Why These F1 Engines Only Lasted 200 Miles

[@Jay_The_Cat]

It wasn't only the quest for power which hampered reliability; making the engine as small and light as possible also had a huge impact. In 1997, Renault's class-leading RS9 V10 weighed around 120kg, revved to 16k RPM and produced about 750HP. Six years later: their RS24 V10 weighed less than 100kg, revved over 3k RPM higher and made almost 200 more horsepower.

[@gdogg3710]

Another factor is the reduction in capacity to three litres meant engines had shorter strokes and now could rev even higher, which manufacturers pushed even more aggressively to try and claw the lost horsepower back.

[@bengummere1726]

950 HP out of a 100kg engine is insane😳

[@Jay_The_Cat]

@@bengummere1726 Yes, bearing in mind there were still limitations at that time with regards to the metals and alloys you could use - the crankshaft had to be steel, for example. Only a few components were allowed to be of titanium construction.

[@Mrdanirago98]

I know diminishing returns is a thing but I wonder what kind of performance they would have achieved if they continued their development to present day.

[@Shadowboost]

​@Mrdanirago98 with the modern combustion technology, they'd be well over 1100 HP with even lighter engines (if they could use the exotic materials)

[@StuartH2709]

The V10 era during the mid 90's to 2005 was the best era in F1's history. I have been watching since 1993 and nothing will ever have that aura again. I'm so glad I witnessed this in person.

[@bobbybishop5662]

You missed the best area , 20 yrs earlier.

[@bobbybishop5662]

@@peterhallock9486 I kept up until they started allowing the driver aids , active suspension ect. I just can't get into what's called F1 today.

[@nicklibby3784]

​@@bobbybishop5662 Driving aids and active suspension was 1st started during 87 with the lotus, but nobody really used it again until the actual era of electronic suspension + unlimited driving aids which was short lived only lasting from 1992 to 1993. So it's interesting you quit watching F1 because they allowed electronic driving aids for 2 years. They got rid of the driving in 1994, which made the cars extremely unstable and dangerous, leading Sennas death, ratzenbergers death, and others crashing too. The cars of 1992 & 1993 had completely changed designs and built them around the electronic driving aids, so when they banned it all in 1994, the cars and teams weren't really ready for it yet. However in 1994 and 1995....and 1996...and 1997....and 1998....and 1999.....it was found out teams were SECRETLY using traction control and launch control and potentially other electronic driving aids which were all banned since 1994. So the FiA made electronic driving aids legal from 2000 onwards until 2008. Then in 2009 it was back to the old school rule of ZERO driving aids again - until this very day on 2023-2024, they still do not using electronic driving aids. The reason the FiA re-legalized traction control & driving aids in 2000 after banning it all in 1994, is it turns out from 1994-1999 it was just way too difficult & hard for the FiA to regulate the teams and properly enforce those the no driving aids rules because the traction controls & driving aids could EASILY be secretly coded into the electronics and never be found by the FiA. Basically, the FiA legalized traction control again in 2000 because it was just WAYYYY too hard to catch the teams cheating, and many teams got away with cheating in 1994-1999. Ever since 2009 there has been NO traction control and ZERO electronic driving aids. It might be a good time to get back into F1. The traction control and driving aids only existed in 1992 to 2008. (And it was technically illegal in 1994-1999 but many teams cheated using electronic driving aids secretly). So yeah, I'd recommend giving F1 another shot considering the reason you stopped watching(driving aids being allowed) is not a thing that exists anymore and hasn't since 2009.

[@StuartH2709]

@@bobbybishop5662 Unfortunately I wasn't born then, but I wish I saw Jim Clark race as I truly believe that he is possibly the greatest ever.

[@tekpic04]

​@@bobbybishop5662Yes that was special as well, just like the 1950's and the 1930's when the Mercedes Benz and Auto Union taught the world about motor racing.

[@ajforever8251]

I was lucky enough to stand at the barriers of turn 3 in Montreal for the 2004 GP. I was wearing ear protection but you could physically feel the sound waves hitting your chest like a drum. Truly insane!!!!

