|
Max MOSLEY, FIA President,
conducted a press conference on the Friday of the 2006 British Grand Prix to
discuss the new engine regulations. A transcript of this interview is below.
I’d like to thank you all for taking the time to come and I’d like to talk a
little bit about the future Formula One engine regulations. First of all,
the regulations that have been published state very clearly that engines
will be homologated for three years, in 2008, 2009 and 2010. There have been
some discussions about whether the homologation should be relaxed to some
degree, but in actual fact we’ve reached a situation where there are at
least three and possibly more views on this.
Some teams think we should stick with completely homologated engines, with
no changes at all. Some people like the so-called Maranello agreement and
some would like a more liberal agreement than Maranello, but there is no
consensus. Under those circumstances the 12 teams who have entered the
championship from 2008 have done so under the regulations as published, so
we intend to stick quite simply to the rules as they are, and as they were
approved by the World Motorsport Council on March 22.
I would remind you that the reason for homologation was that we want to
eliminate engine development costs where the major manufacturers are
spending between 100 and 200 million euros per year. Indeed more than that
in some cases – and that is quite clearly unsustainable when the outcome of
all that expenditure is just to make the engines run 200-300rpm faster each
year. It’s not sustainable and can’t continue.
For that reason we proposed the homologation and that will continue. I
should point out that under the Maranello agreement, which is the slight
relaxation, when the calculations were done the engines were still going to
cost well over 15 million euros per year more than the completely static,
homologated engine. On any count homologation seems a sensible thing to do.
The engines are very good. They are running at 19,000rpm plus they are very
reliable by any historic standards, and amazingly so when you consider they
are all new this year. They are also, as I say, more than powerful enough,
to the point that I think we’ve all been surprised by them.
So, the first point I wanted to make is that we will implement the
homologation rule as published. That means we will be sealing a number of
two-race engines – in fact we have already sealed some of them. We will be
sealing more once they have done two races and those will be the spec
engines. Each manufacturer will be required to supply us with a complete
dossier on these engines so that we will know what the spec is.
That brings us to development and technology, what about them? What we wish
to do, and at the moment it is only an idea rather than a regulation, and it
need not be a regulation until the end of 2006 in order to be introduced in
2009, is to bring into Formula One a technology that two teams were working
on in the mid-1990s, but which we prohibited at the time on the grounds of
costs and safety – primarily safety. That was energy storage devices. At
that time one team was working on, I believe, a hydraulic system and another
on an inertia system. And since then of course there have been a number of
electrical systems for storing energy. What it comes down to is this. In the
next 30-50 years it is absolutely certain that every vehicle on the public
road will be fitted with a device that will enable it to recover all the
energy released when the brakes are applied and store it and use it again to
drive and accelerate the vehicle.
At the moment all the braking energy is dissipated through heat as is all
the energy when you lift off and the car is simply driving the engine. The
heat from that, of course, goes out through the cooling system. The only
exception to that is when some of the energy is recovered in hybrid systems,
but very little, and it is stored in a battery at a very low rate. One
shouldn’t confuse what I’m about to say with hybrid systems. It is a
completely different basic technology and will be part of a more complex
system eventually on road cars.
What we’re talking about is really something quite simple, a simple
principle, but I emphasise that this is not yet proposed as a regulation. We
want to sit and talk to the teams and manufacturers about it to find the
best solution. What we have in mind is this: that every car can be fitted
with equipment, which must weigh no more than 20 kilos and will store energy
when the car brakes and enable the energy to be used when the car
accelerates again. The technology we would like in that 20-kilo piece of
equipment will be completely free, so that people can choose whether they
want a hydraulic, inertia or electrical system, or some other technology or
branch of those technologies. It’s completely free.
On the basis of what is known at the moment, this would enable a car to
store about 400 kiloJoules – that’s with currently available technology.
That translates to 60bhp for about nine seconds. Now that would enable a
car, having stored that energy, to have an extra 60bhp available for
overtaking. The braking period for an F1 car is very short, so it would
probably take a full lap to store enough energy for this overtaking
manoeuvre. Depending on how well the systems was engineered, it would
probably be available on every single lap. And of course if would be
available to both the overtaker and the overtaken, which has all sorts of
interesting implications.
