Would the workaround not be: multiple ignition points spanning the combustion chamber? Seemingly F1's 3.0L V10 bore & stroke was small enough to still work with combustion rates. Which would tell us something about minimum distances between ignition areas. I'd call this series TF-1.
Another workaround for a non-SC Top Fuel may be onboard oxidizer, in addition to the fuel. Depending on oxygen content, or just use LOX, you could even eliminate the intake system. No intake valves. Only exhaust valves & injectors. Sixteen fat fire breathing headers coming out of the engine, with eight of them in the vee. Call them Rocket Fuelers.
Such an engine could operate as a two-stroke, which might help with reducing required engine speeds. A four-stroke might still be desirable for cooling the cylinder. If LH & LOx are used, perhaps resultant water vapor combustion products are sufficient to keep the cylinder cool.
When all atmospheric inert gases are removed from the combustion chamber, as found in air-breathing ICEs, how would this alter cylinder design? Fuel & oxidizer only. Detonation will be a major concern, so staged injection into cylinder might be a requirement—direct injection systems. A portion of inert combustion products would be retained per cycle—how much would be a question of design.
I would also recommend to point all the headers backwards, combined into a common plenum with a flameholder installed to flow a portion of the fuel & oxidizer, for increasing the thrust of the exhaust with an afterburner effect. An aircraft carrier type jet blast deflector may need to be installed before hosting Rocket Fueler events.