Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[JordanMugen]

Any idea of how many RPM these V6 Hybrids would be able to hit if there was no limit? 15K?

They would rev less not more with no limit. They only rev above 11,500rpm because maximum fuel flow is not permitted below this rpm (IIRC).

To have high-revving turbo engines, you need pseudo-NA engines with a very low boost limit like in CART.

[Tommy Cookers]

... They only rev above 11,500rpm because maximum fuel flow is not permitted below this rpm (IIRC).

10500 rpm (IIRC)

[WardenOfTheNorth]

EV's are far more energy efficient... than ICE....

nonsense
as most electrical energy is made by ICE (or other thermal) action

I see we're ignoring science and facts in favour of selective editing.

I was talking purely about as a means of propulsion, not the whole energy cycle. Though even with the latter, EV's are more efficient.

[vorticism]

They're no good when it comes to converting chemical energy into kinetic energy. Which may be shocking news for some. Where this now places electric motors on arbitrary superiority-inferiority spectra I'm not sure. I'm off to reddit to find out.

A motor purpose is to move not to convert chemical energy. And electric motors a better when it comes to performance aspect. Efficiency, torque, power to weight, responsivenes.

Of course, but you said, "electric motors are just plain superior in all regards," hence my prodding. Makes little sense to rank apples to oranges. Hence my joke, paraphrased: "Well, they suck at converting chemical energy to kinetic energy." It seems the joke was lost on some, and I was presumed to be a heretic of the Electric Vehicles religion (I am not). If you had only a can of fuel and no electricity you'd be wanting an ICE.

...

They're no good when it comes to converting chemical energy into kinetic energy. Which may be shocking news for some.

Sure. In a world where 70-80% is lower than 25-30%

EV's are far more energy efficient, whatever way the energy is stored (don't forget that batteries use chemical energy), than ICE....

Percentages in a vacuum, hmm. Compelling, they do look sciencey, but an EV is not an electric motor, and, electric motors convert electrical energy to kinetic energy. Work from there. You must be in your early years at EV seminary. I look forward to you becoming a deacon or vicar some day.

...I don't know why the FIA keep sticking gigantic full width front wings onto their cars the past twenty years. Still this exists in '26, giant endplates on the FW larger than FW elements themselves. I am though optimistic about the new bargeboard and semi-flat floor concept.

Turns out the Floors maybe completely flat, from recent reports. So, the emphasis on the ground effect will be basically non-existent next year and it's all about CoG next year.

We could see not only massive changes in aero and engine packages, But also a massive overhaul across the grid in the mechanical aspect as well, because now for certain teams, they are not dependent on the pull-rod in the front anymore. And the downwash sidepod concept will more than likely be scrapped by many teams. So will there be rake concepts coming back? We'll have to see.

Plus, looks like wheel covers may no longer exist next year, because the wheel rims will be exposed, so the whole brake cooling advantage is out of the window.

Really, the FIA are going back to the 2017-2021 regs just more simplified with active aero. I never seen a bigger regulation change than this... The ground effect era really failed.

Good points. First part: Depends on what you mean by floor and flat. There is freedom to undulate the surface of the floor, but also there's not much room to do it within, due to the legality box. I say semi-flat also because the front of the floor is permitted to ramp upward, which was not permitted on previous flat floor F1 cars.

Comparing to 2017: I'm expecting to see rake return, although the changes relative to the 2009-2021 floors with the the front ramp and the taller, longer rear diffuser, might change the importance of rake. If they get suitable DF from these features, maybe they won't chase high rake angles. Which affects CoG and choices to use pullrod or pushrod at the rear axle. The lack of a large beam wing + the low rear wing implies we might see the same sort of low engine cover outlets from 2017 onward, that exited between the suspension arms , but I think some teams might take advantage of the larger louver boxes and we'll see new concepts there.

