Fernando Alonso is not convinced reintroducing V10 engines to Formula 1 is the right direction for the sport.
The series will introduce new power unit regulations next year. Plans to replace the current V6 hybrids with new versions featuring more powerful kinetic energy were agreed three years ago.However last month FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem raised the possibility of dropping the hybrids altogether and reintroducing conventional engines. The sport’s governing body is now looking into the possibility of switching to V10 engines as early as 2028.
Alonso, the last driver to win a world championship with a V10 engine 20 years ago, admitted the idea of returning to louder and lighter engines has clear appeal. “Obviously I love the V10 era and the V8 and the sound of those cars that we all miss,” he said.
But he doesn’t believe F1 should regress in terms of the technology used in its cars.
“We’re in a different world now,” he said. “Technology has evolved and we now have incredibly efficient engines that use about one-third of the fuel we used to.”
“We can’t just go against our time and our hybrid era,” he added. “We cannot forget how efficient the cars are now compared to the past. This is something very positive that we have.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“It’s like saying we could run without the Halo and make the cars more dangerous and [create] more adrenaline for the fans. It doesn’t make sense.
“We move on from certain things, and what we have now is a very good Formula 1 and a very good moment for the sport. So it’s difficult to invent something; we could go into the unknown. It’s difficult to know.”
F1’s future engine format is “more a decision the top management will take – FOM, the FIA, and the manufacturers,” Alonso concluded. “As drivers, we just want to race the fastest cars possible, regardless of the engine. Maybe the fans have something to say as well.”
Ben Sulayem’s predecessor as FIA president Jean Todt was behind the introduction of the current power unit regulations 13 years ago. In 2017 Todt dismissed the idea of going back to V10 engines, predicting “many manufacturers would not support such a move.”
Honda and Audi will join F1 as engine manufacturers next year. Ford will also arrive in partnership with Red Bull’s new power unit division, while Cadillac intends to arrive at a later date. Renault, however, will cease producing F1 engines at the end of the year.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Pictures: Alonso driving his championship-winning 2005 Renault in 2020
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Formula 1
- Verstappen and Piastri seek four-in-a-row – and farewell Imola?: Seven talking points
- F1 to live-stream seven races on YouTube on Tuesday: Here’s how you rated them
- Final trailer for “F1: The Movie” revealed ahead of launch next month
- Alonso the next Sirotkin? How Stroll took a surprise points lead at Aston Martin
- How to watch the 2025 Emilia-Romagna GP, Formula E in Tokyo and more
Fer no.65 (@fer-no65)
29th March 2025, 10:11
Different things. F1 could benefit from simpler engines that are more exciting to watch and hear. If WEC is doing it, and attracting so many manufacturers, so can F1. The only reason we have these engines right now is marketing, because manufacturers want to show off their technology. But road relevance is almost invisible, since it’s a fixed configuration that doesn’t allow much in terms of innovation. So why don’t we just forget this crazy idea of road relevance, and go back to something that’s less complicated/expensive, better for the fans and surely more enjoyable for the drivers (lighter car, etc)?
Phil Norman (@phil-f1-21)
29th March 2025, 10:28
I agree.
Dex
29th March 2025, 10:49
Absolutely. It’s normal that the manufacturers feel comfortable like this, as they see it all as a business decision. But they are not the ones that should dictate things, this is (all things considered) still a sport. And no, F1 wouldn’t disappear if they all left tomorrow. Almost no one cares about F1 because of Mercedes, Renault (gave up anyway), Honda (will give up like always), even Ferrari (except for their own fans of course).
We watch F1 seeking fun. Someone will be willing to build simpler, cheaper engines; that’s a fact (other competitions prove it). I don’t care about Audi, or Toto being happy, or their businesses. F1 didn’t become better with higher professionalism and corporate involvement, it became more sterile (no surprise there).
Also, there’s so much bluffing and pressure going on. I’m sure than many would adapt easily and keep participating and making money. F1 used to be an expensive form of marketing, today it’s profitable. And no, it’s not profitable because of these engines for sure, but despite them.
