Return of the V12

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I thought this horse had died a while ago and yet people are still flogging it.

There is no reason not to run V10 or V12 engines in Formula One. Road relevance is irrelevant really. It's supposed to be an entertainment spectacle, is it not?



Surely this cute little power unit wouldn't dare try to destroy the environment all on it's own?

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

There is no reason not to run V10 or V12 engines in Formula One.

It would appear as a backward step and a retrograde in development.

Since 1987, the engines have got progressively smaller from 3.5L down to the 1.6L unit we have today. At the same time, the maximum number of cylinders has dropped from unrestricted, through 12, 10, 8 and now 6.

For the majority of F1 investors, I expect they may see a move to V10 or V12 as going in the wrong direction.

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

There is no reason not to run V10 or V12 engines in Formula One. Road relevance is irrelevant really. It's supposed to be an entertainment spectacle, is it not?

I think a key factor is efficiency. While we are currently in an era with technical regulations that are designed to prioritize high efficiency ("limited fuel" drives need to produce "maximum power" via efficient combustion), those lessons can't be lost. Friction reduction, combustion efficiency, etc. will remain key drivers as to a degree, they provide easy to obtain "free" and otherwise lost power.

My limited understanding of optimizing to reduce friction is that 12 cylinder engines are on the wrong side of that equation. So unless specifically mandated, providers will choose something else to obtain a higher level of efficiency (and power) over those who would choose a 12 cylinder solution. I believe the optimal answer is in the 8 to 10 cylinder range. Which is why we finished the previous era with V8 and V10 solutions. Note, there are other factors in that I think there are other equations that take displacement and match that to optimal cylinder size to determine number of cylinders. That math (given F1s current displacement) ends up at surprisingly... about six cylinders.

If you want V12s, they will have to be mandated in the regulations. If you want noisy engines (loud exhaust) you will have to create explicit and required wastefulness of fuel. One way would be to limit displacement, but require large/excessive quantities of fuel to be carried at the start (no maximum capacity and you pick a load that works, but you must load the car to a maximum capacity even if you would not normally use it). So that part of the goal is to burn as much fuel as you can to lower the weight of the car. The low displacement requirement is to ensure that efficient combustion "for that displacement" will result in you finding you have an excess of fuel (weight) that you have to drag around. So that excess will be burnt in a wasteful way which may likely be noise/heat.

There may be some flaws in my thinking or my solution, but in general, I think the days of V12s are done unless... they are mandated. And for them to be particularly noisy like in the past, that likely would need to be mandated in the rules somehow as well.

Richard

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It would appear as a backward step and a retrograde in development.

Since 1987, the engines have got progressively smaller from 3.5L down to the 1.6L unit we have today. At the same time, the maximum number of cylinders has dropped from unrestricted, through 12, 10, 8 and now 6.

For the majority of F1 investors, I expect they may see a move to V10 or V12 as going in the wrong direction.

The majority of F1 investors are car manufacturers pushing an agenda. Engine sizes since the 90s have been regulated downwards rather than a natural evolution.

As long as F1 maintains it wants to be road relevant, we're going to continue down this path. It's also the primary reason for the sky rocketing costs. Engines now cost more than entire teams used to. That is not acceptable, and only serves to help out the manufacturers.

[Pandamasque]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

It would appear as a backward step and a retrograde in development.

Since 1987, the engines have got progressively smaller from 3.5L down to the 1.6L unit we have today. At the same time, the maximum number of cylinders has dropped from unrestricted, through 12, 10, 8 and now 6.

For the majority of F1 investors, I expect they may see a move to V10 or V12 as going in the wrong direction.

You are quite right. Hence the next logical step is zero cylinders, if they follow the same logic. I'm dead serious.

However, all the talk about extreme cost cutting and getting into biofuels suggests they're looking for a way out this logic, while finding some other way to appear green.

Perhaps it's because they fear getting into a hugely costly development war that won't bear any real relevance for electric road car R&D, or because they realise how tiny the overlap is between the people pushing this agenda and the people tuning in to see the Grand Prix or buying the tickets, let alone those passionate enough to "engage" online and offline effectively raising the profile of the sport. It's a real conundrum that every major series is about to face.

