Return of the V12

[Adam43]

The solution and timing doesn’t have to be the same in each location. Although that will lead to some inequalities. In some locations big cities could end up being relatively pollution free (it’s not just about CO2) whereas some poorer countries might not have this luxury for a few decades after.

Going to be difficult for those who deal in absolutes.

[Casper]

The big questions are......

How much value the manufacturers place on image and how they think F1 should reflect what is happening in the retail market.

Where the category owner and the FIA wants to place F1 in this huge change that is taking place. Honda for instance did not think that their continued presence in F1 was going to align with their marketing and business plans that they have announced since announcing they were leaving.

Those I think are the two big unanswered questions and it is likely that the "stakeholders" haven't arrived at a conclusion yet because they simply don't know. They have to assess where they see it all going before they can plan for the future of F1 and indeed for the motorsport categories that feed it.

[Pandamasque]

My point exactly.

Originally Posted by Casper

Where the category owner and the FIA wants to place F1 in this huge change that is taking place. Honda for instance did not think that their continued presence in F1 was going to align with their marketing and business plans that they have announced since announcing they were leaving.

Interestingly, at the very same time on some other level Honda is pretty much 90% there on committing to LMDh, that's barely hybrid and with spec KERS that Honda can't promote as their own design. But of course, the financial side of it is very different to F1.

[Casper]

This was the recent announcement for what it is worth

https://www.honda.ie/Page/111/honda-electric-vision

[wnut]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

My point exactly.


Interestingly, at the very same time on some other level Honda is pretty much 90% there on committing to LMDh, that's barely hybrid and with spec KERS that Honda can't promote as their own design. But of course, the financial side of it is very different to F1.

There was an interview conducted with the American Honda Motor Corporation Marketing Director Jenny Howell where she answered the following question:

EG SR: Honda has sponsored the Civic Tour for 11 years. That’s a long time. How do you measure success, and what kind of success have you seen?

Howell: We look at the basic metrics, such as the number of tickets sold and attendance numbers. We also give away a customized car and motorcycle designed by each of the bands. We track sweepstakes entries and the number of people that opt in to receive more information from Honda. We can match that back to sales, but that’s not the primary driver for this promotion.

We also conduct a study on the people that attend the event and their impression of Honda. We have seen a lift in brand perception and awareness. The tour has made an impact on people’s perception of Honda.

Provides an interesting insight into what Honda are looking from their marketing efforts.

[Taxi645]

Vettel adds his 2 cents:


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/v...ight/10334603/


“And the right reasons again, coming back to the budget, are very clear and simple. So we need to find a way to do it. And being a motorsport guy, I love racing. I love the cars. I love to have the sensation for the V10. For the history going forwards, I don't know that's a separate another discussion to have, what is the better way?
“What is the cheaper way as well? Because these engines cost a fortune, their development costs a fortune up to this point."

and also: https://the-race.com/formula-1/can-v...-rule-changes/

[P38 in workshop]

I remember the same sort of conversations taking place in the late 1980's as the turbo era was swept aside.The new engines were going to be less expensive it was claimed and then it transpired that they actually cost more.I don't think there is the slightest chance of a V12 appearing in a Formula 1 car ever again and it is sad.On the other hand,if the FIA push the environmental agenda much harder I don't expect the next formula to have as much of an IC element either.My probably inaccurate assessment would be that the next generation cars will have V4's with a bigger battery pack.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I remember the same sort of conversations taking place in the late 1980's as the turbo era was swept aside.The new engines were going to be less expensive it was claimed and then it transpired that they actually cost more.I don't think there is the slightest chance of a V12 appearing in a Formula 1 car ever again and it is sad.On the other hand,if the FIA push the environmental agenda much harder I don't expect the next formula to have as much of an IC element either.My probably inaccurate assessment would be that the next generation cars will have V4's with a bigger battery pack.

I think the V6 turbo's will remain for 2026, but yes the next and possibly last IC regulation before we go to a fully electric era, could very well be V4's.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

I think the V6 turbo's will remain for 2026, but yes the next and possibly last IC regulation before we go to a fully electric era, could very well be V4's.

