I'd love to have a Renault here in the states again and Peugeot... they make some funky cars that are fun to drive. Renault has a new R5 ... that looks great.
Lets see, I've been going to F-1 races since 1968... I remember them from around 1973 ish... so that means I have heard: V12 Matra, BRM, Alfa Romeo, Honda Flat 12 Ferrari, Alfa Romeo, & Subaru V 8 Ford Cosworth, Renault, Ferrari Mercedes V6 - all the current engines was just at Monza in the fall... and the turbos from the mid 80's and in my opinion the best sounding engines were from the years 1989 to 1992. During that time you had a mix of V12, V10, V8 flat 12, W12 etc... I think what is missing is diversity of power units, and way too strangled tech ban... ceramics, and nano materials
With a lot less downforce, cornering speeds are lower, acceleration distances are longer, top speed is higher, and braking takes longer--just about everything needed to fix F1's spectacle.
The FIA could easily impose a down force limit, but they are lobbied by aero engineers who are against it. Downforce is what kills F1, IMO.
Have FIA mandate a convex hull to the entire body and aerodynamic devices. Then let the aerodynamicists have at it.
Audi signals opposition to F1's V10 plan https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/audi-signals-opposition-to-f1s-v10-plan/ Audi firmly backs 2026 engine rules While it's understood Ferrari and Red Bull are key supporters for a shift to V10s, Audi has now gone public in declaring its support for the 2026 versions of the turbo hybrids. The incoming engines feature a 50/50 power split between the internal combustion engine and electric energy, having been framed in such a way to attract new manufacturers. As well as convincing Audi to join F1, the regulations were enough to make Honda do a U-turn over its original plans to exit grand prix racing. Having committed to creating a turbo hybrid for those rules, Audi emphasised the relevance of those engines to its road car programme and the importance of the 2026 rules to its decision to commit to F1 at all. In a statement given to The Race relating to the talks about abandoning the turbo hybrids for V10s, Audi said: "The upcoming regulation changes, including the new hybrid power unit regulations set for the 2026 season and beyond, were a key factor in Audi's decision to enter Formula 1. "These power unit regulations reflect the same technological advancements that drive innovation in Audi's road cars."
None of this actually reflects in road cars. Audi doesn't want it because (correctly), they've already spend god knows how much money on the 2026 engine. That's why they are against it. A full on eco fuel formula NA V10/12, fixed max RPM etc will be just as beneficial if not more beneficial to road cars as the way to gain an advantage engine wise is to have the best eco fuel developed and top end of the engine. But it's too short term for 2026 to do this. And Audi doesn't have a current engine they can use until the switch to such a formula.
Audi and Honda were promised 1 thing and Ben Duh Sulaywhocares FIA now wants to shift gears on the eve of the new regs lol. Its a conversation way too early. At this point F1 has no idea what it should be in 3 or less years. The new rules for the next PU need to be drafted already. Lead times matter for manufacturers. I can see Honda and Audi leaving in the next set of regs if they go V10. How many PU makers are left if they leave? Thats the real cost to the 'sport or show'. Money and manufacturers belong in the same sentence. F1 is now tied to them.
The beauty of going back to simple atmospheric engines is that anyone can build their own or indeed have one build for them. Only reason Cosworth left is because of the sheer cost involved of the current hybrid. Lets be very real here, very few people actually care if the manufacturers are out there or not. If Mercedes leaves tomorrow does viewership drop? No. I agree that the 2026 engines are too late to be changed, I outright said that already. But V10s are a real possibility and will very likely be the thing that saves F1 from going under after 2026. If it takes a couple of manufacturers to leave in a huff then so be it. Joke will be on them because a cheaper engine that will bring the viewership up in a cost control formula = PROFIT. Even their bean counters can't argue with it. The ONLY reason why a manufacturer will be against moving away from an engine regulation is because they enjoy an advantage, or at this point, too late to change as Audi doesn't have a back up engine in it's current form.
Can they not just have both? limit Power and torque for each one. Do a Hybrid V-10 / 12 option? I like manufacturers in the sport, I keeps it alive, but also I think the more diversity the more room for technical evolution. the Cost cap is a good / bad thing... so how to contain costs but also open up innovation? There has to be a better way. in the 80's there was the combo turbo & NA engines... just ensure that the NA engines have the same power potential as the Turbo Hybrid..... the engineers will figure out what works the best.
Would be intneresting for sure. hybrid engines will be significantly heavier but better on fuel and (far) more torque. NA FAR better packaging, significantly lower weight, much lower torque. I reckon NA would be quicker. The minimum weight will be working in the Hybrids favour though.
Agreed on the V10's but the noise police will subvert any throwback to older times with the real wailing.
F1 has lost the oil companies as sponsors, the tyres companies, the tobacco companies, the booze companies, and the banks. The car manufacturers are the ones who invest the most in F1 now. Does the FIA wish to p*** them off too ?
Cosworth left F1 because Ford stopped financing them, so they couldn't stay. Alone Cosworth was unable of launch a new F1 engine program without a backer. Same for Ilmor who was a sub-contractor for Mercedes. I think an engine buider would need massive resources to create a brand new state of the art V10. The idea that it can be done as a low-cost unit is a non starter, IMO.
Lower cost than the current power trains, but not cheap. And in the post-tobacco years, it would be that much harder for teams to raise that money themselves without manufacturer backing. Liberty could increase payments to the teams, but they won't. Why would they if the manufacturers are willing to foot the bills? There is a world in which the teams get by on dramatically smaller budgets, but few F1 stakeholders will want that. And so, for better or for worse (worse IMO), the manufacturers will stay and will continue to dictate the sport's direction.
I'm trying to think of all the ways the FIA will screw up the rebirth of the V10's. I know! Let's limit the fuel flow, cap the amount of fuel they can carry, and limit the RPMs to 6,000.
There is one thing nobody mentionq, which would become a big issue in case of a V10 N/A revival; noise ! Times have changed, and a lot of places who welcomed high decibels in the past, may not do it anymore in future. Some circuits had to curb their activities because of noise abatement. Let's not burry our heas in the sand and ignore that issue.
Great solution...reminds me of when Renault brought out their turbo V6 in an era filled with V12, Flat 12, and V8 motors. It gets the sport back to "run what you brung" and away from a single engine spec racer series. And it will provide exciting challanges for engineers, designers, manufacturers, and drivers. And a great show for the fans...different sounds and attacks to the same tracks.
cosworth spend 20 million developing the 2006 v8. Ferrari etc around 50. the hybrids were over a billion. With a B.
I doubt this would be a constraint in many places - hosting a Grand Prix is important enough to so many of these markets, I'm sure exceptions would be made. I believe exceptions were required in a few locations in the V8 era.
NASCAR has to run mufflers at some tracks due to noise issues I remember being at the first Indy USGP and all the old time 500 fans losing their minds over how loud the V10s were. it was pretty funny.