[wnut]

It is interesting how the IC engine is constantly being run down, yet the F1 engineers have admitted that the gains they have made are mainly in the IC side of the cars.

Here is another advance from Hyundai this time the CVVD (Continuously Variable Valve Duration) engine that allows all sorts of neat tricks regarding performance and economy.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uhsgdwUX1-w

There is also the diesel cycle petrol engine being used by Mazda in their Skyactiv engines.

Both systems seem to provide real world benefits in excess of carrying heavy and inefficient hybrid battery systems around.

[wnut]

The biggest problem with the current engines is that nobody can actually afford to race them!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Richard Casto

There may be some flaws in my thinking or my solution, but in general, I think the days of V12s are done unless... they are mandated. And for them to be particularly noisy like in the past, that likely would need to be mandated in the rules somehow as well.

A mandatory naturally aspirated V12 with no mufflers is always going to be noisy, even if 2025 technology (like turbulent jet injection and ultra-lean combustion, same as in the 1.6Ts) delivers 40% thermal efficiency compared to 30% for the units from 1995.

Recall, it is not stricty the manufacturer's choice to replace V12s with bi-turbo V8s or V6s with turbo inline-fours. It is, rather, a necessity in order to reduce fleet emissions limits and avoid EU and CAFE fines -- however in all likelihood the traditional Acura TLX buyer prefers the classic Honda V6 to the turbo four, the traditional Alpine buyer prefers the classic PRV V6 to the M series turbo four, and the traditional Ferrari 812 buyer prefers the classic Ferrari V12 to some twin-turbo V8!

[Akrapovic]

Originally Posted by wnut

The biggest problem with the current engines is that nobody can actually afford to race them!

Spot on. Meanwhile Toto says the engines are too cheap and should cost more. F1 engines have become mafia protection money - nobody apart from the biggest of the big can make them, and you have to have them to be in the series - therefore the little ones get to pay the big ones for equipment they have to have, whilst the big ones say it's cheap.

People keep rolling out that bloody Truth in 24 quote about noise being wasted energy. In reality, noise is only a tiny amount of energy compared to the rest of the system. And the engines are quiet because the rules have dictated an engine layout that happens to be quiet. It's not like 2014 came along and engineers suddenly went "omg, noise is energy! Why are we wasting all this!?"

Mandate naturally aspirated engines with no hybrid systems. That'll solve your cost and noise issue.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by crmalcolm

For the majority of F1 investors, I expect they may see a move to V10 or V12 as going in the wrong direction.

Shall we tally them up?

Matschetiz & Marko are old timers who are probably in favour of a V12. So that's Red Bull and AlphaTauri in favour of a V12. It would certainly reduce Red Bull's PU headache if the PU rules were simple enough that Cosworth could build one for them.

The switch from V12s to bi-turbo V8s seems to have reduced Aston Martin sales by a LOT. So I suspect Aston Martin and Lawrence Stroll would be in favour of V12s... Aston Martin would probably be even more glad if emissions regulations had not forced their classic two-Mondeo-V6-joined-together Aston Martin V12 out of production! With no V12, the Aston Martin models really are struggling to have a unique selling point over the much cheaper Mercedes AMG GT with the same engine.

Ferrari, given they still sell V12 road engines (unlike Mercedes-Benz), would likely be in favour. HAAS will run whatever Ferrari tell them to run, so that's another.

So that's at least five teams in favour of V12s.

Alpine -- probably not, since Renault have always favoured smaller engines.

Mercedes -- probably not, since it would be inconsistent with their push to replace their V8 bi-turbo engines with inline-four turbo + hybrid drivetrains in AMG models like the C63 AMG.

McLaren -- hard to say. One suspects their road cars all come with a V8 bi-turbo engine because McLaren don't have enough money to design any other engines, and not because they are against V12s. If McLaren had V12 engines in their lineup they would probably sell more cars, since it's hard to generate hype for the upper models when your cheapest and most expensive supercar all use a version of the same engine...