Compared for example with the suggestion of a push-to-pass button on an F1
engine as they are at the moment, if you allowed 1,000rpm for push-to-pass
it would give about 40bhp for however long you allow the 20,000rpm.
We’re talking about 60bhp for nine seconds. We believe that when fully
developed this system will enable a car to have about 900 kiloJoules, enough
for about 120bhp for about 10 seconds. To put that in perspective, 900kJ is
a two-ton road car stopping from 108km/h and going all the way back up to
108km/h again without using any petrol.
This is quite clearly something that is and will be developed for the road
and all the major manufacturers are working on different systems at this
time. By allowing it in F1 we will be accelerating its introduction. We’d
like to do that for 2009 but must sort out the detail of the regulation with
the teams and manufacturers. This will be a technology that everyone can
understand, the public can understand and it will be directly relevant to
road cars and a technology for the future of road cars.
At end of the homologation period, that’s to say the end of 2010 going into
2011, we would like to introduce a different engine formula where the limit
on power was not through engine capacity, the traditional means, which is
completely out of date and old-fashioned, but to limit power by the amount
of energy consumed. There are all sorts of ways of doing that and this is
precisely the area where all manufacturers are working with their road cars.
Saving fuel and saving energy is absolutely fundamental to them. For that we
would need the major road car manufacturers to propose the formula. Our only
conditions would be, first, that it must be a racing engine as we all
understand the term. It must sound and feel like a racing engine. Secondly,
any research to improve that racing engine would have to be directly
relevant to research to improve fuel efficiency in road cars. Those are the
two conditions we would set for how it was done but other than that this new
formula would be a matter for the manufacturers.
Then, quite suddenly, instead of spending fortunes trying to get another few
horsepower out of a fixed capacity, which helps no one, leads nowhere and is
completely sterile research, we’d be doing research that relates to fuel
efficiency and is thus directly relevant to road cars. That would be for
2011 and that would be on a proposal from the manufacturers.
Should the manufacturers not be able to come up with a sensible proposal to
achieve that, there would be nothing to prevent us extending the
homologation for another year or two years or however long it took. It would
be very simple to do that, but if we are going to have a very
high-technology F1, which I think we’d all agree we have to have, then that
technological research should be devoted to areas that are relevant to road
cars and actually contribute something to society rather than yearly sterile
research for another 200-300rpm from a fixed-capacity engine.
That briefly and I hope reasonably clearly is what we are proposing, in fact
what we are going to do. The homologation is done, it’s in the regulations
and there will be no further discussion on the homologation point. Before
the end of 2006, we need to agree a regulation for the energy recovery and
storage device if we want to introduce it in 2009, because of agreements
currently in force. Ideally, the fuel efficiency engine for 2011 should be
done quickly, because that way manufacturers who have large teams of people
doing engine research could keep those teams together. That’s a matter for
them, but we would like to see a proposal quite quickly. Whether they are
willing and able to do that remains to be seen.
So there you are. I would now be happy to answer any questions you may have.
QUESTIONS FROM THE FLOOR
Q: (Alberto Antonini – Autosprint) Does the energy storage problem mean we
are looking at twin-engined Formula One cars in future – with a combustion
engine and an electrical engine?
Max Mosley: This would be energy that is entirely recovered under braking,
even to the extent that we’d be quite happy for them to put the device at
the front of the car and take the energy from the front wheels. All you
would do is store the energy and that would be regulated by the ECU, then
the driver would release the energy by pressing a button. The principle is
simple but the device would be complex.
Q: (Alberto Antonini – Autosprint) The second question is, looking back to
the first issue you had with the regulation thing for next year, the freeze
on the engine, is Formula One prepared to face a future where some of the
manufacturers may actually pull out, as Honda and Toyota have threatened to
do in the past? Are you looking at that perspective? Can you afford that?