[@rubendesil4192]

I was there 2000, and 2001 near the Casino hairpin. I didn't have ear protection the first time so I suffered partial hearing loss. The sound and vibrations truly affect your entire body - it pierces right through your body . The V10 era was the most amazing era in my opinion.

[@Terrestrial..1]

In the mid 70's you could stand 20 ft from top fuel dragsters and apon take off it would vibrate the wooden/steel framed grandstand and your skeleton would too

[@aaron___6014]

I was at Indy, no ear protection

[@jslane41]

There's been a saying for a long time in NASCAR that you've run the perfect race when the moment you cross the finish line your engine explodes, you completely run out of gas, and your tires go flat. That glorious F1 V10 era sounds very similar.

[@Rimpianto]

Enzo Ferrari used to say a similar thing: "The perfect racing car is the one that breaks down right after the finishing line".

[@gchampi2]

@@Rimpianto That wasn't Enzo, he wanted his cars to be strong so he could sell them at the end of the season. Colin Chapman of Lotus, with his "simplify and add lightness" mantra was the one who described the perfect racing car as one that wins the race, but disintegrates as it crosses the finishing line...

[@JudithGrainger]

F1 was great to watch, fantastic era, never know who was bringing what to the next race. Materials being discovered, the sound, the characters, the teams all great. Been watching since 1959. Now too many rules and regulations.

[@AndyFromBeaverton]

I've been watching since the mid-70s. The 2010s was easily the worst decade ever. The cars are far from perfect today with all the electronics and DRS crap, but at least it seems to be getting better.

[@GameOver-nm2us]

1959? Holy shit how old are you

[@JudithGrainger]

I don’t mind admitting I was born in 1950. Lived one mile from Brands Hatch for two years. Late 50s always watched various motor sports. Made off road motor bike when 10years. Did karting with Bultaco engined kart. Competed in various motor sports including international events. In F1 drivers had to adapt their driving styles as technology changed. When turbos used there was a big issue with the power lag which meant timing when to accelerate out of corners, too early you would spin, too late you were too slow. With hybrids many drivers were unable to adapt as well as others. Now with so much technology drivers input is not as important as within the regulations this can be controlled to a fashion. I have enjoyed motor sports throughout my life and now after loosing my wife, find my club involvement is all that keeps me going. Watched Ferrari film yesterday, great, this is how racing was, tough, building and financing cars was the problem, plenty of drivers to replace injured or killed ones. Callous in today’s way of thinking, but remember my parents age group had watched friends blown up for five years and we grew up with very little health and safety. We tried to enjoy life as well as working hard.

[@GameOver-nm2us]

@user-pv2qq6fv1w oh wow, you had a whole life already, I am just not used to seeing older people on the Internet so seeing the number 59 shocked me (no offence btw)

[@JudithGrainger]

No offence taken. I have so many memories in motoring and made so many friends through sport. I enjoy passing on those memories as competing today is out of reach for so many people but those people would love a chance of competing. Probably find much talent is being wasted through lack of opportunities. Some memories are very strange like competing abroad and being shot at or being fined by corrupt police. On rally stage where a lorry was delivering a load of sand or manhole covers missing where the inside wheel should be. Workers in fields with armed guards making sure they did not look up to watch these mad westerners racing. We all have such memories.

[@vitoaugello1677]

I had the pleasure at my club track to witness the set up and drive of a Williams F1 car of a mid 90s vintage. It took 5 engineers to even get the thing ready to roll. The sound was simply glorious and being within 10 ft of it was deafening. When on track and screaming down the front straight, ear muffs were definitely needed even from the 50 yards where I was standing. Obviously the driver and owner was loaded, lol. As I understand it, he had to fly in both Cosworth and Williams engineers. Must be nice to be loaded. lol.

[@NickTaylorRickPowers]

I was standing over the track in Albert Park when they ran right below me I couldn't see them but I could feel them through my ears and my lungs Insane levels of volume booming right under and through you

[@ericgordon4746]

Enzo, "The car should fall apart at the finish line."

