Petition to FIA - 2026 rules canceled, V10s in 2028

[catent]

The idea that The Race's poll of 40,000 responses “proves” what most F1 fans want is a perfect example of statistical illiteracy; such a conclusion ignores the basics of sampling.

Look at the scale. Global F1 viewership is massive: Liberty Media reported around 445 million unique viewers in 2021, with an average of 70–80 million per race. Against that backdrop, 40,000 respondents represent between 0.009 percent and 0.05 percent of the overall F1 audience, an absolutely vanishing share.

And this was a self-selected, convenience sample from The Race’s audience, a channel literally running content like Bring Back V10s. That audience is explicitly and transparently nostalgic for pre-hybrid engines, and those with the strongest opinions are the most likely to click into such a poll. That is not representative; it is textbook coverage bias and self-selection bias. Some are acting as if sample selection bias is a trivial matter, when in reality it is very much the core reason the poll cannot be generalized.

Moreover, the poll bundled multiple factors—engine layout, sustainability, hydrogen—yet its 86 percent result is spun as a clean mandate about sound alone; that is statistical misinterpretation and cherry-picking. Meanwhile, the fact that F1’s global popularity did not collapse after the introduction of hybrids is brushed aside, even though it undermines the claim that noise is decisive for most fans. If it were, viewership would have been expected to crater post-2014; it did not.

The error is inflating a niche poll into a sweeping universal claim. That is not analysis; it is personal bias presented as fact.

The honest conclusion here is far narrower. All we can legitimately say is that The Race’s engaged, self-selected audience overwhelmingly prefers V8/V10-style engines with sustainable fuels. That is interesting within that subpopulation but it is not evidence that “most F1 fans” feel the same, nor is it a mandate about the sport’s future. Claiming otherwise with bold certainty is not objective authority; it is subjective opinion blended with hubris. Recognizing the limits of the data is not "contrarianism"; it is the responsible, ethical practice of statistics.

[Vappy]

^ Well put.

[JordanMugen]

Roger wilco!!

And regarding the factory standard road cars from before WLTP that are clearly well, well, well over the supposed "72 dB UK limit" you claimed?

Noting even a diesel Astra is well over 72 dB at 1 metre, 72 dB is an absurdly low level comparable to loud speech!



It's not just exotics like the Porsche GT3 or Jaguar F-Type either, it's everyday hatchbacks like the Mercedes A45 AMG, Hyundai i30N and Mini Cooper JCW too...

Presumably this is why the European Union decided to crack down on the European and Korean manufacturers who were blatantly cheating the exhaust noise regulations by removing the ability to have "off road use" modes from WLTP and setting a decreasing noise limit every year until 2035 to make the transition to electric seamless?

If Formula One Grand Prix cars and support classes like F3 and Carrera Cup cause undue noise pollution, could and should the FIA enforce very low trackside noise limits?

There is no reason F1 cars and F3 cars shouldn't have mufflers after all, nor why Carrera Cup cars shouldn't use the more restrictive VLN/WEC mufflers which lower the noise level of the 911 race car by about another 10 dB than normal.

Obviously there is a small loss of power -- but it is a small price to pay for spectators having a pleasant quiet day at a race circuit?

[WardenOfTheNorth]

Roger wilco!!

And regarding the factory standard road cars from before WLTP that are clearly well, well, well over the supposed "72 dB UK limit" you claimed?

Noting even a diesel Astra is well over 72 dB at 1 metre, 72 dB is an absurdly low level comparable to loud speech!



It's not just exotics like the Porsche GT3 or Jaguar F-Type either, it's everyday hatchbacks like the Mercedes A45 AMG, Hyundai i30N and Mini Cooper JCW too...

Presumably this is why the European Union decided to crack down on the European and Korean manufacturers who were blatantly cheating the exhaust noise regulations by removing the ability to have "off road use" modes from WLTP and setting a decreasing noise limit every year until 2035 to make the transition to electric seamless?

If Formula One Grand Prix cars and support classes like F3 and Carrera Cup cause undue noise pollution, could and should the FIA enforce very low trackside noise limits?