MM: I think we are completely prepared to face the possibility if somebody
did want to pull out because the truth of it is that all we are doing is
moving the research from a completely sterile area which serves no
manufacturer any purpose, trying to make an engine run 19,500 instead of
19,200 or 19,800 instead of 19,500, completely sterile. No road car engine
will ever run at those sort of speeds because it’s not efficient. So what
they would be doing is pulling out at exactly the moment when we are moving
all the research effort and the technology of Formula One into an area which
is directly relevant to an area where they are already doing research
themselves, in the factory, independent of Formula One, in contrast to
making the current engines run faster which is only for Formula One and has
no other relevance. Now if they use the new rules as an excuse to pull out,
I think one could only conclude that the true reason for pulling out would
be something quite different. It wouldn’t be because there was no
technology.
Q: (Joe Saward – F1 Grand Prix Special) The manufacturers at the moment are
spending billions and billions of dollars developing systems along the lines
of what you’re talking about. This is completely against any cost-cutting
theories you’ve had in the past. What do you have to say about that and
secondly, you talk about no consensus; the sporting working group voted
eight in favour of rejecting engine homologation, which was a majority. How
do you overcome that?
MM: Well, on the first point, manufacturers are not currently spending
billions on these systems. They have research going on but not to any
extent. If you talk to the CEO he will know that they are looking at these
technologies but not in any detail. They are not really spending very much.
What will happen, it will be exactly like what happened when we started Euro
NCAP for road safety. A man in one particularly manufacturer was in charge
of the safety of the vehicles and he was suddenly promoted, suddenly became
more important – he told me this himself – was running a big department and
the manufacturer used what he was doing as a very major sales point and has
done so with success. It will simply accelerate the introduction of these
technologies and make those departments more effective.
I suspect that there are a number of people working in very small… in fact I
know… in small companies developing these technologies on very modest
budgets and it may well be that such companies may give the same sort of
lessons to the manufacturers as Keith Duckworth did when he invented the
four valve technology and made that work with the FVA and the DFV. But the
small inventor may suddenly come into his own, and one or two of the teams
may already be in touch with them.
On your point about the sporting working group, of the eight people you
mention, one and possibly two did not want the Maranello agreement because
they did not want to relax the homologation. If you’re in any doubt about
that, a few inquires around the paddock will show you that that’s the case.
The truth of it is that some of the people who were against Maranello were
against Maranello because they wanted more liberty, but some of the people
who were against Maranello because they didn’t want that much freedom, they
didn’t want to spend the 15 million a year that Marenello would have cost as
opposed to a straightforward homologation.
Q: (Burkhard Nuppeney – All Media) When you have the homologation for 2008
until 2010, does it make any sense to run next year with developed engines
instead of already running the engines which will be run from 2008 to 2010?
Who is going to decide this question and how do you see this?
MM: The answer is that it would make no sense at all to run in 2007
developing the engines only to come back to the May 2006 spec in 2008 but we
can’t impose that, that has to be agreed by the Formula One Commission, but
I would be very surprised if the Formula One Commission did not agree,
having got the freeze for 2008, 2009, 2010, also to agree it for 2007,
because it would save everybody a fortune and avoid a great deal of
unnecessary expenditure.
Q: (Burkhard Nuppeney – All Media) Would you say that the chance that we
would see the homologated engine next year already is pretty…
MM: It’s not for me to say, it’s a decision for the teams, but I would be
surprised if they don’t agree to do that.
Q: (Burkhard Nuppeney – All Media) When you say this new system from 2011
onwards, you say we need a decision which has to be made very quickly, what
is in your mind when you talk of quickly? Is it within this year, within the
next one and a half years, end of next year; what do you think about that?
MM: Just to be clear, the 2009 energy storage, that has to be done this year
because of the agreements. The regulation has to be ready before the 31st of
December. The fuel efficiency engine, if I can call it that, for 2011, the
only urgency is that if the agreement were reached, the rules were agreed in
the next month, for the sake of argument, then no manufacturer would feel
tempted to re-deploy the engine experts that are currently working on
developing existing engines. They could put them straight on to a long term
programme to get a fuel efficiency engine in. And of course, if somebody
came and said we’d like to have the fuel efficiency engine a year earlier,
and everybody agreed, there would be no difficulty about that. So I think it
would be a pity if they re-deploy the people that are currently working on
the engines into other jobs and then start working on the fuel efficiency
engine. That’s why it would be urgent, but not for any other reason.
