790 replies to this topic

[Lazy]

Alexis*27, on 27 Mar 2025 - 15:23, said:

This.

 

Nobody cares what's in an F1 car. Liberty even had to start a campaign advertising they were hybrid units because Joe Public had no idea. 

The whole idea of "efficiency" was the dispel the notion that they were gas guzzlers that damaged the planet. 11 years on, The Guardian is still full of angry comments from eco warriors below each race report who don't understand and don't care.

The Trump is strong in this one.

[zeph]

PayasYouRace, on 27 Mar 2025 - 15:39, said:

IndyCar that uses V6 turbo hybrids? That IndyCar?

 

Yes, that one. As in technically inferior.

[Henri Greuter]

F1Lurker, on 27 Mar 2025 - 15:18, said:

I just asked AI:

If Formula 1 were to return to naturally aspirated V10 engines, leveraging the advancements in engine technology made since the last V10 era ended (around 2005), they could certainly be made more efficient than their predecessors.
Here's a breakdown of the factors and a reasonable estimate:
Baseline:
* The last generation of F1 V10s (early/mid-2000s) are estimated to have achieved peak thermal efficiencies likely around 35%, perhaps slightly higher towards the end of that era. Their primary focus was overwhelmingly power density at extreme RPMs.
Key Modern Technologies Applicable to a NA V10:
* Direct Fuel Injection (DI): Allows for much more precise fuel control, charge cooling effect within the cylinder (enabling higher compression ratios safely), and potentially stratified charge operation (though less likely for peak power focus). This leads to more complete and efficient combustion.
* Advanced Combustion Chamber Design: Modern Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) allows for incredibly detailed optimization of airflow (tumble, swirl), squish, and flame propagation. This ensures faster, more stable, and more complete burning of the fuel charge.
* Higher Compression Ratios: Enabled by DI's cooling effect, advanced combustion design, better knock detection/control, and potentially specialized, highly knock-resistant sustainable fuels (biofuels/e-fuels) which might be mandated. Higher compression directly improves theoretical thermodynamic efficiency (Otto cycle).
* Friction Reduction: Significant advancements in materials (e.g., Diamond-Like Carbon - DLC coatings), surface finishing, bearing technology, piston ring design, and lower-viscosity lubricants dramatically reduce parasitic frictional losses, which were a major drawback of the old high-RPM V10s.
* Advanced Materials: Lighter rotating and reciprocating components (pistons, connecting rods, valvetrain) reduce inertia and friction, allowing high RPMs with relatively lower losses than before.
* Sophisticated Engine Management: Modern ECUs allow for incredibly fine-grained control over injection timing, ignition timing (potentially multi-spark or advanced ignition systems), and potentially variable valve timing/lift (though its benefit might be less pronounced in a narrow, high-RPM F1 powerband).
* Optimized Intake/Exhaust Tuning: Advanced simulation tools allow for even more precise tuning of intake runners and exhaust manifolds to maximize volumetric efficiency through resonance effects at target RPMs.
Limitations Compared to Current Hybrid PUs:
* No Energy Recovery: This is the single biggest difference. Current F1 Power Units exceed 50% thermal efficiency largely because the MGU-H recovers vast amounts of energy from exhaust gases (waste heat/pressure) and the MGU-K recovers braking energy. A purely naturally aspirated engine cannot do this. This recovered electrical energy significantly boosts overall system efficiency.
Estimated Potential Efficiency:
Considering the advancements, particularly in direct injection, combustion science, and friction reduction, a modern, highly optimized naturally aspirated F1 V10 could reasonably achieve peak thermal efficiencies in the range of 40% to 45%.
* Reaching 40% seems very plausible, as some highly optimized naturally aspirated road car engines (like Toyota's Dynamic Force or Mazda's Skyactiv-G) already achieve this level of peak efficiency, albeit typically at lower RPMs and specific loads.
* Pushing towards 45% would require aggressive design choices enabled by F1-level budgets, materials, tight tolerances, and potentially highly specialized sustainable fuels allowing very high compression ratios (perhaps 15:1 or even higher).
Conclusion:
While a modern NA V10 F1 engine could be significantly more efficient than its counterparts from the 90s or early 2000s (jumping from ~35% to potentially 40-45%), it would still fall considerably short of the >50% overall efficiency achieved by the current hybrid Power Units, primarily due to the lack of exhaust and kinetic energy recovery systems. The debate around future F1 engines often weighs this efficiency difference against factors like sound, complexity, cost, and perceived driving excitement.

 

OK

Using an highly energy consuming tool in order to defend and find the excuses to justify the re-introduction of an energy inefficient PU primarily for entertainment purposes only.

 

I must admit, there is a consequent logic in doing that.

 

[Henri Greuter]

Alexis*27, on 27 Mar 2025 - 15:30, said:

Why would you wear earplugs?

A bit loud for young children maybe, but the sound is glorious.

And once again, it's V10, V10, V10.

IT'S NOT THE LACK OF A V ENGINE THAT IS THE ISSUE, IT'S THE BLOODY SOUND-STRANGLING TURBO!!!