An Sionnach
29th March 2025, 11:50
Good points here. I don’t wish that we go back to V10s, but to go forward to more open engine specs and genuine innovation. If V10s can’t compete then let’s see it happen. The current restrictions on what an engine can be are hardly progress.
What Alonso says about fuel use is very true and I think fuel economy should be part of any formula, unless there was something very clean, and not just “net” clean like bio or synthetic fuels. I’m not sure we have an actually clean technology yet, but if someone were to find one, they could put no limits on the power or fuel use.
What he says about the halo does not make sense. You don’t have to change safety standards because you change the engine. Is Alonso batting for Honda here to some extent?
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
30th March 2025, 7:57
An Sionnach, it’s an analogy. Fernando is saying he believes that V10s, like removing Halo, would be moves that would please some of the fanbase but ultimately be to F1’s detriment, since both solve a need he believes F1 to have. He’s not saying V10s and Halos have to be combined.
John Burrett
29th March 2025, 18:05
I agree. Way too many rules, other than safety. Let them run whatever engines they want, given a certain amount of fuel, and a certain range of overall weight. And let them use whatever tires they want.
grat
31st March 2025, 15:18
How many naturally aspirated engines are in the WEC prototypes? Oh right– One. And it’s a V8, not a V10.
Armchair Expert (@armchairexpert)
29th March 2025, 10:12
No halo, no Pirelli, V10s back? Sign me up, that would make me actually excited about F1 again.
El Pollo Loco
29th March 2025, 14:35
Indeed. I’m a great admirer of Alonso and usually agree with him. F1 has become unbelievably soft. We don’t need to get rid of the halo, but since the cars are insanely safe now, we should be running in full wet, not throwing SCs,VSCs/RFs for every car on the side of the track LET ALONE for a bit of gravel on the track as has happened. I think he would agree with that. I think he’s expressing his skepticism that the V10s will return, which I get, but it has a lot of momentum and throwing call water on the idea is not helpful. This lame new PU spec is going ahead for next year and at least three seasons no matter what, but after that it’s not at all unrealistic to think V10s with “sustainable fuel” isn’t realistic.
But maybe Alonso is playing 85D chess (lol). There are a lot of people who will automatically disagree with anything he says. So, it’d actually help the V10 cause.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
30th March 2025, 8:06
There are good reasons F1 doesn’t do the things you ask:
– Full wet requires sufficient visibility. The full wets are so effective that at anything other than very low speed (so low that at many circuits it’s not possible to keep the tyres in the correct operating window to allow their use), they kick up so much water that it obscures driver vision too much.
– Safety Cars are something that get thrown only with serious reluctance. They’re also thrown in circumstances where, by legal settlement, there arguably should be a red flag. F1’s already flirting with breaking the law with how little it uses its safety tools, it can’t risk going more in that direction (or stay where it is).
– That said, I think that virtual safety cars for gravel should be for extreme circumstances. It’s not 100% clear whether that happened in recent races.
David BR (@david-br)
29th March 2025, 10:16
Wow, Alonso accessing his inner beekeeper :)
M2X
29th March 2025, 10:42
I dont see the added benefit of car manufacturers in F1.
They enter and leave whenever it suits them.
Their net positive contribution to F1 is at best marginal.
And technological advancement when the automotive industry is forced into electric vehicles is no longer relevant.
We are at a point that we might aswell pick what we want F1 to be instead of it being dictacted by manufacturers that are passersby anyways, and that means picking from a highlight reel of options when F1 was deemed at being good.
It would also imply that technical regulations can be stable on a far longer term which would finally bring the so desired convergence. Which would mean that FIA no longer has to change regulations or uphold regulations when it deems it better for the sport (e.g. of the recent past: partymode, bargeboards, floor, flexiwings).
Removing an unnecessary political games part from the sport.
