Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[mzso]

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

Far from being representative.
Also, what's the arbitrary distinction for "fans" compared to total viewers?

[vorticism]

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

Next step then, as far as this thread goes: if the results of democracy conflict with your ideology, condemn it as populism.

Though they should have specified H2 ICE or H2 FC, though, since "hydrogen technology" is not mutually exclusive of their "V8/V10" option.

[SealTheRealDeal]

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.

No actually, comparing against what we currently have (and to my understanding the engine in the 2026 regs will be similar enough) is pretty reasonable, given their replacement is the topic of the thread. Potential weight savings of turbo vs NA doesn't matter if the rule makers are going to say it needs to be +120kg either way. Likewise if the regs don't have a minimum weight then either would offer major weight savings relative to the current engine (yes a turbo would offer somewhat more).

[WardenOfTheNorth]

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

So a survey of fans on an online platform dedicated to F1, is supposed to be representative of all fans?? A platform with a Podcast entitled Bring Back V10's and who regularly tell viewers in their videos that the V6's don't sound as good as the V8's and V10's??

Sorry but that's not how statistics work. All we can say from that is that 86% of the most dedicated fans voted that way.

The argument people such as I make, is that the average fan on the street or at the circuit doesn't care. This survey does not change my opinion on that.

Now, maybe I am wrong, maybe a representative survey will actually contradict me, but I have yet to see such a survey conducted. I would actually be interested to see one done.

And I stand by my personal opinion that V10's are obnoxiously loud and actually unhealthy for anyone trackside due to risk of hearing damage.

[Partymood]

No.
I know the contribution of the cars themselves to the footprint of F1 is negligible, but it does have an important aspects regarding perception.
We should move away from the image that noisy, big and wasteful is sexy. It's not; IMO it's sad medieval lizard-brain stuff.
I'm fine with using combustion engines, but in the end, it's a high tech sport so it should be about maximizing efficiency, and getting insane performance out of modest equipment - preferably in a way that may have some road-relevance, albeit not for standard consumer cars.

With these cars they only eliminated the noisy part...just my 2 cents

[Ferry]

The argument people such as I make, is that the average fan on the street or at the circuit doesn't care.

Fans on the street, aka TV viewers, will never hear the engines anyway. So it's kind of not possible to care, even if you want to. How many fans are at the actual circuit? 1%?
There's no way to reproduce the sound of a F1 car on a TV, laptop or headset. The engine sound is barely audible on the broadcast. If I turn the volume to max, I think the rest of the family would kick me out.

If I want to hear cool sound, I'll go to a concert. Wich I recently did. AC/DC is loud! Ironically they start the concerts with a big fat engine sound

[WardenOfTheNorth]

The argument people such as I make, is that the average fan on the street or at the circuit doesn't care.

Fans on the street, aka TV viewers, will never hear the engines anyway. So it's kind of not possible to care, even if you want to. How many fans are at the actual circuit? 1%?
There's no way to reproduce the sound of a F1 car on a TV, laptop or headset. The engine sound is barely audible on the broadcast. If I turn the volume to max, I think the rest of the family would kick me out.

If I want to hear cool sound, I'll go to a concert. Wich I recently did. AC/DC is loud! Ironically they start the concerts with a big fat engine sound

Did you know that concert venues now have noise limits. So even big loud rock concerts are not as loud as they once were and many, not all but many, rock bands are not actually using the loud amps on stage any more. Instead they are using digital profiling amps and in ear monitors to keep on stage volume down, with the PA doing most of the heavy lifting!!

AS for F1 PU sound on TV. I agree, it sounds nothing like what it does when you’re stood next to the actual car. Stood next to the actual car it has bass, a throaty mid-range and complex sounds - oh and is still plenty loud with most sources citing a volume between 110 to 120 dB - about the same volume as a rock concert as it happens. FOM needs to sort out the mic placement and sound mixing to deliver more of that sound in the broadcast IMHO!!

[mzso]

Potential weight savings of turbo vs NA doesn't matter if the rule makers are going to say it needs to be +120kg either way. Likewise if the regs don't have a minimum weight then either would offer major weight savings relative to the current engine (yes a turbo would offer somewhat more).

Why would anyone assume that the minimum weight regulation remains as it is, if there's an engine formula change? Particularly if one of the goals to change the engines was to decrease weight.
Anyway, think that "somewhat" is more of a "fair bit" more. Especially considering that turbo engines can do (and did, with 80s tech) current F1 power levels with four cylinders. I don't think a ~1000HP, 18-20RPM four cylinder NA engine is possible.

[mzso]

With these cars they only eliminated the noisy part...just my 2 cents

No. They use much less fuel...

Stood next to the actual car it has bass, a throaty mid-range and complex sounds - oh and is still plenty loud with most sources citing a volume between 110 to 120 dB - about the same volume as a rock concert as it happens. FOM needs to sort out the mic placement and sound mixing to deliver more of that sound in the broadcast IMHO!!

Only people with good audio equipment would get good deep sounds. Since hardly anyone has those, I think this part is a lost cause.

[SealTheRealDeal]

Potential weight savings of turbo vs NA doesn't matter if the rule makers are going to say it needs to be +120kg either way. Likewise if the regs don't have a minimum weight then either would offer major weight savings relative to the current engine (yes a turbo would offer somewhat more).

Why would anyone assume that the minimum weight regulation remains as it is, if there's an engine formula change? Particularly if one of the goals to change the engines was to decrease weight.
Anyway, think that "somewhat" is more of a "fair bit" more. Especially considering that turbo engines can do (and did, with 80s tech) current F1 power levels with four cylinders. I don't think a ~1000HP, 18-20RPM four cylinder NA engine is possible.