[Richard C]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

A mandatory naturally aspirated V12 with no mufflers is always going to be noisy, even if 2025 technology (like turbulent jet injection and ultra-lean combustion, same as in the 1.6Ts) delivers 40% thermal efficiency compared to 30% for the units from 1995.

True. If we moved away from a turbo, even the most efficient engine would sound much better. Probably not much in the way of flames belching out, but they would sound better.

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Recall, it is not stricty the manufacturer's choice to replace V12s with bi-turbo V8s or V6s with turbo inline-fours. It is, rather, a necessity in order to reduce fleet emissions limits and avoid EU and CAFE fines -- however in all likelihood the traditional Acura TLX buyer prefers the classic Honda V6 to the turbo four, the traditional Alpine buyer prefers the classic PRV V6 to the M series turbo four, and the traditional Ferrari 812 buyer prefers the classic Ferrari V12 to some twin-turbo V8!

As to road cars for sure. Manufactures have been pushing in directions (turbo fours) by regulations not consumer demand (not going to touch the topic if regulations mirror consumer demand).

But if you are looking for a niche road car, there are any number that use a V12. The reason? V12! Of course with a price! Nobody can argue against the sound of one. As a Porsche fan, I personally have a real affinity for the original air cooled flat 12 in the 917.

Richard

[wnut]

The Carrera RS is passable too.

[Taxi645]

Don't get up on the 12 cylinders of the opening post. Yes I would prefer it, but a V10 would do as well of course. The 2.4 V8 won't cut it any more I think because A) the cars have grown heavier also because of safety (HALO for instance) and B) the rev limit would be 17.000 rpm limiting power.


Just imagine this:


- A light nimble car with great sound like the R25 as demo'd by Alonso at Yas Marina.
- Cars that are better able to follow each other that the last 25 years because of the 2022 aero regulations.
- Up to 25% more fuel efficient than the original V10's and running on synthetic fuel (also allowing 112,5L in stead of 150L fuel tanks).
- Tech that is relevant for the remaining ICE on the planet by 2030 unlike F1's multi-million hybrid tech.
- Independent engine makers can enter.
- Engines that area round a factor ten cheaper than the current ones.

It would be the best F1 of the passed 25 years!


Just tell the manufacturers, take it or leave it. What they do then? Split off and go run an alternative championship, with heavy cars and bizarrely expensive engines that are hurling towards irrelevance, while all the top drivers want to be in the much more spectacular F1 series? I don't think so.

[P38 in workshop]

I really can't believe the lack of comprehension of social reality displayed on this topic.Just because a few hardened racers like being deafened by high revving V12 engines really won't force a return to them.We are living in a world where vegetarian pedestrians pour scorn on all forms of internal combustion engines.Burning fuel for "entertainment" appals them and while it isn't illegal yet,how do you convince sponsors to part with large sums of money to enable the entertainment to continue?


I fear we are closer to an age where gamers climb into simulators for our amusement and they might well have virtual V12's or even H16's because it won't offend the sanctimonious social media influencers.At least until they have somebody tell them how much ecologically acceptable electricity is being consumed in the process.


I fear for the future of motorsports and while daydreaming about what might be can pass the time,somebody has to come up with a way forward and regression to old tech isn't it.

[crmalcolm]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

Shall we tally them up?

Matschetiz & Marko are old timers who are probably in favour of a V12. So that's Red Bull and AlphaTauri in favour of a V12. It would certainly reduce Red Bull's PU headache if the PU rules were simple enough that Cosworth could build one for them.

The switch from V12s to bi-turbo V8s seems to have reduced Aston Martin sales by a LOT. So I suspect Aston Martin and Lawrence Stroll would be in favour of V12s... Aston Martin would probably be even more glad if emissions regulations had not forced their classic two-Mondeo-V6-joined-together Aston Martin V12 out of production! With no V12, the Aston Martin models really are struggling to have a unique selling point over the much cheaper Mercedes AMG GT with the same engine.

