Things getting dicey in war of words over 2017 engine changes

Will the engines be changed for 2017? Probably not but will they be tweaked or will some of the technology be changed to improve Formula 1’s outlook on the future?

I found this story from Sky Sports F1 of particular interest if you read between the lines a little. According to Red Bull’s Christian Horner, the teams were supposed to come up with significant changes to the 2017 engine specifications.

The story rightfully says the changes were to include, “…a reduction in the cost of customer supplies, a guarantee to supply all teams, performance convergence, and improving the noise of the engines”. Typically, they use the word “noise” so I will supplant that with what it really is and that’s, “sound” of the engines.

Have they made progress? Horner says they haven’t made any meaningful progress.


“As we sit here now, we are not anywhere near having met any of those criteria and I think unfortunately what will happen, as is often the case with these things, time will run out at the end of the month and nothing will be achieved and nothing will change,” Horner said at the Chinese GP.

“There is one more attempt in the Strategy meeting and the Commission meeting at the end of the month to discuss and table the concerns and where we’re at, but failing that regulations will inevitably stay as they are.”

Now here is where the story gets interesting. Ferrari and Mercedes have rebuked Horner’s comments and as the two manufacturers who have split the world between themselves, effectively, as they supply a majority of the grid with power, they have a knife in the fight. You have to read between the lines in both Ferrari boss Sergio Marchionne and Mercedes boss Toto Wolff’s comments. Let’s start with Ferrari.


“We have gone miles in terms of engine supply. “We have found a way in which the four engine manufacturers can continue to supply the sport on a way that may not be the most economically advantageous, but it does provide continuity for the other teams and I think that’s important. So hopefully that will get through.”

So it isn’t the most economically advantageous for customer teams? It may provide continuity but it certainly hasn’t for Red Bull who was denied a current Ferrari engine supply. One like Haas F1 enjoys.


“We’ve offered much cheaper engines and actually met the targets we set ourselves,” Wolff said. “We have structured an obligation to supply – which we don’t like particularly, but we have offered it to not run into a Red Bull situation again – and all that is on paper.

“But then it comes down to the detail of the contract and obviously not everybody is happy. He [Horner] isn’t happy, but it’s about finding a compromise.”

Matching targets set by themselves isn’t exactly breaking barriers on reduced-expense engines if you consider the customers were paying $8-10 million for engines and are now paying $20+ million. Again, was there not a compromise that could have seen Red Bull with a Mercedes engine supply? Apparently not as they were denied a Mercedes as well as Ferrari.

Maybe Red Bull wanted an unrealistic deal and were demanding too much from Ferrari and Mercedes for their engine supply. Maybe they were petulant in the way they treated Renault but regardless, something went down on the, “gee, we better not give Adrian Newey our engine” front because the FIA had strong language in these proposed changes that they had to guarantee to supply the entire field, not just some. At least that’s what it seems like from the outside reading press reports.

Then there is the closing commentary about the current engine format in F1 by Ferrari—which, keep in mind, were adamantly against the hybrid power unit in the early days when the FIA were trying to get this format approved.


“On the larger issue of simplifying the powertrain, I think we need to be careful that we don’t end up turning the sport into something that it’s not supposed to be,” he said.

“This is supposed to be the leading edge of automotive experiences and so the powertrain needs to reflect the development of the industry itself.

“I am happy with the way in which the powertrain has developed today, it doesn’t meet everyone’s objectives – Red Bull has got a different view – but we are of the view that we need to continue in this fashion and it’s a view that’s shared by the other engine manufacturers.”

One could take the first sentence and leverage that the hybrid has done exactly that, made F1 something it isn’t. If you subscribe the idea that F1 isn’t a R&D lab for Ferrari or Mercedes to perfect their road car hybrid engine niggles and design and much more an entertainment racing series, then you may take exception to his comments.

If you feel F1 is very much in existence for this reason and that’s to make better road cars, then his words will resonate with you. You may feel that F1’s DNA is all about road relevancy.

For me, F1 has always been about racing and innovation came into the sport as a way to go faster and win races and in doing so, as a manufacturer who may be participating, you would sell more cars because your brand was winning.

Gone, apparently, are the days when Ferrari said they sell cars in order to go racing. It seems they race in order to sell cars. Sure, that may have been grandstanding by the old man back in the day when he uttered the teams reason for selling cars but has it gone too far the other way?

Some fans feel the manufacturers have entirely too much control and F1 boss Bernie Ecclestone would agree with those fans. Other fans feel the hybrid engine and manufacturer investment in F1 is very important to the series, and the world, and the FIA’s Jean Todt would agree with those fans.

Who do you agree with and why?

Hat Tip: Sky Sports F1

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Notify of

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Paul KieferJr

I agree with me: “Fustest with the mostest wins.” The point of racing is to get from Point A to Point B in the shortest amount of time possible (or complete the number of laps in the shortest amount of time possible). While we’re not Bloodhound SSC or the NHRA, we are supposed to go as fast as we can. Everything else just needs to be tossed out the window.


Seemed like a Red Bull promotional piece to me. The whole issue revolves around the significantly different objectives for racing between the manufacturers and RBR. For the manufacturers its two-fold, (1) promoting their brand and selling more cars, and (2) to invest in R&D for the advancement of technologies that go into their cars; for RBR their SOLE objective is to market and promote their brand, RBR has no ROI from the technical direction of the sport unless it directly relates to them NOT winning. If the sport losses its technical innovation direction, then ultimately it is us the end… Read more »

jiji the cat

Isn’t the manufacturers objective to market and promote there brand as well?? RBR didn’t get a Ferrari or Merc motor because that would be detrimental to the Ferrari or Merc brand.


I’m quite certain that the alleged “technical innovations” of F1 are grossly overstated and definitely mythical. Technical improvements? Sure. Just like every other motorsport series of the last 100 years.

jiji the cat

So, I wonder how many people drive a V6 hybrid turbo powered car with high degradation tyres??


With “road relevant” millimeter aero, CF suspension, a cockpit, MGU-H, ceramic brakes, etc.

There is nothing road relevant about competitive racecars other than four tires and a driver.

Manufacturers who desire a testbed for “road relevancy” should retire from F1 to their own private tracks and/or their own private racing series.


Marchionne said they had agreed an engine supply deal that was not the most economically advantageous. I read that as Ferrari not being able to make a profit from supplying other teams. Wolff said they have structured an engine supply that they don’t particularly like, but would prevent a Red Bull like situation from occurring again. I read this that a team would not be left without an engine supply. Now what seems to be missing is any agreement on getting parity in performance between the manufacturers, and a defined limit on supply cost 12 million was mentioned as the… Read more »


Looks to me like the arm wrestle between FOM/FIA and the manufacturers is about to get serious. If, by the end of this month, the manufacturers don’t produce the plan they promised to meet the FIA’s 4 requirements, what will happen? Will the FIA go weak at the knees and give in, or will Todt (who in 2016 is suddenly no longer a pushover) stick to his guns and re-table the independent engine? Its pretty obvious that Bernie won’t back down. In fact it wouldn’t surprise me if the manufacturer’s agreement to the FIA’s terms on cost, supply etc last… Read more »


So while the Strategy Group is reported to have agreed the 2017 changes when they met on Tuesday morning, the F1 Commission failed to agree on the engine regulations in the afternoon. I’m sure that when it came to the challenges to qualifying, this group was said to be just a rubber stamping committee with no real power, so how come they are holding up agreement of next season’s regulations? The sticking points are reported to be the cost of a supply deal and the guarantee of supply. So perhaps teams will still pay more than the 12 million target,… Read more »