El Pollo Loco
29th March 2025, 14:39
There is no benefit from the manufacturers besides Ferrari (despite not being a fan, everyone must admit they’re critical to the sport) and they’ll always be. They’re in fact a liability and they almost killed off the independents in the 2000s with their spending wars and then abandoning the sport with the recession. They add nothing.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
29th March 2025, 10:46
Turbos are not going back then? I don’t really care what angle the engine sits at or how many cylinders, I’d just like some noise that stirs my soul rather than struggles to stir my tea
James H Manis
29th March 2025, 17:02
Yeah, I know what you mean, I know they could make the motors sound much better. Never match the scream of a V10 but a little effort on the engineering and they could bring back some of the passion.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
29th March 2025, 21:25
+1
Glad not everyone is a naysayer
grat
31st March 2025, 15:21
Sure. Toss out efficiency, and double the size of the fuel tanks. Sustainable fuels already have less energy density than fossil-based petrol, and by adding noise, you’re removing efficiency. Remove the turbos, more efficiency gone. Add cylinders, more efficiency gone.
So we’d either need to bring back refueling, or have significantly larger fuel tanks.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
30th March 2025, 8:58
Guaranteed that the FIA will fuel restrict the cars. So inevitably forced induction will offer the best fuel economy.
I think Alonso has been without a winning car for so long that he only remembers 2006/2005 when the FIA weren’t a bunch of ridiculous rule makers trying to control every aspect of the racing. So he didn’t register the fact that there is no way the FIA would let F1 go unrestricted on fuel.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
30th March 2025, 9:05
Forced Induction + High Octane ‘synthetic fuel’. Guaranteed. It would be nice to see the FIA say fuel flow is 100kg/hr and let the manufacturers go crazy. Limiting it so specifically will usually handicap all but the best manufacturer to fit the formula.
SteveP
30th March 2025, 16:38
Damn, and there was me thinking that a turbo charger was a means of burning more fuel in the same time to get a higher power output per unit of time
grat
31st March 2025, 15:28
Turbchargers convert waste energy (exhaust) into more air, which allows more combustion and therefore more power. So while it helps the engine burn more fuel and produce more HP, it’s the cheapest way to do so.
But that also reduces the energy hitting the exhaust pipes, which is why the noise level drops.
Levente (@leventebandi)
29th March 2025, 11:14
Breaking down to a very very basic level, Alonso says that the sports should not introduce changes for the sake of the show only. For many decades, we were told F1 is the peak of car technology.
So to roll back to an archaic spec, done for the sake of the show raises questions, not just if the series wants to be still the peak of tech, but is it a sport or a show? Because for the last decade we see increasing number of changes to increase the entertainment.
Will FIFA mic up players from next year and mandate them to shout as much as possible so there will be more thrills at 0-0 borefests?
Im not against reintroduction of V10s, but it needs a solid reasoning beyond “think about the show”
mantresx (@mantresx)
29th March 2025, 13:30
If you think about it F1 has never actually been about being the most tech advanced formula, it only has to be the fastest, period.
The fact that throughout history this has in general terms resulted in the race cars with the most technology has been incidental.
But we’ve reached a point where technology goals are no longer necessarily in line with making the fastest race car… Having such complex hybrid systems for the sake of saving fuel seems counterintuitive when the added weight generates all sorts of issues, for example with tyres that overheat too quickly and need to have high pressures, with aerodynamics that teams now have to use ground effect so it means cars are more peaky with balance… which leads to rock-hard suspension to compensate and so on.
Anthony H. Tellier
30th March 2025, 15:30
“FIFA mic ” BUT no swearing, OK!
praxis (@praxis)
29th March 2025, 11:25
So what Alonso saying is, instead of going back to V10s, F1 should try to find something exciting with newer technologies?
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 12:52
Yep, like an engine made of ceramics and carbon. That would actually even be road relevant.
Could even be a highly pressure resistant, heavily turbo laden V4.
praxis (@praxis)
30th March 2025, 16:22
Keith,
Do future technologies automatically indicate “road-relevance” or “climate-friendly” or “sustainable”?
BLS (@brightlampshade)
29th March 2025, 11:45
I just can’t see them dropping the turbos, unless they want to bring back refueling/slow the cars down.
They hybrid I’m on the fence about, done right they definitely have a place in the sport, done wrong they’re just dead weight in the cars. Currently I feel we’re somewhere in the middle.