[@TeeTafoya87]

Very well done!! Lots of information, great graphics, well edited with a mix of diagrams and race action. The script does an excellent job of explaining complex engine characteristics to a layman. Looking forward to more great content!

[@theweirdparents54]

This is one of the most informative videos I have seen. Great job man!

[@dr.markusraindl1745]

These high revving NA V10 F1 engines were impressive. Especially those from Honda, BMW and Toyota. The P85, the last V10 was a 98x39,75 engine with an 90° bank angle with an really impressive power-to-weight ratio of 11,7 hp/kg engine weigth (960 hp and 19.800 rpm redline). The most challenging stuff on V10 engines are there firing order caused and uneven combustion events, causing huge vibration issues. Getting this reliable for a daily driver like the VW V10 TDI (AYH, AJS, R50) or BMW V10 (S85B50) is a real engineering challenge, but for up to 20,000 rpm it is an even bigger challenge. Torsion damper on crank and cams, dedicated counterweights on crankshaft to compensate the non-optimal 90° bank angle (72° would be even = 720/10). Beside there impressive capabilities regarding peak power, these engines are mass impluse driven (mostly). The NA engines we design and built for hill climb and circuit racing have much higher specific torque outputs then the Formula 1 versions. About 140 Nm/Liter for peak and 130 Nm/Liter on a wider bandwidth of up to 4000 rpm width are possible. The maximum spec. torque of the P85 F1 of BMW was 120 Nm/Liter. It's design, especially the engine speed and the stroke hinder for more. Each race class has it's own challenges, the NA F1 area had engine speed as a master challenge. The actual F1 is a very complex drivetrain system, which cost way more, too much for my taste. I know the engine designer of the BMW M12/13 F1 engine (1,5 Liter, 1400 hp) personally, who went through the design process mostly by himself with guys from workshop and parts fabricators. Today about 5-30 engineers are working on such an engine. I don't like this, that's a purely money driven competition, not so a man and competence driven competition. The head of Porsche's race activities said once to me, todays races are won on money and management. Maybe big companies develop there their innovations for the management methods ;).

[@flipfloptanlines926]

I dont fear electric, i fear having my energy handed to me in measured amounts by legislatures.

[@davidcat1455]

Wow. You need to stop listening to people that want to make sure you live your life in fear. They don’t give a damn about you ,they’re just trying to leverage your fear for profit. Murdoch, for instance, is a expert at it. It’s his business model.

[@RT-kr7dk]

Use the sun, then, and get Solar power. The sun is free until it explodes, and you wont be around, anyway.

[@stupidhead9117]

@@davidcat1455nut

[@BradfordtheEclectic]

Sorry, but nothing sends me more than the V12's which ended after the 1995 season. The 412 T1 was it!

[@ingocernohorsky]

412 T1 was in 1994. The T2 was in 1995

[@Straightwhitemale1]

F1 changed for me when the V10 came to an end… nothing else beats that sound.

[@Kryptkeeper911]

Imagine if top fuel dragsters went to quiet little hybrid engines. The sport would probably be unwatchable and loose almost all spectators because people love it for the earth shaking power and engines screaming so loud it can be heard from miles away. It’s no different when it comes to formula one

[@curbyourshi1056]

Exactly why I don't watch it anymore. 🥱🥱🥱

[@JudithGrainger]

Imagine the red arrows display if no noise! Noise is a must. Although I am old, the young ones like the noise too as I found out at Silverstone Classic when I spoke to a young couple next to me whilst watching F1 of the past. Screaming engines, yes light and unreliable but fantastic technology especially in the valve gear and ignition areas in those days.

[@JCP_323]

The powerplants in F1 don't produce 1000 hp unless you include the ~160 hp of the hybrid system. Over 800 hp from 1.6 liters is still impressive, but it's a long way from 1000. For perspective, the last turbo era was making at least that power during races (far more during qualifying) from 1.5 liters, but reliability was not exactly spectacular.

