By means of a change to the Formula One World Championship Sporting Regulations, we could introduce the following for 2003:

• No running on Friday. Grand Prix is Saturday and Sunday only, timetable as at present (Friday would become an obligatory promotion day).

• One engine per Grand Prix weekend. Engine change or use of spare car means the driver starts 12 places back on the grid.

• No engine may be used in the Championship unless being used by at least two teams.

A change to the Sporting Regulations requires only a vote of the Formula One Commission (ie at least 18 of the 26 votes in favour), it does not require unanimity.

There are a number of powerful reasons for making these changes.

The smaller teams are facing three difficulties: first, sponsors are increasingly aware that a team cannot be competitive without an engine from a major manufacturer; secondly, the cost of securing even a second-string engine supply is ruinous; thirdly, the global recession is affecting sponsorship. Unless something is done, a combination of these factors is likely to put some of the smaller teams out of business over the next two or three years.

The proposed new rule would eliminate the first problem, significantly mitigate the second and make the third more survivable.

Would this proposed rule damage the interests of the major teams? No, quite the opposite. Any team which wishes to be competitive must already have (or soon develop) two engines: one for qualifying, the other for the race. In addition to double development costs, this means three engines per car per race weekend, being a race engine designed to do about 350 km, a qualifying engine designed for about 50 km (at very high revs and extreme temperatures) and an engine for Friday. The Friday engine could not be the previous race engine (except perhaps for a second division team), because an engine which has already done a race would be at the end of its design life.

Even for the biggest and richest manufacturer, this programme is cripplingly expensive. Worse than that it is obviously wasteful and likely to cause problems once the accountants and top management become fully aware of what is going on.

With the proposed new rule there would be one engine per car per weekend instead of three. To a first approximation the cost would be one third - to rebuild a modern racing engine which has run to the end of its design life costs roughly the same whether that life is 30, 350 or 800 km. If the present system is allowed to continue, the difference between 50 km (qualifying) and 350 km (race) engines will increase and development costs will tend towards those of producing two entirely different engines.

It follows that the proposed new rule would allow each manufacturer to supply two teams of significantly less than the current cost of supplying just one team.

So what are the arguments against the proposed rule?

Current engines are designed to last about 350 km and to give their peak power at high revs. They would not last for 800 km. An entirely new engine would be needed.
Current engines can easily last 800 km if they are run slightly slower. In the order of 1,000 rpm and certainly less than 2,000 rpm will suffice.

It's not that easy. An engine gives its maximum power and torque at high revs. It cannot simply be run slower. It would no longer be able to use its power curve properly.
But the power curve is almost entirely a function of valve timing, inlet and exhaust characteristics. These can easily be changed and indeed are changed routinely for different circuits. All the parameters are known, due to the year-by-year increase in engine revs from a point way below the level for a current engine run at a speed suitable for a life of 800 km.

You are being simplistic. If we are to design an engine for optimum performance over 800 km, it will be a different engine. Even if an existing engine can last 800 km when re-tuned and run more slowly, it will never perform as well as an engine specifically designed for 800 km. Such an engine would be stronger and heavier - for example it would have a different block.
All perfectly true, but this is the same for everyone. The existing engines would do a perfectly good job and the racing spectacle would not change with slightly lower revs. In the meantime all the engine manufacturers would be working on the ultimate 800 km engines for 2004 or 2005. But they are doing that anyway. They are all currently working on their 19,000+ rpm, 900+ horsepower engines, but on the basis that they will have a life of 350 km. The only change would be an increase in the target life for the engine. The development costs would be the same. Furthermore, all the costs of the parallel 50 km programme would be saved.

But we don't have a 50 km engine.
If you want to stay at the front you soon will have.

The challenge of designing an 800 km engine is not the same as a 350 km engine.
That's nonsense. It's precisely the same challenge. The only difference is that the 800 km engine is slightly closer to reality.

Engine suppliers will turn up with mobile workshops to rebuild engines at the circuit.
We will define "engine change" so as to prevent anyone working on an engine during the race weekend. We will have no difficulty checking whether or not an engine has been opened.

Teams will hardly run at all on Saturday morning and perhaps only do one qualifying run in order to save engine miles. This will destroy the Saturday television programme.
The advantage anyone could gain by running an engine at slightly higher revs in the race would be far less than the advantage their rivals would have from setting up their cars properly on Saturday morning and having a full qualifying session. Even on the three currently agreed test circuits (Barcelona, Monza and Silverstone), a full qualifying session would still be necessary in order to secure a good grid position.