Manufacturers in the sport I can take or leave, but if we’re going to dumb down the engines then we’re likely going to need to find some new engine suppliers to produce these somewhat irrelevant V10 N/A engines.
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 12:26
irrelevant as to what? I presume that’s the manufacturers, their road going technique and the global energy usage. Enlighten me please, if I missed something.
For racing cars though, it’s as relevant as water to fish to have cars as lightweight as possible.
MichaelN
29th March 2025, 14:41
The “weight is irrelevant” argument is one of the most difficult to reconcile with the otherwise usually quite benign arguments in favour of EVs. Weight is relevant to everything from road maintenance, microplastic pollution and safety. These two tonne BEVs monstrosities on the road are in desperate need of some slimming down. Racing is as good a platform as any to develop such technologies, along with legislation against these dangerous vehicles.
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 12:48
So you think that without a turbo, they would need to refuel?
Sorry, but it’s the other way round: Turbo’s DO NOT save fuel. They use exhaust gasses to compress the air going into the engine. With more air in there, you can burn more fuel, and thus get MORE POWER FROM THE SAME WEIGHT ENGINE.
In other words, you’d need a much BIGGER and much HEAVIER engine to deliver the SAME amount of POWER compared to when you do NOT use a turbo.
So essentially, turbo’s INCREASE the fuel consumption of a given engine.
Whether that given engine is a V10 or a one cylinder moped engine, it means that WITHOUT a turbo, it uses LESS fuel, not more.
There’s only one reason why turbo’s help in the fuel consumption, and that is because a turbo car needs to carry less weight (smaller engine). Great on the road, with speed limits and all. Completely pointless in a racecar, where the throttle will be down as far as it goes around any part of the track anyway.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
29th March 2025, 14:37
Turbos need smaller engines therefore bigger engines??? I’m sorry what?
I really don’t know where to start with all this, I get your passion for N/A engines I really do, but you can’t just type waffle to get an answer you want to be true.
Some basic points you seem to have missed/ignored
– Turbos make use of waste gasses, N/A engines don’t. Engines waste a monstrous amount as heat, turbos allow engines to use some of this wasted energy. Turbos drastically improve thermal efficiency.
– Turbos allow you to get the right air/fuel mix for any given situation, N/A has to rely on ambient pressure, with perhaps a little ram induction
– Turbos get their power at much lower revs – which means much less compressions per second in a much smaller volume chamber
Turbos are undoubtedly more expensive, more complex, and sound more boring. But if you want performance and efficiency they are the go to.
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 15:53
You definitely need a course on reading.
What I told you here in the first place, is a 100% true, and the reaction to your thinking turbos are the alternative to refuelling.
Yes, there’s many more things to tell about turbo’s but however many you drag into here, none of them explain why you were wrong in the first place.
Read it again, and then tell me where I state that “Turbos need smaller engines therefore bigger engines”.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
29th March 2025, 16:02
“tell me where I state that “Turbos need smaller engines therefore bigger engines”.”
and I quote:
“Turbo’s DO NOT save fuel. They use exhaust gasses to compress the air going into the engine. With more air in there, you can burn more fuel, and thus get MORE POWER FROM THE SAME WEIGHT ENGINE.
In other words, you’d need a much BIGGER and much HEAVIER engine to deliver the SAME amount of POWER compared to when you do NOT use a turbo”
If you need help breaking down your own words:
Turbo — get MORE POWER FROM THE SAME WEIGHT ENGINE
also turbo — you’d need a much BIGGER and much HEAVIER engine to deliver the SAME amount of POWER compared to when you do NOT use a turbo
Hope this suffices, and hope you we able to gain some insight from my previous comment. I certainly gained a little chuckle from all this :)
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 16:27
@brightlampshade
I can not reply to your reply anymore, but where you quote me, you definitely misread and misunderstand:
Turbo — get MORE POWER FROM THE SAME WEIGHT ENGINE
also turbo — you’d need a much BIGGER and much HEAVIER engine to deliver the SAME amount of POWER compared to when you do NOT use a turbo
Ah, OK, I see it’s the NOT that you trudge over.
