Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[JordanMugen]

It's obvious that the cars will be significantly lighter going to NA with light hybrid. I only mentioned refuelling as something i think would bring more excitement to race strategies.

That's an interesting view which contradicts mzso!

If we say a 2.4 V8 would be subject to the same 95kg minimum weight as before, then what would the minimum weights be for a 3.0 V10 or 3.5 V12 respectively?

Does it scale linearly, so let's say 95kg 2.4 V8, 119kg 3.0 V10 and 142kg 3.6 V12?

The V12 would be a little on the heavy side, but no worse than say Mercedes using a 6.2 V8 in their AMG GT GT3 racer when they could use a 2.0 I4 turbo like in their C63 AMG. The "nostalgic, hollow" Mercedes V8 still seems to hit the performance, drivability, economy & durability targets required of an endurance GT3 car!

[PlatinumZealot]

Why would a fan want an F1 car to have a boosted 2.0 liter 4 banager? I don't understand? Don't they have WRC for that?

[JordanMugen]

Why would a fan want an F1 car to have a boosted 2.0 liter 4 banager? I don't understand? Don't they have WRC for that?

I like NA, but a 2.0 I4 turbo is power dense and works just fine in Super Formula. Mercedes, Audi and Honda already have the Super Formula/DTM/SuperGT regulation engine - while perhaps others which such engines like Nissan, BMW and Toyota could also be tempted?

Obviously the original proposal was 1.6 I4 in 2014. The V6 doesn't really gain anything apart from structural considerations (and even then many say that is an excuse more than anything else).

There have obviously been various famous 1.5 I4 turbo F1 engines in the past like the BMW and HART.

[CHT]

It's obvious that the cars will be significantly lighter going to NA with light hybrid. I only mentioned refuelling as something i think would bring more excitement to race strategies.

That's an interesting view which contradicts mzso!

If we say a 2.4 V8 would be subject to the same 95kg minimum weight as before, then what would the minimum weights be for a 3.0 V10 or 3.5 V12 respectively?

Does it scale linearly, so let's say 95kg 2.4 V8, 119kg 3.0 V10 and 142kg 3.6 V12?

The V12 would be a little on the heavy side, but no worse than say Mercedes using a 6.2 V8 in their AMG GT GT3 racer when they could use a 2.0 I4 turbo like in their C63 AMG. The "nostalgic, hollow" Mercedes V8 still seems to hit the performance, drivability, economy & durability targets required of an endurance GT3 car!

I believe a return to V10 doesnt need to be 3.0. It could be smaller.

[mzso]

IMO, this clearly demonstrates that a naturally aspirated engine can provide sufficient power, drivability, reliability, economy and simplicity at an acceptable package weight.

No it does not. In F1 it would be a significant regression in most of these regards. For identical road cars tuned for racing, it doesn't matter.

[mzso]

The cars were lighter even after refuelling was banned.
The battery itself is 20Kg or so.as it always was since 2009. The turbo engine, it's coolers and thicker parts are the issue here.

It's obvious that the cars will be significantly lighter going to NA with light hybrid. I only mentioned refuelling as something i think would bring more excitement to race strategies.

It's anything but obvious, it's more like the other way around. They are lost smaller in displacement and cylinder number. Cars didn't become big lummoxes because of them. Though I find no exact values, by the looks of it even old turbo F1 engines were lighter then the less powerful NA engines that followed, even at their latest iteration.
Also the PUs have high minimum weighs nowadays plus two extra electric motors. Not to mention 3 engines allowed for a season.

Why would a fan want an F1 car to have a boosted 2.0 liter 4 banager? I don't understand? Don't they have WRC for that?

Maybe they would be fans of racing and technology, not so much want to relive their childhoods? (2.0 is pointless 1.5 was and is enough.)
For me V10 was the sound when I started watching F1 for several years. It's nostalgic. But I don't wan them back just because of that.

[CHT]

IMO, this clearly demonstrates that a naturally aspirated engine can provide sufficient power, drivability, reliability, economy and simplicity at an acceptable package weight.

No it does not. In F1 it would be a significant regression in most of these regards. For identical road cars tuned for racing, it doesn't matter.

May not be regression. If F1 technical rules can lead to cleaner and greener V10 powered supercar, that will be a winner.
F1 is never about mass market road car, its has always been about cars that majority in the world can never be able to afford.

[Seanspeed]

IMO, this clearly demonstrates that a naturally aspirated engine can provide sufficient power, drivability, reliability, economy and simplicity at an acceptable package weight.

No it does not. In F1 it would be a significant regression in most of these regards. For identical road cars tuned for racing, it doesn't matter.

May not be regression. If F1 technical rules can lead to cleaner and greener V10 powered supercar, that will be a winner.
F1 is never about mass market road car, its has always been about cars that majority in the world can never be able to afford.

It's basically impossible to 'out-green' electric power. And that's the problem. Anything not electric will get perceived as a step backwards.

And frankly, a lot of fuel-based solutions for making ICE's cleaner are simply not half as practical or feasible for consumer vehicles(because of the mass scale) as just adding or going full electric power. And of course electric does have its own 'less than ideal' situation in terms of how that power gets generated at the source, and battery production and waste and all that, but there's just really no going back now.

And if F1 were to ditch electric power and go back to pure ICE's, it would probably require F1 to go very low cost, maybe even have standardized engines, in order to bring in enough constructor interest to fill the grid with worthwhile competitors. Which obviously many people(and teams like Ferrari) wouldn't be happy with, either.

[CHT]

No it does not. In F1 it would be a significant regression in most of these regards. For identical road cars tuned for racing, it doesn't matter.

May not be regression. If F1 technical rules can lead to cleaner and greener V10 powered supercar, that will be a winner.
F1 is never about mass market road car, its has always been about cars that majority in the world can never be able to afford.

It's basically impossible to 'out-green' electric power. And that's the problem. Anything not electric will get perceived as a step backwards.

And frankly, a lot of fuel-based solutions for making ICE's cleaner are simply not half as practical or feasible for consumer vehicles(because of the mass scale) as just adding or going full electric power. And of course electric does have its own 'less than ideal' situation in terms of how that power gets generated at the source, and battery production and waste and all that, but there's just really no going back now.

And if F1 were to ditch electric power and go back to pure ICE's, it would probably require F1 to go very low cost, maybe even have standardized engines, in order to bring in enough constructor interest to fill the grid with worthwhile competitors. Which obviously many people(and teams like Ferrari) wouldn't be happy with, either.

which mean F1 is lagging Formula E..?

[mzso]

IMO, this clearly demonstrates that a naturally aspirated engine can provide sufficient power, drivability, reliability, economy and simplicity at an acceptable package weight.

No it does not. In F1 it would be a significant regression in most of these regards. For identical road cars tuned for racing, it doesn't matter.

May not be regression. If F1 technical rules can lead to cleaner and greener V10 powered supercar, that will be a winner.
F1 is never about mass market road car, its has always been about cars that majority in the world can never be able to afford.

That is completely irrelevant to the engines becoming inferior in F1. Which is a regression.

But since you shifted towards "road relevance", supercars are just toys for rich people who have too much money. Not relevant to the automotive industry at large. Richest 1% can afford them. Not that anyone will ever make a supercar with a V10 going near 20k rpm.

[mzso]

It's basically impossible to 'out-green' electric power. And that's the problem. Anything not electric will get perceived as a step backwards.

Completely true. But that doesn't mean we should go backwards, because there's no will to go electric. 2026 as it is is already a devolution. Going back to v10s would be several steps back.