Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[mzso]

.... 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

Didn't they simply solve the regulation problem in the eighties when there was a boost pressure limit?

[Tommy Cookers]

Didn't they simply solve the regulation problem in the eighties when there was a boost pressure limit?

no
ideal regulation means having the optimum charge for each rpm ie boost increasing with rpm by just the right amount
with the mechanically-driven supercharging the BRM's boost would increase too much with rpm
so it was intended to incorporate VG inlet guide vanes (aka 'vortex throttling')
this was never raced - though the rumour mill said it was used in the 1970 demo run at Kyalami, giving 700 bhp
and studies were made around a 1000+ bhp setup for speed record purposes

[ENGINE TUNER]

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.

Turbo is simpler because valves do crazy things above 13k rpm, NA needs high revs, turbos don't, furthermore NA engines started approaching the speed of sound internal air velocity. Turbo made more power at lower rpms, much simpler.

[ENGINE TUNER]

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.

It all came down to Ferrari not being able to beat their turbo competitors, they couldn't compete on power, reliability or fuel management, so they banned turbos and went back NA. WRC never went away from turbos.

In 88 the turbo cars were both boost and fuel limited, and put out their lowest power output ever, and still won every race against 3.5L NA with no fuel limits.

[Tommy Cookers]

In 88 the turbo cars were both boost and fuel limited, and out out their lower power output ever, and still won every race against 3.5L NA with no fuel limits.

the 3.5 litre NA had 195 litres fuel volume limit
roughly the same energy as the turbos - because (unlike the turbos) they had no reason to use high density fuel
and regarding 'fuel management' - the (winning) turbos still used a rich mixture throughout every race

I have had this conversation before

[ENGINE TUNER]

In 88 the turbo cars were both boost and fuel limited, and out out their lower power output ever, and still won every race against 3.5L NA with no fuel limits.

the 3.5 litre NA had 195 litres fuel volume limit
about the same energy as the turbos - because (unlike the turbos) they had no reason to use high density fuel
and regarding 'fuel management' - the (winning) turbos still used a rich mixture throughout every race

I have had this conversation before

1988 turbo cars were limited to 150L fuel and NA cars had absolutely no fuel limit.

Yes they probably ran rich, but they struggled to meet fuel limits all year. Senna lost a couple races specifically because of faulty fuel gauge readings.

[vorticism]

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)

Tangent: I suppose a power version of the 2026 regulations could have looked something like:

-maintain MGUH & ICE arrangement
-keep a fuel flow rate limit (effective limit of ICE power)
-allow late fueling and ignition to increase exhaust energy and harvesting off throttle
-increase ES size
-increase MGUK size or deployment limits
-reduce fuel tank size
-reintroduce refueling

The formula no one asked for... I guess you'd end up weighing your harvest/deployment boosts with how much fuel weight it would cost you and/or frequency of refueling.

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.

Synapsid, sadly. We used to be considered dinosaurs, but no more in more recent times. A dinosaur doubly...

The theory behind both NA & forced induction is the same, just different applications thereof. You could make 1000 ancient equine units of power with a 100 part-count device, or a 150 part-count device. Which is easier/better? It's a moot point really, especially in the context of regulation and curation. As mentioned, the one with more parts is generally considered by tuners, builders, and OEMs to be the less complicated way to achieve certain ends.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Sat trackside on Thursday as the Heritage F1 cars went past, they were painful.

Sat trackside today as Sauber, Merc and Aston run current generation cars and they're loud but not painful. They also have character to my ears, just that character is when off throttle, not on throttle. Lots of bass, a throat mid-range, just no ear-splitting treble. Nice not having to wear ear protectors and being able to have conversations with your colleagues.

I still think the same as I have thought for years. F1 on TV is let down by poor mic placement.

Maybe they need the sound guy from the rock concert that was alluded to to come help out!

[SealTheRealDeal]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-p ... /10740496/
"Ben Sulayem earlier voiced a desire for V10 engines, but a V8 formula with a more modest and cheaper form of hybrid system would likely make more sense as it is more road relevant and lighter, which would answer calls to further cut down the minimum weight of F1 cars."

Seems the V10 dream is dead, but V8s are cool. I enjoyed the early 2010s cars well enough, just give 'em a bit more displacement so they're less anaemic (by F1 standards). Still doubt it'll come quite as soon as 2029, even if the regs suck the manufacturers will want to get more than three years out of the huge sum they've already invested.

CADILLAC! MAKE YOUR V8 A CROSSPLANE AND MY LIFE IS YOURS!