Because the rule makers are the same and they've been imposing minimum weights since 2006.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but of the 80s engines only the qualifying engines did 1000+ HP, while the race engines were closer to 700 HP. I'm sure better could be done with modern tech, but that raises the other thing that has driven up engine weights, the expectation that they last for multiple race weekends. Now that expectation could perhaps be lessened to allow for lighter engines, but I doubt we'll ever return to replacing/rebuilding engines between sessions being the norm.

[mzso]

Because the rule makers are the same and they've been imposing minimum weights since 2006.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but of the 80s engines only the qualifying engines did 1000+ HP, while the race engines were closer to 700 HP. I'm sure better could be done with modern tech, but that raises the other thing that has driven up engine weights, the expectation that they last for multiple race weekends. Now that expectation could perhaps be lessened to allow for lighter engines, but I doubt we'll ever return to replacing/rebuilding engines between sessions being the norm.

Rules are changed for a purpose, one should be weight reduction. There won't be a nonsense scenario when they allow designs that would save weight, but prescribe a much higher minimum weight. Then there would be no-point in changing the formula. Let's move on from this...

Well the values are mostly rumors, but for the BMW they usually say ~1400hp on qualifying and ~1000 for the race.
Not sure if I ever saw calculations/estimates on how much diddurability demands increase the weight. (or would without the minimum weight) What would it mainly effect? More robust pistons, conrods and crankshaft? Is that a lot?

[SealTheRealDeal]

Because the rule makers are the same and they've been imposing minimum weights since 2006.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but of the 80s engines only the qualifying engines did 1000+ HP, while the race engines were closer to 700 HP. I'm sure better could be done with modern tech, but that raises the other thing that has driven up engine weights, the expectation that they last for multiple race weekends. Now that expectation could perhaps be lessened to allow for lighter engines, but I doubt we'll ever return to replacing/rebuilding engines between sessions being the norm.

Rules are changed for a purpose, one should be weight reduction. There won't be a nonsense scenario when they allow designs that would save weight, but prescribe a much higher minimum weight. Then there would be no-point in changing the formula. Let's move on from this...

Well the values are mostly rumors, but for the BMW they usually say ~1400hp on qualifying and ~1000 for the race.
Not sure if I ever saw calculations/estimates on how much diddurability demands increase the weight. (or would without the minimum weight) What would it mainly effect? More robust pistons, conrods and crankshaft? Is that a lot?

I've seen those rumors for the BMW engine, not sure how much I buy in to them given the BMW engined cars were routinely trounced by Honda engined cars with ~700hp in race trim.
As for how durability/longevity demands would impact the weight of the engine, in addition to making all the moving bits (including the turbocharger) more robust, I would assume the block itself, or at least the sleeves, would also need to be more robustly built than in the 80s. I think that was one of the explanations given for why the V8s needed to be heavier than the preceding larger, more complex, and much more powerful V10s.

[Seanspeed]

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

Far from being representative.
Also, what's the arbitrary distinction for "fans" compared to total viewers?

When you're dismissing that 86% of a 40,000 sample size of F1 fans said that they care about this stuff, you will clearly dismiss ANY data point ever as unrepresentative, simply out of convenience of argument.

This feels like plain denial of reality. Once again, it's reasonable to say that most F1 fans aren't gonna cry about the current noise of the cars, but it's not the same thing as saying that F1 fans dont care about it at all or at the very least wouldn't prefer better sounding F1 cars. I think it's basically common sense that most would. It seems so obvious that I even wonder if arguing otherwise is being done out of sheer contrarianism than anything else.

[Ferry]

FOM needs to sort out the mic placement and sound mixing to deliver more of that sound in the broadcast IMHO!!

Absolutely. If they really wanted, they could do much more for the broadcasted sound. The sound is much more interesting live than on any stream or broadcast. Btw. I'm using ear plugs even with todays hybrid F1. Maybe not necessary all the time, but I need what's left of my hearing. I've seen one race live with the V8's in 2013, at Kemmel straight, Spa. That was just insanely loud. I brought ear muffs. Biggest surprise was the Porsches. Expected them to be nothing compared to F1, but they are loud too!
Ear plugs at concerts, always. Tinnitus is a bitch.

I watched a bit Indy and Indy NXT last weekend. Aren't they supposed to have great sound? Never heard them live. The sound is very toned down on the broadcast. Not impressed at all.

On the broadcast at least, it should be possible to alter the sound. Make it cooler with some sound processing. Fake maybe, and not for the purists. But that can also be said about limiting fuel flow until 10.500 RPM for the sake of sound. Or going NA 19000+ RPM for sound. Or mounting a trumpet exhaust system. The moment you do anything for the sake of sound instead of performance, you could say it's fake. Or "fake".

[mzso]

When you're dismissing that 86% of a 40,000 sample size of F1 fans said that they care about this stuff, you will clearly dismiss ANY data point ever as unrepresentative, simply out of convenience of argument.

This feels like plain denial of reality. Once again, it's reasonable to say that most F1 fans aren't gonna cry about the current noise of the cars, but it's not the same thing as saying that F1 fans dont care about it at all or at the very least wouldn't prefer better sounding F1 cars. I think it's basically common sense that most would. It seems so obvious that I even wonder if arguing otherwise is being done out of sheer contrarianism than anything else.

Why would I need to consider a statistic from an extremely biased sample? Based on what WardenOfTheNorth said (which you conveniently ignored), it's even more biased than I initially expected.
The fact is it bears no implication on F1 viewers as a whole. Pointing to meaningless statistics and air-pulled "common sense" and "obvious "only showcases your bias, nothing else.

Would a majority prefer V8/V10? We don't know and that's certain. I expect even if it's the case, the margin would be far more modest.