Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[ACRO]

I think its not about v10 or something else , i think its about a generally thrilling sound and spectacle infront of the tv .

You can make an atmo inline4 a brutal screamer like we see on superbikes with open exhausts .

To be honest : the v6 turbo,s of the 80,s were also anything else than vacuum cleaners .

Generally the engine in an f1 car was always the heart and soul of the car and this sport .

The current v6 are a bit boring since they are highly regulated and the goal is to be as efficient as possible . They are just a hidden part of the car and expected to do their job , as efficient and green as possible .

[mzso]

Got fed up with these vaccum cleaners and I can't imagine 2026 engines that would most likely sound like Formula e. When there is already a Formula e, I don't understand why F1 has to go that way. Formula 1 is racing first and foremost and then comes the technology part. Dumbing it down was a bad idea. V10s with fully sustainable fuels should keep F1 as an attractive racing series, while the other series' can be labs for road car tech.

Going back to atmospheric V10 would be dumbing down... Dinosaur tech.

[coaster]

V10's were amazing, but, no matter how i try i cannot hide in the past.
Time moves on.

[JordanMugen]

Going back to atmospheric V10 would be dumbing down... Dinosaur tech.

Why were regulators happy to ban turbochargers and go back to dinosaur tech in 1989?

In the mid-80's one would have assumed most motorsports would be turbocharged for ever more, yet there was a renaissance of naturally aspirated regulations in DTM/ITC, BTCC, ATCC, F1 and elsewhere in the 1990's -- most curious!

What explains the renaissance in screaming naturally aspirated engines across many kinds of (formerly turbocharged) motorsport in the 90's and 00's?

V10's were amazing, but, no matter how i try i cannot hide in the past.
Time moves on.

Yet it could never have happened at all. What compelled regulators to move away from the dominant 1500cc supercharged regulation of Formula One?

Likewise, the Super Tourers could never have happened in place of the iconic turbo Sierras (obviously rallying stuck with turbocharged Group A, embracing all-wheel-drive, until the more modified turbocharged World Rally Car rules came along), the V8 Supercars could never have happened in place of the iconic turbo Sierras and so on and so forth. (If a F1 motor is a dinosaur, then what is a NASCAR-based Ford or Chevrolet small block pushrod V8 in an Australian Falc-adore, that was an absolute return to dinosaurs (complete with live rear axle and spool diff) having banned the turbo Skyline GT-Rs and Sierras?!).

Yet these are all much loved, even though they could easily have never happened at all. F1 could easily have continued with 1.5L supercharged or 3.5L NA (and 3.5L NA hopelessly uncompetitive given the generous boost limit on the supercharged regulations even by 1988) up to the present day and never had a screaming NA V12-V10-V8 era (indeed the original proposal was even more dinosaur-ish, with mandatory Cosworth-like V8s for everyone).

[vorticism]

Imagine not liking dinosaurs, that's crazy. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't turbocharging the simpler, more cost effective, more power dense (power:weight) way to make 1000 hp, compared to NA. Could a large displacement 1000 hp NA engine be lightweighted enough to compete with a forced induction engine 1000 hp NA engine? We know a small displacement NA could pull this off (insert sonorous dinosaur bellows), via very high engine speed. I'm digressing though, the non-saurian, presumably mammalian associations credited to the current engines are due to their combustion tech and hybrid system, namely the MGUH, which the dinosaur extinction celebrators may have to console themselves about losing next season. Incrementally, the dinosaurs are being cloned, rebred, and brought back to life? I've seen movies which suggest that can be both entertaining and disastrous. Plain old fashioned unelectrified turbocharging returns, from the EIGHTIES. That's fifty million years before the nineties. What next? Roar.

[coaster]

It all comes back noises, i often imagined a fully active aero surface racecar. Upon deceleration, all the surfaces would lift up to create huge drag, acceleration they would all slip back smoothed.
Much like a bird.
It wouldnt matter what motor powered it, it would be so visually striking that tech nerds would in raptures.
(adding a screaming V10 would add to the spectacle though).

[JordanMugen]

Imagine not liking dinosaurs, that's crazy. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't turbocharging the simpler, more cost effective, more power dense (power:weight) way to make 1000 hp, compared to NA.

Bizarrely, as I alluded to above, the turbocharged engines were banned in F1 (and the BTCC) to reduce costs -- not to increase costs?!

Somehow it worked and there was initially an influx of both works and privateer engine manufacturers (and works and privateer BTCC entries), who for whatever reason, had found the 1.5L turbocharged rules (or turbo Group A rules) more expensive and quit competing with them?!