There is no reason F1 cars and F3 cars shouldn't have mufflers after all, nor why Carrera Cup cars shouldn't use the more restrictive VLN/WEC mufflers which lower the noise level of the 911 race car by about another 10 dB than normal.

Obviously there is a small loss of power -- but it is a small price to pay for spectators having a pleasant quiet day at a race circuit?

Mods asked us to drop this. I have done so. You should do likewise.

[WardenOfTheNorth]

The idea that The Race's poll of 40,000 responses “proves” what most F1 fans want is a perfect example of statistical illiteracy; such a conclusion ignores the basics of sampling.

Look at the scale. Global F1 viewership is massive: Liberty Media reported around 445 million unique viewers in 2021, with an average of 70–80 million per race. Against that backdrop, 40,000 respondents represent between 0.009 percent and 0.05 percent of the overall F1 audience, an absolutely vanishing share.

And this was a self-selected, convenience sample from The Race’s audience, a channel literally running content like Bring Back V10s. That audience is explicitly and transparently nostalgic for pre-hybrid engines, and those with the strongest opinions are the most likely to click into such a poll. That is not representative; it is textbook coverage bias and self-selection bias. Some are acting as if sample selection bias is a trivial matter, when in reality it is very much the core reason the poll cannot be generalized.

Moreover, the poll bundled multiple factors—engine layout, sustainability, hydrogen—yet its 86 percent result is spun as a clean mandate about sound alone; that is statistical misinterpretation and cherry-picking. Meanwhile, the fact that F1’s global popularity did not collapse after the introduction of hybrids is brushed aside, even though it undermines the claim that noise is decisive for most fans. If it were, viewership would have been expected to crater post-2014; it did not.

The error is inflating a niche poll into a sweeping universal claim. That is not analysis; it is personal bias presented as fact.

The honest conclusion here is far narrower. All we can legitimately say is that The Race’s engaged, self-selected audience overwhelmingly prefers V8/V10-style engines with sustainable fuels. That is interesting within that subpopulation but it is not evidence that “most F1 fans” feel the same, nor is it a mandate about the sport’s future. Claiming otherwise with bold certainty is not objective authority; it is subjective opinion blended with hubris. Recognizing the limits of the data is not "contrarianism"; it is the responsible, ethical practice of statistics.

Exactly what I was trying to say, you did a much better job.

But I've agreed to drop this now.

[JordanMugen]

Mods asked us to drop this. I have done so. You should do likewise.

That was about the statistics of The Race petition, not discussions of noise levels of ICEs be they road cars or race cars.

The noise levels of race cars on a GP meeting is certainly still very relevant. At the moment, support categories Carrera Cup and F3 are much louder than F1... Should all categories be subject to noise restrictions, particularly pertinent in downtown street races?

[hollus]

I didn’t ask about anything in particular, but on all things where a loop of the same points by the same people was repeating, much of it for the third time.
If you bring something new to the table, game on!
But please avoid avoidable repetition.

[vorticism]

In previous decades the reasoning for the FIA’s engine regulations could be boiled down to three efforts: to reduce power, to increase durability, or to reduce cost. Various decades: limit displacement to affect engine power. Late eighties: lose the turbos to reduce power. 2000s: drop two cylinders to reduce power, mandate usage durations. So as a thought experiment, what if this had continued leading up to 2014? Some guesses:

-Reduce power: Unlikey. 2013 engines were producing ~750 hp. Other eras have had 1000 hp cars. Forcing the premise though, they might have reduced displacement further. Could have been paired with efforts to make the cars lighter to balance permormance.
-Durability: Do what OEMs do. Use forced induction to make lower RPM power. Small V8s retained with forced induction added.
-Cost: Material specs, production line efficiency, further simplification of the engines via parts count and tech permitted, becoming maybe another path to <8 cylinders and forced induction.

There is some appeal to that utilitarian premise they used to have: cost, reliability, and power. Yet leading up to 2014 they said, "Just kidding, it's time for expensive engines again."

...such a conclusion ignores the basics of sampling.