Why not use earplugs??

 

Because it is the most glorious manner to enhance the chance to need a hearing aid device in the future?

In order to be able to still hear silent sounds that you could have heard like in the past?

But that ability you have lost?

Only because of refusing hearing protective aids because of the glorious experience you wanted to have at the maximum possible manner?

 

 

Good trade, nothing in your ears when you need it and improving your chances for a better opportunity to have something in your ears 24/7 in the future çause you need it.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 27 March 2025 - 17:55.

[F1Lurker]

Henri Greuter, on 27 Mar 2025 - 17:42, said:

OK
Using an highly energy consuming tool in order to defend and find the excuses to justify the re-introduction of an energy inefficient PU primarily for entertainment purposes only.

I must admit, there is a consequent logic in doing that.

My God, F1 is all entertainment. People have already mentioned the colossal carbon footprint of F1. Moreover, the 2026 hybrid PUs are adding nothing to the world because their technology is not relevant to road cars. Let's not drown ourselves with delusions here.

[Henri Greuter]

F1Lurker, on 27 Mar 2025 - 18:51, said:

My God, F1 is all entertainment. People have already mentioned the colossal carbon footprint of F1. Moreover, the 2026 hybrid PUs are adding nothing to the world because their technology is not relevant to road cars. Let's not drown ourselves with delusions here.

 

I wholeheartly agree that if it comes to enhance the green thinking, F1 could add a lot more to reduce carbon footprint. Way and way more than can be gained with keeping turbocharged ICE containing PU's instead of going to ressurrect crybaby engines.

But there are more reasons to think of and keep in mind to keep the sport enviromental friendly and keeping the image up for not only the fans but for not in racing interested people as well. And if it comes to keeping noise pollution under control and within reasonable, acceptable and more tolerable levels, that's not something the V10 will help boosting the image with for a number of people who are already against the sport we love.

 

 

 

But of course in the utterly selfish world we live nowadays, who give's a **** about other people nowadays. Me, myself and I go first, come what may. Right?

Edited by Henri Greuter, 27 March 2025 - 19:08.

[F1Lurker]

Henri Greuter, on 27 Mar 2025 - 19:07, said:

I wholeheartly agree that if it comes to enhance the green thinking, F1 could add a lot more to reduce carbon footprint. Way and way more than can be gained with keeping turbocharged ICE containing PU's instead of going to ressurrect crybaby engines.

But there are more reasons to think of and keep in mind to keep the sport enviromental friendly and keeping the image up for not only the fans but for not in racing interested people as well. And if it comes to keeping noise pollution under control and within reasonable, acceptable and more tolerable levels, that's not something the V10 will help boosting the image with for a number of people who are already against the sport we love.

 

 

 

But of course in the utterly selfish world we live nowadays, who give's a **** about other people nowadays. Me, myself and I go first, come what may. Right?

Look, your views are not wrong; I'm not going to call you a bad person for thinking as you do, in fact it's admirable.

 

I'm just saying that sometimes, in reality, people are just giving lip service to particular issues because it makes them feel better about themselves. I also think that there is currently a backlash around social scolds (not meaning you, so don't take it the wrong way). It is completely legitimate for you to argue that loud screaming V10's do not add to the F1 spectacle. It's also valid to argue that F1 should at least symbolically signal that they have hybrid and efficient technology. However, considering F1's footprint and the fact that their technology isn't really applicable to anyone else, reasonable people can legitimately say that F1 hybrid PUs are a type of hypocrisy. F1 should be cutting-edge, but cutting-edge doesn't have to mean a heavy, white elephant hybrid PU.

 

Like I said before, if F1 could solve hydrogen storage that would absolutely change the world for the better. If F1 said, "Let's have a hydrogen ICE and each team can develop their own hydrogen storage solution," we might see something interesting.

[MRX94]

If we are already splitting water to get hydrogen, may as well add some carbon and make it into eFuel, no special storage solutions necessary.

 

But in general I don't agree with the notion that F1 is just "entertainment". If so, why didn't Bernie's sprinkler idea never take off? The ability to add completely random rain to any race on the calendar, that's hugely entertaining, is it not? Also success ballast, imagine how exciting 2023 would have been if Red Bull had 50 kg of extra weight? Every race weekend a different team could be on top, isn't that much more entertaining than what we have now?

[Sterzo]

MRX94, on 27 Mar 2025 - 20:56, said:

If we are already splitting water to get hydrogen, may as well add some carbon and make it into eFuel, no special storage solutions necessary.

 

But in general I don't agree with the notion that F1 is just "entertainment". If so, why didn't Bernie's sprinkler idea never take off? The ability to add completely random rain to any race on the calendar, that's hugely entertaining, is it not? Also success ballast, imagine how exciting 2023 would have been if Red Bull had 50 kg of extra weight? Every race weekend a different team could be on top, isn't that much more entertaining than what we have now?

It's a difficult subject to debate, because words like "entertainment" don't have a precise definition. In any case, I see motor racing as a sport. Just as I see football, tennis and athletics as sports. It's a competition held for the enjoyment of participants and spectators. In motor racing, there's an element of technical competition; in some categories the technical element plays a major part, but equally one could imagine a situation where unfettered technical competition could make the sport less enjoyable rather than more.