If I'm not mistaken by 1988, there were very few turbocharged Grand Prix engine suppliers remaining despite these engines (you say) being cheaper and simpler than the 1989 naturally aspirated engines?

[ Is it fairer to say that the cost of a Grand Prix engine is equal to however much is available to spend (now capped at $95m USD p/a), and we are unlikely to see privateer engines, be they Hart inline-four turbos or Hart V10s, anytime soon. ]

More power dense potentially yes, but I struggle to see the turbo engine (say 1.5L inline four @ 1000hp compared to 3.5L V12 @ 1000hp) as simpler once the intercoolers (and if applicable intercooler coolant coolers) are added. The basic plumbing of a naturally aspirated engine by comparison is very simple and elegant:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... engine.jpg

Straight in, straight out, no intercoolers, no intercooler coolant coolers if water cooled, no turbochargers -- NA simplicity.

The HART inline-four for comparison:

https://live.staticflickr.com/7176/1403 ... 4bf1_b.jpg

Obviously the HART is a single turbo inline-four whereas twin-turbo V6 engines become predominant in Formula One by 1988.

Upon deceleration, all the surfaces would lift up to create huge drag, acceleration they would all slip back smoothed.
Much like a bird.

The 2026 regulations will be a rubbish two-mode version of this!

Ideally it should be fully variable and programmable for all points in the lap.

[vorticism]

The basic plumbing of a naturally aspirated engine by comparison is very simple and elegant...

Correct. I meant forced induction as being simpler for the tuner and constructor, although it is more complex when viewed as the assemblage of its parts. A result of the existence of advanced industrial markets--it is sometimes easier to assemble something that is complex than to build something simple from scratch.

Around 2006, F1 had few problems with audiences. Fans weren't complaining about the cars at least. The V10s specifically were not ditched because anyone outside of F1 was complaining about them; the opposite was true. They were still a point of fascination for fans when they were axed. The V10s had become, accidentally (as you allude to), the incredible sound of F1. When you find a gem, do you keep it? Or throw it back in the ground. They were ditched because the heads of F1 became afraid, began to have doubts, became concerned about costs. Ostensibly at least. 2007 arrived with recession. As ever in the corporate worlds, cutting costs meant removing value from the product, with no sacrifice made in the management salary and stock options pool. De-content and fire while asking for a raise is the name of the game for the dull wizards of profit-seeking. So arrived the V8s, which were the beginning of the end for F1’s halcyon days, because the higher-ups became afraid, became doubtful, and ultimately stabbed themselves in the back. It was F1's managers who lacked vision, direction, and confidence, and ultimately caused the sport to wander aimlessly into its current state. Maybe not totally aimlessly--greed and virtue signalling seemed to be the only thing left guiding the upper end of the hierarchy. At which point, why not sell your rights to a showman with an ironic mustache. Everything in its right place.

[mzso]

Why were regulators happy to ban turbochargers and go back to dinosaur tech in 1989?

In the mid-80's one would have assumed most motorsports would be turbocharged for ever more, yet there was a renaissance of naturally aspirated regulations in DTM/ITC, BTCC, ATCC, F1 and elsewhere in the 1990's -- most curious!

What explains the renaissance in screaming naturally aspirated engines across many kinds of (formerly turbocharged) motorsport in the 90's and 00's?

In F1 they claimed costs. But surely the same shallow noise-romanticism was also a factor.

Also there was still room for development. But as far as I know after pneumatic valves they didn't come up with anything huge.

[mzso]

Imagine not liking dinosaurs, that's crazy. Correct me if I'm wrong but isn't turbocharging the simpler, more cost effective, more power dense (power:weight) way to make 1000 hp, compared to NA. Could a large displacement 1000 hp NA engine be lightweighted enough to compete with a forced induction engine 1000 hp NA engine? We know a small displacement NA could pull this off (insert sonorous dinosaur bellows), via very high engine speed. I'm digressing though, the non-saurian, presumably mammalian associations credited to the current engines are due to their combustion tech and hybrid system, namely the MGUH, which the dinosaur extinction celebrators may have to console themselves about losing next season. Incrementally, the dinosaurs are being cloned, rebred, and brought back to life? I've seen movies which suggest that can be both entertaining and disastrous. Plain old fashioned unelectrified turbocharging returns, from the EIGHTIES. That's fifty million years before the nineties. What next? Roar.

