Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[bauc]

I'm reading this got blocked by Mercedes & Audi? So we will not see V10's in 2028, 2029 is also a big stretch ..., so it seems now that is most likely now at 2030 (if it happens at all)

[Richard C]

It genuinely turned out that everyone, even Ford the proponents of the DFV V8 and Ferrari the proponents of the flat-12 and V12, choose the 10 cylinders of their own free will, no?

I may be making this up, but I seem to remember something about optimal cylinder displacement. That given the 3.0/3.5L displacement that V8, V10 and V12 all were in the range, but that V10 was in the sweet spot. But I could very much be wrong on this.

Other racing categories have mufflers. There is no reason the FIA cannot require mufflers and set a driveby noise limit.

It is tradition that F1 cars do not have mufflers and do not have noise limits, but there is no reason it has to be like that regardless of the engine type.

Thank you for posting this. I was thinking the same thing. There is pre-existing history of regulations making adjustments to F1 exhaust for various reasons (such as the rules around exhaust Coanda effect as one example) and if I remember correctly experimentation on making exhaust adjustments in the current spec to increase volume of sound. F1 power unit regulations are highly driven by marketing concerns so why not include exhaust in that as well?

Richard

[basti313]

Why not use a turbo if you want to add a muffler?

[Richard C]

Why not use a turbo if you want to add a muffler?

As we know, a turbo can be quite restricting of the exhaust/engine sounds. While the muffler can have a lighter touch. Also the muffler would likely be easier to tune to give more/less sound than a turbo.

Richard

[Seanspeed]

I hated the shriek of the V10s as a child. Why would you want to put people through that again. Like some other intelligent people here have said, hydrogen fuel-cell and advanced battery chemistry is the future we should be headed. Combustion engines aren't needed to make F1 interesting, close racing and clever engineering within the boundary and gray-areas of the rules is.

Go watch Formula E of your ears are too sensitive for engine noises???

Why is it that if something is obviously too loud/big/whatever for comfort it's always the ones saying "maybe we should go for something more modest and inclusive" that need to bugger off? Maybe those that mistake loudness for masculinity should go take a hike and watch monster trucks instead, while the rest of us enjoy a more future proof F1.

Let's not rewrite history to pretend that the switch to quieter engines had anything to do with trying to grow the marketable audience.

I've been closer to these turbo hybrid F1 cars at Goodwood than I ever could have been at any track(barring some VIP access or Monaco or something) and when you get to hear these cars in a more direct comparison way, there's something so tame and underwhelming about the V6 hybrids after hearing basically EVERY OTHER F1 car in history. And this isn't some purely masculine thing, even my Mom had the same impression. There's no character, no sensation of awe-inspiring power. It's both a problem of the tone of the engines and the volume.

Would you guys argue that rock concerts should be played at low volumes so people can be more comfortable and kids can be brought safely without needing earplugs? In my opinion, the appeal of going to see a live F1 race has actually decreased with the lack of engine noise. Even if ticket prices were better, I'm simply less interested in seeing it live when there's no more visceral audio experience that greatly separates the experience from watching at home. It was genuinely one of the great reasons to go see these cars running in person. Even wearing earplugs, it does not significantly diminish the sensation of the volume, just like at a rock concert.

[basti313]

Let's not rewrite history to pretend that the switch to quieter engines had anything to do with trying to grow the marketable audience.

No, but with a marketable product. There is no market for naturally aspirated engines. You need the manufacturers.

Same goes with the sound. The marketable product is currently a Sky commentator...even if you introduce the loudest engines in the world...there will be a Sky like commentator screaming louder. Just the pitch of the engine would change.

I've been closer to these turbo hybrid F1 cars at Goodwood than I ever could have been at any track(barring some VIP access or Monaco or something) and when you get to hear these cars in a more direct comparison way, there's something so tame and underwhelming about the V6 hybrids after hearing basically EVERY OTHER F1 car in history.