[@negativeindustrial]

We never really figured out turbocharging passenger cars reliably until the late 1980s. Passenger car manufacturers kept trying to push more and more boost directly into the engines without sacrificing fuel economy. Intercoolers, precise computer controlled fueling and over fueling to cool cylinders was the correct combination to get us to a full atmosphere of boost and beyond. The same measures could have been applied to these race cars and reliability could have been as high as N/A cars.

[@DjDolHaus86]

The modern engines could easily make over 1000bhp if subjected to the same unlimited boost pressure and fuel flow rate as the cars of the 80s. I'd be intrigued to see just how much they could squeeze out of a modern unit if they were allowed to make a true qualifying grenade like they used to

[@tekpic04]

According to the motor racing books in my library stated by employees of BMW and Honda and leaving aside the other manufacturers for time being, they said they did not know the real power on dynamometer because it went off the power gauge.

[@ilkkak3065]

BMW took 1400hp from 1,5 litres F1 engines back in 80's...

[@tekpic04]

@@ilkkak3065 Roughly 1,500bhp for the BMW and Honda engines.

[@OggaDugga]

The 80s were borderline uncontrollable but required balls to handle and with a manual transmission

[@tekpic04]

Do you mean having a jet engine behind you using manual gearbox?

[@artsyastronaut9033]

Keep up the great work!

[@davidsnyder2000]

One heck of a video. Lots of knowledge that I was unaware of. Thank you👍

[@DNightNinja]

The myth that the tolerances are so tight that the engine cannot turn over is not true. The reason they preheat the fluids is to prevent premature wear.

[@jdoe9518]

Actually thermal expansion is real and therefore tolerances do change. So whilst it is a myth that the engines are locked prior to preheating it is necessary to normalise the clearances prior to start up. Preheating also means no "cold start" sensors or mapping are required. The most egregious claim in this video is that the pit crew at the race track would remove and then replace piston rings for qualifying and the race.

[@dwaynemurphy8229]

Awesome video thanks! Look forward to the next ones.

[@kevinrickey3925]

Your videos are so informative. I love your work. Thank You Friend :-)

[@dirtfarmer7472]

I like your videos and I have just subscribed after watching 3 of your videos. Thank you Sir

[@Andysan555]

This is a really insightful video, thanks OP

[@smoothacceleration437]

Fantastic video. Great job.

[@kevinkelley3657]

Adding displacement increases the amount of air/fuel an engine can move. Adding boost also increases the amount of air/fuel an engine can move.

[@RyanPerrella]

Great job on your F1 technological recap, lots of bullshitters everywhere but in every place you made a statement about a particular with the 3L V10 you’re spot on with my research, great job! These engines are insane, the tolerances are such that you can’t even start them at ambient temperatures, they have to be preheated before start as they’re effectively seized until they’ve expanded enough to actually run. I love that the current engines run 100x longer than the old v10, although they sure don’t sound as good.

[@kerimca98]

As a comparison, the highest RPM street legal engine we have is that of a bike called Ducati Panigale V4R, 16,500 rpm from a 1.0L V4, 230+ hp, it could probably be more but the regulations for it to be road legal can be very strict Edit: Forgot about the bikes like Honda CBR250RR, 18,000+ rpm in the 90s due to tiny displacement, wonder how much higher it could go today without strict regulations If you prefer cars, Gordon Murray T.50 does 12,100 RPM from 4.0L V12, 654 hp Car manufacturers could definitely build even higher RPMs than that with lower displacement engine but I suppose it wouldn't sell well or no one has thought of it

[@lemonjuice6177]

In today technology i think its impossible for manufacturers to engineer a reliable right rev engine like 18k rpm, the valve springs is the bottleneck, you can do desmo like ducati but it also have a limit, you can make it pneumatic valve like moto gp do today but it costs a lot (really a lot) and also not as reliable

[@kerimca98]

@@lemonjuice6177 With even higher I meant 13k rpm, should be easy but gotta make profits

[@lemonjuice6177]

@@kerimca98 oh, i think its possible to a car engine to do 16k rpm, like a 3L V12 engine it’s definitely possible using desmo or valve springs, but the low end torque will be a shit, i think that’s why they don’t do, but with hybrid architecture to compensate for the low torque i think will be one of the most exciting cars to rev…

[@rars0n]

Going fast isn't about making torque. That's why F1 engines typically had such low torque. It's about making power, which is a function of RPM. Hence, if you want to make the most power with a naturally-aspirated engine, you spin it faster.