Both things I said are correct though, but the second is where you read ‘also turbo’, where it actually explains what you would need if there was no turbo. Hence ‘not’.
I’ll admit to that language mistake, but it does not help you out of your misunderstanding turbos, I’m afraid.
BLS (@brightlampshade)
30th March 2025, 11:43
Yes Mr Climax, if you change the words you wrote it does indeed change what you wrote. That’s how words work.
I would address your other points but I’m sure you’ll quickly claim you actually meant something different once you are corrected once more.
I’ve definitely corrected you on Thermal efficiency a number of times now, even pointed you to quotes and articles by Andy Cowell on the matter. But hey, maybe you know more than him on these sorts of matters.
So no, I won’t be wasting my time going through your waffle yet again.
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 16:13
@brightlampshade
Some basic points you seem to don’t understand:
– Turbos make use of waste gasses, N/A engines don’t.
That’s what I said:
Turbos drastically improve thermal efficiency.
No they don’t. The thermal efficiency of an otto cycle (or any cycle for that matter) engine is a given. It allows you to burn more fuel, generating equally more heat more exhaust gas, more inlet air more fuel more etc. endless cycle. So, you can recuperate that, but not for use with a turbo again, unless your aim is a massive blow up. Spectacular, but not efficient.
– Turbos allow you to get the right air/fuel mix for any given situation
No, it’s not the turbo that does that, it is the ECU, Electronic Control Unit. It makes use of mappings where rpm, load, air mass and power requirement (amount of throttle) etc, are used to calculate the amount of fuel to burn.
You’ll find ECU’s in practically all modern NA engines as well.
N/A has to rely on ambient pressure, with perhaps a little ram induction.
Hilarious.
– Turbos get their power at much lower revs – which means much less compressions per second in a much smaller volume chamber
Equally hilarious. Turbo’s either don’t function at low revs (no driving exhaust gasses, or need to be dimensioned small in order to operate at low revs. And then they need to blow off immediately once the revs do get up.
Turbos are undoubtedly more expensive, more complex, and sound more boring.
No they’re not. They’re very simple actually, and therefor certainly not expensive. As for the sound, oh well, back to hilarious, I’m afraid.
But if you want performance
Ah, you’re actually right for once.
and efficiency
Ah no, there you’re wrong again.
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 12:10
Brilliantly misleading. featuring more powerful kinetic energy RECOVERY is the correct term. And where does the kinetic energy come from? From speed. And where does the speed come from. Oh yeah, gasolene.
ALL hybrid does, is recovery, trying to be more efficient with the energy derived from burning fossil.
While this works fine for the millions of roadcars that don’t have to break and accelerate constantly, and don’t have insane cornering speeds, so in other words, where the extra weight isn’t working against the technology. So, the main concept of a roadcar in a formula:
Speed = distance/time
It’s a completely different picture for racing cars, where the goal is to come up with a car that changes between speeds fastest and allows for the highest cornering speeds, as that is the best car. Main concept for a racecar, in a formula:
Accelleration = change in speed / time
As it happens, that translates to nothing short of: ‘using as much energy as you can’, and ‘the less it weighs, the less energy it takes to accellerate and/or to change direction.
To describe the change of an object’s speed, there’s this formula: F = m.a , with F the required force, m the mass, and a the acceleration (or decelleration, for that matter, as that’s just a negative a)
So for a given a, you need an F that is solely dependent on the weight m.
Cornering speed depend on (combined) forces countering the centrifugal force: Fc = m.v.v / r , with Fc the centrifugal force, m the mass and v.v the speed squared.
With the speed squared, you can see how for racecars, it is paramount to minimise these forces, but the formula shows that the only factors available for you there, are r and m. r is minimised by hitting the apexes as best as you can, maximising the radius, or straightning the curves as best as you can, but obviously, track layout is your limit.
Which leaves us m, the mass of the car.
My, and then there’s still those who wonder why the racing has gone so bad over the years.
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 12:21
That’s not really testimony of insight, I’m afraid.
Engine type and safety devices have little to do with one another.
You can say you could run without halo though. You’ll just need another configuration and likely other devices to guarantee the same, or better yet, an even higher level of driver safety.
