Cosworth: MGU-H Blocked Aston Martin F1 Engine Deal and Deters New Manufacturers

The intricate world of Formula 1 engine development is often a battleground of innovation, engineering prowess, and substantial financial investment. For prospective new entrants, these barriers can prove insurmountable. Cosworth, a name synonymous with motorsport success, recently shed light on how a single, complex component – the MGU-H – likely prevented them from building an F1 engine for Aston Martin in 2021 and continues to deter other potential manufacturers from joining the pinnacle of motorsport.

Bruce Wood, Managing Director of Cosworth, emphasized that while Aston Martin was seriously considering an entry into Formula 1 for the 2021 season, their plans ultimately dissolved. The primary reason for this withdrawal, according to Wood, was the championship’s steadfast decision to retain the Motor Generator Unit – Heat (MGU-H) as part of the engine architecture. This component, a marvel of modern engineering, has become a significant financial and technical hurdle for any new manufacturer eyeing the grid.

Advert | Become a Supporter & go ad-free

The MGU-H: A Costly Conundrum for F1 Engine Development

The MGU-H, designed to recover energy from the exhaust gases, is undeniably a piece of groundbreaking technology. However, its sophisticated nature comes with an astronomical price tag. Wood elaborated on the challenges posed by this specific component, stating, “It certainly is where very few people, including ourselves, have direct experience.” He acknowledged that established F1 power unit suppliers like Ferrari, Renault, Mercedes, and Honda have, to varying degrees of success, mastered this technology. However, the sheer scale of their investment in MGU-H development is “enormous.”

The complexity isn’t limited to the physical hardware. Beyond designing and developing the unit itself, a vast ecosystem of expertise is required for its optimal deployment and strategic utilization. “Of course it’s not just the technology of the hardware itself but then the strategy of the deployment of it,” Wood explained. “Suddenly you realise that once you’ve designed and developed it there’s another 100 people to decide the strategy of how to use it.” This highlights the extensive human capital and software development necessary to extract maximum performance from the MGU-H, further inflating development costs.

Limited Real-World Application vs. F1 Investment

One of the core arguments against the MGU-H, from Cosworth’s perspective, is its limited applicability outside the hyper-specialized world of Formula 1. While F1 prides itself on being a testbed for future automotive technologies, the MGU-H stands out as an outlier. “In our view it’s great technology but it is, in our view, something of an obstacle because it is so expensive to develop,” Wood asserted. He questioned the long-term value proposition for manufacturers, noting, “The applications for e-turbos in the mainstream world are probably pretty low, so again to invest in all that technology for motor racing you could maybe convince yourself to do that if you thought ‘well, that’ll trickle down and be everywhere’ but we don’t really think it will.” This lack of broader commercial relevance makes the massive investment in MGU-H a harder sell for car companies looking for tangible returns on their R&D.

Cosworth, a proponent of simplifying F1 engine regulations to encourage new blood, had actively advocated for the MGU-H’s removal. “So while MGU-H I wouldn’t want to ever say isn’t a good technology – it’s really interesting but it is something of an obstacle, it is certainly one of the things that we were pushing for to be deleted in Formula One to make it easier for somebody new to come in,” Wood reiterated. “Not because it’s impossible to do but just because it is so burdensome to do.” This stance underscores a desire to preserve F1’s technological edge while simultaneously making it more accessible and financially viable for a wider range of automotive players.

Go ad-free for just £1 per month>> Find out more and sign up

Cosworth’s Vision: Partnership, Not Customer Supply

Cosworth boasts a storied history in Formula 1, standing as the championship’s second-most successful engine builder in terms of race wins. Their last active period in F1 spanned from 2010 to 2013, supplying power units to teams like Williams, Lotus, Virgin (later Marussia), and HRT. However, Wood clarified that even if the MGU-H had been removed, Cosworth was unlikely to return as a mere customer engine builder. “We don’t imagine there will be a Cosworth-badged Formula One engine whereby we are trying to lease it to teams and recover our investment like that,” he stated.

Instead, a strategic partnership with a prominent car manufacturer, such as Aston Martin, represented a far more appealing and logical path for Cosworth. “When Aston Martin were talking about going in there was a reasonable chance that Cosworth would have done the engine for Aston Martin,” Wood revealed. “That would have made a lot of sense and whether our name ever got mentioned, who knows but there could have been an Aston Martin Formula One project.” This illustrates Cosworth’s preference for collaborative ventures that align with their engineering expertise and business model, leveraging a manufacturer’s brand and financial backing while contributing their renowned engine development capabilities.