Strange perceptions for me. The close by in Googwood is maybe misleading for the product.
My take: On street tracks and in the pits the V10 was too loud. Everyone with half a brain had earplugs anywhere close to the cars. The V8 was better, I even liked it more. Somehow strange sound with some exhaust gas manipulations depending on the year. I would even say that when they had the exhaust in these slots, the drive by was not louder than today.
The V6 today on street circuits...just awesome in my ears. I do not understand the comments here on F3 and Porsche Cup...who says that the Porsche is louder or better has not been to a a street circuit...
On the far away tracks....like going to Spa...of course you do not hear the car well if you are 500m away from the track. But I never understood why I should bother going there.

Would you guys argue

No.

[Holm86]

No, but with a marketable product. There is no market for naturally aspirated engines. You need the manufacturers.

Same goes with the sound. The marketable product is currently a Sky commentator...even if you introduce the loudest engines in the world...there will be a Sky like commentator screaming louder. Just the pitch of the engine would change.

I don't think that's accurate at all, many manufacturers are scaling back on EV's and looking more at PHEV's.
And ALL of Toyotas hybrids are naturally aspirated engines working as a combination of generators and direct drive engines, the same with Honda's hybrids.
Ferrari still have their road cars with V12, they would be on board with V10's i'm sure.
Cosworth could also be a possibility again, they become very relevant in the car industry again with them building N/A V12's for the GMA T.50 and Aston Martin Valkyrie, a N/A V16 for Bugatti and they will probably also build the N/A V10 for the upcoming RedBull RB17.

And how much technology has made it from the modern F1 engines into production car engines?? Only a very few recently have gotten an MGU-H, I only know of Mercedes and Porsche (who isn't even in F1).
Which modern cars use turbo jet ignition? I only know of one modern production engine, the V6 in the Maserati MC20.

So I'm simply not buying that F1 technology is road relevant in any case anyway, and combustion technology developed in an N/A engine could very well be adopted to turbo engines.

It's all about writing some very free engine regulations, not banning high compression, variable valve timing, etc.
In the past, engine regulations were made to stop cost getting out of hand, but now we have a cost cap, so that argument isn't valid anymore.

[Farnborough]

No, but with a marketable product. There is no market for naturally aspirated engines. You need the manufacturers.

Same goes with the sound. The marketable product is currently a Sky commentator...even if you introduce the loudest engines in the world...there will be a Sky like commentator screaming louder. Just the pitch of the engine would change.

I don't think that's accurate at all, many manufacturers are scaling back on EV's and looking more at PHEV's.
And ALL of Toyotas hybrids are naturally aspirated engines working as a combination of generators and direct drive engines, the same with Honda's hybrids.
Ferrari still have their road cars with V12, they would be on board with V10's i'm sure.
Cosworth could also be a possibility again, they become very relevant in the car industry again with them building N/A V12's for the GMA T.50 and Aston Martin Valkyrie, a N/A V16 for Bugatti and they will probably also build the N/A V10 for the upcoming RedBull RB17.

And how much technology has made it from the modern F1 engines into production car engines?? Only a very few recently have gotten an MGU-H, I only know of Mercedes and Porsche (who isn't even in F1).
Which modern cars use turbo jet ignition? I only know of one modern production engine, the V6 in the Maserati MC20.

So I'm simply not buying that F1 technology is road relevant in any case anyway, and combustion technology developed in an N/A engine could very well be adopted to turbo engines.

It's all about writing some very free engine regulations, not banning high compression, variable valve timing, etc.
In the past, engine regulations were made to stop cost getting out of hand, but now we have a cost cap, so that argument isn't valid anymore.

Ahem Honda cvcc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVCC of this type preceeded F1 use by years, old hat really yes it is meant facetiously to demonstrate a point. They also use "active radical" diesel like firing in two stroke pu.

I agree with you about atmo engine and development. There's not really any transfer in migration. People that project relevant content are effectively saying that F1 has responsibility to further most motive power in reality. Since when has any sport done that ? Offered significant advance in human mobility etc that is.