Or, take out the engine alltogether, and make it a sim racing series. We’re not that far off from that anyway.
El Pollo Loco
30th March 2025, 5:25
There’s a good chance he said this because AMR’s partnership with Honda. He’d hardly be the first driver to say what a major sponsor wants to hear. I think he’d also drive without halo any day, which may sound like a bad analogy (cause it partially is), but I think what he meant is that there’s no chance there could ever be an overnight consensus rules change at the 11th hour for 2026, which is probably what he was referring to. Either that or an F1 which wants manufacturer participation at the current level (personally, I’d love to see the manufacturers gone).
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
30th March 2025, 8:14
Coventry Climax, no such safety device exists at moment (there were high hopes for Aeroscreen, not yet realised although that device is also clearly better than nothing).
Coventry Climax
30th March 2025, 11:02
And I did not say there was one.
Deerhunter
29th March 2025, 13:26
Yeah, for the grumbling about how F1 is run by a bunch of out-of-touch old farts, it’s always disheartening to see how the fans is just as guilty of that accusation whenever the topic of bringing back the V10s comes up.
Saying F1 doesn’t need manufacturers is completely naive, as if having all teams run of-the-shelf standardized V10s built by Cosworth or whatever and having a truly aero-defined era will be better for the competition
El Pollo Loco
30th March 2025, 5:19
Please enlighten us as to why F1 needs manufacturers. For much of F1 history, it thrived with Ferrari as its only manufacturer and/or SF + 1-2 other manufacturers. If your answer is engines, I’ve got news for you. They’re definitely not a requirement for that, unless F1 requires an overly complicated PU spec. There have always been engineering firms to build those beyond just Cosworth and automakers willing to participate purely as engine suppliers too.
Deerhunter
30th March 2025, 7:19
You do realize that the Cosworth DFV was bankrolled by Ford? Back in the 70s half the grid were running on the DFVs, all made possible with Ford money.
F1 needs more than just engine suppliers. The sport needs people willing to put in the resource to actually develop those engines, otherwise you might as well have the current engine freeze last for eternity and have aero as the sole competitive angle.
But developing engines cost money, which manufacturers have. And as can be seen with Honda returning next year, they’re not gonna want to pump in the cash to develop an aging V10, a powertrain that you can only find in like, Lamborghinis these days
PeteB (@peteb)
29th March 2025, 13:52
That’s a really bad analogy but I get his overall point. No-one is considering going back to V10s… MBS has just dropped the idea in a few times to try and win a bit of favour with some fans. The manufacturers would have no interest in it.
LS
29th March 2025, 14:15
Ok, so, a wild idea – maybe just allow a specific amount of electric energy and a specific amount of fuel energy to use across the race and let manufacturers choose how to approach this. If someone wants to go turbo inline 3, let them, if someone wants to go NA V10, let them. It works in WEC, although they have spec hybrid system, but we already have a limit on electfic power per lap so just change it to per race like fuel is regulated. And do not limit electric regen. Make it so one electric motor is allowed on the rear axle and nowhere else (except maybe MGU-H), but that motor can generate as much electricity as possible, only limit how much you can use it (per race)
MichaelN
29th March 2025, 14:35
A senseless argument from Alonso. Efficiency is considered important because ICEs are generally using fossil fuels. The whole argument put forward by Domenicali and Ben Sulayem is that sustainable synthetic fuels is an alternative to reach a carbon neutral F1.
Roth Man (@rdotquestionmark)
29th March 2025, 15:19
A bit strange to compare safety advancements against the almost arbitrary direction the engine regs.
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
30th March 2025, 8:22
@rdotquestionmark Only if you like V10s (or disregard them for other reasons). Fernando clearly thinks the same problem exists with both.
anonymouse
29th March 2025, 15:46
F1 IS BORING!!!
no jeopardy, too safe, too predictable.
I don’t want fatalities but apparently ‘motorsport is dangerous’…is it really though these days?
