Formula 1 team bosses reacted with disappointment to the news Renault plans to bring an end to its decades as an engine manufacturer.
Alpine team principal Bruno Famin confirmed yesterday the manufacturer is in discussions to become an engine customer from 2026. It intends to use its engine facility at Viry-Chatillon to work on projects for Alpine’s road cars.Renault first entered F1 in 1977 and has been present as an engine manufacturer since then aside from absences in 1987-88 and 1998-2000.
RB team principal Laurent Mekies admitted “it’s always a bad news when you lose an OEM [original equipment manufacturer].”
F1 expected to see the number of manufacturers competing grow to six in 2026, as Audi arrive, Ford join forces with Red Bull and Honda return. But while Alpine will remain as a chassis manufacturer, Renault will no longer produce its own power units.
“Obviously one of the big targets of these new regulations in 2026 was to attract more OEMs,” said Mekies. “So ultimately, if it goes as Bruno said, it means that we’ll get plus one with Audi and minus one with Alpine [Renault]. So I don’t think it’s good news.
“However, it comes, luckily, at a time where there are many manufacturers in Formula 1. So I would say that the sport can well afford this change. But it’s never good news when we lose a PU manufacturer.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Frederic Vasseur, one of Famin’s predecessors as team principal at Alpine, when it competed as Renault, said he was disappointed by the news.
However Alessandro Alunni Bravi, team representative of Sauber which will become Audi in 2026, said Renault’s decision should not be considered a negative reflection on F1’s plans for its new engine regulations.
“It seems that this is a decision that is not linked, of course, to the new PU regulation or to the trajectory that Formula 1 is taking towards 2026,” he said. “I think that the PU regulations are very attractive for new manufacturers and of course Audi is the perfect example that thanks to this new regulation there is an interest from the automotive [manufacturers] to be in Formula 1 because it’s the pillar of the technology and the best testing bench for the future mobility technical solutions.
“So I think that is something different from the decision from Renault. And I think as a Formula 1, we need to be clear on this, you know. Sometimes it can happen.
“But now, as Fred said, is important the people. And I hope that the project that Bruno is developing will go forward because Bruno himself and the people at Viry-Châtillon that I also know personally deserve.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Formula 1
- Hamilton proud of Ferrari as ‘we’re taking a beating from media and people’s comments’
- Oakes and Doohan’s exits “not really a surprise” for ex-Alpine driver Ocon
- McLaren legality never in doubt says Piastri as FIA’s post-race check clears car
- Antonelli says message Hamilton left him upon leaving Mercedes “filled my heart”
- “Cutthroat”: Hulkenberg, Bearman and Lawson give same view on Doohan’s exit
Drop Saudi
27th July 2024, 10:19
Most incompetent team in a long time, had the best engine and threatened to quit if it wasn’t changed to something they would always suck at.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
27th July 2024, 11:31
Will be a shame to see Renault go. Semi related but I still don’t see why F1 is getting rid of the MGU-H, more turbo lag, less energy recovery, yet they also want to use the MGU-K more. Something somewhere isn’t adding up.
Gavin Campbell
27th July 2024, 12:24
Its unfortunately not road relevant – so although it was looked at by many people it only became part of racing engines (and even then only F1 and maybe some WEC/Endurance/Specalist stuff).
Why is that a problem? All the knowledge gained is irrelevant (whereas learning things like battery placement, cabling, resistances, reliability all matter to road cards) but there is also nowhere else to learn about this component. Therefore any new manufacturer would either have to poach engineers (thus not very popular with other OEMs) or go through a long painful learning process (see honda).
However there is lots of experience in regular and performance engines with Hybrids now (WEC, WRC and even British Touring Cars!) so there maybe in-house experience already there as well as a wider pool to recruit engineers from.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
27th July 2024, 13:25
Very little in F1 has road relevance any more, road cars are “more clever” than F1 cars in many ways due to stringent regulations in F1.
It just feels like F1 is backing itself into a corner here, they’re massively increasing the dependence on battery power whilst removing a device that both improves ICE efficiency and recovers energy in itself. The numbers just don’t seem to add up, where are they going to recover all this energy from?
Coventry Climax
27th July 2024, 14:27
@brightlampshade
I hope by ‘stringent regulations’ you mean there were boundaries set quite some time ago already and development has been frozen since – while the rest of the (engineering) world moves on. That is indeed the best way to loose touch with reality.
Where you feel there’s something that doesn’t add up, I’m quite sure that things do add up, specifically with the bankaccounts of some. Unfortunately, there always needs to be something or someone you can get rich off. That might very well be F1’s future in this case.
On “removing a device that improves ICE efficiency”, I’m sorry to say that that is simply not possible beyond the theoretical percentage. (About 38, fyi.) The device you’re talking of, recovers energy that’s otherwise lost using just the ICE, so it improves the overall efficiency of the entire hybrid powerplant, not of the ICE.
Nitpicking probably, but it’s a mistake/misunderstanding/slip of the tongue that I hear over and over and over again.