Well, duh. They’re a media outlet for F1 obsessives. That’s the sample. It was a bit proving the obvious and thus sort of a pointless poll, though. They even framed the hydrogen option poorly. Yet the people “inflating a niche poll” here amounted to mzso and another yellow helmet avatar. They didn’t like the results of this niche poll and thus had to condemn it and any strawmen they propped up around it. You yourself have spent six paragraphs waving your hands about statistics yet you haven’t defined what the scope of the sample should be. That might be intentional, as it’s a common ruse in voting that if you don’t like the results of a democratic effort you only have to start performing sophistry about statistics and sampling, start wringing your hands about the true voice of the people. You even typed “ethical practice of statistics” lol.

As for our hallowed perfect sample, the of-course true & perfect voice of the market, is it the number of:
attendees who attended a grand prix?
attendees who attended some grands prix?
attendees who attended all grands prix?
viewers who fully viewed all races per season?
viewers who partially viewed all races per season?
viewers who fully viewed some races per season?
viewers who partially viewed some races per season?
smartphone users in Uganda who accidentally scrolled past an F1 clip on Tiktok?
is it inclusive of bots?

Answer careful, for we are pursuing the ethical practice of statistics. Regardless, who amongst these contributed the most money? Should that matter? Is the goal to maximize market value or market share? To grow revenue or to grow a definition of viewership? Furthermore, are these millions now, potentially billions later, of inscrutable motes called viewers truly the market anyway? Not totally. The market includes other major components like advertisers, sponsors, and various third parties associated with each event, who each pay more per capita than a race viewer does. Should voices be weighted?

Beyond all this the more basic question is: whose voice will get spammed by F1 and ironic moustache boomer in the interest of chasing maximimum market money? One group to ask about this would be the mega fans, the nerds. The ones amongst any potential audience who tends to know the most about the topic at hand. You don’t have to do that but that is what was being done with polls like The Race’s, obviously. Some fraction of the millions or billions of potential viewers who know little about F1 or motorsport or cars in general could be polled, amalgamated, and abstracted from but this would be like using comments on pistonheads.com to conduct EV market research. You’d end up with an ad campaign that goes “EVs is dumb, don’t buy” for your Renault 5.

Producing entertainment is not necessarily the same thing thing as organizing perfect focus groups. Popular entertainment is often the result of a niche group if not a single person, and it is often accidental. Trying to be popular can result in the production of slop, being popular can be something more defined as luck, fate, or accident. The FIA in 1990 did not have in mind the sound of a year 2000 V10. They accidentally created something that was entertaining if not somewhat awe inspiring. Take film for example. One of the most viewed films is Star Wars. Why? Did George Lucas intensively focus group 1970s audiences globally? No, he was surrounded by scfi nerds and film industry people, and he had a good understanding of literature. He did a good job but it was also something of an accident that it was received so well and so widely, reflective of the era, expectations, and tastes.

Your protest would be better if you simply went after the thing you are truly at odds with: the results of this poll sample. Claiming that you want to pursue a truer voice of the people is just as hubristic and subjective as the strawman you constructed (the “inflaters”), underlined by you writing about the “ethical practice of statistics” while you yourself either misunderstand or misguide others on the topic.

[JordanMugen]

There is some appeal to that utilitarian premise they used to have: cost, reliability, and power. Yet leading up to 2014 they said, "Just kidding, it's time for expensive engines again."

In any case, there is an annual cost cap for development of 2026 engines and likely will be for any subsequent regulations after that. So one can assume all engine suppliers will spend the maximum permitted and no more and no less.

It is at a level that is still too expensive for Renault and certainly too expensive for independents like Cosworth, AER, Mecachrome etc, but for the others the cap should maintain costs at an acceptable level.

The FIA in 1990 did not have in mind the sound of a year 2000 V10.

Certainly not! Not even in 1987. The proposal was 3.5L V8 engines for everybody, apparently because turbo engines were too difficult/expensive and almost all the turbo engine manufacturers were giving up as it was all too expensive/difficult.

