23/05/2011
FEATURE BY MIKE LAWRENCE
 |
Ferrari is complaining about the upcoming F1 formula, with its 1600cc turbocharged four-cylinder engines and some are saying that Ferrari is winging and being manipulative. For once, I am sympathetic, I think that Ferrari has a valid point.
Every formula is designed to restrict performance and, ideally, Formula One should have a connection to the everyday world The FIA has framed its formula in consultation with teams and manufacturers and it is ironic that the President, Jean Todt, connected with Ferrari for so many years should now be facing criticism from Maranello.
Todt has kept a low profile, but F1 has been running smoothly. Pirelli received specific instructions this year and the racing has been among the best I can remember. You could argue that short-life tyres are an artificial factor, but the rules are the same for everyone.
No doubt the 2013 cars will soon be even quicker than those of today, but Ferrari is the only manufacturer in F1 whose range consists solely of supercars and while a 1600cc turbo four will fit nicely in a Fiat, Ferrari's owner, it does not relate to Ferrari's product.
Around 1960, a four-cylinder one-litre engine was developed in Maranello to make a 'mini-Ferrari' and with it a chassis designed by Giotto Bizzarini. Then Enzo thought better of it and sold the project to an outfit called ASA, which made about five dozen cars.
Ferrari went so far as to make a small car. It would have been hugely expensive compared to say, an Abarth, but it would have had its adherents. Time was when the typical Ferrari owner was in his mid-fifties, he had made his way in the world, seen the kids through college and was rewarding himself. A small car might have been a useful entry model for some marques, but Ferrari decided to remain a premium brand, like Cartier.
None of Ferrari's rivals like Aston Martin, Lamborghini or Porsche are in Formula One. Mercedes-Benz makes some magnificent sports cars, but it also makes the A Class and the Smart city car.
Ferrari has made small-engined cars, the original 2-litre Dino 206 for one. What was marketed in most places as the 308 GTB was also available as the 2-litre 208 in Italy as a 'tax-break' car.
One of the most iconic of all F1 Ferraris was the 1961 T156 'sharknose' made for the 1500cc formula. An essential difference between the F1 of 1961-65 was the freedom designers had. Ferrari used V6, V8 and flat-12 engines, and all were then exotic. A 1600cc 'four' is all a bit High Street.
There have been Ferrari 'fours' and Alberto Ascari dominated Grand Prix racing, 1952/3 in a Ferrari T500. In the 1950s there were even large capacity sports cars, the 750 Monza among them. Ferrari was flexible enough to respond to conditions and it chose four-cylinder engines when they were considered appropriate, a limit on design was not imposed.
Although the 1.5-litre Formula One had detractors, the cars were soon quicker than their larger predecessors. I guess the same will happen with the 2013 formula.
Together with the smaller engine in 2013, comes a restriction on revs, a limitation of fuel and the encouragement of engine recovery systems. All this is designed to make F1 more 'green' though actually motor racing never can be. The transporters are not going to use less fuel, nor are the motorhomes, and it is a fair bet that they devour more fossils than the cars in a Grand Prix.
Bosses of sponsoring companies are still going to arrive in their company jets and be met by limos.
Formula One cars will not suddenly become cheaper to make and nor will the engines. Limiting the number of engines a driver can use is window dressing. True, it is also a stiff technical exercise, but the greater part of the expense is in design, development and setting up the computer-controlled machine tools.
I have been fortunate enough to see modern F1 engines being made. The engine blocks that I saw had been loaded onto machines and then left, the machines operated after everyone had gone home and then switched themselves off. A 1600cc 'four' is not going to be cheaper to make than a 2.4-litre V8 because most of the cost occurs before the first production unit is made.
Fiat recently introduced the TwinAir, a two cylinder turbo unit which produces lively performance and the cleanest emissions of any petrol engine. The carbon footprint in the manufacture of a Fiat 500 TwinAir is much the same as making a regular Fiat 500 or, even, the Abarth version.
Having said that, the upcoming formula could be attractive to manufacturers because a turbocharged 1600cc 'four' could have relevance to their main product. When it comes to shifting metal from the showroom, a major element is public perception.
Some manufacturers may see the 2013 F1 as relevant to their range. It says that a small engine is not necessarily a boring engine but, rather, it is at the cutting edge of technology.
