Formula 1 team principals do not believe a mooted return to V10 engines could happen in the near future as the sport prepares to introduce new power unit rules next year.
The series’ first change to its power unit regulations since 2014 was agreed three years ago. However FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem unexpectedly announced last month the championship should consider reintroducing V10 engines. The F1 grid was last powered entirely by V10s in 2005.Red Bull team principal Christian Horner, who has committed his team to building its own power unit for the first time from next year, admitted the idea has emotional appeal. But he doubts it could happen in the short term.
“Obviously there’s a lot of debate about the future,” he said. “We’ve got a set of regulations for next year.
“I think there’s some limitations to those regulations as far as the show and the racing is concerned. We’ve ended up in a situation where the chassis is having to compensate a huge amount for, perhaps, some of the shortcomings of the split [between] electrification and combustion.
“But it’s ten-past-midnight and Cinderella’s left the building. [For] the romantic in you, a screaming V10, so long as it’s done responsibly, with fully sustainable fuels, is hugely attractive. I think the big question is: when would that be for? And what would be the game plan between where we sit today and then?”
Next year’s power unit will retain the current V6 engine format, drop the MGU-H and add a more powerful MGU-K. Peak power outputs are tipped to hit 1,000bhp.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Abandoning that to use an entirely conventional combustion engine “would be a massive departure” said Horner. “But I think, for the fan in me, the concept of a screaming V10 engine would be very exciting for the sport at whatever point it’s chosen for the future.”
Since the new rules were confirmed four manufacturers have announced plans to enter F1 to varying degrees. Ford will collaborate with Red Bull on their power unit, Honda will build its own, Audi will too as well as producing its own chassis and Cadillac intends to arrive in 2028. Even with Renault’s decision to cease producing F1 engines after this season, this represents a significant net increase in manufacturer involvement in the championship.
McLaren Racing CEO Zak Brown said it’s hard to envisage how quickly a return to V10s could happen. “We’re happy to race and ready to race, whatever the rules may be,” he said. “I think a V10 definitely would be pretty cool with sustainable fuels.
“[But] I don’t really see how you can unwind what’s in place, really because of all the different power unit changes that are happening right now. Audi’s coming in, Alpine’s going to Merc for an engine. Logistically, I’m not sure how you put the genie back in the bottle. From our standpoint, we’re with [Mercedes] HPP, we’re very happy, they’re ready to go, or will be ready to go. So that wouldn’t impact us.
“But it is a bit of a head-scratcher of how you would put that in place if you did want to make a change. Every time there’s a rule change – I remember when hybrids came in last time there was some concern, and that’s worked out just fine. So I’m sure the engineers will get on the technical challenge and [it will] remain very exciting, as Formula 1’s always been.”
Alpine team principal Oliver Oakes agreed “it’s quite a romantic idea but obviously the train has left the station now for 2026.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“I think it’s probably something beyond that that will be looked at because it does sound quite good for Formula 1 to go that way a little bit. But as Zak said, we are quite far along already.”
codeform
Formula 1
- Hamilton making “drastic shift” in driving style to master Ferrari’s car
- Verstappen: Frustration over Bahrain result behind manager and Marko’s ‘garage row’
- Drivers’ multi-year contracts ‘don’t mean anything if there’s an exit clause’ – Russell
- Verstappen rumours are good for Aston Martin, says Alonso
- Reid received support “from the very top of motorsport” after leaving FIA
Jere (@jerejj)
21st March 2025, 17:11
Next season definitely comes too soon.
Backtracking at such short notice is simply unviable, given all the time, money, & effort spent on the upcoming PU concept by all manufacturers, so nothing can be done regarding next season anymore, not to mention RBPT/Ford & Audi would be the ones to suffer the most, so in any case, a hybridless (V10 or any cylinder amount, for that matter) with synthetic fuel is only viable in the long-term with proper lead time & planning.
BasCB (@bascb)
21st March 2025, 17:12
I think it’s a stupid idea really. We’re complaining about weight, what do people think a big V10 (undoubtedly with a large minimum weight to keep manufacturers from spending on exotic materials) and a tank full of fuel Will do? Certainly won’t be much shorter wheelbase nor much lighter.
Jonathan Parkin
21st March 2025, 17:22
Except F1 cars were shorter and lighter when we had V10s
BasCB (@bascb)
21st March 2025, 18:18
They also weren’t as safe. And if I’m not mistaken, we also still had refuelling at the time.
anon
21st March 2025, 18:56
Jonathan Parkin, and we also know that you can make cars lighter and shorter using the current engines as well, so your comment is kind of meaningless.