[@ccrider8483]

When displacement is limited revs are free, but piston speed is limited to around 4500-4800 feet per minute. This results in very over square bore/stroke ratios. I have heard these ratios were in the order of 2.7 to 1 bore to stroke.

[@kerimca98]

There's also a thing called wheel torque, which is calculated after transmission gearing, more power means more wheel torque

[@rars0n]

@@kerimca98 But torque is a measurement of force, not power, that's the point. Torque is not what moves the car, power is. Hang a 100-lb weight off of a 1-ft arm and you've made 100 ft-lbs of torque, but you haven't done any work, therefore you've made zero power. More torque to the wheels just means you're making more power to the wheels.

[@HenAnt]

​​​@@rars0n Horsepower is literally just Torque done at a rate, so technically it does. Higher Torque means you go from one power figure to another quicker. Also the example is flawed, it's potential energy that has yet to be made into kinetic energy, in this case it's torque that has yet to work vs torque that is already at work.

[@rars0n]

​@@HenAnt Wrong Torque is *nothing* but a force. Work is energy transferred to an object from a force over a displacement. Power is the rate that work is done. The example isn't flawed at all. It was meant to demonstrate the fact that torque does not imply work like you think it does. "torque that is already at work." This statement is complete nonsense. There's no such thing as "torque already at work." I can push with 10 lbs of force against a brick wall and it's not going to move. I haven't done any work because the wall hasn't moved. No matter how much force I apply, I will not have done any work until the wall starts to move. There has to be a displacement in order for work to have occurred. That's why torque is multiplied by *rotations* per second, and not just seconds. It's *not* a rate of torque over time, it's a rate of *rotations* TIMES torque over time. How much power do you make if you make 1000 lb-ft of torque at 0 RPM? You make 0 power. Because nothing is moving.

[@crusherbmx]

This is excellent, a great video to show your friend who brags about all the torque his Ram truck has.

[@floydwilliams3321]

Super interesting video man❤

[@tekpic04]

Anyone who old enough to remember the development of insane aviation standards of lubricants and special brew fuels also known as Jungle juice. These fuels in questions from an engineering preparative, the chemist's had to disguise their concotion with a smell to throw off rival manufacturers and teams. This is one area not much taught about in forums and social media.

[@malibu188]

These engines also used massive bore dimensions and to stay within the capability rule they went for short stroke (very over square engine). This path to power will place epic loads on the pistons that are going to try there best to flip over in the bore while it’s running at 18,000 rpm.

[@johnsmith-tn8rn]

I was involved on the business side of the 2007-09 ING Renault F1 Team. I asked Pat Symonds the very question about the life of a F1 engine. He said they build engines to the edge of requirements. If F1 restricted teams to four engines, they’d build the same engines, just ones that would last longer. Pretty much what the video says.

[@danesorensen1775]

Ah, the Kleenex engines: one for the race, a completely different one for qualifying, and one of your old leftovers for practice sessions. The teams had infinite money in the pre-GFC economic climate, so why not? In the V8 era, when they started asking the engines to last three or more weekends, the engineers responded by coating the components in DLC. That's Diamond-Like Carbon to you and me. Just incredible.

[@Kulvinder1974]

I wish that a team would allow one of their engines to be used in an experiment to see how fast it can be spun before failure occurs. At the end of a season, obviously.

