Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[mzso]

Lastly, and AGAIN, this isn't about V10's specifically. Please stop with that strawman.

The topic title is V10 as for the most mentioned engine layout by your lot. You're the one with strawman arguments and shifting your arguments as they are discredited by people, to something else that usually have no foundation.

You have no evidence whatsoever that louder/better sounding engines are considered undesirable by the audience. smh

Never claimed as such. I did point out that that the "boring sound" didn't cause any negative effect

And you know full well that's an especially poor argument, certainly much flimsier than any poll from fans that says otherwise.

Hard nope. There were also other arguments. Not that it matters to you.

Anyway, it's pointless to argue with you. Let's agree that you really-really want V10s or at least other loud NA engines. And that's all you have.

[mzso]

It's the chance to see (hear) 18,000rpm V12s (which Toyota planned to return to in 2000 until banned, even at 3.0L let alone 3.2L or 3.5L where 12 cylinder may now very much be optimal for NA) that you wouldn't see (hear) anywhere else in motorsports.

Only if V12s are mandated. They died out on their own because V10s worked better. (This Toyota rumor I only heard from you, right now)
I don't know what do you mean by "now optimal for NA". Nowadays there's a fuel flow limit and a quantity limit. With this in mind even V10-s are questionable compared with V8-s.

I don't hear H16-s anywhere either, doesn't mean they should be brought back to F1.

Don't forget the NA V12 IS the preferred engine layout of Scuderia Ferrari HP, Red Bull Racing Ford RBPT and Racing Bulls Ford RBPT.

Not for F1. Don't even know how you bring Red Bull here, they never produced an engine.

Not sure what's your intention with a few quoted personal opinions.

[Seanspeed]

Lastly, and AGAIN, this isn't about V10's specifically. Please stop with that strawman.

The topic title is V10 as for the most mentioned engine layout by your lot. You're the one with strawman arguments and shifting your arguments as they are discredited by people, to something else that usually have no foundation.

You have no evidence whatsoever that louder/better sounding engines are considered undesirable by the audience. smh

Never claimed as such. I did point out that that the "boring sound" didn't cause any negative effect

And you know full well that's an especially poor argument, certainly much flimsier than any poll from fans that says otherwise.

Hard nope. There were also other arguments. Not that it matters to you.

Anyway, it's pointless to argue with you. Let's agree that you really-really want V10s or at least other loud NA engines. And that's all you have.

You are talking to ME, not 'my lot'. I have specifically mentioned already that I am not talking uniquely about V10's, yet you keep referring to them as if that's the specific demand here. It is just a dishonest way to try and discredit what I'm(me, personally) actually saying.

You also very literally said that adding louder/better sounding engines would be 'otherwise undesirable', as if it would only be catering to a small fraction of fans while being a negative for everybody else. Please do not pretend you did not say this or that this is what you meant.

And yes, trying to argue that 'F1 viewership is increasing, so why make any changes?' is a poor argument and you know it. For reasons I explained and that you would actually agree with if this was about any change YOU wanted to see.

[mzso]

And yes, trying to argue that 'F1 viewership is increasing, so why make any changes?' is a poor argument and you know it. For reasons I explained and that you would actually agree with if this was about any change YOU wanted to see.

Don't pretend like you emit truth or something.

You also very literally said that adding louder/better sounding engines would be 'otherwise undesirable', as if it would only be catering to a small fraction of fans while being a negative for everybody else. Please do not pretend you did not say this or that this is what you meant.

Their undesirable because they're inefficient and unreliable, plainly worse. And the engine makers don't want to go back to something like that. The only ones who really want them are those who romanticize their sound and/or live in the past.

You are talking to ME, not 'my lot'. I have specifically mentioned already that I am not talking uniquely about V10's, yet you keep referring to them as if that's the specific demand here. It is just a dishonest way to try and discredit what I'm(me, personally) actually saying.

It's not like that's not your preference. And you kept referring to the V10 vote.
Anyway, for F1 it would be V10, if it's naturally aspirated. Without any regulation all engine manufacturers decided on V10s. (Maybe V8 if there's a tight fuel limit)

[Seanspeed]

And yes, trying to argue that 'F1 viewership is increasing, so why make any changes?' is a poor argument and you know it. For reasons I explained and that you would actually agree with if this was about any change YOU wanted to see.