The current ICEs were meant to be V4s but, during the rule change process, a compromise was achieved because of competing interests amongst the engine suppliers. Renault were threatening to stop providing power units unless the ICE component was loosely based on their road going engines, whilst Mercedes and Ferrari really wanted to keep to V8s, just with smaller displacement.

And so the V6 was chosen.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

The current ICEs were meant to be V4s but, during the rule change process, a compromise was achieved because of competing interests amongst the engine suppliers. Renault were threatening to stop providing power units unless the ICE component was loosely based on their road going engines, whilst Mercedes and Ferrari really wanted to keep to V8s, just with smaller displacement.

And so the V6 was chosen.

Yes, now you mention it, I can remember. Although I thought it were inline-4's on the table back then.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Yes, now you mention it, I can remember. Although I thought it were inline-4's on the table back then.

Well, if it had been an inline-4, Renault would have been over the moon as that would have matched their road-going cars. But that wasn't on the table, which is why they threatened to walk away from F1, certainly as an engine provider.

[Richard C]

As I remember it, it was to be an I4 and not a V4 engine. A key driver was similarity to production car engines (probably more I4 engines out there in the world than most anything else?? Other than maybe one cylinder engines?). I don't remember any talk of V4 solutions? Looking at articles from around 2010, most just say "1.6L four cylinder" and don't specify configuration. Some later articles that talk about the move from four to six cylinders do mention "I4" vs. "V6".

Lastly, when Porsche brought the V4 turbo forward for their 919 WEC car, I think many were surprised as it was an unexpected solution. F1 has typically specifically set key engine parameters in stone (such as the current F1 solution they MUST be 90deg V6, must have bores of 80mm, etc.), but for WEC, they had similar regulations, but with less stringent controls on engine configuration. So the V4 was a shock solution from Porsche while others were using six cylinder solutions. A V4 design has challenges around firing orders, balancing, etc. Porsche eventually made it work and it was a compact engine.

Now I think it might have been harder to make an inline vs vee stressed member engine. And I think that is one of the reasons why the manufactures were able to convince them to move from the four (again, most likely inline) to V6 solution. I am not 100% sure, but I think it was Ferrari who effectively torpedoed the idea of the four cylinder.

Richard

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Vettel adds his 2 cents:


https://www.motorsport.com/f1/news/v...ight/10334603/


“And the right reasons again, coming back to the budget, are very clear and simple. So we need to find a way to do it. And being a motorsport guy, I love racing. I love the cars. I love to have the sensation for the V10. For the history going forwards, I don't know that's a separate another discussion to have, what is the better way?
“What is the cheaper way as well? Because these engines cost a fortune, their development costs a fortune up to this point."

and also: https://the-race.com/formula-1/can-v...-rule-changes/

so is he basically saying that F1 should go back to V10s but move to keep it road relevant by pushing synthetic fuels/bio fuels instead?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

As I remember it, it was to be an I4 and not a V4 engine. A key driver was similarity to production car engines (probably more I4 engines out there in the world than most anything else?? Other than maybe one cylinder engines?). I don't remember any talk of V4 solutions? Looking at articles from around 2010, most just say "1.6L four cylinder" and don't specify configuration. Some later articles that talk about the move from four to six cylinders do mention "I4" vs. "V6".

Lastly, when Porsche brought the V4 turbo forward for their 919 WEC car, I think many were surprised as it was an unexpected solution. F1 has typically specifically set key engine parameters in stone (such as the current F1 solution they MUST be 90deg V6, must have bores of 80mm, etc.), but for WEC, they had similar regulations, but with less stringent controls on engine configuration. So the V4 was a shock solution from Porsche while others were using six cylinder solutions. A V4 design has challenges around firing orders, balancing, etc. Porsche eventually made it work and it was a compact engine.

Now I think it might have been harder to make an inline vs vee stressed member engine. And I think that is one of the reasons why the manufactures were able to convince them to move from the four (again, most likely inline) to V6 solution. I am not 100% sure, but I think it was Ferrari who effectively torpedoed the idea of the four cylinder.

Richard

I think you're right on all the above.