[WardenOfTheNorth]

How about a V8 and a PHEV system. Instead of bringing back refuelling, at the pitstop they can boost the electrical energy.

Give the manufacturers an area to compete in - faster the boost charge, the better. THAT would then be road relevant....well, as much as anything in F1 is these days anyway.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Also get rid of minimum weight for batteries. If a team has a lighter battery, fantastic.

Cost cap keeps spending in check. Batteries get lighter, therefore cars can get lighter.

[Tommy Cookers]

In 88 the turbo cars were both boost and fuel limited, and out out their lower power output ever, and still won every race against 3.5L NA with no fuel limits.

the 3.5 litre NA had 195 litres fuel volume limit
about the same energy as the turbos - because (unlike the turbos) they had no reason to use high density fuel
and regarding 'fuel management' - the (winning) turbos still used a rich mixture throughout every race

Yes they probably ran rich, but they struggled to meet fuel limits all year. Senna lost a couple races specifically because of faulty fuel gauge readings.

1988 turbo cars were limited to 150L fuel and NA cars had absolutely no fuel limit.

from 1973 the cars had a fuel volume limit of 250 litres
from 1984 the cars had a fuel volume limit of 220 litres
for 1986 and 1987 the cars had a fuel volume limit of 195 litres
for 1988 the turbo cars had a fuel volume limit of 150 litres and the NA cars had a fuel volume limit of 195 litres
all according to the Doug Nye book Autocourse 'History of the Grand Prix Car 1966-1991'
so 'absolutely no fuel limit' is nonsense

contrary to assumptions at the time, we don't know how the 2 types of engine compared in efficiency unless we know ....
the energy of 1988 NA cars 195 litres of 'ordinary' fuel relative to the energy of 1988 turbo cars 150 litres high-density fuel
(the turbos having adopted high-density fuel to subvert the fuel volume limits applicable to all the types of engine)
EDIT - we can say the turbo's fuel energy was roughly equivalent to 170 litres of the NA's fuel

the 1988 capacity equivalence is biased in favour of the turbos (ok the NA car's weight limit is 40 kg lower)
fair engine equivalence would have allowed 3.75 litre 15 cylinder NA engines
plus 1988 had control tyres - this factor also favouring the turbo cars

[ENGINE TUNER]

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/fia-p ... /10740496/
"Ben Sulayem earlier voiced a desire for V10 engines, but a V8 formula with a more modest and cheaper form of hybrid system would likely make more sense as it is more road relevant and lighter, which would answer calls to further cut down the minimum weight of F1 cars."

Seems the V10 dream is dead, but V8s are cool. I enjoyed the early 2010s cars well enough, just give 'em a bit more displacement so they're less anaemic (by F1 standards). Still doubt it'll come quite as soon as 2029, even if the regs suck the manufacturers will want to get more than three years out of the huge sum they've already invested.

CADILLAC! MAKE YOUR V8 A CROSSPLANE AND MY LIFE IS YOURS!

An NA v8 will not be lighter, especially if it has kers/mguk. It will also require twice as much fuel and much larger(draggier) heat exchangers. If it revs over 15k rpm it will need port fuel injection and it's lifespan will be much reduced.

[mzso]

"Ben Sulayem earlier voiced a desire for V10 engines, but a V8 formula with a more modest and cheaper form of hybrid system would likely make more sense as it is more road relevant and lighter, which would answer calls to further cut down the minimum weight of F1 cars."

Seems the V10 dream is dead, but V8s are cool. I enjoyed the early 2010s cars well enough, just give 'em a bit more displacement so they're less anaemic (by F1 standards). Still doubt it'll come quite as soon as 2029, even if the regs suck the manufacturers will want to get more than three years out of the huge sum they've already invested.

So you would go to a small V8, then inflate them to cancel out any potential weight gains.
No matter what the manufacturers want if if all the viewers hate the formula, which is a real possibility. Not sure if the FIA kept enough rights to change the engine formula with only three years notice though.

[mzso]

How about a V8 and a PHEV system. Instead of bringing back refuelling, at the pitstop they can boost the electrical energy.

Give the manufacturers an area to compete in - faster the boost charge, the better. THAT would then be road relevant....well, as much as anything in F1 is these days anyway.

During a 2 second pit-stop they could hardly connect a connector, much lest "boost" anything.
Also how would they "boost"? Magic. There's neither infrastructure, nor batteries that can charge in seconds.

Also get rid of minimum weight for batteries. If a team has a lighter battery, fantastic.

Cost cap keeps spending in check. Batteries get lighter, therefore cars can get lighter.

The way to make things lighter is to just downsize the batteries. Leaving just enough to make recovery usable.