The new formula could attract Volkswagen and Hyundai. VW has ambitions to overtake Toyota as the most prolific maker and Hyundai is now a serious player. Both companies have their eyes on the vast potential markets in China and India and while they will be making most of their sales at the cheap end of the market, F1 could provide a little twinkle dust.
Buying your first new car is a serious step for anyone and I can remember the UK in the 1950s and 1960s when more people had the loot to do that. An important fact was that the car was new, if it had an edge over a neighbour's new car, that was important as well.
For many people a car is a statement of who they are and what they have achieved. We typically decorate only three things: ourselves, our home and our cars - fridge magnets do not count.
Anything which can make a cheap car more attractive is important and in the new markets, I would not rule out the return to Formula One of Peugeot and Honda or even Ford. Between them, India and China account for a large part of the world's population, from this year both nations will have Grand Prix and they are the great untapped markets.
The upcoming formula will not affect those teams in Formula One who are there merely to race and who will do deals with engine suppliers.
This brings me back to Ferrari and the prospect of a 1600cc four-cylinder engine. I am sure that Ferrari engineers can hack that problem, the question is will Ferrari want to do it? A little engine is not part of Ferrari philosophy and it is not the reason why petrolheads dream of owning a Ferrari or any other car in its bracket.
You buy a Ferrari, a Porsche or an Aston Martin to reward yourself. You are subject to the same speed restrictions as everyone else and PC Plod will pay you special attention. The car brings a smile to your face and you love the ambiance of the cockpit.
Let's face it, most owners cannot explore the limits of their car, even on track days, but most of us desire one.
Motor racing has always been sensitive to politics and I can understand why the FIA is making the gesture even though it is futile. It comes down to perception. Golf is seen to be green whereas it is ridiculous use of land which could be used for agriculture. Golf courses in deserts, be they in the Middle East or Nevada, are sheer ecological madness.
Golf is not, however, perceived to be unfriendly to the environment while Formula One is because, for two hours, a handful of cars use a fraction of the resources that their transporters do. Golfers use fossil fuels to drive to their courses and fossil fuels are used to make their golf bats and clown clothing.
It all comes down to public perception and most public perception is ill-informed nonsense. Were this not true, spin doctors would be unemployable.
Now for the crunch question, does Formula One need Ferrari more than Ferrari needs Formula One? History tells me that every team is expendable: Auto Union, Brabham, Bugatti, Lotus, Peugeot, you name it. Losing Ferrari would be no more than a hiccup. Memory in motor racing is on a par with that of a goldfish.
Ferrari, on the other hand, needs Formula One. It not only has serious rivals in its market sector, the brand itself generates cash. There are Ferrari stores in selected locales, including London's Regent's Street. Believe me, the mark-up on a cap, shirt or key fob is huge.
Lamborghini now makes excellent cars, as does Aston Martin, and this has not always been true. A lot of Ferraris have been rubbish to own, but owners forgave them. Now potential buyers have a range of choice and among their options is the McLaren MP4-12C which matches Ferrari on both price and pedigree.
Time was when Ferrari made the ultimate road cars, but this is no longer the case. There is now a range of specialist makers such as Pagani and Koenigsegg which make very desirable cars while Aston Martin has the One-77.
Let us think the unthinkable. Formula One does not need Ferrari and there is no reason to grant it special status. Ferrari has lost its pre-eminence and is now only one maker of exotica among many makers, some of whom, like Bugatti. make quicker cars.
About twenty years ago, Ferrari announced that it would cap production at 4,000 units a year, to maintain exclusivity. It pedals the same story today but the cap is now down to 2,000 units. PR people never get the fact that some of us have long memories.
In May, 1992, production of the McLaren F1 would not exceed 400 cars, five months later, it was 300 cars and I was not supposed to notice.
I have sympathy with Ferrari over the 2013 formula, the company is in a different category to everyone else in Formula One, but Ferrari needs Formula One more than Formula One needs Ferrari. The guys at Maranello will buckle down and make amazing machines, they always do. Also, with any luck, the grid will be refreshed by newcomers.
I guess that any newcomer will feel cheated if Ferrari is not on the grid. All the engineers are petrolheads, no matter where they come from, and they will want to go against Ferrari from a sense of history and sentiment. I hope that they are given that chance, but history tells us that no team has ever been essential to Grand Prix racing. The sport is bigger than any participant and, let's face it, Ferrari no longer has the pre-eminent status it once had.
Mike Lawrence
mike.lawrence@pitpass.com
To check out previous features from Mike, click here