Image courtesy of Infiniti Red Bull Racing
Red Bull have backed the idea for the introduction of a second engine formula to run alongside the current V6 turbo hybrid power units from as early as 2017.
With Formula 1 still struggling to establish what its true future direction will be, CEO Bernie Ecclestone touted the possibility of a cheaper engine, likely a twin-turbo V6 with a KERS system similar to those used pre-2014, to be created to help midfield teams struggling with the increased costs of the current power units.
While the concept may be considered a cost-cutting measure, the idea could offer a new direction to Red Bull and their sister team Toro Rosso who are currently mired in reliability and performance issues with engine supplier Renault.
Indeed Daniel Ricciardo will be onto the fourth and final internal combustion engine at just the fifth race in Spain next month after his third blew up spectacularly as the Australian approached the finish line in Bahrain last weekend.
A move to a new engine formula from Red Bull would likely be compared to Ducati in MotoGP, who decided to take advantage of new ‘open’ class regulations last year. The change allowed for more engine development as well as greater fuel allocation and softer tyres compared to the ‘factory’ class and has seen Andrea Dovizioso claim three podiums in the first three races of the 2015 season.
While the advantages wouldn’t be so broad in F1, the aim of 1000bhp engines from 2017 would certainly see the introduction of a second engine formula offering a more level playing field and would give Red Bull a much greater chance at closing the gap to Ferrari and Mercedes in the coming years than continuing to develop the currently under-performing Renault V6 turbo hybrid.
Asked about the proposal, team boss Christian Horner believed that such a move would be good for the sport in terms of spicing up the action.
“It’s an interesting concept,” he told Motorsport.com. “We ought to have a good look at it and explore the pros and cons, to be honest with you.
“It’s happened before, and you might get certain engines competitive at different tracks, and it might move things around a bit. It’s certainly worth a good debate.
“It’s certainly interesting. I would think Renault would certainly consider it – it’s more of a question for Renault than it is for me.
“But I would have thought they would certainly consider it.”
One of the key issues with the introduction of a second engine formula would be ensuring that there is no great advantage of using one over the other, there has to be the guarantee that the cars winning races are doing so because they have the best overall package combining aerodynamics and engine rather than it being swayed strongly by one or the other.
That for me has been one of the great benefits since F1 changed to V6 hybrids last year and certainly this year watching Ferrari take the battle to Mercedes. Yes the engineers at Maranello have made huge ground in the power unit department compared to last year but the ability to look after the tyres and the low drag characteristic that has made the SF15-T a match for the Silver Arrows down the straights has meant that both are pushing for gains in every area possible, rather than consolidating where they have the edge.
If it can be that the midfield teams are boosted by more cost-effective engines then that is only positive in the medium-to-long term for the sport and may improve competitiveness.
I would think of it like a return to the tyre wars when Michelin and Bridgestone went head-to-head though as mentioned the gap between using either engine specification should be as small as possible.
The only thing that must remain is the focus on more fuel-efficient cars as Formula 1 needs to keep itself as road-relevant as possible even if rival categories like the WEC are perhaps better suited to that role.
Therefore I agree with Horner on this one, do the research, see if it is viable and if so then why not give it a try. It would add a fascinating dynamic if introduced but the emphasis on any such move must be on doing so correctly.