F1 is never going to be the answer to many of these previous posts claiming is needs to be relevant.

As already given, if electric motive power is "your thing" there's already a series established to fulfil that. Why try and make this sport into that one ?

[Seanspeed]

Let's not rewrite history to pretend that the switch to quieter engines had anything to do with trying to grow the marketable audience.

No, but with a marketable product. There is no market for naturally aspirated engines. You need the manufacturers.

Same goes with the sound. The marketable product is currently a Sky commentator...even if you introduce the loudest engines in the world...there will be a Sky like commentator screaming louder. Just the pitch of the engine would change.

I've been closer to these turbo hybrid F1 cars at Goodwood than I ever could have been at any track(barring some VIP access or Monaco or something) and when you get to hear these cars in a more direct comparison way, there's something so tame and underwhelming about the V6 hybrids after hearing basically EVERY OTHER F1 car in history.

Strange perceptions for me. The close by in Googwood is maybe misleading for the product.
My take: On street tracks and in the pits the V10 was too loud. Everyone with half a brain had earplugs anywhere close to the cars. The V8 was better, I even liked it more. Somehow strange sound with some exhaust gas manipulations depending on the year. I would even say that when they had the exhaust in these slots, the drive by was not louder than today.
The V6 today on street circuits...just awesome in my ears. I do not understand the comments here on F3 and Porsche Cup...who says that the Porsche is louder or better has not been to a a street circuit...
On the far away tracks....like going to Spa...of course you do not hear the car well if you are 500m away from the track. But I never understood why I should bother going there.

There's nothing misleading about it. It's literally the best direct comparison you'll ever get. Goodwood will have one F1 car after another, within like 15-20 seconds of each other, before launching. Every F1 car in history has some sort of interesting character to its tone, and quite a good deal of volume to intensify things - all EXCEPT the new hybrid engines from 2014 and onwards. They certainly looked the part pulling up on the start line, but then the sound is just domesticated and weak compared to absolutely every other F1 car.

It's bad. There's a reason there was a lot of fuss over in the initial years, because it does kinda suck. That faded away over time simply because we adapted to the new norm, but humans will also adapt to poverty and hardships as normal, it's not an excuse for saying it's ok and certainly not ideal.

Would you guys argue

No.
[/quote]
So you wouldn't argue that rock concerts should be quiet, but you will argue that F1 races should be quiet?

Why? How can you not see the similarities here in terms of both forms of live entertainment having volume be a real aspect of the appeal in the first place?

[Holm86]

No, but with a marketable product. There is no market for naturally aspirated engines. You need the manufacturers.

Same goes with the sound. The marketable product is currently a Sky commentator...even if you introduce the loudest engines in the world...there will be a Sky like commentator screaming louder. Just the pitch of the engine would change.

I don't think that's accurate at all, many manufacturers are scaling back on EV's and looking more at PHEV's.
And ALL of Toyotas hybrids are naturally aspirated engines working as a combination of generators and direct drive engines, the same with Honda's hybrids.
Ferrari still have their road cars with V12, they would be on board with V10's i'm sure.
Cosworth could also be a possibility again, they become very relevant in the car industry again with them building N/A V12's for the GMA T.50 and Aston Martin Valkyrie, a N/A V16 for Bugatti and they will probably also build the N/A V10 for the upcoming RedBull RB17.

And how much technology has made it from the modern F1 engines into production car engines?? Only a very few recently have gotten an MGU-H, I only know of Mercedes and Porsche (who isn't even in F1).
Which modern cars use turbo jet ignition? I only know of one modern production engine, the V6 in the Maserati MC20.

So I'm simply not buying that F1 technology is road relevant in any case anyway, and combustion technology developed in an N/A engine could very well be adopted to turbo engines.

It's all about writing some very free engine regulations, not banning high compression, variable valve timing, etc.
In the past, engine regulations were made to stop cost getting out of hand, but now we have a cost cap, so that argument isn't valid anymore.