The wheel covers are going away, replaced by the discs (see Qvist's renderings on X) but the cake tins ("drum") will still be present, along with the same sort of inlet and outlet ducts. If there was any interplay between the cake tin and the wheel and wheel cover in the current formula, then this is being altered.

As to whether the 2022 regs failed: Mclaren and Red Bull might disagree. Regardless, the past couple seasons have seen a very tight grid--was this not the goal? It's interesting that even within a tight field Mclaren are making it look like it isn't. How to sum it up... RB mastered the tenths, Mclaren have mastered the hundredths (?). That the 2022 regs lasted only four seasons seems odd. When was the last time a regs cycle was so short?

Alt history moment: had Mateschitz lived longer, what would we have seen from RB in '24 and '25? The RB20 and RB21 that never were, against McLaren. Where would Newey have taken further development? Would the RB21 have ended up looking like the MCL39, or something different.

race engines have had one bank exhausting via a turbocharger and the other bank exhausting directly to atmosphere

Do tell!

[mzso]

.. mining crude oil, refining it, hauling around with ships trucks, pipes, etc...

these combined have only the same % efficiency loss as the combined electric equivalents

Not at all. Electricity generation is far more versatile as well as, so differences can vary.

[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.

If my memory is correct, they started with intention to go do V8 when most teams were running with one cylinder models.... There was also talks of straight fours like BMW in the 1980's.. The V8 was too expensive and made too much friction and the l4 would need a bracing frame around it, and so the V6 was the best compromise. Something like that.

For the next generation I'm hoping they go with V10 naturally aspirated Hybrid and nothing less.

It was agreed in 2010 that an I4 would come in for 2013, Ferrari threatened to use their veto until a v6 was agreed upon because Ferrari said they would never run an I4 in a road car. The brace(subframe) complaint was an excuse, smoke and mirrors, the current v6 has bracing built into the valve covers. An I4 would have been cheaper and even more efficient, and nearly every manufacturer in the world makes a 1.6 or 3L turbocharged I4, except for Ferrari.

Anything naturally aspirated is outdated, obsolete, inefficient and foolish. Carrying 100kg more fuel just to hear some more vroom vroom that will force most to wear hearing protection is foolish. Reintroducing refueling that will take away from on track action and allow for more Alonso race fixing is foolish.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

They're no good when it comes to converting chemical energy into kinetic energy. Which may be shocking news for some. Where this now places electric motors on arbitrary superiority-inferiority spectra I'm not sure. I'm off to reddit to find out.

A motor purpose is to move not to convert chemical energy. And electric motors a better when it comes to performance aspect. Efficiency, torque, power to weight, responsivenes.

Of course, but you said, "electric motors are just plain superior in all regards," hence my prodding. Makes little sense to rank apples to oranges. Hence my joke, paraphrased: "Well, they suck at converting chemical energy to kinetic energy." It seems the joke was lost on some, and I was presumed to be a heretic of the Electric Vehicles religion (I am not). If you had only a can of fuel and no electricity you'd be wanting an ICE.

...

They're no good when it comes to converting chemical energy into kinetic energy. Which may be shocking news for some.

Sure. In a world where 70-80% is lower than 25-30%

EV's are far more energy efficient, whatever way the energy is stored (don't forget that batteries use chemical energy), than ICE....

Percentages in a vacuum, hmm. Compelling, they do look sciencey, but an EV is not an electric motor, and, electric motors convert electrical energy to kinetic energy. Work from there. You must be in your early years at EV seminary. I look forward to you becoming a deacon or vicar some day.

...I don't know why the FIA keep sticking gigantic full width front wings onto their cars the past twenty years. Still this exists in '26, giant endplates on the FW larger than FW elements themselves. I am though optimistic about the new bargeboard and semi-flat floor concept.

Turns out the Floors maybe completely flat, from recent reports. So, the emphasis on the ground effect will be basically non-existent next year and it's all about CoG next year.