 

As for your examples of sprinklers, randomness, and success ballast, many of us would answer NO, those are not in the least entertaining, they reduce enjoyment.

 

The underlying problem is that current technology is capable of producing racing cars much quicker than anything that makes for good sport. Without rules restraints, driverless cars could probably lap at supersonic speeds. And wouldn't it be boring.

 

What's needed is a long-term vision of what we want racing to be, and set future formulae based on stepping towards that vision. So if V10 engines get us there, let's go for them; if they don't, let's not.

Edited by Sterzo, 27 March 2025 - 21:23.

[F1Lurker]

MRX94, on 27 Mar 2025 - 20:56, said:

If we are already splitting water to get hydrogen, may as well add some carbon and make it into eFuel, no special storage solutions necessary.

 

But in general I don't agree with the notion that F1 is just "entertainment". If so, why didn't Bernie's sprinkler idea never take off? The ability to add completely random rain to any race on the calendar, that's hugely entertaining, is it not? Also success ballast, imagine how exciting 2023 would have been if Red Bull had 50 kg of extra weight? Every race weekend a different team could be on top, isn't that much more entertaining than what we have now?

I also see F1 as a sport because it is a genuine competition. However, I also see sports as entertainment for viewers, especially when people are paying to watch. Gimmicks destroy the notion of a genuine competition by competitors who are at the top of their field, and in my view are very much anti-sport.

 

As for hydrogen, in my view, adding carbon has two issues: 1) It doesn't really improve the situation. Carbon neutrality (if you can even achieve it) is just standing in place; 2) Carbon fuel combustion affects air quality and there are health and other concerns.

 

Hydrogen combustion only has the NOx issue, but that's no worse than current ICEs, and it can apparently be captured in certain engines, but probably not in jet engines. Better hydrogen storage would allow pollution- and carbon-free aviation and pollution- and carbon-free shipping, which are big polluters, and current battery technology is an absolute no-go for these industries.

Edited by F1Lurker, 27 March 2025 - 21:41.

[Ramon69]

I am shocked to hear these news, but I WELCOME V10s with OPEN ARMS!!!!!!!!!!   

[zeph]

Going back to V10's? Why stop there? Let's bring back manual transmissions. Remove power steering. Heck, no more radio or telemetry. Board signs from the pit wall will do just fine!

It would inevitably turn F1 into a historic racing series, not the pinnacle of motorsport.

 

While it's true F1 has become entertainment, I don't want it to devolve into WWE on wheels. That has always been my concern when Liberty Media took over, show over substance. While it could be good for the bottom line at first, it will eventually devalue the series to the point of irrelevance.

 

 

To me, the hybrid era has been an astounding success. Fuel load reduced by 33% yet they complete the same distance even faster. The '26 regs actually simplify the power units, to lower the threshold for new manufacturers. No more MGU-H, the most complex part of the unit. Understandable, but it is a step back.

 

Rather than going back to V10's, I would restrict resources even further. The engineers have proven to be up to the challenge.

 

No more rules on how and when to use the tires but give everybody an x number of sets for the weekend. If you use all before the end of the race, tough! You only get x amount of fuel for the entire weekend. If you use all before the end of the race, tough! Etc.

 

My thought is, if you can make an atmospheric V10 run an entire race on just 100 kg of fuel like a hybrid, bring it on.

 

I would think that restricting resources could potentially free up regulations and allow engineers more freedom to find different solutions for these challenges. 

 

So if some clever dickey builds a 6.0L flat 12 that can somehow run the entire race on 50kg of fuel and lap the entire field, what is wrong with that?

 

 

And finally, the notion that F1 tech has no relevance to road cars, is not entirely true. While most of it is not directly applicable, quite a bit of F1 type of R&D eventually trickles down in some form or other, even to other industries. Knowledge and understanding obtained is never without value.

Edited by zeph, 28 March 2025 - 02:44.

[Ultravox]

zeph, on 28 Mar 2025 - 02:33, said:

Going back to V10's? Why stop there? Let's bring back manual transmissions. Remove power steering. Heck, no more radio or telemetry. Board signs from the pit wall will do just fine!

It would inevitably turn F1 into a historic racing series, not the pinnacle of motorsport.

 

While it's true F1 has become entertainment, I don't want it to devolve into WWE on wheels. That has always been my concern when Liberty Media took over, show over substance. While it could be good for the bottom line at first, it will eventually devalue the series to the point of irrelevance.

 

 

To me, the hybrid era has been an astounding success. Fuel load reduced by 33% yet they complete the same distance even faster. The '26 regs actually simplify the power units, to lower the threshold for new manufacturers. No more MGU-H, the most complex part of the unit. Understandable, but it is a step back.