It is noteworthy (and very curious) that Formula One engine giant Ford Cosworth never produced a race-winning 1.5L turbo engine, if I'm not mistaken? Duckworth's 1.5L V6 twin-turbo arrived late to the scene in 1985 (?) and Benetton even gave up on the still-superior turbocharged layout (at least according to the McLaren-Honda MP4/4) a full season before they strictly had to!

The FIA certainly succeeded, there was a boom (pardon the pun) of both manufacturer and independent NA engines after the turbo (supercharged) engine ban.

Anyway, when it comes to setting 2029 engine/power unit regulations, obviously Ferrari, Red Bull and Cadillac (and Aston Martin if they start to make engines) will have their view (V12 NA engines) and Mercedes, Audi and Honda will have their view (downsize turbo hybrid with largest possible electrical component), so it will be up to the negotiating table and FIA together to set the regulations, perhaps?

One notes that Ferrari by then will have withdrawn their V12 road cars because they have to, not because they want to, and thus Ferrari (and Aston Martin) may still wish to promote V12-powered track use only vehicles for their wealthy clienteles.

Producing entertainment is not necessarily the same thing thing as organizing perfect focus groups.

I wonder how Toyota's efficiency-orientated hybrid marketing aligns with Toyota's participation in NASCAR that uses 5.7L naturally aspirated engines? It is curious that NASCAR manages to use those engines without having such heavy-hearted ethical debates about the matter of using a large, inefficient ICE as Formula One does!

It is curious that Chevrolet, Ford and Toyota are happy to race with these inefficient NASCAR engines, and even more curious that Honda are considering dropping the downsize turbo ICE found in Indycar and joining these three in NASCAR, despite Honda's stance that F1 must race hybrids!

The NASCAR example (i.e., the higher commercial profile of NASCAR trumps Indycar or IMSA, noting Cadillac run a big inefficient NA engine in IMSA anyway) tends to suggest that due to the high commercial profile of F1, it is quite possible that Mercedes, Audi and Honda will not leave F1 after all, even if the V12 NA power unit formula preferred by Ferrari, Red Bull and Cadillac (and Aston Martin) is set into the regulations?

[catent]

In previous decades the reasoning for the FIA’s engine regulations could be boiled down to three efforts: to reduce power, to increase durability, or to reduce cost. Various decades: limit displacement to affect engine power. Late eighties: lose the turbos to reduce power. 2000s: drop two cylinders to reduce power, mandate usage durations. So as a thought experiment, what if this had continued leading up to 2014? Some guesses:

-Reduce power: Unlikey. 2013 engines were producing ~750 hp. Other eras have had 1000 hp cars. Forcing the premise though, they might have reduced displacement further. Could have been paired with efforts to make the cars lighter to balance permormance.
-Durability: Do what OEMs do. Use forced induction to make lower RPM power. Small V8s retained with forced induction added.
-Cost: Material specs, production line efficiency, further simplification of the engines via parts count and tech permitted, becoming maybe another path to <8 cylinders and forced induction.

There is some appeal to that utilitarian premise they used to have: cost, reliability, and power. Yet leading up to 2014 they said, "Just kidding, it's time for expensive engines again."

...such a conclusion ignores the basics of sampling.

Well, duh. They’re a media outlet for F1 obsessives. That’s the sample. It was a bit proving the obvious and thus sort of a pointless poll, though. They even framed the hydrogen option poorly. Yet the people “inflating a niche poll” here amounted to mzso and another yellow helmet avatar. They didn’t like the results of this niche poll and thus had to condemn it and any strawmen they propped up around it. You yourself have spent six paragraphs waving your hands about statistics yet you haven’t defined what the scope of the sample should be. That might be intentional, as it’s a common ruse in voting that if you don’t like the results of a democratic effort you only have to start performing sophistry about statistics and sampling, start wringing your hands about the true voice of the people. You even typed “ethical practice of statistics” lol.

As for our hallowed perfect sample, the of-course true & perfect voice of the market, is it the number of:
attendees who attended a grand prix?
attendees who attended some grands prix?
attendees who attended all grands prix?
viewers who fully viewed all races per season?
viewers who partially viewed all races per season?
viewers who fully viewed some races per season?
viewers who partially viewed some races per season?
smartphone users in Uganda who accidentally scrolled past an F1 clip on Tiktok?
is it inclusive of bots?