Q: (Burkhard Nuppeney – All Media) Is there any deadline by which this
process has to be finished or started?
MM: No, none whatever: no deadline for 2011 because as far as we’re
concerned, if we arrive in 2010 and we still don’t have a proposal, we will
simply – it probably won’t be me then, it will be somebody else – but the
World Motor Sport Council will simply extend the homologation, I would
guess.
Q: (Jonathan Gill – Auto Express) Max, what happens if a new manufacturer
wants to come in with an engine; how do they have that homologated?
MM: We allow them in on what we call the ‘fair and equitable’ principle.
There’s a clause in the rule which says that new engines can come, or
engines can come after June 2006, if it’s fair and equitable. We would
simply make sure that the engine, both from its duty cycle, its power and
all its other characteristics, fell within the spectrum of the existing
engines. Obviously you can’t let somebody come with a miracle engine, it
would be completely unfair, and I would not be at all surprised if we didn’t
get one or two. I think once we’ve got this… I would say… the nonsense
that’s going on at the moment, this huge expenditure stopped, I think we may
well see at least one new manufacturer coming in. It’s just that at the
moment, it’s difficult for people to justify coming in when they’ve got all
sorts of problems in the company, if they’re going to spend the sort of
money that’s being spent at the moment.
Q: (Michael Schmidt – Auto Motor und Sport) Both the energy storage system
and fuel efficiency system will be quite expensive developments. How will
you make sure that the private teams get them for a reasonable price?
MM: First of all, we may find that it won’t be a major manufacturer, it
might be quite a small company that comes up with the ace system and at
quite modest cost, but that remains to be seen. But one of the suggestions
that’s being made about the rule, is that there should be a rule that anyone
can purchase the system from anyone, for example, like a selling plate. You
would say the system must not cost more than, for the sake of argument, two
hundred and a fifty thousand dollars, just to take a figure, and that
whoever is using the system, must be prepared to sell it to any other team
for that figure. And that would do two things: it would make it available to
the small team, it would also put a price cap on the cost of the unit. It
would be quite difficult to spend several million on a unit if you have to
sell it for, say, a quarter of a million. But that is the sort of point that
will be discussed very much when we’re finalising a rule for proposal to the
World Motor Sport Council.
Q: (James Allen – ITV) You’ve always been very specific about the budgets
and how crazy it is, so what budget levels are you working on? You’ve just
mentioned about the energy storage and what it might cost in the short term,
and what budgets are you working on for the fuel efficiency engine for 2011,
and also in all of this, from a public point of view, how important is it
that racing engines scream and make a really good noise?
MM: Well, on the last point, it’s vital. I did say that one of the
conditions is that it has to be a racing engine and a racing engine is not
something which is incredibly efficient but only runs along at 300 rpm and
is eight litres or whatever…it’s got to be a racing engine and of course
it’s got to be relevant to what they’re doing, but I think both those things
are possible. On the budget for energy storage systems, people who are
developing systems privately are working with tens of thousands of pounds a
year. The major manufacturers – I don’t know what they’re spending, but I
suspect they’re not nearly as expensive as the engines because the problems
with these things are that, If you’ve got a new piston, for example, you
have to build an entire engine. You then have to run that engine for 1300
kilometres on the dynamometer, then you have to do all sorts of things to
validate it, then you change another small part of the engine – something to
do with the valve or whatever – and then you’ve got to repeat the entire
process. Then you’ve got to put both of these components together and repeat
the process again. That’s why the development budget on these current
engines…it varies a lot on what people spend, but they’re spending between
100 and over 200 million euros whereas the actual engine costs about,
depending on who you talk to, about 200,000 – 250,000 Euros a year. If you
use 50 engines a year then you’re doing well. Well, that’s somewhere between
10 and 12 million a year. The other 100-200 million is all on development.