Ferrari, given they still sell V12 road engines (unlike Mercedes-Benz), would likely be in favour. HAAS will run whatever Ferrari tell them to run, so that's another.

So that's at least five teams in favour of V12s.

Alpine -- probably not, since Renault have always favoured smaller engines.

Mercedes -- probably not, since it would be inconsistent with their push to replace their V8 bi-turbo engines with inline-four turbo + hybrid drivetrains in AMG models like the C63 AMG.

McLaren -- hard to say. One suspects their road cars all come with a V8 bi-turbo engine because McLaren don't have enough money to design any other engines, and not because they are against V12s. If McLaren had V12 engines in their lineup they would probably sell more cars, since it's hard to generate hype for the upper models when your cheapest and most expensive supercar all use a version of the same engine...

There are a few points that I would contest in that post.

Firstly - are the manufacturers the only people we would see as investors in F1, or do the sponsors have an equal case to be considered as such. And if so - how many sponsors of F1 want to be seen funding the use of V10/V12 engines in the next few years?

Secondly - while it may be possible to list certain teams/presonnel who could be assumed as possible proponents of V10/V12 powertrains (and I'm not cure citing someone as a 'old timer' backs up the cause for it being a future choice), you also note that 2 of the 3 engine suppliers would not be in favour. And when it comes to choice of PU, the engine supplier is king.

Thirdly - Ferrari. You say that because they sell V12 engines, they would likely be in favour. They also sell V6 and V8, so I'm not sure the inclusion of V12 in their line up is proof of it being the preferred configuration. 10 models with a V8 and only 5 of the most exotic models having a V12 suggests otherwise?

Fourthly - Aston Martin. The recent investments in the company from Toto/Daimler could likely indicate that the firm will align closely with the Mercedes way of thinking.

So I think a claim of 'at least five teams in favour of V12s' could also be seen as:

Two of the Three engine suppliers favour a V6 over a V12.
Two teams are overseen by individuals seen as 'old timers'.
Two teams are clearly favouring smaller engines.
The other six teams have shown no clear preference - just assumptions.

[Pandamasque]

Am I the only one who, by about 2007 once the novelty wore off, thought the 2.4 V8s sounded quite meh? They're un-musical sounding on video and quite unpleasant/ear damaging in person. Efficient modern flat-plane V8 race engines tend to be the most bland and generic sounding of all possible configurations.

The V12 is almost inevitably a rich complex sound, or at least it sounds higher-revving than it really is, which makes it interesting and exciting.
The V10 (like the i5) always has a prominent major third interval going that humans naturally find pleasant for some reason.
6-pots tend to sound like half a V12, or a V12 at half the revs, which is pretty good too.

I'd only welcome V8s if they are introduced to diversify the field of V12s, V10s and V6. In fact, every manufacturer must be required by the rules to opt for a configuration of engine that isn't currently in use by any of the competitors!

[chillibowl]

the way those v12/v10s used to echo throughout downtown Montreal was very special.

you knew the circus was in town!

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

Am I the only one who, by about 2007 once the novelty wore off, thought the 2.4 V8s sounded quite meh? They're un-musical sounding on video and quite unpleasant/ear damaging in person.

Excellent point, they did seem a bit harsh and raspy on the exhaust side. However, the 2.4 V8s still sounded rather excellent on the induction side of things IMO: https://youtu.be/2M0inetghnk?t=19

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Pandamasque

The V12 is almost inevitably a rich complex sound, or at least it sounds higher-revving than it really is, which makes it interesting and exciting.
The V10 (like the i5) always has a prominent major third interval going that humans naturally find pleasant for some reason.
6-pots tend to sound like half a V12, or a V12 at half the revs, which is pretty good too.

Excellent analysis!

Somehow the AER GP3 V6s sounded excellent, yet the Mechachrome ones sound rather terrible. Go figure.