[@golfrick007]

I'll vouch for the ear splitting sound. I was at the 2000 USGP and only made it about 2 laps before I needed ear plugs.😂

[@gdogg3710]

Funny how the younger generation (rightly) perceive how wasteful that was, but at the time we thought it was a massive improvement over the four lap turbo qualifying engines…

[@glpdrum]

Taking away the grid girls did it for me.

[@rkk578]

The video was great apart from the political stereotyping of people who don't like the new V6 engine. I really didn't see the point of that.

[@justinmeadows8446]

Another great video

[@GyunayMuradov]

love your videos man

[@oildrag]

Yes V10’s ruled ! Sound wise as well 👍🇬🇧

[@markblanch2905]

Oh I really wish you slowed down your chat speed and separated your words a bit more so I could properly enjoy this wonderful video. With the speed/diction it's gone into subtitles territory

[@vernongoodey5096]

Should have gone to our local Quik fit, they’d fix it and give it a lifetime guarantee! Most of the guys have worked at Williams down the road

[@LordandGodofYouTube]

All pistons in all engines are not round, that isn't something that is unique to F1. Pistons in all engines are all made in a slight oval shape so that when they get to temperature and expand they become round. The most unique thing about F1 pistons are the ultra short skirts they used to run which is another big reason these engines didn't last very long.

[@simon83thorpe]

I want to see you do that top fuel drag engine video. Loved this one though

[@Fortnite_Frost_Clips]

I 💗 V10

[@debunkthejunk]

I miss the turbo days, now it's about compression. An F1 piston is like $40k because the specs are tight. V10 era was screaming but the V6's aren't terrible sounding. But you can but exotics that sound the same and that's no cool.(5252 is the real magic number)

[@u.e.u.e.]

Don't forget they had 3 cars(!) per driver before! A car just for qualifying with another engine that lasted just a few times for 3 laps, a regular race car and a spare car for each driver in case they crashed. The costs were up to the universe at that time.

[@crackasaurus_rox9740]

What if I told you they used twice as many engines today as 20 years ago? You just never saw them get rejected.

[@stephanbrunker]

As a side note: these engines weren't done after one race (if they didn't explode). In hillclimb events the used engines turned up - of course very restricted in rpm - and enjoyed their second life for much longer. They were probably relatively cheap to get and there was ample supply when each team used minimum two engines per race. So technically, they lasted a lot longer than 200 miles, just not with F1 rpm.

[@jamesolivier3192]

Great video! subbed. FWIW pretty much all modern pistons aren't machined round, that's not just an f1 thing.

[@tommiranda3158]

The narrator sounds like the guy from Veritasium. Is it the same guy?

[@Chip_in]

Nope ⛳

[@SuperGreat8000]

I suggest researching the difference between tolerance and clearance

[@Hunter-zp5hd]

I wish they’d go back to regular engines and get rid of this hybrid BS. Those V10s sounded epic.

[@nevillemolokwu8598]

Your video is awesome and so well explained 🔥🔥🔥

[@jacquesevans1023]

Clearances - not tolerances

[@MrGreedy-zk7nm]

V10’s 🤤🤤

[@Dankboi420]

Even road cars were epic in the 2000s era

[@vehementshortfuze4820]

I'm aware this was a throwaway joke line but "no replacement for displacement... except for boost" is wrong. Boost is not a replacement for displacement. It's an approximation of displacement but not a replacement for it. Turbos have lag and importantly boost threshold. Centrifugal superchargers also have boost threshold and positive displacement units are highly inefficient. They consume more fuel than an equivalent naturally aspirated engine and require higher octane at that. Twin screws are a bit better than roots in this regard, but they all have their drawbacks. There is no replacement for displacement. It's important to distinguish that. Not saying that displacement is necessarily better - obviously that depends on your application, budget and of course personal preference. To get to my point, the saying "there's no replacement for displacement" isn't some saying that used to be true but no longer is. I used to think that, but the more you think about it the more your realise forced induction merely approximates greater displacement, it can't quite replicate it perfectly. So there is actually truth to the saying, much to the horror of many of my fellow JDM enthusiasts. My 2 cents.