One or two manufacturers might pull out of Formula One if this rule goes through, particularly those who have based their engine programme on one team.
We do not think so, because this rule will have no effect on the basic purpose of their participation. A few years ago there was conspicuous waste of tyres in Formula One - huge piles behind the pit of each leading team, with small teams unable to pay for enough tyres to keep up. When we introduced a restriction on the number of tyres per weekend, the leading tyre supplier threatened to pull out. We maintained our position, they did not pull out and were honest enough to tell us a year later that the savings we had made for them is Formula One had paid for tyres for an entire programme in a top series in the USA. At the same time the change made no discernible difference to the spectacle of Formula One. It just helped the smaller teams stay in business.

You cannot expect engine suppliers who are currently working exclusively for one team suddenly to supply two teams.
On the contrary, they will need to. With only a third of the number of rebuilds and no need for the special development programme for a 50 km engine, they will have more than enough spare capacity.

At preset there are seven major manufacturers supplying engines and probably eleven teams. On this basis, at least three manufacturers will be unable to find a second team.
The are a number of possible solutions to this problem, from among which we will choose the most equitable in consultation with everyone concerned. We cannot, however, assume we will always have so many major car companies in Formula One.

Anyway, you can't bring this in as a sporting regulation. For a start the Friday practice schedule is in the Concorde Agreement.
The agreement itself does not mention practice. The specimen promoters' agreement does, but merely states that the promoter will make his circuit "available" for practice on Friday. There is nothing to say anyone has to practice on that day.

But your proposed changes would influence the performance of the engines. You can't do that without unanimous agreement, which you won't get.
This new rule does not in itself have any influence whatsoever on the performance of an engine. It merely places restrictions on the number of engines a team can use and the number of days on each they use them. It is also entirely possible (indeed probable) that the 800 km engine of the future will out-perform today's 350 km and 50 km engines.

Why just this rule - why not other cost-saving measures, for example changes to the chassis?
Unfortunately such measures involve changing the technical regulations, which is more complicated and takes longer (unless, of course, there is a unanimous agreement). However, when the proposed changes are through, there may well be a climate in which other changes become possible.

All this is for the smaller teams. Surely you should worry more about the leading teams. After all, they put on the show. Small teams come and go, it's the big teams that matter.
We don't agree. We think the small teams are important. But these changes are also needed by the big teams. Huge sums of money are currently being wasted on unnecessary engine costs. Even major manufacturers will not do this for ever. All the major car manufacturers periodically go through difficult times. It is not easy for a big company to lay off workers and simultaneously waste millions on unnecessary expenditure in Formula One. We need to do something before we get a nasty surprise from one of the big car companies.

Footnote
The FIA does not want to become involved in any commercial aspect of Formula One, still less does it wish to do anything which might affect relations between teams and their engine suppliers. In this case, however, there is a real threat to Formula One and to the interests of all competing teams and engine suppliers. A relatively straightforward solution exists, for which the arguments appear to be overwhelming. It is therefore clearly the FIA's duty to seek a consensus for change.

MM 20.02.2002

Editor's note: On February 25th 2002, possibly following reaction to his previous letter to the teams, Mosley wrote a follow-up note to the teams, elaborating further on the One Engine Per Weekend rule.

It has become apparent that once the principle of a limit on engines with a grid-position penalty for an engine change is accepted, there is no rational case to be made against full introduction in 2003.

The reason for this is that the major engine suppliers can now deliver engines with very predictable lives. They can do this because quality control has become very precise, circuit running is simulated repeatedly on the dynamometer and, with fully automatic transmission systems, the treatment the engine receives in the car is now almost entirely predictable.

It follows immediately from this that any engine can be made to last for the full two days (or three, come to that) just as easily and predictably as it can be made to last for a race plus morning warm-up. It is simply a question of engine speed versus distance, with all parameters of the relationship known very accurately. This being the case, it seems crazy not to secure the massive cost savings a restriction on engine availability would bring. Furthermore, the resulting spare capacity could be used to keep the smaller teams in business. Additional arguments are set out in my note of 20 February.

I understand that since I circulated that note, solutions even more radical than the one-engine-per-weekend proposal are under discussion among the teams. I hope these gain support. It seems clear that all these changes could be made without affecting in the slightest the relative positions or strengths of the teams, nor would the public notice any change except the occasional excitement of a top driver starting further back on the grid. At the same time the smaller teams would gain the credibility that comes from association with a major manufacturer.

Most important of all, the cost savings for the teams and for their engine suppliers would be huge. These would, for example, be significantly greater than the amounts of money which are apparently under discussion between the commercial rights holders and the major car manufacturers. Given the present world economic climate, even the most successful manufacturer would probably be grateful for a massive cut in its Formula One expenditure to take effect in the next twelve months.

As a disinterested (but by no means uninterested) observer, it seems to me the arguments in favour are overwhelming. But in the end, the teams will decide.

MM 25.02.2002