 

 

Ironically all those changes you mentioned would actually be a great step forward for the sport and very popular with the fans. It would not stop F1 being the pinnacle of the sport because they could still have the highest tech overall and speed. On the other hand do you think anyone gives a crap about the fuel efficiency of the engines and whether they can finish a race on 33% fuel? Do they you think they go to drag racing meets and ponder their fuel efficiency? F1 itself as a microscopic footprint, so reducing it or increasing it is nothing more than virtue signaling and politics. At the end of the day what fans care about the most is being entertained by the best drivers in the world without gimmicks, which means the cars themselves need to be entertaining to watch drive around the track, which means fast and noisy. Its been like that 100 years and worked well.

[zeph]

Ultravox, on 28 Mar 2025 - 02:55, said:

 Its been like that 100 years and worked well.

 

 

Horseback racing is still a thing, too.

[Lazy]

F1Lurker, on 27 Mar 2025 - 21:32, said:

I also see F1 as a sport because it is a genuine competition. However, I also see sports as entertainment for viewers, especially when people are paying to watch. Gimmicks destroy the notion of a genuine competition by competitors who are at the top of their field, and in my view are very much anti-sport.

 

As for hydrogen, in my view, adding carbon has two issues: 1) It doesn't really improve the situation. Carbon neutrality (if you can even achieve it) is just standing in place; 2) Carbon fuel combustion affects air quality and there are health and other concerns.

 

Hydrogen combustion only has the NOx issue, but that's no worse than current ICEs, and it can apparently be captured in certain engines, but probably not in jet engines. Better hydrogen storage would allow pollution- and carbon-free aviation and pollution- and carbon-free shipping, which are big polluters, and current battery technology is an absolute no-go for these industries.

V10s are a gimmick.

[Henri Greuter]

F1Lurker, on 27 Mar 2025 - 19:20, said:

Look, your views are not wrong; I'm not going to call you a bad person for thinking as you do, in fact it's admirable.

 

I'm just saying that sometimes, in reality, people are just giving lip service to particular issues because it makes them feel better about themselves. I also think that there is currently a backlash around social scolds (not meaning you, so don't take it the wrong way). It is completely legitimate for you to argue that loud screaming V10's do not add to the F1 spectacle. It's also valid to argue that F1 should at least symbolically signal that they have hybrid and efficient technology. However, considering F1's footprint and the fact that their technology isn't really applicable to anyone else, reasonable people can legitimately say that F1 hybrid PUs are a type of hypocrisy. F1 should be cutting-edge, but cutting-edge doesn't have to mean a heavy, white elephant hybrid PU.

 

Like I said before, if F1 could solve hydrogen storage that would absolutely change the world for the better. If F1 said, "Let's have a hydrogen ICE and each team can develop their own hydrogen storage solution," we might see something interesting.

 

 

Thanks for the nice words to me in your message, I appreciate that. 

 

I don't think that I can add or react on all  the contents of your message yet. Perhaps later on, but for the time being I think it is the best for me to read only and think over some of the arguements and check in later again maybe. 

Though I will state that even I don't see the current PU's as 100% perfect and 100% ideal for racing purposes. Giving up some hi-tech has elements of a stepback in time and leaving the standands of cutting edge technology.

To some extend, I think that to be acceptable if it enhances the racing.

 

But there are steps that I don't think being acceptable if the top primary arguement is to enhance the exerience for the by far biggest majority of the fans but at the expence of too much factors, ignored by that by far biggest majority of the fans as well. 

[PayasYouRace]

F1Lurker, on 27 Mar 2025 - 16:28, said:

There are definitely issues with AI but it's improving dramatically. There are ghost responses sometimes, but I find they are increasingly less common.

The more advanced models are almost like speaking to a person. I have used AI successfully for matters as varied as fairly complex coding and legal research. It has also given me decent frameworks for drafting several legal agreements.

So my conclusion is that AI is an incredibly powerful tool that will only get better. It's use is inevitable in society and business.

Well I suppose if it is like talking to a person, then I’d treat it like a person and fact check what they say. I have no problem with people using tools, but you’re still responsible for your own thoughts and posts.

[F1Lurker]

Lazy, on 28 Mar 2025 - 07:17, said:

V10s are a gimmick.

V10s are not a gimmick. This is especially so if they use the latest technologies and alternative fuels (sustainable/hydrogen, etc). For sports, a gimmick can be described as something contrived. A technological marvel such as a V10 achieving 40 to 45% efficiency is not even close to fitting the definition of a gimmick. It's okay to personally believe F1 should seek the highest efficiency but that doesn't make alternatives gimmicks.

[SenorSjon]

MRX94, on 27 Mar 2025 - 20:56, said:

If we are already splitting water to get hydrogen, may as well add some carbon and make it into eFuel, no special storage solutions necessary.

 

But in general I don't agree with the notion that F1 is just "entertainment". If so, why didn't Bernie's sprinkler idea never take off? The ability to add completely random rain to any race on the calendar, that's hugely entertaining, is it not? Also success ballast, imagine how exciting 2023 would have been if Red Bull had 50 kg of extra weight? Every race weekend a different team could be on top, isn't that much more entertaining than what we have now?

 

 

Because Pirelli came and their tire performance is more random than the weather. Since 2011, drivers hardly ever went full beans for any number of laps. Even in Australia, the softs couldn't run a full qualifying lap at full speed. Remember how race fastest laps could eclipse pole times?