We have had significant weight increases due to the additional safety systems that have been implemented, from improved side crash structures through to the halo, and I think it would be rather difficult for you to argue that the safety systems of the cars should be downgraded.
We’ve had additional weight added due to changes in many other areas too – multiple changes in the chassis regulations, gearbox regulations, the switch to 18 inch rims, the ballast system for the drivers and so on – that have had far more of an effect than any engine regulations have had, and none of that will change if you want to put a V10 engine in there instead.
MarkWebber (@markwebber)
22nd March 2025, 0:34
The current PU is heavier than the V10 of that era
BasCB (@bascb)
23rd March 2025, 6:17
Oh, it certainly is. Part of that is also due to the minimum weight for the ICE part of the powertrain (which would make the V10s heavier than those of the past too in all likeliness), part is due to the batteries and MGU-H stuff.
But the car is also heavy due to the length of it, as well as all the safety measures, bigger tyres etc. as Anon mentions.
Coventry Climax
21st March 2025, 17:57
BASCB, with all due respect
I think..
what do people think..
certainly won’t be..
How about gathering some real insight into it all, some true engineering background figures, some actual data on what the impact actually is, with respect to dimensons and weight, as well as to the total F1 environment footprint AND on the racing, in terms of handling, tyre loads (and thus their construction), overtakes, strategy etc.
When we then weigh all of the pro’s and cons we don’t have to speculate.
And you might even find yourself quite surprised by the outcome.
Coventry Climax
21st March 2025, 18:00
edit:
pros and cons
force of typing habit, sorry
BasCB (@bascb)
21st March 2025, 18:24
I will just ignore the snarkyness of that comment Coventry Climax.
I get that many fans like to put on the pink glasses and feel SOUND is great. But to me the sound of what we have now is far more interesting. I enjoy going to F1 races and being able to watch it without ear plugs and even getting some of the commentary while there. Yes, it was a great feeling to hear those V10s start and hear them roar towards you from the other side. But it was not “better” and not faster either.
It’s fact that electrical boost fills in the gap in the power curve of an ICE engine. And Turbo engines get far more power out of a liter of fuel. Adding regenerative braking helps get even more out of that. The last time people brought up going back to V10s or V8s, they immediately came to bringing back refuelling to avoid the huge fuel tanks. Now, if you remember, that was not actually great for racing at all.
Markp
21st March 2025, 18:47
Go watch Formula E. Screaming engines are so much better. Anything EV is a pile of rubbish that petrolheads hate.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
23rd March 2025, 2:34
Why do people state opinion as fact. I am a petrolhead and F1 follower for 45 years. I own a V12 and a kit car.
My wife has an EV and it’s great.
BasCB (@bascb)
23rd March 2025, 6:21
Exactly @cairnsfella – I do think asking prices are still too high here, and for me I am still looking at finding a model that offers what I look for (a big stationwagon), but otherwise there is a LOT to love with EVs. No fuel, no noise, decent driver assist stuff in almost all of them. If you are looking for a quick getaway from standstill EVs are where it’s at.
And if you have solar panels you can charge for free.
Coventry Climax
21st March 2025, 20:12
I don’t know what snarkiness means, but I had no intention to insult you in any way.
I just think it’s not useful to talk about things if the opinions have no base in actual figures, too much of an engineer in me I’m afraid.
But sorry, you’re mistaken about the sound aspect for me. As far as I’m concerned I couldn’t care less about it.
I do care about the engine concept’s simplicity, it’s cost reduction and about getting rid of the excessive dimensions and weight of race cars in general, F1 cars in particular.
I’m an adept of the Colin Chapman concept: ‘add lightness’.
That’s not a belief, by the way, but something that’s quite easily backed by engineering, the figures and the calculations.
That – and so it’s not just about speed – is what creates nimble cars and makes for exciting racing. Cars that can take and handle being thrown about and around.
As far as I’m concerned we’re currently watching the equivalent of truck racing, but with lift and coast to recharge batteries and artificial tricks to at least get some overtaking.
As interesting and useful hybrid technology might be for the millions of roadgoing cars, I’m not interested in filling the power curve gap of an ICE for race cars. That gap, if anything, made it important for drivers to get their gears right, to be better at corners than others, to eliminate even the slightest of mistakes as it might hurt you badly accelerating out of corners. It’s useful to create roadgoing cars that minimise fuel consumption, but by their nature, racing cars are supposed to use the most energy possible, simply by the law of nature dictating that it takes more energy if you want to get from a to b quicker. And no, that’s not the same as saying you shouldn’t use your available energy wisely. Same with tyres: racing dictates you use them to the maximum, preferably have them completely finished the moment you pass the line. And again, not before the line, so use them wisely, but it’s nonetheless opposed to what’s required for roadgoing cars.