The 60 degree vee angle for the AER V6, versus 95 degrees for the Mechachrome V6 could be the problem.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I really can't believe the lack of comprehension of social reality displayed on this topic.Just because a few hardened racers like being deafened by high revving V12 engines really won't force a return to them.We are living in a world where vegetarian pedestrians pour scorn on all forms of internal combustion engines.Burning fuel for "entertainment" appals them and while it isn't illegal yet,how do you convince sponsors to part with large sums of money to enable the entertainment to continue?


I fear we are closer to an age where gamers climb into simulators for our amusement and they might well have virtual V12's or even H16's because it won't offend the sanctimonious social media influencers.At least until they have somebody tell them how much ecologically acceptable electricity is being consumed in the process.


I fear for the future of motorsports and while daydreaming about what might be can pass the time,somebody has to come up with a way forward and regression to old tech isn't it.

What makes you think they will be less offended by hybrids that are only there to look green, but actually won't have a function in a few years time? At least atmospheric engines run on synthetic fuel could have some relevance about how synthetic fuel could be used for engines around the world that for whatever reason can go electric.


I'm not suggesting to go back to sound levels which were not safe to take your child (or yourself) to without hearing protection. They will just sound a lot better and a little louder than the current ones, that's all (and all the other advantages of course).

[P38 in workshop]

The other advantages! They will provide yet more ammunition for those who campaign against the usage of internal combustion engines and wastage of resources.You really need to understand the fanaticism of the anti-car mob.They have succeeded in getting road cars banned from sale here in 2030 if they have internal combustion engines and I have little doubt they will be going for a total ban on other forms of internal combustion engine next.It may help to understand my pessimism if I explain that I live a few minutes drive from the base of one of the founders of Extinction Rebellion and they don't seem to have much to occupy themselves beyond campaigning against burning fuel.I rather resent the way that they only focus on Western nations and ignore the environmental damage done elsewhere,but every gain for them allows them to do a bit more virtue signalling.I believe that unless motorsport can demonstrate efforts to be environmentally conscious that it will be prohibited.Reverting to eighties technology and pleading that Formula 1 is a special case is unlikely to change this outcome and might draw attention to other forms of consumption attributable to the business.


Nothing wrong with a bit of daydreaming,but expecting those wishes to come true is way beyond optimistic.

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by P38 in workshop

I believe that unless motorsport can demonstrate efforts to be environmentally conscious that it will be prohibited.

As said, atmospheric F1 engines run on synthetic fuel will do more for the environment as a proving ground for synthetic fuel for the billions of cheap ICE that won't all go electric, than any of the current hybrid multi-million euro turbo's.


So I do very much understand and appreciate the point you're making, but I think you are applying it exactly the wrong way round. Clinging on to the hybrid turbo's is a symptom of the European automotive industry not being able/willing to transform into a electric future quickly enough and waving the hybrid flag trying to convince/fool everyone how green and relevant that is. The fact of the matter is, that station has long been passed, let alone in five years time. In 2030 it either will be electric or cheap ICE in the developing world. Hybrids won't be part of the equation.

[V8 Fireworks]

Originally Posted by Taxi645

As said, atmospheric F1 engines run on synthetic fuel will do more for the environment as a proving ground for synthetic fuel for the billions of cheap ICE that won't all go electric, than any of the current hybrid multi-million euro turbo's.

If F1 cars can be run on carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, then surely all ICEs can be run on carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and there is no need to abandon ICEs at all?

[Pandamasque]

I suspect producing carbon neutral synthetic fuel is a lot more expensive and energy intensive than producing hydrogen for those EVs. Especially when we're talking about mass production.

As for the 'test bed', how much is there to test, really? Is it that different from using biofuel in ICE?

[Taxi645]

Originally Posted by V8 Fireworks

If F1 cars can be run on carbon-neutral synthetic fuels, then surely all ICEs can be run on carbon-neutral synthetic fuels and there is no need to abandon ICEs at all?

Cost of ownership of electric will soon be lower than ICE, so most who can switch, will. Regarding hybrids, the economics of having an ICE, exhaust, radiator, fuel tank and gearbox besides a battery and electric motors AND calibrating it all in development AND maintaining it will, with falling prices of cobalt free batteries, shortly begin too look pretty bad as well.