 

 

Ultravox, on 28 Mar 2025 - 02:55, said:

Ironically all those changes you mentioned would actually be a great step forward for the sport and very popular with the fans. It would not stop F1 being the pinnacle of the sport because they could still have the highest tech overall and speed. On the other hand do you think anyone gives a crap about the fuel efficiency of the engines and whether they can finish a race on 33% fuel? Do they you think they go to drag racing meets and ponder their fuel efficiency? F1 itself as a microscopic footprint, so reducing it or increasing it is nothing more than virtue signaling and politics. At the end of the day what fans care about the most is being entertained by the best drivers in the world without gimmicks, which means the cars themselves need to be entertaining to watch drive around the track, which means fast and noisy. Its been like that 100 years and worked well.

 

Does anyone remember the live fuel figures we got in 2014 when the hybrids were introduced? It lasted about two races and never were seen again.

 

Lazy, on 28 Mar 2025 - 07:17, said:

V10s are a gimmick.

 

DRS is a gimmick, V10s are not.

[MRX94]

F1Lurker, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:11, said:

V10s are not a gimmick. This is especially so if they use the latest technologies and alternative fuels (sustainable/hydrogen, etc). For sports, a gimmick can be described as something contrived. A technological marvel such as a V10 achieving 40 to 45% efficiency is not even close to fitting the definition of a gimmick. It's okay to personally believe F1 should seek the highest efficiency but that doesn't make alternatives gimmicks.

They are still kind of a gimmick because sound (and nostalgia) is the only reason anybody wants them. There is no sporting or technological reason to have a big V10 when a turbo-charged engine with half the cylinders can make more usable power while being more compact, more reliable and more fuel efficient.

[Sterzo]

MRX94, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:22, said:

They are still kind of a gimmick because sound (and nostalgia) is the only reason anybody wants them. There is no sporting or technological reason to have a big V10...

Sound is a part of our sport, part of what we enjoy about it. I'm not bothered about V10s specifically, but I like motor racing in which the cars look and sound good. If there's an over-riding reason that prevents that, so be it, but I'm not convinced there is.

[F1Lurker]

MRX94, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:22, said:

They are still kind of a gimmick because sound (and nostalgia) is the only reason anybody wants them. There is no sporting or technological reason to have a big V10 when a turbo-charged engine with half the cylinders can make more usable power while being more compact, more reliable and more fuel efficient.

Yes the sound is more thrilling, but that is a pure effect of design. Moreover, these engines are lighter and this would allow lighter and more nimble cars, less tyre management and probably more overtaking in certain tracks. I would venture to say that the vast majority of drivers (if not all) would prefer a return to V10s and lighter cars. Do you think they know less than the hybrid PU advocates and that they want to drive with a gimmick?

[PayasYouRace]

MRX94, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:22, said:

They are still kind of a gimmick because sound (and nostalgia) is the only reason anybody wants them. There is no sporting or technological reason to have a big V10 when a turbo-charged engine with half the cylinders can make more usable power while being more compact, more reliable and more fuel efficient.

Is technology for the sake of it not also a gimmick when it comes to sport? Most sports limit technology to showcase participant skill and spectacle.

[Wuzak]

F1Lurker, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:37, said:

Yes the sound is more thrilling, but that is a pure effect of design. Moreover, these engines are lighter and this would allow lighter and more nimble cars, less tyre management and probably more overtaking in certain tracks. I would venture to say that the vast majority of drivers (if not all) would prefer a return to V10s and lighter cars. Do you think they know less than the hybrid PU advocates and that they want to drive with a gimmick?

 

You can have a lighter car using less fuel and have more power if you had the 2026 ICE with increased fuel flow and without the ERS.

[Wuzak]

F1Lurker, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:11, said:

V10s are not a gimmick. This is especially so if they use the latest technologies and alternative fuels (sustainable/hydrogen, etc). For sports, a gimmick can be described as something contrived. A technological marvel such as a V10 achieving 40 to 45% efficiency is not even close to fitting the definition of a gimmick. It's okay to personally believe F1 should seek the highest efficiency but that doesn't make alternatives gimmicks.

 

It would be remarkable if they got V10s to 40% efficiency, let alone 45%.

 

Meanwhile, from what Tombazis said a while back, the 2026 ICE could be upward of 55% efficiency.

 

And the target for 2026 ICE was 48% efficient (+400kW/536hp). That is with extremely lean air:fuel ratios.

[Stephane]

PayasYouRace, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:45, said:

Is technology for the sake of it not also a gimmick when it comes to sport? Most sports limit technology to showcase participant skill and spectacle.

 

I'd argue that the skill in motorsport is technology, or at least some sort of.

[pdac]

PayasYouRace, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:45, said:

Is technology for the sake of it not also a gimmick when it comes to sport? Most sports limit technology to showcase participant skill and spectacle.

 

But isn't that what separated F1 from other sports - that they designed and built cars using the latest ideas. Of course, that has passed now. But people still want to hang on to the past - but selective parts of the past.