Don't pretend like you emit truth or something.

You also very literally said that adding louder/better sounding engines would be 'otherwise undesirable', as if it would only be catering to a small fraction of fans while being a negative for everybody else. Please do not pretend you did not say this or that this is what you meant.

Their undesirable because they're inefficient and unreliable, plainly worse. And the engine makers don't want to go back to something like that. The only ones who really want them are those who romanticize their sound and/or live in the past.

You are talking to ME, not 'my lot'. I have specifically mentioned already that I am not talking uniquely about V10's, yet you keep referring to them as if that's the specific demand here. It is just a dishonest way to try and discredit what I'm(me, personally) actually saying.

It's not like that's not your preference. And you kept referring to the V10 vote.
Anyway, for F1 it would be V10, if it's naturally aspirated. Without any regulation all engine manufacturers decided on V10s. (Maybe V8 if there's a tight fuel limit)

I'm only here to push as much as truth as possible. You are here to seemingly push against it as much as you can in your effort to prove that racing fans dont actually like loud and impressive sounding engines. lol

'Plainly worse'. It's insane how willing you are to make objective statements like this, while absolutely ripping apart the remotest subjectivity of anybody else saying anything outside your favor. ICE engines can be reasonably efficient and reliable. Maybe you've noticed that actual fuel tanks for modern F1 cars haven't changed much since the years before the hybrid systems were introduced? It's still about 100kg of fuel for the same race distances we've had all along.

Either way, we are not talking about what powertrain manufacturers want, we're talking about what fans want. I've made my case quite clearly that I understand why manufacturers have gone the way they have, even if I dont like it. Said it many times by now in this topic. What YOU are trying to deny is that fans would like louder/better sounding engines. It's an obvious truth, and you have literally no evidence to suggest this isn't true.

[Chuckjr]

100% Seanspeed.

[zeph]

Maybe you've noticed that actual fuel tanks for modern F1 cars haven't changed much since the years before the hybrid systems were introduced? It's still about 100kg of fuel for the same race distances we've had all along.

That is incorrect. From 2010-2013 they carried on average 150-160kg of fuel. The 2014 regs introduced very severe limits not only on total fuel allowance, but also flow rate.

If you’re talking about 2009 and earlier, that is a comparing apples to oranges as refueling was still allowed.


The hybrid PU’s are really a triumph of engineering that has not been highlighted enough.


And finally, I’m also a fan and have been since the 1980’s. I prefer hybrids and don’t like the noise.

[JordanMugen]

Only if V12s are mandated. They died out on their own because V10s worked better. (This Toyota rumor I only heard from you, right now)

From The Race:

Initially, Toyota planned to come in with a V12 engine. But in January 2000, the FIA World Motor Sport Council rubber-stamped rules mandating the use only of V10 engines.

- Edd Straw
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/why- ... -so-badly/

This rule was added by the FIA to the year 2001 technical regulations:

5.1.4) All engines must have 10 cylinders and the normal section of each cylinder must be circular.

Toyota's F1 entry was originally scheduled for 2001, but in June last year they announced a 12-month delay meaning the company forfeited a 1.3 billion yen ($11m) deposit.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/motorsport/1154217.stm

Toyota had to delay their testing program by one year and thus their F1 debut by one year from 2001 to 2002, having to redesign their engine from a 3.0 V12 to a 3.0 V10.

Plainly your statement that V12s were unlikely to return is not correct. Toyota had designed one while Ferrari were also rumoured to design one, hence FIA decided to mandate the previously optimal 10 cylinders ostensibly for purposes of reducing costs.

It is entire possible that as technology progressed from 1995 to 2000, that 12 cylinders was then optimal.

Their undesirable because they're inefficient and unreliable, plainly worse. And the engine makers don't want to go back to something like that.

You seem to have the suggestion that F1 engines should not be scaled up naturally aspirated MotoGP engines as they were for much of F1's history^, but why should that be the case?

