V10

ex-****ing-cactly

 

Christian Horner Talks New 2026 Regulations And The V10 Engine For The Future.. Bahrain GP Post FP1

 

Well, not exactly true. There is some cross over but its usually generations behind. I'd say open up the formula and allow both NA and Turbo hybrid.... Kers, ERS etc... and if you have a 36 cyl engine have at it. limit 1500 HP, and x amount of torque. all have to use same fuel.

 

Bas said: ↑
An ICE on 100% eco fuel is NOT an old formula. It's brand new.


Not exactly !

Only the method to obtain the fuel could be new; even then.
I think the term "100% eco fuel" is misleading.
Racing ICE engines have used ethanol or methanol in the past, and plenty of other brews, some from vegetal sources!
The engine designs were the same, only the carburation and compression ratio were different perhaps.

I think Vettel has already demonstrated an ex-F1 V10 with bio fuel.

 

It's interesting, I was chatting with a friend of mine and he essentially said the same as you, do whatever you want, but there is a torque/power limit A la WEC.

I do really like that idea too but my proposed formula would be with significant cost control in mind. An ''open'' formula would see cost spiral again, surely. And on top of that...likelyhood of 1 team getting it bang on and be a lap clear every race.

 

Yes and no...I think those fuels where premature and the focus to get more power was elsewhere in the end (revs). Vettel has demonstrated his Mclaren and Williams on eco fuel indeed but it wasan't a show of power. With a rev cap the teams/petrol companies would have to work together to create a fuel that'll burn most efficient whilst producing the required power in a controlled environment (engine size, materials + revs controlled).

 

I think the cost cap is good, but inside of that ... spend it how you like. Just have some key NOT TO EXCEED targets in the formula. 1500 HP, 1000NP torque, 7.1G limit, XKG of down force, with all the tech all those can be monitored in real time. for track limits the same thing. a car perimeter system should and automatically cut power after a track limits violation. If you have a design for a 40 CYl engine with 8 wheels ... bring it on. The Tech boffins will quickly figure out the most advantageous way forward. I'd also be open to a 2 stroke engine as well, but you would have to figure out fuel and oil, vs. real fuel doping/ boosting like in the early 90's.

 

Rev cap is the the worst kind of cap.

 

IF they ever go back to V10s, I would bank on some sort of fuel limit cap being put in place just as they do today.

I enjoyed the days when engine manufacturers kept pushing the limits and we saw the RPM's and power rise and rise. I would be all for it, but I also do not want another situation like 2014-16 when Mercedes had a 75-100 hp advantage.

 

If they're going to run V10s with fuel flow limits, they shouldn't bother. It would defeat the purpose. Like vegan barbecue.

Fuel flow limits are the biggest problem with the current cars. It's a vastly bigger problem than the cylinder count. I'd take V6s that rev to 20k over V10s that only go to 10k.

Efficiency is a noble goal for commuter cars. These are race cars.

 

I agree with you, but I still expect a fuel limit.

 

My RPM cap if I had the powers would be a 3.5 liter V10/12 with a 17K rpm cap

 

Report on the results of the Bahrain Motor Summit lol

What will F1's next engine look like in 2029 (or later)?
https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-next-engine-regulations-2029-v10-v8-hybrid/

 

I think that could be easily solved with a FIA HP test with a Max HP limit. I'd say 1500 - 2K hp max. not a range but a set limit. I think instead of fuel it will be longevity and life of the engine. each engine has to cover 5 races, is sealed etc...

 

I don't think a 1500-2000 hp compact naturally aspirated V10 would even be possible.

No way we'd see 1500-2000 hp engines of any kind in modern F1. The supposed 1500 hp turbo engines of the 80s did something like 330 kph at the high speed tracks. Modern cars would be doing 400 kph and that's insanity for wheel to wheel racing.

 

If the power keeps increasing in the proportions some wish, the cars will soon outgrow the tracks.
Some circuits were designed in the 20s, when speeds were far lower.
Mark Donohue once said:
"If you leave two black stripes from the exit of one corner to the braking zone of the next, you have enough horsepower."
We are not far from that already on some circuits.

 

We can only dream, let's go the whole hog and make it V12. NA

 

By again, why impose an engine configuration ?
I remember that V8s were dominating V12s for years.
It's not only about power, but torque, fuel consumption, complexity, weight, efficiency, packaging, etc ...
The V10s and V12s were not very convincing compared to the V8s when racing together.

 

Back to displacement only rules?

The DFV V8 was the dominant engine in the early years but failed against the bigger engines in the 1980's. Judd, Cosworth and Yamaha V8's were not up to it.

The only time Ferrari used the V12 was in 1969 with the 312, then Flat 12's up to the John Barnard 640 V12. For me the best of all time.

The V8 was a screamer in order to get the power & torque, without KERS it was impotent, the V10 achieved high power and revs but used insanely expensive exotic materials. For me the V12 was the "cheaper" option, with revs up to 16K.

For compactness, lightweight and power the V10 is the best all round racing engine configuration but the V12 hits the sweet spot for toe curling noise

 

We agree to disagree.
For me, the V8 has qualities far above the V10 and V12.
Lighter block, shorter crankshaft and camshafts, less moving parts, easier to package, simpler exhaust system, more torque at low revs than V10 or V12.
I agree its sound is less deafening than the others, but that's not the most important for me.

If turbo is allowed, I would like to see what a narrow-angle V4 would do.
That's a confuguration only some rare racing bikes have used, and Lancias of the past.
As it is very short, the designers could even use it transversally. It's ideal for packaging too.

 

You are entitled to your POV, we all have our favorite sounds / configuration.

FYI

V8 2.5L 20Krpm 100kg
max power 597kw 329 N/m Torque

V10 3L 19K rpm 120kg
Max power 701kw 414 N/m Torque

V12 3.5L 16k rpm 160kg
Max power 641KW 502Nm Torque

Different engines from different era's but the V12 has the grunt

 

So would be a formula where a tanker truck picks a random gasoline station within 50 miles of the race track and "takes" the weekends fuel from a regular underground tank.

It IS designed to be misleading. 100% ECO fuel comes entirely from living plants.

Most Ethanol and Methanol production use a carbon source to heat the mash and vaporize what becomes the fuel.
100% ECO fuel would not be allowed to use a carbon based heat source. {Nukes, Wind, Solar}

When you can make Benzene and Toluene 100% ECO friendly, you can make any fuel for any vehicle with any compression ratio for which you could use regular non ECO fuels--and not need to change compression or carburetion. It will have become a 100% replaceable component.

I should note:: general aviation is not having a "great time" with their now new ECO fuel.

 

Cost and to not have formula dominated by whichever engine is strongest.

 

If a k20 Honda engine can make 1000HP with a Turbo, and Cosworth can make 1500 HP with a V16 for Bugatti... give the engineers sometime and they will have 3K hp engines. I never said a compact or small displacement engine... but certainly with 3 L engines it could be done.

 

Ummm, I'm not so sure. In 89, 90, 91, 92 & 93 all the winning cars were more than V8s... mostly Honda and Renault, but either V10 or 12.