We could see not only massive changes in aero and engine packages, But also a massive overhaul across the grid in the mechanical aspect as well, because now for certain teams, they are not dependent on the pull-rod in the front anymore. And the downwash sidepod concept will more than likely be scrapped by many teams. So will there be rake concepts coming back? We'll have to see.

Plus, looks like wheel covers may no longer exist next year, because the wheel rims will be exposed, so the whole brake cooling advantage is out of the window.

Really, the FIA are going back to the 2017-2021 regs just more simplified with active aero. I never seen a bigger regulation change than this... The ground effect era really failed.

Good points. First part: Depends on what you mean by floor and flat. There is freedom to undulate the surface of the floor, but also there's not much room to do it within, due to the legality box. I say semi-flat also because the front of the floor is permitted to ramp upward, which was not permitted on previous flat floor F1 cars.

Comparing to 2017: I'm expecting to see rake return, although the changes relative to the 2009-2021 floors with the the front ramp and the taller, longer rear diffuser, might change the importance of rake. If they get suitable DF from these features, maybe they won't chase high rake angles. Which affects CoG and choices to use pullrod or pushrod at the rear axle. The lack of a large beam wing + the low rear wing implies we might see the same sort of low engine cover outlets from 2017 onward, that exited between the suspension arms , but I think some teams might take advantage of the larger louver boxes and we'll see new concepts there.

The wheel covers are going away, replaced by the discs (see Qvist's renderings on X) but the cake tins ("drum") will still be present, along with the same sort of inlet and outlet ducts. If there was any interplay between the cake tin and the wheel and wheel cover in the current formula, then this is being altered.

As to whether the 2022 regs failed: Mclaren and Red Bull might disagree. Regardless, the past couple seasons have seen a very tight grid--was this not the goal? It's interesting that even within a tight field Mclaren are making it look like it isn't. How to sum it up... RB mastered the tenths, Mclaren have mastered the hundredths (?). That the 2022 regs lasted only four seasons seems odd. When was the last time a regs cycle was so short?

Alt history moment: had Mateschitz lived longer, what would we have seen from RB in '24 and '25? The RB20 and RB21 that never were, against McLaren. Where would Newey have taken further development? Would the RB21 have ended up looking like the MCL39, or something different.

race engines have had one bank exhausting via a turbocharger and the other bank exhausting directly to atmosphere

Do tell!

Percentages were not in a vacuum, they were based on EV cars compared to equivalent ICE cars.

[PlatinumZealot]

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.

If my memory is correct, they started with intention to go do V8 when most teams were running with one cylinder models.... There was also talks of straight fours like BMW in the 1980's.. The V8 was too expensive and made too much friction and the l4 would need a bracing frame around it, and so the V6 was the best compromise. Something like that.

For the next generation I'm hoping they go with V10 naturally aspirated Hybrid and nothing less.

It was agreed in 2010 that an I4 would come in for 2013, Ferrari threatened to use their veto until a v6 was agreed upon because Ferrari said they would never run an I4 in a road car. The brace(subframe) complaint was an excuse, smoke and mirrors, the current v6 has bracing built into the valve covers. An I4 would have been cheaper and even more efficient, and nearly every manufacturer in the world makes a 1.6 or 3L turbocharged I4, except for Ferrari.

Anything naturally aspirated is outdated, obsolete, inefficient and foolish. Carrying 100kg more fuel just to hear some more vroom vroom that will force most to wear hearing protection is foolish. Reintroducing refueling that will take away from on track action and allow for more Alonso race fixing is foolish.

I did a thread (or a post back in 2014?) on a proposed hybrid NA V10 using way less fuel than people would think. It also had a charging mode using the small generstors on the exhaust (probably not needed anyway).

It wont need 100kg more of fuel because of the heavy electrfication. When I made the thread it the fully synthetic fuels wasn't really a consideration for the FIA as yet, but now it's definitely on the table and that strengthens the case for going back to the glorious NA sound and light weighting that it enables.

