F1’s former technical boss, Pat Symonds has hit out on the new engine formulation, describing the brand new unit as a “camel”.
Starting his F1 profession with Toleman in 1981, the place he was subsequently engineer to a rookie Ayrton Senna, Symonds remained at Enstone when Benetton purchased the British group and through its quite a few, subsequent incarnations.
Banned from the game for his function in ‘Crashgate’, when the ban was subsequently overturned he returned as an advisor to Virgin earlier than changing Mike Coughlan as chief technical officer at Williams, parting firm with the Grove outfit when his contract led to 2016.
In 2017, he was appointed Components One’s Chief Technical Officer, simply months after Liberty Media had acquired the game, taking part in a key function within the 2022 laws and likewise that of the 2026 overhaul.
In early 2024 the Briton was introduced as government engineering marketing consultant to the Andretti International bid to enter F1, which subsequently turned the Cadillac F1 group.
Chatting with Autocar, Symonds reveals that his resolution to stop his function with F1 was right down to the FIA’s rising affect, which he believes compromised the purity of the brand new technology of engines.
“Once we did the 2022 automotive we listened to what the groups have been saying, however we dominated them with a agency hand,” he says. “We stated, ‘okay, we’re listening to you, however we’re really going to do that’.
“So, we took a few of their enter,” he continues. “We knew that of them had an agenda… that is the benefit of me spending so a few years as a competitor. So, we have been fairly inflexible in what we needed.
“With the ’26 energy unit, the FIA stated it needed to contain the producers extra,” he continues. “Sadly, I believe it is like whenever you get a committee to design a racehorse, you find yourself with a camel.”
Symonds is especially miffed that the FIA dominated out his suggestion that to make up for the lack of the MGU-H energy might be generated from the entrance axle. This, he claims, was right down to the failure to grasp the expertise and the outright rejection by one explicit group.
“I believe that is occurred a bit bit, as a result of one of many briefs for the ’26 engine was to take away the MGU-H, as a result of that was one thing that definitely improved the effectivity of the engines massively, but it surely was fairly advanced,” he admits.
“It was determined to take away that basically to attempt to encourage new producers into the game, which in a roundabout way was profitable. Ford got here in, Audi got here in we have got Cadillac are available in. Porsche nearly got here in, they kind of faltered on the final minute.
“However when you take away that vitality supply, if you happen to hold every part else related – we have elevated the facility of the motors and issues – the thought was to exchange it with recovering vitality from the entrance axle. For those who did that, every part balanced out fairly properly, you were not in need of vitality, you could possibly have much more electrification on the automotive. However sadly, due to this committee strategy to issues, one group was very a lot in opposition to entrance axle restoration.
“I believe the president of the FIA on the time, Jean Todt, thought we have been speaking about four-wheel-drive, which we weren’t, we have been speaking about vitality restoration. Perhaps drive when you’re on the straight however definitely not within the corners, so not a four-wheel-drive, traditional, automotive.
“So, due to this kind of very democratic strategy, one of many instances when democracy shouldn’t be good, we ended up with this camel. We have ended up with an influence unit that is sparse on vitality.
“Okay, there are methods round it,” he provides, “however they are not good methods round it.
“So, I would not say that the ’26 energy models ended up the way in which I needed,” he concludes. “However the chassis, the aerodynamics, I believe they’re fairly good, the lively aero is an effective step ahead, I believe.”
That final, little “I believe” suggesting that, at coronary heart, Symonds stays as sceptical as the remainder of us.