Pusslicker (@pusslicker69)
29th March 2025, 18:36
Look at the drivers they have. Lawson gets the chance of a lifetime and then does nothing but complain. All the other drivers rally around him saying it’s “unfair”. Unfair to get the opportunity most people would kill for? These guys are all to soft.
Pusslicker (@pusslicker69)
29th March 2025, 18:34
Don’t get the love for these V10s. They were just emasculated 3.5l era engines. That high-pitched whine was also unbearable at the track. V8s were even worse. What a dumb idea. Feels like MBS is just spitballing Trump style.
Jorge Jaime (@jorgejaime)
29th March 2025, 19:07
No V10? … well, they could install an amplifier with V10 sound synchronized to the engine output. Everybody happy 😁
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
29th March 2025, 19:32
Oh no, not again. It’s sort of like bringing back slide rules and telephones with a rotary dial. The current rules stipulate maximum fuel flow limitations, and also the maximum fuel load which can be carried is about 110 kg. The maximum fuel flow rate basically limits the maximum RPM which can be used. I don’t think I’ve seen any car go much over 11,500 RPM for a long time, even though the regulations allow them to use much higher RPM than that. The current F1 engines have incredibly high compression ratios, I think something like 30:1. My understanding is the current F1 engines are amongst the most fuel efficient engines ever built. There isn’t any benefit to going back to an old technology engine which drinks fuel like a container ship. Instead of regressing to olde V10 technology, why not allow engine manufacturers to design the engine of their choice? All engines would still have to comply with fuel flow limitations, so if someone wants to build some sort of fuel cell which converts fuel directly into electricity, which powers electric motors to drive the car, then go for it. Or if someone thinks a V4 is better than a V6 go for it. Or if they wanted to use the olde V10 130+ dB sound polluting technology and be last on the starting grid, hmmm … no, that would be horrendously painful for everyone and every animal nearby.
Tommy C (@tommy-c)
29th March 2025, 22:09
The biggest positive of the current engines is that it has made the sport so much more accessible. There’s no way I’d take my kids to the racetrack if V10s with the same level of noise as the last iteration were circulating. I suspect it would suddenly make the sport an age 14+ affair for a lot of parents.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
29th March 2025, 22:38
Its the whole reason im at races. My dad taking me to races when the roar of the engines blew my mind. SOME parents dont get what kids like at all. Certainly a lot of boys with petrol in their veins never want anything more. My nephew, me and scattered family members are all weirdly drawn to it. Its a DNA thing maybe
Alianora La Canta (@alianora-la-canta)
30th March 2025, 8:27
@tonymansell It only works if parents feel they can take the children to the track in the first place – and if children/young people don’t find that degree of noise off-putting (an increasing number do, also revealed in the significantly reduced desire to go to nightclubs and other noisy venues, and increase in ear protection when young people go to concerts). Many children do not like getting ear injuries. (Some children either wouldn’t get ear injuries or don’t mind paying that price, obviously).
Anthony H. Tellier
30th March 2025, 15:40
” … no way I’d take my kids to the racetrack … ” Well, I WOULD!
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
29th March 2025, 22:35
Yeh one saves lives the other one makes lives better. To think he drove that v10 around and made grown men cry and Lewis step back in awe. Yeh good call Freddie
bull mello (@bullmello)
29th March 2025, 22:54
V-10, just only a distraction.
Leksa (@leksa)
30th March 2025, 15:43
V6s hybrids were a mistake in the first place (just like DRS). It’s ok and rational for F1 to admit their error (albeit 10 years late). Fixation of keeping V6s is just a form of sunk cost fallacy, i.e., “the train has already moved, it’s useless to go backwards” kind of thinking. F1 should always race the best possible engines at the best possible tracks with the best possible drivers. At the moment only the 3rd thing is partially true.
Electroball76
30th March 2025, 17:19
They should scrap all the pointy- nose, airplane-wing, push-to-pass, milkfloat-motor, see you in the steward’s office, tired-out tyre shenanigans. Build something more like the magnificent Lotus 49. Real cars for real racers what what!
Zach Bigalke (@bigalke)
30th March 2025, 21:11
It is amusing how many people completely missed the point he was making about obsolescence when comparing V10s with haloless cars.