Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[PlatinumZealot]

At the end of the day the FIA locks in the maximum discharge per lap over a number of years. F1 battery cells always had super expensive chemistry way ahead of street cars. There is no need for the battery to last 8 or 10 years. The gains are more like steps between regulations. This is also seen in Formula e.

There is no huge excitement about batteries in the race. Quiet the opposite. Fans don't care about the battery technology used because it is invisible to them.

Well sure, F1 could certainly push on battery technology that's only purely relevant for racing. But again, given the whole initial context of this discussion, it also means F1 cannot provide much value in the relevance of improving general battery tech.

Any kind of promising tech that could be potentially relevant for more mainstream batteries would again, already be in deep R&D without needing F1. Battery tech does not need to be track-tested, either. All of this can be done in labs.

I think the battery tech by default is insensitive to F1 power unit regulations. The battery goals by suppliers are the generally the same and F1 teams will always use the best tech. Set the charge limits, the weight, the voltage and you pretty much finished desigining the batteries.

Whether l4, V6, V8, V10.. Turbo or NA.. The battery companies will always use their best cell technonolgy, package them, stuff them under the chassis and you never hear about it for another 5 years.

[Seanspeed]

Well sure, F1 could certainly push on battery technology that's only purely relevant for racing. But again, given the whole initial context of this discussion, it also means F1 cannot provide much value in the relevance of improving general battery tech.

Any kind of promising tech that could be potentially relevant for more mainstream batteries would again, already be in deep R&D without needing F1. Battery tech does not need to be track-tested, either. All of this can be done in labs.

Your argument for that is that "big manufacturers are surely developing stuff". Well, big manufacturers don't seem to be motivated to spend much effort on it since they can sell conventional li-ion cells with a large profit, and more so they can sell more of them, since more is needed. Smaller development efforts most likely lack funding, or purely exist to soak up funding. I think the improve or be defeated situation in F1 would help a lot with this.

This is crazy. lol

Manufacturers are not content with their current battery sales when they know the competition is pushing hard to improve things. It's a legit tech race, and nobody wants to be the one with the losing hand since that could have dire financial consequences long-term if they lose favorable contracts or have to offer heavy discounts(with low or nonexistent margins) to seduce big customers because their technology is inferior.

Again, if any smaller efforts lacked funding, but had legit promise, they WILL be snapped up by some larger entity. It's insane to think otherwise. Battery tech is so insanely important to tech these days. I dont know why on earth you'd think F1 teams will have eyes for these companies that bigger companies wont.

[Seanspeed]

At the end of the day the FIA locks in the maximum discharge per lap over a number of years. F1 battery cells always had super expensive chemistry way ahead of street cars. There is no need for the battery to last 8 or 10 years. The gains are more like steps between regulations. This is also seen in Formula e.

There is no huge excitement about batteries in the race. Quiet the opposite. Fans don't care about the battery technology used because it is invisible to them.

Well sure, F1 could certainly push on battery technology that's only purely relevant for racing. But again, given the whole initial context of this discussion, it also means F1 cannot provide much value in the relevance of improving general battery tech.

Any kind of promising tech that could be potentially relevant for more mainstream batteries would again, already be in deep R&D without needing F1. Battery tech does not need to be track-tested, either. All of this can be done in labs.

I think the battery tech by default is insensitive to F1 power unit regulations. The battery goals by suppliers are the generally the same and F1 teams will always use the best tech. Set the charge limits, the weight, the voltage and you pretty much finished desigining the batteries.

Whether l4, V6, V8, V10.. Turbo or NA.. The battery companies will always use their best cell technonolgy, package them, stuff them under the chassis and you never hear about it for another 5 years.

Yea I agree with that for the most part. And it would allow F1 to essentially claim they are 'green relevant' and all that.

My argument is obviously about whether or not F1 has anything meaningful to contribute to the further development of such battery tech, should they even be allowed to.

[PlatinumZealot]

We can undertsand why a wailing V10 with new tech and hybrid is exciting.. But what makes you excited about the battery? The only thing we see of it is a green bar on the TV graphics? We can't hear it feel it obr see it or smell it? The batteries are basically even between teams.. Did a better battery ever decide a race before???

Again.. It's a negative return on investment to make drastic change to the balance of propulsion from ICE to battery.

[Seanspeed]

We can undertsand why a wailing V10 with new tech and hybrid is exciting.. But what makes you excited about the battery? The only thing we see of it is a green bar on the TV graphics? We can't hear it feel it obr see it or smell it? The batteries are basically even between teams.. Did a better battery ever decide a race before???

Again.. It's a negative return on investment to make drastic change to the balance of propulsion from ICE to battery.

I dont find anything exciting about electric power in F1 at all(even hybrid). My arguments are entirely separate from my feelings towards it. And I'm in fact arguing why F1 ideally shouldn't be considered relevant to the development of battery technology at all.

I think you've definitely misunderstood my stance here. I very much wish everybody would come to their senses and revive a pure ICE formula again that manufacturers would be interested in joining. But it's just not gonna happen.

[mzso]

We can undertsand why a wailing V10 with new tech and hybrid is exciting.. But what makes you excited about the battery? The only thing we see of it is a green bar on the TV graphics? We can't hear it feel it obr see it or smell it? The batteries are basically even between teams.. Did a better battery ever decide a race before???

Again.. It's a negative return on investment to make drastic change to the balance of propulsion from ICE to battery.