I really grew tired of the "road relevance" regs once they did their job of attracting the manufacturers. It's all played out now.

[Seanspeed]

I really grew tired of the "road relevance" regs once they did their job of attracting the manufacturers. It's all played out now.

I dont know what you're defining as 'road relevance regs', as this was an effort that spanned multiple decades and many different regulation eras. And as we saw, you couldn't 'lock in' any manufacturers longer term, as they would and could leave as they saw fit. You cant just bait them in and then switch up things and expect them to stay.

It's also not 'played out now'. The '26 regs were quite clearly successful in bringing in interest and participation.

The problem is ever that 'road relevance' is more a perceptual thing than anything that has to be real. Car manufacturers dont want to jump into an ultra expensive sport like F1 while pushing what is seen by much of the public as 'outdated' technology(aka pure ICE powertrains). It required a serious commitment to hybrid technology to get them onboard with the new regs.

And to be clear, I do like your suggestion, ignorant as I am about its actual feasibility. I truly think that F1 has lost something significant with the lackluster noise and volume of these modern hybrid setups.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

I really grew tired of the "road relevance" regs once they did their job of attracting the manufacturers. It's all played out now.

I dont know what you're defining as 'road relevance regs', as this was an effort that spanned multiple decades and many different regulation eras. And as we saw, you couldn't 'lock in' any manufacturers longer term, as they would and could leave as they saw fit. You cant just bait them in and then switch up things and expect them to stay.

It's also not 'played out now'. The '26 regs were quite clearly successful in bringing in interest and participation.

The problem is ever that 'road relevance' is more a perceptual thing than anything that has to be real. Car manufacturers dont want to jump into an ultra expensive sport like F1 while pushing what is seen by much of the public as 'outdated' technology(aka pure ICE powertrains). It required a serious commitment to hybrid technology to get them onboard with the new regs.

And to be clear, I do like your suggestion, ignorant as I am about its actual feasibility. I truly think that F1 has lost something significant with the lackluster noise and volume of these modern hybrid setups.

Ironically the fix is easy. Proper sound reproduction on the world feed. They sound so much better in person than on TV.

[CHT]

The debate of V10 vs V6 hybrid F1 engine is very similar to the debate betwen EV and ICE for hyper or supercar.
Its not just about speed and performance, its emotion
Purist will prefer the V10, while technologist and environmentalist may prefer current hybrid.

Personally I am prefer entertainment and V10 my choice

https://enginepatrol.com/the-appetite-i ... no-market/

[mzso]

It was agreed in 2010 that an I4 would come in for 2013, Ferrari threatened to use their veto until a v6 was agreed upon because Ferrari said they would never run an I4 in a road car. The brace(subframe) complaint was an excuse, smoke and mirrors, the current v6 has bracing built into the valve covers. An I4 would have been cheaper and even more efficient, and nearly every manufacturer in the world makes a 1.6 or 3L turbocharged I4, except for Ferrari.

Anything naturally aspirated is outdated, obsolete, inefficient and foolish. Carrying 100kg more fuel just to hear some more vroom vroom that will force most to wear hearing protection is foolish. Reintroducing refueling that will take away from on track action and allow for more Alonso race fixing is foolish.

I don't know why F1 keeps whoring itself out to Ferrari. Ferrari lives out of F1, not vice versa.

Would it save much mass if they went from V6 to i4?

[mzso]

I did a thread (or a post back in 2014?) on a proposed hybrid NA V10 using way less fuel than people would think. It also had a charging mode using the small generstors on the exhaust (probably not needed anyway).

It wont need 100kg more of fuel because of the heavy electrfication.

So you would take a large V10 and add electric motors and batteries atop of that. It wouldn't carry around 100kg extra fuel, it would be heavier by that much without fuel.

[mzso]

Purist will prefer the V10, while technologist and environmentalist may prefer current hybrid.

Purists of what?