And then, the slightest of weight reduction has a cascading effect on everything; from the necessary impact resistance and thus weight of the chassis, the size and thus weight of the brakes necessary to stop the thing, the construction and thus weight of the tyres carrying the car, and a long, long list of other things. People saying the weight of hybrid is just the cumulative weight of its components are completely misinformed there.
Again, you can’t properly race (stop, accelerate, corner) a car when it’s got the weight of a Leopard II.
Lighter cars consume less fuel too, but the fuel load argument doesn’t actually count in the first place either. I’m squarely opposed to refuelling, and as the fuel is used during the race, the cars getting lighter makes them perform even better. Don’t use the weight of a fully fuelled F1 car for comparisons; at least use the weight of a car that’s fuelled 50%, if you want to omit the fun that it gives us when the fuel weights get even less than that.
Oh, and turbos do NOT increase fuel efficiency, they increase the power/weight ratio: They use the exhaust gasses to compress more air going into the engine, which allows you to burn more fuel and get more power from the same weight engine. And that is where the “increased fuel efficiency” comes from: The comparison to the weight and capacity (CC’s) of the engine you’d otherwise need to get that same power.
There’s your weight reduction again.
BasCB (@bascb)
23rd March 2025, 6:30
Yes, lighter cars certainly use less fuel. But when you mention that the cars will be lighter with a V10 engine, you ignore the many reasony of WHY the cars are heavier and larger currently.
Most of those things (safety, minimum weight to limit competition with special materials, the larger tyres, larger wheelbases for aero reasons) will not simply change with a large V10 engine. You conflate two things and then go on to dream of a future where a simpler but larger engine which needs a larger fuel tank (thus taking up probably the same space of the current hybrid stuff) would result in a far smaller car with less weight. I see no reason to believe F1 will be able to achieve that.
As for the turbo – you mention it will use more fuel for more power from the same size of engine. The reality is that it means using far SMALLER engines to get the same (peak) power of a larger engine. The V10 will be larger than the current engines to get to the 1000+ HP. And since it will have a minimum weight to avoid expensive materials, it will be a chunk heavier, taking away part of the weight saving from ditching the batteries, especially at the start of the race with a full fuel tank.
I agree that the racing might be more interesting when drivers have to do manual shifts on an ICE engine with large gaps in optimal power and lighter cars will be nimbler and easier to race with. I just do not see any path to actually achieving that regardless of engine. But you do lose that instant power from the electric motor. And you do throw away the energy from ditching regenerative braking.
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
21st March 2025, 19:57
An NA engine is massively lighter than a hybrid turbo. There’s no discussion, it’s a fact. The V8s were 50kg lighter than the power units we have today. There’s a lot less complexity and no batteries.
Ben
21st March 2025, 20:38
50kg lighter will never make up for the performance loss without the hybrid system. Torque and HP of a NA V10 won’t be able to match the current V6 hybrids, turbo charged V10s maybe. Be a wild drive. V10 hybrids would be interesting. F1 is supposed to be cutting edge, what’s cutting edge about an old school NA V10, even one with fancy fuel. You could just use that fuel with the current regs.
On top of that how many engine manufacturers want to be developing a V10 nowadays? No benefit to anyone other than Ferrari, and even they use V6s nowadays.
BasCB (@bascb)
23rd March 2025, 6:33
The current engine blocks as defined with minimum weights could (possibly should) have been massively lighter than they are, because they got a defined minimum weight to avoid manufacturers going for exotic and expensive materials. The same will be true of any engine we get in the future.
Starting weight will be at least as heavy, since the V10 will use up to 1,5-2 times as much fuel.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
23rd March 2025, 3:16
As others have stated. The hybrid drivetrain/fuel/ancillaries is heavier than the an ICE drivetrain/fuel/ancillaries in any typical comparison.
Of course each can be made heavier/lighter etc, power outputs may vary, other factors have impacted weight over the years, and so on. However, regardless of the other factors that have been raised – the re: basic premis and from what I could read, the initial point being debated, it remains that case that ICE is lighter. But those that doubt this, please don’t take my word for it. Talk to an expert.