You can have tech enthusiasm, or not. But you're supposed to be excited about the racing with fast cars.

[PlatinumZealot]

We can undertsand why a wailing V10 with new tech and hybrid is exciting.. But what makes you excited about the battery? The only thing we see of it is a green bar on the TV graphics? We can't hear it feel it obr see it or smell it? The batteries are basically even between teams.. Did a better battery ever decide a race before???

Again.. It's a negative return on investment to make drastic change to the balance of propulsion from ICE to battery.

I dont find anything exciting about electric power in F1 at all(even hybrid). My arguments are entirely separate from my feelings towards it. And I'm in fact arguing why F1 ideally shouldn't be considered relevant to the development of battery technology at all.

I think you've definitely misunderstood my stance here. I very much wish everybody would come to their senses and revive a pure ICE formula again that manufacturers would be interested in joining. But it's just not gonna happen.

My bad. i didn't mean to address you, was mzso.

[PlatinumZealot]

We can undertsand why a wailing V10 with new tech and hybrid is exciting.. But what makes you excited about the battery? The only thing we see of it is a green bar on the TV graphics? We can't hear it feel it obr see it or smell it? The batteries are basically even between teams.. Did a better battery ever decide a race before???

Again.. It's a negative return on investment to make drastic change to the balance of propulsion from ICE to battery.

You can have tech enthusiasm, or not. But you're supposed to be excited about the racing with fast cars.

The thing is, I'm not seeing how a NA V10 (hybrid) would conflict with great racing though. I see how it would conflict the the greenest of the green and the techiest of the tech! Sort of a tech regression, which is what I understood your stance is. But for me there might be some suprising new tech and green elements hidden in there.

[SealTheRealDeal]

We can undertsand why a wailing V10 with new tech and hybrid is exciting.. But what makes you excited about the battery? The only thing we see of it is a green bar on the TV graphics? We can't hear it feel it obr see it or smell it? The batteries are basically even between teams.. Did a better battery ever decide a race before???

Again.. It's a negative return on investment to make drastic change to the balance of propulsion from ICE to battery.

If they made it a potential performance differentiator it might be somewhat exciting, provided one doesn't dislike "engine formulas" to begin with. A while back on another thread I suggested that they should regulate the physical dimensions of the battery but leave the amount of energy stored and rate of deployment undefined, encouraging a development war between manufacturers for ever greater energy density.

Did a better battery ever decide a race before???

Maybe some of the races in 2018 if the Ferrari cheating speculation from that year can ever be confirmed.

[mzso]

The thing is, I'm not seeing how a NA V10 (hybrid) would conflict with great racing though. I see how it would conflict the the greenest of the green and the techiest of the tech! Sort of a tech regression, which is what I understood your stance is. But for me there might be some suprising new tech and green elements hidden in there.

It doesn't add any excitement to racing either. Some of the Ferrari dominant years in the V10 era in the early 2000s were where I napped the most on F1 races.
While I despise tech regression, I really grown to hate long and heavy cars. And I think low cylinder number forced induction engines can be made both smaller and lighter.

[SealTheRealDeal]

The thing is, I'm not seeing how a NA V10 (hybrid) would conflict with great racing though. I see how it would conflict the the greenest of the green and the techiest of the tech! Sort of a tech regression, which is what I understood your stance is. But for me there might be some suprising new tech and green elements hidden in there.

It doesn't add any excitement to racing either. Some of the Ferrari dominant years in the V10 era in the early 2000s were where I napped the most on F1 races.
While I despise tech regression, I really grown to hate long and heavy cars. And I think low cylinder number forced induction engines can be made both smaller and lighter.

How heavy do you think the current turbo V6 is?

[mzso]

The thing is, I'm not seeing how a NA V10 (hybrid) would conflict with great racing though. I see how it would conflict the the greenest of the green and the techiest of the tech! Sort of a tech regression, which is what I understood your stance is. But for me there might be some suprising new tech and green elements hidden in there.

It doesn't add any excitement to racing either. Some of the Ferrari dominant years in the V10 era in the early 2000s were where I napped the most on F1 races.
While I despise tech regression, I really grown to hate long and heavy cars. And I think low cylinder number forced induction engines can be made both smaller and lighter.

How heavy do you think the current turbo V6 is?

As light as the minimum weight regulation allows.

[SealTheRealDeal]

It doesn't add any excitement to racing either. Some of the Ferrari dominant years in the V10 era in the early 2000s were where I napped the most on F1 races.
While I despise tech regression, I really grown to hate long and heavy cars. And I think low cylinder number forced induction engines can be made both smaller and lighter.

How heavy do you think the current turbo V6 is?

As light as the minimum weight regulation allows.

So a lot heavier than a 90s V12 then, yes?

[Holm86]

http://youtube.com/post/UgkxDggQjADdunx ... HkNiDdOOCz

Somebody once argued in here that most fans don't care about the sound of the cars, but The Race YouTube channel had a survey were almost 40.000 voted, and 86% voted for a return to V8/V10's with sustainable fuels, rather than current hybrid V6 engines or hydrogen

[mzso]

So a lot heavier than a 90s V12 then, yes?

If you have something to say say it. Don't just annoy with vaguely suggestive questions.
But comparing the weight of an engine that has a minimum limit to others is pretty much meaningless. But you can compare to unrestricted turbo engines of the 80s, keeping in mind that they're older.