Answer careful, for we are pursuing the ethical practice of statistics. Regardless, who amongst these contributed the most money? Should that matter? Is the goal to maximize market value or market share? To grow revenue or to grow a definition of viewership? Furthermore, are these millions now, potentially billions later, of inscrutable motes called viewers truly the market anyway? Not totally. The market includes other major components like advertisers, sponsors, and various third parties associated with each event, who each pay more per capita than a race viewer does. Should voices be weighted?

Beyond all this the more basic question is: whose voice will get spammed by F1 and ironic moustache boomer in the interest of chasing maximimum market money? One group to ask about this would be the mega fans, the nerds. The ones amongst any potential audience who tends to know the most about the topic at hand. You don’t have to do that but that is what was being done with polls like The Race’s, obviously. Some fraction of the millions or billions of potential viewers who know little about F1 or motorsport or cars in general could be polled, amalgamated, and abstracted from but this would be like using comments on pistonheads.com to conduct EV market research. You’d end up with an ad campaign that goes “EVs is dumb, don’t buy” for your Renault 5.

Producing entertainment is not necessarily the same thing thing as organizing perfect focus groups. Popular entertainment is often the result of a niche group if not a single person, and it is often accidental. Trying to be popular can result in the production of slop, being popular can be something more defined as luck, fate, or accident. The FIA in 1990 did not have in mind the sound of a year 2000 V10. They accidentally created something that was entertaining if not somewhat awe inspiring. Take film for example. One of the most viewed films is Star Wars. Why? Did George Lucas intensively focus group 1970s audiences globally? No, he was surrounded by scfi nerds and film industry people, and he had a good understanding of literature. He did a good job but it was also something of an accident that it was received so well and so widely, reflective of the era, expectations, and tastes.

Your protest would be better if you simply went after the thing you are truly at odds with: the results of this poll sample. Claiming that you want to pursue a truer voice of the people is just as hubristic and subjective as the strawman you constructed (the “inflaters”), underlined by you writing about the “ethical practice of statistics” while you yourself either misunderstand or misguide others on the topic.

It’s not clear what your actual point is.

I never suggested that The Race’s poll was worthless — in fact, I said the result is interesting within its context. What I actually commented on was the statistical legitimacy of inflating a niche sample into something broader than it is. That is a methodological point, not a statement of personal preference for or against the outcome.

The problem is the intellectual dishonesty of some poster(s) who tried to universalize a narrow poll and then shout down anyone who questioned it. Your reply doesn’t really engage with that. And while you accuse me of sophistry, your own post is a tangle of diversions and analogies that never actually confronts the simple, factual point about sampling.

My post explicitly addressed real behaviors in the thread — people inflating a poll beyond its scope and attacking dissenting views. That you recast this as “strawmen” is a tough sell, as though labeling it as such somehow erases the conduct that anyone can scroll up and see for themselves.

And then there’s the sarcastic aside about the “ethical practice of statistics.” To dismiss the idea that statistics should be used ethically — that sampling and interpretation should be handled with honesty and care — is unserious (and arguably indecent), and suggests that accuracy and integrity don’t matter. That, in miniature, is exactly the behavior I was calling out.

So, what are you actually arguing for? That we should take any poll at face value, regardless of sample? That pointing out methodological limits is invalid or unacceptable? Or that highlighting those limitations should itself be brushed aside, as though raising them were evidence of bias, rather than a safeguard against bad-faith argument?

[mzso]

The ICE was always the heart and the soul of a F1 car , nowadays its more and more just a hidden part that has to do its job inside the system as efficient as possible .

But its not ONLY the engine .

Watching races with senna vs prost in 80-90s or schumacher vs häkkinen early 2000,s is imho not even remotely comparable with watching races today .

Boxing is similar . You cannot compare mike tyson in the 80,s with boxing today

Technology changes. Things started to shift towards electric power both on road and on the racetrack.

Yeah. Racing could be much better.

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

No. They use much less fuel...

Incorrect. They use a lot more fuel to produce that kind of technology...

Uh, what? A tad nonsensical...