BasCB (@bascb)
23rd March 2025, 6:36
I actually don’t expect these power units to be a lot heavier than the V10 we used to have due to a mandatory minimum weight. And starting weight will most likely be the same or even higher with full fuel, using up much of the weight saved from not having the batteries.
Nulla Pax (@nullapax)
21st March 2025, 17:27
People still do not seem to understand…
Master Ben Sulayem will soon be the one and only voice of motor racing.
You will do as he wills you to do.
There will be no debate or disagreement.
Telling the drivers what they are allowed to say is only the start….
BLS (@brightlampshade)
21st March 2025, 18:43
I’m not sure F1 becoming a historic racing series is the best idea. I know people look to the past with rose tinted glasses more often than not, but still, come on.
I do enjoy my fair share of historic racing, and I do still like the wail of N/A engines of old, but that’s not what F1 needs to be….yet.
Neil (@neilosjames)
21st March 2025, 18:51
I did like the sound of the V10s, and was one of those people who thought the V8s sounded rubbish when they got bought in (probably part of why I never ‘got’ the complaints when the V8s were replaced by the hybrid V6s, and I preferred the ‘interesting’ V6s to the V8s).
But I think there’s some tendancy to over-romanticise the V10s. The volume was fun the first few times they drove past, but after that it was more irritating than exciting, and beyond the volume I can’t think of any real benefit to them from a fan perspective.
anon
21st March 2025, 19:03
@neilosjames from the age profiles and backgrounds of quite a lot of the posters here, it seems that quite a few of them first started watching F1 during the V10 era and thus it seems that was their formative experience of the sport. Couple that with the tendency for humans to selectively edit their memories to make the past into what they think it should have been like, rather than what it was actually like, and you end up with rather romantic images that don’t match reality.
MarkWebber (@markwebber)
22nd March 2025, 0:20
The sound is the cherry on top of a 20k revving machine. I don’t agree with the nostalgia argument either. I was born in the digital age but I found clockwork more impressive, even if it has become obsolete.
An Sionnach
21st March 2025, 21:07
The cars need to be lighter and the power units less expensive.
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
21st March 2025, 22:29
When there is speculation about going back to olde technology, then surely it is time to allow teams to choose what sort of engine they want. There are fuel flow limitation standards, so if a team wants a fuel flow restricted V10, go for it, or a fuel flow restricted V8, then so be it. I believe there are also standard engine mounting points too, so it is sort of expected the engine will fit into the space currently occupied by the V6 engine, but if a team wanted to use a V4 or straight 6 or rotary engine, or whatever, then let them.
My big concern with the V10 is they made far too much noise. There needs to be health and safety concerns about the noise output. If the engines had decent mufflers, then obviously this wouldn’t be an issue, but they didn’t in the past, so one has to suspect engineers will be expecting to use minimal sound attenuation if the V10 engine was re-introduced.
Coventry Climax
21st March 2025, 22:59
Define an amount of energy cars may use, and allow the teams to decide on what type of propulsion they think fits their purpose best.
Define minimum weight and dimensions for driver+seat-cell, and define it’s CoG location.
Define a maximum amount of noise cars are allowed to generate.
Define a maximum amount of dirty air that cars are allowed to generate.
Define, if you must, a maximum amount of money teams are allowed to spend. (But then don’t make exceptions for anything.)
There’s a couple more I’m sure, e.g. safetywise, environment wise, but it doesn’t need to all be that complicated (and restrictive) in the rules.
greasemonkey
22nd March 2025, 3:15
Modify that dirty air spec to simply a downforce limit, which is much simpler to measure and enforce, and you’ve got it. Spec load sensors per corner of the car with total (smoothed) load limit. Maybe integrated over some time. Whatever works. But completely viable and cheap.
Less downforce brings more bonus than just the correlation of less dirty air implications. All sorts of things get better, for racing, with less downforce. setups are less ridiculously brittle. Driving is more visibly interesting. Etc.
If there remains a single spec tire, make it bias ply. If you do tire war, leave it wide open (so there is the research value).
Michael Norman (@mick80)
21st March 2025, 23:24
I think it’s an amazing idea, it’s happening across the globe, industries going back to older tech as it’s proven and reliable. Greener alternatives have their place but not as the primary source.
EffWunFan (@cairnsfella)
23rd March 2025, 3:19
I’m not disputing the point, but would welcome some elaboration.
floodo1 (@floodo1)
22nd March 2025, 0:03
Ah yes the old sustainable hydrocarbons that don’t don’t pollute