[PayasYouRace]

Stephane, on 28 Mar 2025 - 13:33, said:

I'd argue that the skill in motorsport is technology, or at least some sort of.

pdac, on 28 Mar 2025 - 13:34, said:

But isn't that what separated F1 from other sports - that they designed and built cars using the latest ideas. Of course, that has passed now. But people still want to hang on to the past - but selective parts of the past.

Thats why I said, “for the sake of it”.

Technology that gives you an edge over your rivals is part of the game. Having everyone adopt a mandated technology for the sport to tick a political box sounds like a gimmick to me.

[pdac]

PayasYouRace, on 28 Mar 2025 - 14:01, said:

Thats why I said, “for the sake of it”.

Technology that gives you an edge over your rivals is part of the game. Having everyone adopt a mandated technology for the sport to tick a political box sounds like a gimmick to me.

 

It should be most of the game. Especially now, F1 does not know what it is. They have a constructors championship, suggesting that it's a team sport, but then they have a drivers championship, suggesting that it's an individuals sport. Maybe they should junk one of those championships (I suggest the removing the WDC) and have a proper identity.

[PayasYouRace]

pdac, on 28 Mar 2025 - 14:08, said:

It should be most of the game. Especially now, F1 does not know what it is. They have a constructors championship, suggesting that it's a team sport, but then they have a drivers championship, suggesting that it's an individuals sport. Maybe they should junk one of those championships (I suggest the removing the WDC) and have a proper identity.

Better set your time machine to 1957.

[Lazy]

F1Lurker, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:11, said:

V10s are not a gimmick. This is especially so if they use the latest technologies and alternative fuels (sustainable/hydrogen, etc). For sports, a gimmick can be described as something contrived. A technological marvel such as a V10 achieving 40 to 45% efficiency is not even close to fitting the definition of a gimmick. It's okay to personally believe F1 should seek the highest efficiency but that doesn't make alternatives gimmicks.

People only want them for the noise, pretty much the definition of gimmick.

[cbo]

Lazy, on 28 Mar 2025 - 14:17, said:

People only want them for the noise, pretty much the definition of gimmick.

Just go all in. Put loudspeakers and amplifiers on the cars and let the fans vote for whatever sound, they want each car to have.

....a V10....a lawnmower....a 1976 Ford Capri....a 23 liter V12....

[SenorSjon]

Lazy, on 28 Mar 2025 - 14:17, said:

People only want them for the noise, pretty much the definition of gimmick.

 

With the added bonus of smaller, lighter, more nimble cars. It works in unison.

[Henri Greuter]

SenorSjon, on 28 Mar 2025 - 15:06, said:

With the added bonus of smaller, lighter, more nimble cars. It works in unison.

 

 

Making smaller cars with a PU instead of a V10 is no problem at all. It is just because of that weight distribution level over the axles Pirelli demand and the aero men who want a long wheelbase in order to optimize that aero.

 

But all of that can be changed if the rules prescribe it. You don't need a V10 in order to achieve it, just adjust the limits and dimensions. Sidepods can be used to accomodate hardware instead of being aero parts.

Edited by Henri Greuter, 28 March 2025 - 15:18.

[zeph]

Exactly. Current F1 regs dictate than the power unit’s minimum weight should be 150 kg.

 

Once again, I think they have over-regulated F1. I wouldn’t mind atmospheric and hybrid engines duking it out.

 

Restrict the fuel flow rate and max amount of fuel per race (or weekend) and let the engineers come up with the best solution. If that is a V10, why not? I highly doubt it, but hey, if it works…

Edited by zeph, 28 March 2025 - 16:40.

[Henri Greuter]

zeph, on 28 Mar 2025 - 16:32, said:

Exactly. Current F1 regs dictate than the power unit’s minimum weight should be 150 kg.

 

Once again, I think they have over-regulated F1. I wouldn’t mind atmospheric and hybrid engines duking it out.

 

Restrict the fuel flow rate and max amount of fuel per race (or weekend) and let the engineers come up with the best solution. If that is a V10, why not? I highly doubt it, but hey, if it works…

fuel flow was actually proposed by (of all people...) Keith Duckworth in 1979.

He wanted a maximum of 27 cc/s max applied too all engines because in those days the turbo technology was still in it infancy and the Renault  V6 still in need for much more then that. So it was more to protect his own engine that used app. 27 cc.

I don't know if the rule would also have affected the V12s of that time but it was definitely meant as a manner to get the turbo's out before they could take over.

[Lazy]

SenorSjon, on 28 Mar 2025 - 15:06, said:

With the added bonus of smaller, lighter, more nimble cars. It works in unison.

Weight is more about safety than power unit.

[Beri]

Lazy, on 28 Mar 2025 - 18:59, said:

Weight is more about safety than power unit.

More, yes. But not on its own. Meaning there is weight to gain at the PU side. Which is much more likely to achieve than rewinding safety measures in the hunt for weight gains.

[F1Lurker]

Wuzak, on 28 Mar 2025 - 11:58, said:

It would be remarkable if they got V10s to 40% efficiency, let alone 45%.