[mzso]

All I see is a very loud very small minority

A poll of 40,000 people already proved this nonsense claim wrong.

What is YOUR evidence that nobody cares about engine sound at all? It's always like this with folks like you. We have to prove the entire world, but all you have to do is say 'Nuh uh!' and expect that to be some worthwhile rebuttal. smh

And at no point has any of us claimed it's the primary concern of anybody. This is a ridiculous strawman. People like you are claiming that fans just dont care about engine noise in general. But they do. Even if it's not a deal breaker to have lackluster engine noise, it doesn't mean they wouldn't PREFER to have better sounding engines. I am obviously an example of such a person. I still watch F1 quite religiously, it does not mean I'm happy with the current engines/engine noise and wouldn't prefer better engines.

Do you really think F1 is perfect in every way? Because again, that's like the argument you're trying to make here. That unless viewership declines, literally everything and anything F1 does is good and justified.

It didn't prove anything. A 40k biased sample fors 100s of millions of viewers, means nothing.

You're the one with the big claims. You should have the proof.

I just pointed out the fact that loosing the NA sound didn't result in a drop of popularity of F1. It actually increased in recent years.

If some people would prefer V10 but will watch F1 anyway, then what wold be the point to cater to them, if it's otherwise undesirable?

40,000 is a pretty dang large sample count. The idea that you need extraordinarily large numbers for polling to be valid shows you are the one who doesn't understand these these things.

No. You're the one not comprehending that the size of the sample is not nearly enough.

The idea that The Race's poll of 40,000 responses “proves” what most F1 fans want is a perfect example of statistical illiteracy; such a conclusion ignores the basics of sampling. [...]

I wish I could have said that this eloquently.

Guys, agree to disagree. Horses for courses and everyone is entitled to its own opinion.
Acknowledging that others see things differently, without trying to shut/shout them down is an art.
An art that avoids this circular past-each-other discussion.
This is the internet, you cannot win if that forces others to “lose”. The target is too mobile.
You all made your point, loud and clear. Now move on, please.

Alright then. (Just reached this comment)
Yeah, kind of harder to swallow when someone's trying to shut you up with clearly false "facts".

[JordanMugen]

If some people would prefer V10 but will watch F1 anyway, then what wold be the point to cater to them, if it's otherwise undesirable?

It's the chance to see (hear) 18,000rpm V12s (which Toyota planned to return to in 2000 until banned, even at 3.0L let alone 3.2L or 3.5L where 12 cylinder may now very much be optimal for NA) that you wouldn't see (hear) anywhere else in motorsports.

10,000rpm Formula 3000 style V8? Be it Nicholson McLaren, Zytek, Judd, Mecachrome and so on they are a dime-a-dozen in hillclimbs and everywhere else (indeed the original Cosworth DFVs are a dime-a dozen too).

Small block American V8s? Everywhere.

Inline-fours? You betcha, everywhere.

But F1 racing would be only way to see wailing 18,000rpm V12s with pneumatic valvesprings -- which (IMO) are a lot whole lot of fun, given some folks already line the trackside fences for Paganis, F50s, Enzos, FXXs, Aston Martin WEC LMHs etc which are V12s which are not nearly that 'exotic'.

Even the historic V12 F1s don't rev to that (when they were new) and certainly not now when the durability is being conserved.

Don't forget the NA V12 IS the preferred engine layout of Scuderia Ferrari HP, Red Bull Racing Ford RBPT and Racing Bulls Ford RBPT. Given the example of WEC and their choice of a large NA engine there, it is very likely to be favoured layout of Cadillac F1 Team (and their subsequent customers) as well (as well as Aston Martin, though they don't make their own F1 engines yet).

As I've said, it would be logical to accompany re-banning turbocharging with doubling the current ICE size: from a 1.6L V6 to a 3.2L V12 (the FIA would probably reduce the mandatory Vee angle from 90° to 75° which better suits a V12 in conjunction with the turbo re-ban?).

If you ask me as a racer, I would love to have a V12 in the car for the noise and the sound and so on.