Ahem Honda cvcc https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CVCC of this type preceeded F1 use by years, old hat really yes it is meant facetiously to demonstrate a point. They also use "active radical" diesel like firing in two stroke pu.

Yes, that's why I wrote modern That Honda engine hasn't been used since the 80's?

[basti313]

I don't think that's accurate at all, many manufacturers are scaling back on EV's and looking more at PHEV's.
And ALL of Toyotas hybrids are naturally aspirated engines working as a combination of generators and direct drive engines, the same with Honda's hybrids.

Do you really want to use a Prius as an example? I can not take a Prius as a good or serious example, sorry...

No, let us stay realistic: These hybrids have an as cheap as possible engine in them. Nothing else. I am talking of technologically relevant engines. Current state of the art combustion engines. You need to take into consideration, that only cheap manufacturable tech makes it and that the product cycle from F1 to road is in the 15 years range. They all come with sophisticated injection, everyone is in some way working on the pre chamber ignition and a turbo. Newest gig is the split turbo in all top notch engines like the newest series of Merc, BMW and Audi with a design inspired by F1:
https://jesmb.de/2566/

And the point is simple: They (Toto and co) need something they can sell to their managers, no matter how far away the tech is. Developing engines with some vague potential road relevance (Turbo and a battery) is moch easier to sell than something that simply does not exist at all on their strategy (naturally aspirated). Is this point at least understandable?

It's all about writing some very free engine regulations, not banning high compression, variable valve timing, etc.
In the past, engine regulations were made to stop cost getting out of hand, but now we have a cost cap, so that argument isn't valid anymore.

It was the trick of Mercedes pre 2014, in my point of view one of the most relevant tricks in their success, that they exchanged engineers with Stuttgart. They got the best knowledge in combustion chamber design, cooling and aero from the headquarters. This is something you simply can not catch with the cost cap.

Would you guys argue

No.

So you wouldn't argue

No.

Why?

Because F1 is a racing series, no concert series. And F1 is not quiet. Not everything that looks like a comparison is one.

[KimiRai]

Proposal to bring back V10 engines set to be rejected next week

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/ar ... gp79740mko

[Seanspeed]

Because F1 is a racing series, no concert series. And F1 is not quiet. Not everything that looks like a comparison is one.

They're both entertainment. Explain to me why rock concerts should be loud, but F1 races shouldn't be. You're not actually detailing WHY they're supposed to be treated differently. Loud noise has always been a part of the appeal of motorsports and F1 for tons of people.

And yes, current F1 is pretty dang quiet. I dont know how anybody can honestly argue otherwise. I've seen F1 cars all throughout history launch off the line back to back from like 15 meters away. These modern hybrid engines are HUGELY quiet compared to basically all other F1 cars ever made. There is no awe-inspiring noise of any kind. It's tame and lame.

[ispano6]

Some manufacturers choose to be in the sport BECAUSE it advances R&D into applicable technologies. Biofuels(sustainability) and hybrids(efficiency) namely being the reason that companies like Honda and Ford, among others are keen to optimize. They value these aspects BECAUSE they feel they have a duty to reduce pollution (both emissions AND noise), and effectively reducing the harm to the health of the Earth and its peoples. Theirs is a stance of being responsible and thinking for future generations, and not being outright selfish and thinking only about the show. The V10s sound "great" thanks to cylinder and RPM harmonics, but that in itself does not make better racing. It just gives racing a different tune. The historics F1 car runs during a race weekend are egregious sounding monsters that further emphasize that going "louder" is going "backwards". The pinnacle of motorsports should be striving to advance the technical Formula, not reverting to a technology from 30 years ago. Could we have modern V10s that are completely biofuel and easy on the ears? I don't see why not. But we shouldn't be returning back to V10s just for the loud sound. I get the sense that some people here are just selfish and aren't thinking responsibly. Maybe they will think twice once their hearing goes bad. The older you get, the wiser you get.

[AR3-GP]

Why would you not go for Inline 5 instead? Half the weight and volume w/ exotic sound.