 

Meanwhile, from what Tombazis said a while back, the 2026 ICE could be upward of 55% efficiency.

 

And the target for 2026 ICE was 48% efficient (+400kW/536hp). That is with extremely lean air:fuel ratios.

Obviously I don't know, but I believe you are an expert on PUs, so I'm not going to dispute your technical expertise at all. But really, most people (including probably the majority of F1 drivers) don't care at all about whether a PU is 38% or 40% or 55% efficient. People are smart enough to know this isn't something relevant to their automotive purchases. If they really care about efficiency, they just buy an electric car. So in my view, F1 doesn't have to pigeonhole itself into chasing the white elephant of PU efficiency with massively complicated hybrid systems. They can go for the driver and crowd pleasers, which would be a V10 (of course with the latest technology and engineering), sustainable or emission-free fuels, lighter resulting cars, and with a thrilling sound and pure power delivery.

[F1Lurker]

Lazy, on 28 Mar 2025 - 18:59, said:

Weight is more about safety than power unit.

Newey explained that the need for heavier safety features was linked to the overall increase in car weight, which mostly came from hybrid PUs.

 

Safety efforts are often cited as a reason for the steady weight increase in recent years, but Newey doesn't necessarily agree: "Some of the safety aspects obviously become a self-reinforcing problem. The heavier the car, the stronger it needs to be."

Edited by F1Lurker, 28 March 2025 - 23:24.

[Wuzak]

F1Lurker, on 28 Mar 2025 - 23:15, said:

Obviously I don't know, but I believe you are an expert on PUs, so I'm not going to dispute your technical expertise at all. But really, most people (including probably the majority of F1 drivers) don't care at all about whether a PU is 38% or 40% or 55% efficient. People are smart enough to know this isn't something relevant to their automotive purchases. If they really care about efficiency, they just buy an electric car. So in my view, F1 doesn't have to pigeonhole itself into chasing the white elephant of PU efficiency with massively complicated hybrid systems. They can go for the driver and crowd pleasers, which would be a V10 (of course with the latest technology and engineering), sustainable or emission-free fuels, lighter resulting cars, and with a thrilling sound and pure power delivery.

 

I wouldn't say I am an expert in PUs. I have read the rules around the PU and discussed them with others over the years.

 

The most efficient production spark ignition engine appears to be the Toyota M20, which is around 40% TE.

 

This is a 4 cylinder, with maximum rpm of around 7,000 rpm.

 

More cylinders and higher rpm will reduce efficiency.

 

The best production compression ignition (Diesel) engines are around 45% TE.

 

 

The drivers may not think they care about engine efficiency, but higher efficiency means more power and/or less fuel weight. Which I am sure they would like.

 

A 55% TE engine has 37.5% more power than a 40% TE engine. And uses 27% less fuel. Drivers woudl much prefer the higher efficiency engine in that case.

 

The 2026 PU has a much simplified ERS, but the complicated part is the mapping of when to use the ERS and when to recover energy.

 

The 2026 engine is (minimum) 130kg without ERS. Just that alone would allow reduced car weight (55kg MGUK + Energy store, plus various coolant radiators for the battery and motor). And be smaller than a V10.

[pdac]

Wuzak, on 29 Mar 2025 - 01:29, said:

I wouldn't say I am an expert in PUs. I have read the rules around the PU and discussed them with others over the years.

 

The most efficient production spark ignition engine appears to be the Toyota M20, which is around 40% TE.

 

This is a 4 cylinder, with maximum rpm of around 7,000 rpm.

 

More cylinders and higher rpm will reduce efficiency.

 

The best production compression ignition (Diesel) engines are around 45% TE.

 

 

The drivers may not think they care about engine efficiency, but higher efficiency means more power and/or less fuel weight. Which I am sure they would like.

 

A 55% TE engine has 37.5% more power than a 40% TE engine. And uses 27% less fuel. Drivers woudl much prefer the higher efficiency engine in that case.

 

The 2026 PU has a much simplified ERS, but the complicated part is the mapping of when to use the ERS and when to recover energy.

 

The 2026 engine is (minimum) 130kg without ERS. Just that alone would allow reduced car weight (55kg MGUK + Energy store, plus various coolant radiators for the battery and motor). And be smaller than a V10.

 

I think the point made here is that, given a free choice, drivers (and teams) would choose the most efficient PU. So, in order to ensure something different, it would have to be mandated (as it is) that all teams must use the same kind of PU. Once that rule is imposed, it does not really matter to them what that PU is - it only matters to the manufacturers and people promoting the sport.

[F1Lurker]

Wuzak, on 29 Mar 2025 - 01:29, said:

I wouldn't say I am an expert in PUs. I have read the rules around the PU and discussed them with others over the years.

The most efficient production spark ignition engine appears to be the Toyota M20, which is around 40% TE.

This is a 4 cylinder, with maximum rpm of around 7,000 rpm.

More cylinders and higher rpm will reduce efficiency.

The best production compression ignition (Diesel) engines are around 45% TE.


The drivers may not think they care about engine efficiency, but higher efficiency means more power and/or less fuel weight. Which I am sure they would like.