Don't forget that in the year 2000, Honda built a 5-cylinder 1000cc MotoGP engine (only because 6 cylinders were banned!) and this was the most competitive engine in that class, which would extrapolate to a 15-cylinder 3000cc F1 engine (I guess it's possible to balance a W15 layout, an extension of the Life W12 concept otherwise could the same balancing techniques as Honda V5s and V3s be used for a V15 with similar uneven banks )!

If you take the de rigour (maximum permitted by the rules) 4 cylinder 1000cc MotoGP engine, that scales up to a 12-cylinder 3000cc engine.

It's simply not necessary that an F1 engine regulation must permit supercharging and/or exhaust turbines.

Banning or permitting supercharging and/or exhaust turbines (permitting as currently the case & the case in 2026, or banning as from 1989 to 2013) are BOTH valid.

^ [At least for the four-stroke eras. Noting Honda wanted to build a V8 500cc four-stroke in the late 70's but were compelled by MotoGP's regulations (maximum 4 cylinders!) to build their 8-conrod 32-valve four-stroke MotoGP engine to use four oval-shaped pistons!]

Not sure what's your intention with a few quoted personal opinions.

That there is an appetite for higher cylinder count naturally aspirated engines amongst F1 and engine building executives, obviously.

Honda are replacing their ~1200cc V4 road bikes with a downsize electric supercharged ~800cc V3 to meet modern emissions regulations.

But are MotoGP rule makers really clamouring to implement this efficiency measure in their sport and make the much loved high-revving naturally aspirated MotoGP engines obsolete?!

Is efficiency really more important than a fun spectacle loved by fans? I don't see how it is...

--------------------------------------------

In any case, the Cadillac Racing view is not an opinion but an engineering view, and a view from a soon-to-be F1 engine builder.

Do you suppose Cadillac have erred with their 5.5L V8 and should have used one of the GM twin-turbo V6 engines to be within the "norm" of competitive LM hypercars?

It's such a minefield to try to game the BOP system to the point you can be competitive -- it seems Toyota will need to build a new car (that better optimises the BOP rules, uses flexy aero to beat BOP drag simulations like Ferrari etc) as their current car is deficient compared to Ferrari, despite BOP being there to make the cars even.

By the metrics you propose the smaller, lower friction, more efficient 2.4L LM hypercar engine of Honda should be the best choice, yet larger 2.9-3.0Ls of Toyota and Ferrari are competitive, and even the giant 4.0L turbo engine of Porsche is competitive (indeed more competitive than the Honda Acura for the most part, maybe the BOP is wrong or the team running the car is not as good...)?

[Ferry]

Is efficiency really more important than a fun spectacle loved by fans?

Important for whom? Give the teams the opportunity to choose, and they will take efficiency over spectacle every time. Wanna win races with a efficient engine, or be dead last with a great sounding one?

[eyelid]

Just bring 2.0 V8 with Turbo without any fuel flow limit until something like 17 000rpm and you're good to go. Simple, cost effective and no hybrid s*hit and everybody will love them.

[Seanspeed]

Maybe you've noticed that actual fuel tanks for modern F1 cars haven't changed much since the years before the hybrid systems were introduced? It's still about 100kg of fuel for the same race distances we've had all along.

That is incorrect. From 2010-2013 they carried on average 150-160kg of fuel. The 2014 regs introduced very severe limits not only on total fuel allowance, but also flow rate.

If you’re talking about 2009 and earlier, that is a comparing apples to oranges as refueling was still allowed.


The hybrid PU’s are really a triumph of engineering that has not been highlighted enough.


And finally, I’m also a fan and have been since the 1980’s. I prefer hybrids and don’t like the noise.

It's not incorrect. They didn't carry 150kg of fuel, they carried about 150 LITERS of fuel, which equates to about 105kg.

And I can admit that the current hybrid engines are very impressive in ways, but not in any way that actually improves the spectacle for fans.

As for you not liking 'the noise' of older cars, it's been made very clear that even if 40,000 other people said the same thing, dominating a questionnaire, it literally means nothing and does not count for evidence of anything. Sorry, I dont make the rules.