Slashing Costs: The Key to Attracting New F1 Manufacturers

The core of Cosworth’s argument lies in the belief that making F1 more affordable is paramount to attracting new manufacturers. Wood firmly believes that simplifying the engine regulations, particularly by eliminating components like the MGU-H, would significantly cut costs. “In our view, deleting the MGU-H would have facilitated someone like Aston feeling it was more affordable,” he affirmed. The vast sums currently required to compete at the highest level of F1 are simply out of reach for many reputable car companies.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free

Wood posed a critical question: “They are not going to spend half a billion on Formula One – would they spend 100 million? I don’t know but maybe – there’s far more people who can spend 50 million or even a hundred million than can spend five hundred million. So in our view, deleting MGU-H would make the whole thing more affordable for somebody.” This perspective highlights a fundamental economic reality: widening the pool of potential entrants requires a substantial reduction in the financial barriers. By lowering the entry ticket from astronomical figures to more manageable, albeit still significant, investments, Formula 1 could genuinely open its doors to a broader array of global automotive brands.

Ultimately, Cosworth’s push for simpler regulations was a strategic move aimed at the sport’s long-term health. “It would make it more plausible that another car manufacturer entered Formula One. That bit needs to happen for them to then come to us. That was our logic in the whole thing, kind of ‘we’re trying to help you help yourselves here, guys.’” Wood called upon the FIA, stating, “You’re saying, FIA, that you want more car companies in it – which we understand, it needs more car companies in it, it’s become too much of a closed shop – but you’ve got to make it more affordable.” This encapsulates the frustration felt by potential newcomers and advocates for change: a clear desire for a more diverse grid, but an unwillingness by the existing framework to adjust to facilitate it.

The “Closed Shop” and Ferrari’s Billion-Dollar Defense

The proposal to remove the MGU-H, despite its potential benefits for new entrants and the sport’s overall diversity, was met with strong resistance from established F1 teams. Wood recounted a pivotal meeting where this issue was debated. Ferrari’s Maurizio Arrivabene eloquently articulated the stance of the incumbent manufacturers: “Basically, Mr FIA, we have spent a billion dollars on this set of rules and you can’t just tear it up and have a simpler one because the world doesn’t work like that.”

This argument underscores a significant dilemma within Formula 1. Existing teams, having poured immense resources into mastering the current complex regulations, view any radical change as a threat to their competitive advantage and a devaluation of their past investments. Wood likened it to an entry ticket: “It’s like ‘We’ve paid a billion dollars for our entry ticket and now just because you don’t like the show, you can’t sell tickets at 10% of face value.’” While understandable from their perspective, this resistance creates a “closed shop” environment, making it exceedingly difficult for any new entity to compete without incurring comparable, or even greater, initial expenditures.

The Honda Effect: A Cautionary Tale for New F1 Manufacturers

Beyond the direct financial implications of the MGU-H, the recent struggles of major manufacturers returning to Formula 1 have cast a long shadow over potential new entrants. Wood specifically highlighted Honda’s tumultuous return to F1 since 2015 as a major deterrent. “I think the whole Honda situation has been horrible,” he remarked.

Honda, a highly respected automotive giant with a rich history in motorsport, faced significant difficulties upon their return, enduring years of underperformance and intense scrutiny. Wood observed that this saga serves as a stark warning: “If I was a car manufacturer I would look at that and think ‘wow, they, of everybody would know how to make this work and they’ve struggled for three years and they’ve been mercilessly murdered for it’ – why would you, as a car company, think ‘yeah, we’ll have a go at this.’” The public nature of Honda’s struggles, despite their eventual success with Red Bull, likely instilled caution in other brands considering an F1 foray. The risk of reputational damage, coupled with the immense financial outlay and technical challenges, makes the prospect of entering Formula 1 a daunting one. “Personally, I think it will be a long time until we see another car company enter Formula One,” Wood concluded, reflecting a pessimistic outlook influenced by these combined factors.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter andgo ad-free

Looking Ahead: The Future of F1 Engine Regulations and Manufacturer Diversity

Cosworth’s insights underscore a fundamental tension within Formula 1: the desire to push technological boundaries versus the need to maintain an accessible and diverse competitive landscape. While the MGU-H represents an engineering triumph, its prohibitive cost and specialized nature effectively narrow the field of potential engine suppliers to a select few with deep pockets and established F1 infrastructure.

The discussions surrounding future engine regulations will undoubtedly revolve around striking a better balance. Simplifying power unit components, enhancing road relevance where possible, and instituting stricter cost controls are all measures that could pave the way for a more vibrant and varied grid. Without such adjustments, the sentiment expressed by Bruce Wood – that it will be a long time before another major car company enters Formula 1 – may unfortunately prove prophetic, leaving the sport to grapple with the consequences of an increasingly exclusive engineering arms race.

Cosworth: We Could Have Built Aston Martin’s F1 Engine