Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[ENGINE TUNER]

Have to say, I'm currently listening to a load of LMP cars going past (not sure which - I think it's an open test day for various customers) and the variety of exhaust notes is fantastic.

The more I think about it, the more I'd be in favour of them opening up the PU regs to allow different PU layouts.

Not sure how they'd regulate to keep them in the same of ballpark performance-wise, but that's for people smarter than me.

They were all converging to 1.5L v6 in the 80s, then they all converged to v10 in the 90s. They would probably all converge to a 1.6L v6 or I4 if full choice was allowed now. There is no BoP in F1 so they will all eventually converge to the best solution which with today's technology is pretty what we have now a 1.6Lv6 turbo hybrid with mguh, the only possibly better option is the 1.6L I4 turbo hybrid which was supposed come in 2013, but Ferrari forced a switch to v6.

The manufacturers came together and agreed that 1.6Lv6 is what they wanted and what was best for them. This was not something the FIA forced on them.

[ENGINE TUNER]

It's the sort of thing that if it's all you're hearing for two days straight, then I can see how you just adjust to that as 'normal' and maybe even good(it's still a 1000hp race car engine, after all).

This just shows utterly pointless is to obsess about the sound.

Yep, sound has not won 1 race or scored 1 point, usually the loudest engine in the more inefficient.

[mzso]

As I have explained many times on these boards, the 18in tire/wheel combination is 3x the mass of the 2010 Bridgestone tire/wheel combo. The front tires are so heavy now that the FIA has mandated that teams double the front wheel tethers. Heavier tires and wheels require heavier brakes, heavier hub/axles, inboard and outbound suspension components and stronger/heavier suspension mounting points. The heavier tire/wheel combo has been the greatest mass increase since 2013.

Yes the dry mass of the 2013 was less than the 2014 car by about 40kg(tires mass increase not included) but because the 2014 turbo hybrids used and carried so much less fuel(and thus required a smaller fuel tank) the 2014 cars had less mass on the start grid than the 2013 cars. This is all of course before the addition of the halo and the required strengthening of its mounting points. Most people don't realize that the energy store did not change much in mass or volume from 2013 kers to 2014 turbo hybrid, same 25kg maximum and most teams have it down to the 20kg minimum. The mguk is 7kg, the mguh is 5kg.

Being large is not why they are heavy because most of the "largeness" is empty space between the clutch and rear axles, which is why it was easy for the teams to lower the wheelbase by 20cm in 2022 and then again another 20 cm for 2026 even while making the cars slightly narrower. It is empty space like a van which can be larger but lighter than an suv filled with seating etc. There is almost no mass between clutch, which is ahead of where the side pods end and the rear axles and the transmissions have been made unnecessarily long, but still have minimal mass.

Finally, the turbo power unit, plus the mass of fuel and fuel tank and coolers is less than it was for the 2.4Lv8s plus kers. And they require much less drag inducing cooling.

Okay then. What sort of values do you have for tire/wheel mass increase and related suspension stuff?

[vorticism]

Don't have anything technical to add, but yeah, I prefer the less loud, more complex sounds of the current cars when going to a grueling hot race I don't need to have my eardrums scream too, for a relatively uninteresting V8 drone (V10 actually was way to much for me last time I heard it in the Torro Rosso's in 2006 at Hockenheim, no thank you, piercing loud but not very interesting to hear.)

You can have both. Consider how the 1.6 hybrid turbos were curated. A fuel flow curve was mandated, which means things like boost curves could also be used to curate an end product. Conceivably you could reduce displacement, specify a low boost turbocharger, and still force an operating range around 20k RPM, +/- 2k. You gain a smaller piston with less mass from the displacement loss (enabling high revs), and then gain some back with the strengthening it will need to survive light boost. Some might say that's too fake, but it's as fake as the current regs.

The current fuel is mostly because of the limitations of direct injection, it just can't keep up above 15k rpm or so. Port injection is far less efficient.

Hadn't called for DI, was assuming port injection for this scenario, but now that you bring it up it could still be used. I've seen mention of something like 4-6 injection events per intake stroke used currently. I'm not sure if that was once specified by the regs, I can't find it the 2025 set, or if it was a choice of the engine makers, or simply the limit of available piezo injector technology. Regardless, if we assume five events and then approximately halve the duration of the intake stroke and fueling window by roughly doubling the engine rotation speed, we could still have maybe 2-3 injection events while the remaining portion of required fueling could be supplied by port injection. Several instances of OEMs pursuing split port and direct injection fueling.

Not sure about your latter statement. The operational frequency limit development window of fluid injection valves is not set in stone. Yes, the state of the art of injectors circa 2014 may have informed the fuel curve, and they may have been trying to prevent an arms race for that component. These are third part components from suppliers. Had one supplier outdone others and made exclusive deals with one engine maker it could have hampered parity.