If you stop the development then that money won’t be spent. On just a
fraction of that money you could do an awful lot of research into energy
storage where we’re talking about a relatively small 20 kilos with all the
bits and pieces and devices.
Q: Again, on the budgets, do you have any concerns about drivers just going
around for ten minutes in qualifying just burning up fuel?
MM: Good point. A suggestion has been put about that we should chop five
minutes off. If you take five minutes off, then if you think about it, a
driver can do one run with his full tanks to get the feel of the car on its
full tanks, then he can do one run with new tyres to try and get a time, and
a third one, also on new tyres to try to get a time. Obviously you’ve got to
change the tyres, but that can all be done in 15 minutes. It would be 15
minutes of non-stop action. The original reason for the 20 minutes and the
fuel is to make sure they ran. We didn’t want any more to have the whole of
the world watching and have an empty track, so we knew that by making them
run that they would use the fuel, but what’s emerged is that in the pattern
of how the people do this is that we could do the whole thing in 15 minutes.
It would be very tight – it would be absolutely marginal for all the teams
and it would make mistakes possible – but it could be done in 15 minutes,
but a very tight 15 minutes. Now, whether people would want to do that, I
don’t know. Ask the teams. It would have to be a unanimous agreement, but
that’s a suggestion that’s been put forward. It could be done immediately if
the teams agree but it requires unanimous agreement and experience indicates
that it won’t be that immediate. There are people who don’t agree. Some of
the promoters say ‘no, it’s fantastic having all the cars running round –
it’s part of the show, so even if all the teams agree, we might not get the
Formula One Commission agreeing, so it could happen. Please don’t take that
as something that’s going to happen – I was just saying that that was a
suggestion and probably, if we were starting again now, we’d have just done
the 15 minutes.
Q: (Paolo Ianieri – La Gazzetta dello Sport) A homologated engine – the ones
who are at the back now will have no chance just to fill the gap. Next year,
for the three years of the homologated engine, if they are behind now, they
have no chance to make evolutions now.
MM: All they can do for next year is ask the Formula One Commission – you
have to go through the procedures. If the Formula One Commission agrees that
an homologated engine will be used next year. I think that all sense and
reason says that is the thing to do – there’s no sense in developing an
engine for next year that isn’t going to be used any more. All sense and
reason says we should do that and I’m sure that the Formula One Commission
will agree, but we first have to go to the Formula One Commission, then we
have to go to the World Council and that will be done, and I would hope we
could do that reasonably quickly because the sooner we have certainty about
all these things, the sooner we stop spending, and the manufacturers stop
spending collectively about 20 million Euros every week – that’s what
they’re spending on engine development. The sooner they stop, the more money
will be saved.
Q: (Declan Quigley – Setanta Sports) Max, can you tell us about your new
rear wing? I hear it hasn’t done well in the wind tunnel.
MM: The wing is currently being assessed by the aerodynamicists, but what
seems to happen is this. It seems to be working as it is supposed to work –
this is a very amateurish reply, but forgive me – the way its supposed to
work is that it reduces the drag of the car behind and also, it gives it
more downforce and greatly facilitates overtaking. If, on the other hand, it
doesn’t work as it should work, which happened, for example when they did
the quarter-scale wind-tunnel test, it actually reduces the drag even more
and the simulations indicate that it facilitates overtaking even more, so
that you could even overtake – with cars being equal – on a straight as
short as 500 metres, depending on the speed of the corner leading on to the
straight, but it’s a matter for the experts. Any change to the wing requires
the unanimous agreement of the teams as its part of the Technical
Regulations. All we’re talking about is the correct way to achieve this, and
it looks at the moment quite promising for the spilt wing, the CDG wing. We
are absolutely open – all we want to see is two things; less downforce
relative to the tyres because they can’t have the downforce they’ve got now
on the new, bigger 2008 tyres and we want to see overtaking – most
importantly overtaking. My money would be on the CDG wing but clearly the
aerodynamicists of the teams are going to decide.
That’s it, thank you very much, and I appreciate your presence. |