A 55% TE engine has 37.5% more power than a 40% TE engine. And uses 27% less fuel. Drivers woudl much prefer the higher efficiency engine in that case.

The 2026 PU has a much simplified ERS, but the complicated part is the mapping of when to use the ERS and when to recover energy.

The 2026 engine is (minimum) 130kg without ERS. Just that alone would allow reduced car weight (55kg MGUK + Energy store, plus various coolant radiators for the battery and motor). And be smaller than a V10.

I know your views are with good intentions but, I will quote Max and Lewis who I am sure are well informed on the trade-offs:

Reigning world champion Verstappen believes a V10 engine would be "definitely much better than what we have now" and indicated it could make him stay beyond the end of his contract in 2028.

When the situation was put to Hamilton, he agreed that a V10 return would be good, but only if F1 could do so with sustainable fuels.

"I mean, it is no secret that the V6 has never sounded great," Hamilton told media including RacingNews365.

"I remember the first time I came to a Formula 1 race in 1996 at Spa and I remember Michael [Schumacher] coming through Turn 1, and I was 12 or 13, and my rib-cage was just vibrating and I was hooked.

"It was the most amazing that I've felt or heard before, and over the years, we've lost that.

"So if we're able to move back to those amazing sounding engines and we're still able to meet all the sustainable goals, then yeah, why not?

[F1Lurker]

This also goes to another point I made earlier, there is now a global trend against just following along with what moralists, experts and social scolds declare that the majority should think or do. Mostly because these people often take their views much too far.

Some people here want more efficient PUs, despite knowing that it's just virtue signalling in the face of F1's enormous carbon footprint. It's fine to have this opinion for whatever reason. However, it's also fine for others to want a return to V10s.

[F1Lurker]

Alonso agrees with Wuzak.

Alonso, the last driver to win a world championship with a V10 engine 20 years ago, admitted the idea of returning to louder and lighter engines has clear appeal. “Obviously I love the V10 era and the V8 and the sound of those cars that we all miss,” he said.

But he doesn’t believe F1 should regress in terms of the technology used in its cars.

“We’re in a different world now,” he said. “Technology has evolved and we now have incredibly efficient engines that use about one-third of the fuel we used to.”

“We can’t just go against our time and our hybrid era,” he added. “We cannot forget how efficient the cars are now compared to the past. This is something very positive that we have.

[JHSingo]

Genuine question, but does anyone really get excited about hearing how "efficient" a racing car is? Personally, my eyes start glazing over whenever I hear someone talking about that. It's just so cold and...bland. I suppose it's another reason I've never really been able to warm to Formula E. 

 

I'm sure the tech is interesting if you have the required background to understand it, but I doubt anyone has ever started following races on TV or going to races in person because of how efficient the cars are. 

 

[pdac]

JHSingo, on 29 Mar 2025 - 11:25, said:

Genuine question, but does anyone really get excited about hearing how "efficient" a racing car is? Personally, my eyes start glazing over whenever I hear someone talking about that. It's just so cold and...bland. I suppose it's another reason I've never really been able to warm to Formula E. 

 

I'm sure the tech is interesting if you have the required background to understand it, but I doubt anyone has ever started following races on TV or going to races in person because of how efficient the cars are. 

 

 

That's the dilemma. On the one hand, you have a competition that is about designing, building a car to a specific formula and then racing with others to find who has done the best job. On the other hand, you have to contrive the formula to make an interesting spectacle that people will want to pay to watch. The formula then becomes a big compromise between what the constructers want to showcase and what the punters want to see.

[Lazy]

JHSingo, on 29 Mar 2025 - 11:25, said:

Genuine question, but does anyone really get excited about hearing how "efficient" a racing car is? Personally, my eyes start glazing over whenever I hear someone talking about that. It's just so cold and...bland. I suppose it's another reason I've never really been able to warm to Formula E. 

 

I'm sure the tech is interesting if you have the required background to understand it, but I doubt anyone has ever started following races on TV or going to races in person because of how efficient the cars are. 

 

It's literally the difference between winning and losing.

[Lazy]

pdac, on 29 Mar 2025 - 11:38, said:

That's the dilemma. On the one hand, you have a competition that is about designing, building a car to a specific formula and then racing with others to find who has done the best job. On the other hand, you have to contrive the formula to make an interesting spectacle that people will want to pay to watch. The formula then becomes a big compromise between what the constructers want to showcase and what the punters want to see.

That's backwards. F1 became something that the punters wanted to watch by just racing with others to do see who did the best job. Nobody said "how do we make this interesting to Joe public? They just did their thing and that's what give it real gravitas, that's what built F1.

People would soon tire of the noise, it's superficial, anybody can do it. 

[pup]

f1tech has had a petition going for this for about a week now.  It's made it to 78 signatures so far, or 0.00000944% of F1 fans, according to Nielson.  If this forum joined in, I'm sure you guys could get it to 0.00000945% or with some effort, maybe even 0.00000946%.  

 

F1 will have to pay attention then.

Edited by pup, 29 March 2025 - 16:03.