Having a turbo, intercooler, and dealing with high pressures, etc is simpler?
The things you listed means it's just better, rather than simpler.

Looking past the metaphor abuse, I think on the immediate term would be best go with keeping H/K, loosing most of the battery weight and downsizing the engines (to make them lighter).

[mzso]

Around 2006, F1 had few problems with audiences. Fans weren't complaining about the cars at least.

Weren't they? I remember many complaints about lack of on-track action/overtakes and boring races, and inability to follow.

[mzso]

So arrived the V8s, which were the beginning of the end for F1’s halcyon days,

If you mean the best of times. That was more like the eighties, with turbos.

[vorticism]

Compiling...

Looking past the metaphor abuse...

It was you who brought dinosaurs into this. I'm descended from them, so I take it personally.

If you mean the best of times. That was more like the eighties, with turbos.

Something like that, although don't trust every explanation your AI renders for you. I'm speaking of aesthetics and the sound that set F1 apart historically was the NA sound. The turbos in the 80s, as now, sound like many other series. The nature of the basic engine geometries. Visually, both the 80s and 90s cars shared many similarities and came to define the F1 look. The FIA & Liberty increasingly want to play curator, yet not everyone has the knack for that.

Having a turbo, intercooler, and dealing with high pressures, etc is simpler?
The things you listed means it's just better, rather than simpler.

Often, yes. All things being equal it's usually simpler to use forced induction to increase power output significantly. See my following post:

I meant forced induction as being simpler for the tuner and constructor, although it is more complex when viewed as the assemblage of its parts. A result of the existence of advanced industrial markets--it is sometimes easier to assemble something that is complex than to build something simple from scratch.

Around 2006, F1 had few problems with audiences. Fans weren't complaining about the cars at least.

Weren't they? I remember many complaints about lack of on-track action/overtakes and boring races, and inability to follow.

These are ever present in the age of televised broadcasts. Even now, with perhaps the tightest grid ever, this complaint is still made. Drivers still even complain about dirty air, which this formula was supposed to, and probably did, amend. But this is, to reapply your aphorism, shallow overtake-romanticism. Regardless, it's good to see you embrace turbocharging. Soon you'll be acknowledging that there was indeed an engine regulations change in 2014. We're making progress.

[Tommy Cookers]

.... turbocharging.... there was indeed an engine regulations change in 2014. We're making progress.

turbocharging has a boost-regulation problem - this was easily (pseudo) solved by waste-gating
then 2014 rules rigged the fueling regime to help this regulation (and everything hybrid)

regulation was further eased by the 7 or 8 speed seamless gearshifts
then further again by allowing variable geometry inlet guide vanes ...
(and of course the higher alcohol-blend fuel) ....

all perfect for a one-make series re-introducing the endangered specie BRM V-16 ....
they should have ordered a new batch when recently that opportunity arose

[mzso]

It was you who brought dinosaurs into this. I'm descended from them, so I take it personally.

Are you a bird?

Often, yes. All things being equal it's usually simpler to use forced induction to increase power output significantly. See my following post:

I would say better, rather than simpler. For one you can make the engines more compact and lighter.
I don't think there's anything complicated with high revving NA's anymore since they were around for 20+ years. What's left to develop? Maybe more modern coatings to decrease wear and friction.

Something like that, although don't trust every explanation your AI renders for you. I'm speaking of aesthetics and the sound that set F1 apart historically was the NA sound. The turbos in the 80s, as now, sound like many other series. The nature of the basic engine geometries. Visually, both the 80s and 90s cars shared many similarities and came to define the F1 look. The FIA & Liberty increasingly want to play curator, yet not everyone has the knack for that.

Here I thought it was the history, the prestige, the high tech, the best drivers, the big money, and the popularity that makes F1 stand out.
And your statement is clearly false. F1 sounds nothing like any other series with the MGU-H sound.
Looks and sound can and should change.

These are ever present in the age of televised broadcasts. Even now, with perhaps the tightest grid ever, this complaint is still made. Drivers still even complain about dirty air, which this formula was supposed to, and probably did, amend. But this is, to reapply your aphorism, shallow overtake-romanticism. Regardless, it's good to see you embrace turbocharging. Soon you'll be acknowledging that there was indeed an engine regulations change in 2014. We're making progress.

In racing there is supposed to be ability to overtake. At was better for a short while in 2022, but the following ability improvements are pretty much cancelled out by now.
No-one denied there was an engine regulation change. I don't think your insults are merited.