiling, despecced by nature of reusing more parts depending on the mileage and rebuild budget constraints Minardi specified.

Often customer engine blow ups are not the manufacturers fault, it’s because the customer can only afford so much for rebuilds, this is why Ford pulled out of supplying customer engines – they were getting bad press for poor reliability where the maintenance schedules were often at fault for failures not the engines design itself.

To sum up, customer engines not only run longer maintenance schedules, but parts that are changed as a matter of course in works engines (cranks, pistons etc) might be simply stress checked (x rayed) and reused if within tolerance. The more bits you reuse the less revs you would have been allowed to run. SuperTec sell engines on exactly the same principal.

When (Bernie?) convinced Ford to re-supply Minardi it was on Cosworths terms for this reason – Minardi had to stick to the full works rebuild schedule, which cost a lot of money; Hence Minardi’s sudden increase in straight-line speed last season – not only was the car good but they were running at full revs for the first time in years.

It’s perfectly possible that Prost and Sauber could have different spec engines based on the mileage on parts defined by how much they pay for the engines as well.

AMT are rumoured to be taking this theory to the limit, they are supposedly considering throw-away engines where no parts (even the block) are reused, so they are built as light as possible to last one race and one race only. Qualifying and Practice would also require fresh engines each time. Mad? Possibly, but finding power by over stressing the engine may actually be cheaper over a season than having a constant development programme running which normally looks for increased power whilst maintaining reliability and re-useablity of individual components.
AMT would have just one engine spec per year and would raise the rev ceiling and lighten components until all the engines parts only last the given period of time!

[FordFan]

Seems like finding that point would be extremely expensive and time consuming itself (blowing up lots of engines). Why not just put the time and energy in a development project. Otherwise, at best, you get one good year, but you stand still while eveyone else moves ahead.

[DangerMouse]

Because having an engine that makes say an extra 50 BHP and weighs 15KGs less purely by nature of having throw-away components is pretty cheap development!

[Darren]

I'm not sure it's a very relevant term any more, at least not like it was in the fifties. There are to my knowledge no formula 1 engines not supported, maintained and developed by the factories which built them. Sauber might be a Ferrari customer paying for a previous generation of Maranello motivation, but it's not like they're Stan Jones, running an ex-works Maserati and doing all the engine work themselves. There's a very important distinction between factory engine program and customer engine, but "works"? The difference between Scuderia Ferrari and Ecurie Rosier and Scuderia Ferrari and Prost-Acer is fairly significant.

[DangerMouse]

"There are to my knowledge no formula 1 engines not supported, maintained and developed by the factories which built them"

SuperTec?

But I agree in proncipal things have changed - when motor manufacturers get bored of F1 (which they will) it'll go back to the old ways again.

Similarly F1 used to be a motor manufacturer sport as it is now again.

Things go in cycles!

[Darren]

Supertec, and you could also argue AMT as well. I guess the difference of opinion would come down to a fairly fine distinction between manufacturers' sporting units and independently-run companies staffed by manufacturers' sporting units. Actually, this gets down to one of the crucial problems in modern F1: when many large manufacturers are involved, the racing is frequently not appealing to the punters. I think the really difficult task is to get technically advanced (and technologically innovative) racing in a formula not dominated by the car manufacturers.