Abiteboul: The current engine is not as bad as it's made out to be
F1 NewsMonday, 20 November 2017 at 12:13
Renault along with Ferrari and Mercedes were not impressed with the engine proposals presented recently for the future of Formula 1, the team's boss Cyril Abiteboul explained in an interview with Auto Motor und Sport the reasoning behind his dissatisfaction and insight into the involvement of a manufacturer in the sport at the highest level
What do you have against the engine vision for 2021 presented the Formula 1 management and the FIA?
Cyril Abiteboul: What has been presented to us is an all new engine . That's a big challenge for us. That means new development, a new project, possibly the use of more people, new investment. This would have to be clarified only with the [Renault] board. The second problem we have is that we do not know what Formula 1 will look like in 2021 . What will the chassis look like? Which cost reduction measures will be introduced? What is the money distribution plan for the future? We do not know have the whole picture yet. We have a new engine concept that has been presented, but we can only judge when we know how the other pieces fit in the puzzle.
Cyril Abiteboul: What has been presented to us is an all new engine . That's a big challenge for us. That means new development, a new project, possibly the use of more people, new investment. This would have to be clarified only with the [Renault] board. The second problem we have is that we do not know what Formula 1 will look like in 2021 . What will the chassis look like? Which cost reduction measures will be introduced? What is the money distribution plan for the future? We do not know have the whole picture yet. We have a new engine concept that has been presented, but we can only judge when we know how the other pieces fit in the puzzle.
Do you have any objections with regards to the detail of the engine?
CA: There are still many unknowns regarding this concept. Will the MGU-H disappear or will it stay? From today's perspective I have to say: I hate the MGU-H. But by 2020 we should have this problem under control. We know the reasons for the problems and knew already at the beginning of the season that it will hit us harder and harder at the end of the year. By 2020 everyone will be reliable. Then it will be cheaper for the manufacturers and the customers. Everything starts again at zero with a new engine concept. If there are no additional restrictions, it can also be expensive. And again there will be manufacturers who will find the right and the wrong solutions, dividing the field into two groups again. Some will spend crazy like again, and for a while see no results. Therefore, I see no reason to deviate from the existing concept. If we want to stabilize the fan base, we need to stabilize the technology. These are my concerns.
CA: There are still many unknowns regarding this concept. Will the MGU-H disappear or will it stay? From today's perspective I have to say: I hate the MGU-H. But by 2020 we should have this problem under control. We know the reasons for the problems and knew already at the beginning of the season that it will hit us harder and harder at the end of the year. By 2020 everyone will be reliable. Then it will be cheaper for the manufacturers and the customers. Everything starts again at zero with a new engine concept. If there are no additional restrictions, it can also be expensive. And again there will be manufacturers who will find the right and the wrong solutions, dividing the field into two groups again. Some will spend crazy like again, and for a while see no results. Therefore, I see no reason to deviate from the existing concept. If we want to stabilize the fan base, we need to stabilize the technology. These are my concerns.
Are you against the standardisation of parts?
CA: It depends on which. We do not even know which parts should be standardised. We are a car manufacturer. Renault stands for the technology that is in this engine. Then you have to ask yourself why we need different engine manufacturers at all. As I said, we do not know where this journey goes. Should the engine no longer be a building block in future? Should the chassis be more important than the engine? That's why it's just a starting point for discussion. We need more information about the overall plan and more information about the engine itself.
CA: It depends on which. We do not even know which parts should be standardised. We are a car manufacturer. Renault stands for the technology that is in this engine. Then you have to ask yourself why we need different engine manufacturers at all. As I said, we do not know where this journey goes. Should the engine no longer be a building block in future? Should the chassis be more important than the engine? That's why it's just a starting point for discussion. We need more information about the overall plan and more information about the engine itself.
How much does a completely new engine cost to develop?
CA: So around 100 million euros.
CA: So around 100 million euros.
But after that the initial development the engines will be much cheaper, because they will be simpler...
CA: It depends on how long the initial investment should pay off. When I build a new engine I need more people in the short term. After that, I have to downsize my workforce significantly. It also has a social component because many people will lose their jobs. I'm not saying it's impossible. But it takes time and a plan.
CA: It depends on how long the initial investment should pay off. When I build a new engine I need more people in the short term. After that, I have to downsize my workforce significantly. It also has a social component because many people will lose their jobs. I'm not saying it's impossible. But it takes time and a plan.
Do you not build a new engine every year without the token rule anyway?
CA: That's correct. We have to do something about this. That's why the 2021 goal seems pretty far away. We have to do something in advance. In addition, we do not know what the world will look like in 2021 . We are defining an engine for a time when car-makers may be developing in very different directions. The timing is wrong. But I do not just want to criticize but also make a counter-proposal: let's develop something better on the basis of the current engine . Gradually until 2021. We could increase the petrol flow rate from 2019 so that the driver could attack the whole race , we could speed up making engines louder. We could standardize some of the components to reduce the performance differences and lower the cost to manufacturers and customers. We do not have to wait until 2021. The current engine is not perfect, but it is not as bad as it is made out to be.
CA: That's correct. We have to do something about this. That's why the 2021 goal seems pretty far away. We have to do something in advance. In addition, we do not know what the world will look like in 2021 . We are defining an engine for a time when car-makers may be developing in very different directions. The timing is wrong. But I do not just want to criticize but also make a counter-proposal: let's develop something better on the basis of the current engine . Gradually until 2021. We could increase the petrol flow rate from 2019 so that the driver could attack the whole race , we could speed up making engines louder. We could standardize some of the components to reduce the performance differences and lower the cost to manufacturers and customers. We do not have to wait until 2021. The current engine is not perfect, but it is not as bad as it is made out to be.
Could an independent engine manufacturer build such an engine as per the recent proposal?
CA: No. If the FIA and the FOM do not propose an engine that dictates unitary technology or extreme restrictions in most elements, then the private manufacturer cannot compete. Such a business plan would only work if the engine manufacturer were subsidised by a sponsor or a car company. Such an engine would be unattractive for car companies. So I ask the FIA and Liberty the question: who do you want to achieve with this engine format? If it's a new car manufacturers, let's talk to them and ask them what they want.
CA: No. If the FIA and the FOM do not propose an engine that dictates unitary technology or extreme restrictions in most elements, then the private manufacturer cannot compete. Such a business plan would only work if the engine manufacturer were subsidised by a sponsor or a car company. Such an engine would be unattractive for car companies. So I ask the FIA and Liberty the question: who do you want to achieve with this engine format? If it's a new car manufacturers, let's talk to them and ask them what they want.
Why should teams not use a standard battery. No fan knows which battery is in which car. Why not standardise?
CA: We have no problem with a standard battery. Renault is a car manufacturer and not a battery manufacturer. Whoever buys a car tomorrow, will not make his choice based on the battery used in the car.
CA: We have no problem with a standard battery. Renault is a car manufacturer and not a battery manufacturer. Whoever buys a car tomorrow, will not make his choice based on the battery used in the car.
The current engines are expensive. Therefore, the FIA limits the use of engine components, making the development even more expensive for manufacturers. Do you have a solution for this?
Latest News
Loading