[Chuckjr]

Maybe you've noticed that actual fuel tanks for modern F1 cars haven't changed much since the years before the hybrid systems were introduced? It's still about 100kg of fuel for the same race distances we've had all along.

That is incorrect. From 2010-2013 they carried on average 150-160kg of fuel. The 2014 regs introduced very severe limits not only on total fuel allowance, but also flow rate.

If you’re talking about 2009 and earlier, that is a comparing apples to oranges as refueling was still allowed.


The hybrid PU’s are really a triumph of engineering that has not been highlighted enough.


And finally, I’m also a fan and have been since the 1980’s. I prefer hybrids and don’t like the noise.

It's not incorrect. They didn't carry 150kg of fuel, they carried about 150 LITERS of fuel, which equates to about 105kg.

And I can admit that the current hybrid engines are very impressive in ways, but not in any way that actually improves the spectacle for fans.

As for you not liking 'the noise' of older cars, it's been made very clear that even if 40,000 other people said the same thing, dominating a questionnaire, it literally means nothing and does not count for evidence of anything. Sorry, I dont make the rules.

Bold - absolutely 100% Seanspeed

[zeph]

It's not incorrect. They didn't carry 150kg of fuel, they carried about 150 LITERS of fuel, which equates to about 105kg.

Wrong again.

And it took me less than 20 seconds to google this, something you could (and should) have done as well before replying.

https://www.formula1.com/en/latest/arti ... 00PVE62KvC

from the link:

Rule change: 100kg fuel limit for race

Implications: Last year, while there was no race fuel limit or fuel flow limit, cars used in the region of 160kg of fuel per race with a fuel flow limit of 170kg per hour. From 2014 things are radically different: each car has a 100kg fuel limit per race (around one third less than before) whilst fuel flow is limited to 100kg per hour. That means that while the cars will likely be run at the limit of fuel flow during much of practice and qualifying, it will have to be a different story during races when cars are running for well over an hour.

They go faster than ever at a third less fuel. That has not been highlighted enough.

F1 is supposed to be the technical pinnacle of motorsport. Like it or not, V10's are not that. F1 would ultimately devolve into a historical racing series. The manufacturers will leave, and without them it would cease to be relevant.

[JordanMugen]

Important for whom? Give the teams the opportunity to choose, and they will take efficiency over spectacle every time. Wanna win races with a efficient engine, or be dead last with a great sounding one?

You say that, yet Cadillac Racing choose the large V8 instead of the "efficient" V6 turbo within the norm of competitive LM hypercars then put their blind faith in BOP to save them (which it hasn't so far!)?

By all means Aston Martin are dead last with the great sounding engine, but the engine probably isn't the main or only reason - their car doesn't even have a hybrid system and seems to be a semi-private car with a low budget.

Just bring 2.0 V8 with Turbo without any fuel flow limit until something like 17 000rpm and you're good to go.

Unless you have a very low boost limit like CART/USAC did, then will be absolutely no reason to rev high though?

The current engine only rev above 11500rpm because they are not permitted full fuel flow until above that rpm.

Should a very low boost limit (I think it was around 1.2 bar gauge pressure only in CART) be set in this case? Far below the ~4 bar gauge pressure limit (IIRC) in the 2026 F1 regulations (and unrestricted in 2014-2025 regulations IIRC)?

Or does your wording mean that maximum fuel flow should only be permitted above 17000rpm? A return of the glorious CART sound to F1 would be lovely!

F1 is supposed to be the technical pinnacle of motorsport.

The cars don't even have all-wheel-drive or closed wheels? Why not leave LMP1 to sportscar racing?

For all the notion of manufacturer and engineering fans, sadly (or goodly?) most F1 fans are actually driver fans and I really don't think they care if the engines are efficient or if the aerodynamics are (very) inefficient because the wheels are open and so on.

MotoGP is the pinnacle of motorcycle racing and does just fine with naturally aspirated high-revving engines. No hybrid, no turbo, no fashionable electric supercharger... nothing.

So why shouldn't Formula One as the pinnacle of car racing also have naturally aspirated high-revving engines?

[zeph]

So why shouldn't Formula One as the pinnacle of car racing also have naturally aspirated high-revving engines?

Because the manufacturers would leave.