Why suggestions that F1 should return to V10 engines simply won't work

It's been hard to move for the copious quantity of fallout from the White House late last week. The embattled Volodymyr Zelenskyy was invited to America's presidential abode under the illusion he was to discuss steps to end the Russian invasion of Ukraine - only to be heckled into a terse riposte by Donald Trump's hyena-in-chief JD Vance. The sudden volte-face in US support rather brought the meeting to a close suffused in a noxious cloud, as the stewards of the world's most powerful office plumbed new levels of global unpopularity.

Which brings us to Mohammed Ben Sulayem. In a surprise twist last week, he fulfilled the idiom of broken timepieces and being right twice a day with his suggestion that Formula 1 should reconsider its relationship with V10 engines in the not-too-distant future. For all of the uproar that has continued throughout Ben Sulayem's presidency of the FIA, such as the current swearing controversy, heavy-handedness with penalties, sexist comments that had resurfaced from an old interview, accusations of interfering with a race result, and internalisation of the FIA's ethics committee process by installing himself as the main judge of whether an ethics complaint can be investigated, he at least has been able to offset some of this by having a second good idea since becoming president in 2021. To clarify, the first of those was the addition of an 11th team, where Formula One Management instead took the position of being sticks in the mud until Cadillac properly got its feet under the table.

Ben Sulayem believes, now that F1 is primed for a sustainable fuel future next year, that this should be used to power a fleet of high-revving, ear-splitting V10 engines. The current V6 turbo-hybrid formula remains entrenched in F1 for at least the next four years - albeit with changes to the formula as the electrical components take on a greater role from 2026 and beyond. But 2030 remains open, so long as it satisfies the management's desire to attain 'net carbon zero' status as a championship.

Sounds good, right? Finally, F1 can get back to its roots of barraging peoples' eardrums to the point where hearing damage can be expected without the use of earplugs, and pumping a shrill soundscape into living rooms around the world instead of spending thousands on amplifying the current guttural snarls for the broadcasters. Even if, in real life, the engines are already pretty loud.

But there's a catch. Or two. It's a nice idea, but would it actually work in reality?

The part that this fanciful thought experiment hinges on lies in the fuel. And perception is everything; the idea that you can make chemically identical fuel without the earth-piercing exercise of offshore oil drilling, and by pulling carbon products out of the air by direct air capture, makes this a tantalising prospect. If the carbon oxide derivatives hurled into the atmosphere is done at the same rate as those being pulled out of it, then that's net zero carbon.

Thing is, producing the fuel is a little bit more complex than getting carbon out of the air, throwing hydrogen at it, and making an energy-rich liquid ready to be burned in the back of a car. Every step requires energy, and ensuring each process remains true to the tenets of carbon-neutrality is difficult. The reactants - carbon and hydrogen - need to be sourced carefully. The catalysts, usually transition metals, are subject to the same sourcing issues. And the energy required to provide the correct pressure and temperature (usually between 150-300C) for maximum yield also needs to come from somewhere.

V10s on sustainable fuels is a nice idea but turning it into a reality is a tricky task

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

Even if synthetic fuel producers manage to ensure every step is free from further carbon emissions, and that the carbon products sourced make use of direct air capture (still a technology in its infancy), there's another issue at play: running a naturally aspirated engine will raise the fuel consumption.

The fuel flow regulations are no longer based on weight over time, but by energy. The new fuels must have a thermal energy of 38-41 MJ/kg, with a fuel flow limit of 3000 MJ/h. That relates to a range of 73.2 - 78.9kg/h. Currently, the maximum fuel flow limit is 100kg/h. The 110kg limit on carried fuel means that much lower fuel flow settings are employed to get to the end.

A V10 would surpass this by some considerable margin, given the lack of electrical components or turbochargers to raise the efficiency. Although fuel efficiency has improved in the 20 years since V10s permeated the championship, this is well over 50% in the modern formula; the V8 formula, per F1's statistics, ended at about 29% efficiency. One would imagine the V10s before that were significantly lower.

If the existing manufacturers aren't keen, and interest from outside remains in hybrid technology, then the notion of a return on 10 cylinders lives and dies there

In essence, it would be a visually backwards step as F1 seeks to future-proof itself by cultivating an aura of greenness. To a non-fan, it sounds counterproductive to back-track on the efficiency figures - which should remain in a similar ballpark with the 2026 engines, if not a little lower owing to deletion of the MGU-H - in the interests of making some cars a bit noisier. And, given that the demand for sustainable fuels far outstrips supply, increasing the consumption of a scarce product gives the impression of wastefulness.

Either way, what F1 does next will be informed by the market demands. One could argue that a simpler engine formula could mitigate the whims of manufacturers by reintroducing engine suppliers; Cosworth and Ilmor could, theoretically, design and develop internal combustion engines if there was a cap on doing so.

But would the likes of Honda, Audi, Cadillac, et al be at all interested in sticking around for a V10 formula? Probably not, given that they were all tempted to join the pool of engine suppliers by the 2026 regs; even if the V10s were cheap to design and build, it would be incongruous with their intent in the automotive market.

Honda might be on the move to partner Aston Martin from 2026, but the new engine rules are a key reason for it staying in F1

Photo by: Andrew Hone / Motorsport Images

You'd likely lose some of the existing manufacturers too. When this writer spoke to Mercedes engine chief Hywel Thomas last year about the impact of sustainable fuels, the question about a potential return to V10s was put to him. His reflections effectively laid bare the Mercedes position, in that it was keen to keep pursuing the hybrid route and profit from the development of auxiliary powertrain components, especially in battery technology.

 "If F1 wants to stay relevant to stakeholders, then I think the hybrid nature of the power unit is really exciting," Thomas told Autosport last May. "I think the development of the batteries is really exciting. It's all really relevant to what's happening on the road. It's a shop window for people to show what they can do and, for that reason, I think we're heading in a sensible direction.

"I guess you could do something different if the sport decided that was the way it wanted to go. But I think the value to Mercedes is this: it's clear that passenger cars are going in that EV direction and I think there's a lot to be gained from it.

"The developments that we're doing will find their way into road cars - and sustainable fuels are not going to be the cheapest thing in the world [to develop] either."

If the existing manufacturers aren't keen, and interest from outside remains in hybrid technology, then the notion of a return on 10 cylinders lives and dies there. I don't believe that F1 can ever truly step back from introducing electrical components, and nor should it; in its current position, it can influence three key propulsion methods in the automotive sector - pure ICE-driven cars, hybrids, and electric vehicles - rather than just one.

The purist will disagree, and that's OK; everyone has their own view on what F1 should be. Fans uphold the romantic view that it should be a demonstration in visceral, gladiatorial combat, and the manufacturers feel it should be a paragon of technological progress and a testbed for future innovations. But they're not mutually exclusive standpoints - whether F1 can be pragmatic and keep both sides interested for 2030 and beyond will be the ultimate test.

What should F1's engine pathway be from 2030?

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images