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so is he basically saying that F1 should go back to V10s but move to keep it road relevant by pushing synthetic fuels/bio fuels instead?

Yes, as is the premise of this thread. There are no significant environmental or road relevant reasons to say V6 turbo's are better than V10. I think the fear of looking too backward is what prevents their reintroduction. Something which is in all fairness, understandable.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

so is he basically saying that F1 should go back to V10s but move to keep it road relevant by pushing synthetic fuels/bio fuels instead?

I took it as Vettel saying he likes driving a car with a V10, but he recognises it as part of the past of F1, not the future.

[Casper]

Vettel admitted in an interview in the US his views on ICE/fossil fuels were totally contradictory to his love of racing and ICE race cars.

[Taxi645]

Chandook on V10's on synthetic fuel:
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...manufacturers/

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

Chandook on V10's on synthetic fuel:
https://www.motorsportmagazine.com/a...manufacturers/

Very selective in the terminology (as to be expected from a journalistic article).

'September 2004, a screaming V10 engine [...] what was then grand prix racing’s fastest ever lap at Monza – 162.950mph.' - Roll on to 2020, and Hamilton sets the fastest Monza F1 lap in a hybrid.

'today’s lumbering hybrid cars [...] handle like HGVs round slow corners' - yet in other threads many complain that the cars are too fast nowadays.

Underlying this has always been the notion that F1 should be (or aims to be) 'road relevant'. But this simplifies the overall requirement to be societally relevant. If the majority of wider society sees a combustion engine as a bad thing - they will switch off. Switch off viewers, switch off sponsors. Switch off sponsors, and you are left with wealthy enthusiasts running a heritage series.

[chillibowl]

totally agreed that perception and delivering something that reflects consumer behaviours and trends is of massive importance to those involved in F1.

but then i look at Indy which doesn't seem to be showing any signs of push back by fans or society at large over the use of their new 2nd gen ethanol formula.

there is something very alluring about renewable biofuels that relies on waste and/or non food crops.

[coppice]

It may be of importance to them but it's delusional to think that anybody not interested in F1 knows or cares a jot about its greenwashing credentials. Most of which are undermined by using tyres which are very publically thrown away after 15 minutes use .

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by chillibowl

there is something very alluring about renewable biofuels that relies on waste and/or non food crops.

Growing non-food crops just means that valuable farming areas are just turned over to growing something that is far more profitable rather than providing food that is desperately needed.

Much in the same way that swathes of land are being used to grow palm trees because the modern world demands so many products that use palm oil in their production.

Never mind that people around the world are starving, let alone that some of the world's tropical forests are disappearing to satisfy that lust.

[Mike Harte]

Originally Posted by coppice

It may be of importance to them but it's delusional to think that anybody not interested in F1 knows or cares a jot about its greenwashing credentials. Most of which are undermined by using tyres which are very publically thrown away after 15 minutes use .

Pirelli actually recycle the used F1 tyres to produce more tyres, also for F1.

[chillibowl]

Originally Posted by Mike Harte

Growing non-food crops just means that valuable farming areas are just turned over to growing something that is far more profitable rather than providing food that is desperately needed.

you are not wrong...but to my point i was talking about the discarded husks of sugar cane they are using to make this new type of ethanol.

my bad and should not have said 'non-food' as i meant the the parts of the crop which isnt meant for human consumption. my bad there.

[Mike Harte]

No problem, Chilli.

[Richard C]

In the "Future Rule Changes" thread...

https://tentenths.com/forum/showthre...40222&page=167

...back in July Tourer called out this article...

https://www.autosport.com/f1/news/f1...nes-/10495786/

We had some back and forth as to what exactly that article was trying to say, but my take was it was about a future engine formula AFTER the 2026 regulations (which are mostly already set). With the implication being that maybe by then, F1 will not need to be as "road relevant" with respect to power units (as that will continue to be more and more electric focused). That maybe F1 can revert back to simple ICE solutions, but still use renewable biofuels.

The point for this thread is that maybe the day will eventually come in which a more "classic" larger displacement and simple NA ICE engines might show up again in F1. I tend to doubt they will be V12, but I can imagine a V8 or V10 solution using 100% biofuel.

Richard