As for road relevance, it’s indeed going the other way round these days: instead of new developments making it into the automotive consumer market, it’s things that have been around for ages making it into F1. Like hybrid. And wasn’t there talk of having AC units in the F1 cars recently?
So road relevance would likely be to have seven seats and at least seven airbags, a roof-rack and a tow-hook, electric anything, infotainment and the lowest monthly operational cost on the market, including free weekly updates for all the nonsense.
F1’s dead.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
27th July 2024, 14:48
The MGU-H removes turbo lag and recovers otherwise wasted energy. It explicitly improves the ICE efficiency.
I believe the figures are that the MGU-H provides 60% of electrical recovery, and is responsible for 5% of thermal efficiency – which for F1 engines is a smidge over 50% efficient.
Coventry Climax
28th July 2024, 11:14
@brightlampshade
Nope, inherently not true.
The sole ones responsable for thermal efficiency are the laws of thermodynamics (what’s in a name), and those mean the theoretical maximum efficiency for an ICE, Otto-cyle engine is below 40%.
That also means it’s irrelevant if there’s a turbo or not.
Still, that’s been researched extensively, over the last 60(?) years or so.
You’ll find loads of SAE-papers on it – as well as a couple about magnets around fuel leads, to pre-align the fuel molecules and increase the burning efficiency. (Sigh: We’ve actually had that advertised for a while.)
Needless to say both types of papers come to a similar conclusion: No effect at all.
So, MGU-H being responsable for 5% of thermal efficiency is -sorry to say- utter nonsense.
A turbo (or any compressor type) does not make an engine more efficient, it makes it more powerful – for it’s size.
Boy size, but performs like a man – and drinks and burps like a man.
It’s got to come from -and go to- somewhere.
MGU-H does not remove turbo lag. Period.
It converts energy, otherwise lost as heat from exhaust gasses, to electricity.
That electricity may be used to spin up the turbo when the ICE doesn’t but the driver needs it – accellerating from low revs.
That is what reduces turbo lag, but it does not increase thermal efficiency.
Heck, you could just as easily do that without any MGU-H at all.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
28th July 2024, 11:57
I think you may need to re-look into what the MGU-H is @Coventry Climax
A little explainer from a certain Andy Cowell (I assume you’re aware of who he is?)
***
Cowell, the managing director of Mercedes High Performance Powertrains, said it will remove “a lot of energy” from the engines.
He explained the MGU-H provides 60% of the electric energy used to power the other part of the energy recovery system, the MGU-K, and contributes 5% of the current engine’s thermal efficiency.
Cowell said engine manufacturers would now need to develop anti-lag systems for the turbocharged engines as the MGU-H is “the most marvellous anti-lag system because it gives you speed control”.
***
So yes, the MGU-H does remove turbo lag – Period
and, the MGU-H is responsible for ~5% thermal efficiency
If we think at the most basic level. Turbo’s generally make engines more powerful for the same amount of fuel use. They generally make them more economical. Or to use another term, efficient.
There are better sources that go into greater detail about the above information if you would like the info, and how these incredible engines have gotten themselves to over 50% thermal efficiency. Which F1 really should shout about more, as it is incredible.
roger norman
27th July 2024, 11:41
General Motors wants to join with Andretti. All Liberty Media and f1 need to do is accept the Andretti/Cadillac bid, and the problem is solved.
Asd
27th July 2024, 11:48
Do “engine manufacturers” produce only the IC engines or the whole power units these days?
Anyway, I couldn’t care less about them.
Nick T.
27th July 2024, 12:33
It’s a joke to say in 2026 we’ll have six auto manufacturer PUs since Ford will just be a badging exercise.
Riker (@corsair)
27th July 2024, 13:11
And yet they rejected Andretti/Cadillac.
Sigh.
Dane
27th July 2024, 14:32
After saying no to Cadillac now you’re going to complain there’s not enough manufacturers?
Coventry Climax
27th July 2024, 14:39
For ’26, the powerplant regulations are so strictly defined, that building one is like following a blueprint.
Why and by what incentive would you want to build the same thing as all the others do?
Logical result of the direction the FiA have taken with their rules, is that over time, only one powerplant constructor remains. The others would -apart from the badge- be the same anyway.
Same’s already happening with chassis. The F1 cars used to be wildly different over the brands but in the same season. Now, the only difference between Aston and Merc is the color of the spraypaint and some stickers. And not just those two; they’re all converging – due to the FiA rules.
Nick T.
27th July 2024, 16:56
Besides the paint, they also differ in lap times of more than a second at times. So, yeah, not that similar. I doubt Newey would be sticking around if he thought the new aero rules were so spec like that basically every team would have the same chassis.
Someone has to lose. I will always prefer to see the best drivers in as equal matched machinery as possible. I’d love it if they all had radically different designs yet were still very evenly matched, but if design was completely open we’d have 5% of fans happy to see a purely tech exercise and 95% unhappy with possibly an entirely Noah’s Ark style quali and/or race results.