- Frederic Vassuer, Team Principal Scuderia Ferrari HP
https://racingnews365.com/ferrari-provi ... ine-return

The purist in me would love to go back to a V10 that was done responsibly with sustainable fuel that reintroduced the sounds of grand prix racing.

- Christian Horner, CEO Red Bull Ford Powertrains
https://www.espn.com.au/f1/story/_/id/4 ... nable-fuel

Cadillac's comments are particularly notable:

When you start looking at turbo applications, everyone says ‘Oh, you know, turbos are more efficient and stuff like that. But combustion efficiency on N/A motors has gotten to a point now where it’s worth it to go with a naturally aspirated motor to save the weight of a turbo and intercooler.

- Adam Trojanek, Lead Propulsion Engineer Cadillac Racing
https://www.roadandtrack.com/car-cultur ... -analysis/

That leaves only Mercedes, Audi and Honda preferring the hybridised, downsize turbo engine regulations. Which are only half of the power unit suppliers.

Do Mercedes, Audi and Honda really outweigh the interests of Ferrari, Red Bull Ford and Cadillac? The two blocks are equal in numbers after all.

Crucially, Ferrari is the most prestigious constructor and holds the most political sway. Ferrari favours the NA V12 so much, they even still sell road cars with it and plan to do for as long as road-going regulations make it feasible!

As it is, Mercedes-AMG has already reverted several 63 AMG models from the inline-four hybrid powertrain of the C63 to a larger capacity ICE instead -- apparently in favour of increased saleability.

As below, Mercedes have confirmed the Mercedes CLE63 AMG will feature a twin-turbo V8 instead of the more efficient single-turbo inline-four with hybrid system from the Mercedes C63 AMG:

Dealer concerns and slow sales drive the return of V8 power to AMG’s mid-size two-door ...
After vehemently defending its decision to downsize its flagship ‘63’ powertrains from V8 to four-cylinder hybrid hardware, Mercedes-Benz has reportedly yielded to customer and dealer pressure and will release its upcoming Mercedes-AMG CLE 63 coupe (and cabriolet) with the German brand’s ... M177 twin-turbo 4.0-litre V8.

https://www.carsales.com.au/editorial/d ... er-145870/

Are the Mercedes-Benz buyers and Mercedes-Benz dealers mistaken in their preferences which do not align with industry electrification trends?

Will CLE63 AMGs with oversized ICEs and undersized hybrid system sit gathering dust on dealer storage lots (unlike hot-selling C63 AMG hybrids?), due to AMG's incorrect assessment of the sports coupe market?

[FWIW, it is really bizarre that the FIA use ICE cars as the safety car. The safety car should be switched to Mercedes AMG BEV and Aston Martin BEV models IMO. If they aren't fast enough or sufficient in range, that is the usual necessary compromise of electrification and must be accepted like the 2026 power units with less average power over a lap! But no reason not to aim for V12 NA ICEs for the Grand Prix cars themselves in say 2030, after the 2026-2029 power unit regulation set runs its course.]

[Seanspeed]

If some people would prefer V10 but will watch F1 anyway, then what wold be the point to cater to them, if it's otherwise undesirable?

You could make this argument against changing anything about F1 ever again.

Do you think F1 is perfect the way it is? Anything that you think it could maybe do better I could easily shut down with "Well people are still watching, so why should they change what you want?".

Of course the obvious answer is that F1 isn't perfect and has plenty of room to be better and more entertaining. And we should want that. Of course you also do want that in various ways I'm sure, but you're only conveniently using this argument against me in this situation because it's literally the only thing you can think of to support the idea that the audience might actually prefer the newer engine sounds to the older engine sounds or that the audience grew because of the newer engine sound. And you know full well that's an especially poor argument, certainly much flimsier than any poll from fans that says otherwise. You have no evidence whatsoever that louder/better sounding engines are considered undesirable by the audience. smh

They're gonna change engines at some point anyways, I'm not asking them to change existing, far-in-development plans just to have better sounding engines. But it would certainly be nice for the next set of engine regulations to take this in mind, because people absolutely do want it.

Lastly, and AGAIN, this isn't about V10's specifically. Please stop with that strawman.