V10 | Page 11 | FerrariChat

V10

Discussion in 'F1' started by 375+, Feb 20, 2025.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, Skimlinks, and others.

  1. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    42,414
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    ex-****ing-cactly
     
  2. jgonzalesm6

    jgonzalesm6 Two Time F1 World Champ
    Rossa Subscribed

    Oct 31, 2016
    23,636
    Corpus Christi, Tx.
    Full Name:
    Joe R Gonzales
    Christian Horner Talks New 2026 Regulations And The V10 Engine For The Future.. Bahrain GP Post FP1

     
  3. spirot

    spirot F1 World Champ

    Dec 12, 2005
    14,956
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Tom Spiro
    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.
     
  4. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    27,312
    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.
     
  5. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    42,414
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    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.
     
  6. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    42,414
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    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).
     
  7. spirot

    spirot F1 World Champ

    Dec 12, 2005
    14,956
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Tom Spiro
    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.
     
    Bas likes this.
  8. NGooding

    NGooding Formula 3
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 5, 2021
    1,165
    Connecticut, USA
    Full Name:
    Nate
    Rev cap is the the worst kind of cap.
     
    375+ likes this.
  9. SS454

    SS454 Formula 3

    Oct 28, 2021
    2,039
    Full Name:
    Chris S
    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.
     
    Bas likes this.
  10. NGooding

    NGooding Formula 3
    Rossa Subscribed

    Apr 5, 2021
    1,165
    Connecticut, USA
    Full Name:
    Nate
    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.
     
  11. SS454

    SS454 Formula 3

    Oct 28, 2021
    2,039
    Full Name:
    Chris S
    I agree with you, but I still expect a fuel limit.
     
    NGooding likes this.
  12. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    42,414
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    My RPM cap if I had the powers would be a 3.5 liter V10/12 with a 17K rpm cap
     
    ago car nut and TonyL like this.
  13. DF1

    DF1 Two Time F1 World Champ

  14. spirot

    spirot F1 World Champ

    Dec 12, 2005
    14,956
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Tom Spiro
    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...
     
  15. SS454

    SS454 Formula 3

    Oct 28, 2021
    2,039
    Full Name:
    Chris S
    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.
     
    william likes this.
  16. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    27,312
    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.
     
    swift53 likes this.
  17. TonyL

    TonyL F1 Rookie

    Sep 27, 2007
    4,133
    Norfolk - UK
    Full Name:
    Tony
    We can only dream, let's go the whole hog and make it V12. NA
     
    spirot, Bas and 375+ like this.
  18. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    27,312
    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.
     
  19. TonyL

    TonyL F1 Rookie

    Sep 27, 2007
    4,133
    Norfolk - UK
    Full Name:
    Tony
    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:)
     
  20. william

    william Two Time F1 World Champ
    Silver Subscribed

    Jun 3, 2006
    27,312
    #270 william, Apr 16, 2025
    Last edited: Apr 16, 2025

    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.
     
  21. TonyL

    TonyL F1 Rookie

    Sep 27, 2007
    4,133
    Norfolk - UK
    Full Name:
    Tony
    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
     
    swift53 likes this.
  22. Mitch Alsup

    Mitch Alsup F1 Veteran

    Nov 4, 2003
    9,636
    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.
     
  23. Bas

    Bas Four Time F1 World Champ

    Mar 24, 2008
    42,414
    ESP
    Full Name:
    Bas
    Cost and to not have formula dominated by whichever engine is strongest.
     
  24. spirot

    spirot F1 World Champ

    Dec 12, 2005
    14,956
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Tom Spiro
    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.
     
  25. spirot

    spirot F1 World Champ

    Dec 12, 2005
    14,956
    Atlanta
    Full Name:
    Tom Spiro
    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.
     
    Bas and 375+ like this.

Share This Page