[@williamcharles7340]

I would love to see F1 ditch the sustainability angle and return to being the pinnacle of race engineering. The only things that should matter are performance, the quality of the racing, and, of course, safety. We have the whole rest of the real world to worry about that shit. It's okay to have some places where entertainment and fun come first.

[@PistonAvatarGuy]

There's nothing wrong with using sustainable fuels (e-fuels).

[@williamcharles7340]

​@@PistonAvatarGuy Of course, and no one has an issue with them to my knowledge. The point is the only thing that should be leading F1 development is making the best, most technologically advanced racing vehicles and the best racing possible. That's what people miss about what F1 was. It was extreme by design with room to innovate but now the "power units" are meh and the big announcements for future rule sets are pursuing things few people care about within the sport. There is a reason people smile when they hear the hi revving V8s, V10s, and V12s.

[@EquilibriuMind]

They changed the rule this season, you are allowed 4 engines without a penalty nowadays

[@scottcarter7137]

3:10 wow, you hurt my feelings and I don’t even own a vacuum cleaner.

[@bmsheadworks]

Great video. But the part when you say that F1 engines couldn't start at low tempetures because it would be seized is not true. It dosen't even makes sense... When an engine is designed to be as powerfull it can be with an displacement target it will generate more heat and more stress in all the mechanical parts of the engine, with ones are made of metals. Metal tends to expand under heat, so racing engines are build with loose clearences, the clearences are so loose that they cant start the engine when its cold and the internal parts are in normal climatic temperatures because the engine would destroy itself over as the clearences would be too loose to mantein an oil film lubricating the parts, even worse in this F1 engines that have an idle arround 4000 - 6000rpm. Besides that, great content!

[@gumpy4960]

I’d also argue that the technology and the rules the modern engines have to stick to are more beneficial for road cars, as is the tech filtering down into ordinary cars. Lower revs, greater fuel efficiency and greater reliability is whats best for road cars, not the tech that goes into making cars barely last 200 miles and arent that efficient.

[@ACatKrom]

V10 engine was more advance than the current v6 is, and the current v6 does not make 1k hp. The V10 lasted one race, because it that's how long it needed to last. Almost all pistons are not round when room temp. Also the "cant turn over when cold" myth has been debunked tons of times

[@DonLee1980]

"engineering that have yet to be matched", I beg to differ. The current crop of engines could literally last a 24hr le mans race, and are also more powerful despite being forced to use less than 1/2 of the fuel the V10 engines once used. The current engines may not sound good, but the fact that a 1050hp racing machine has an energy efficiency higher than a Toyota prius, is insane. If you stuck one of these engines into the back of a F1 car today, you'd have to find a way of putting in 200kg of fuel into the car before the race start to make it to the chequered flag.

[@dimosk7389]

engineering is still yet to be matched. performance and reliability sure did. moderns V6s are much more complicated and advanced as a power unit, but at the same time they are "simpler" in design and tolerances. modern F1 cars can just start on their own by their hybrid system, where a V10 car would need a long time to get ready so it could actually be cranked to life. and so many other details that would allow them to reach almost 20K rpm but they had a completely different set of rules, so its kinda unfair to do an "apples to apples" comparison

[@stefandominitzki]

during the turbo-era 1982-1988 the engines last only one lap in qualifying-trim. Same with qualifying-tyres.

[@Answer394]

Damn this make me sad 2005 Kimi Mclaren engine failures season

[@countersteer713]

Afraid of hybrids? That’s one hell of a coping mechanism for wherever someone don’t like what you like. They’re afraid of it 😂 Whatever helps you brother

[@googleaccount3161]

Sounds like something someone who needs to project a fear of hybrids would say.

[@countersteer713]

@@googleaccount3161 u got me. SkyF1 makes me piss my panties

[@kerimca98]

​@@googleaccount3161Was still a weird thing to say and probably engagement bait, dropped the video's quality Love hybrids myself, don't really belong in motorsports

[@F-Man]

@@kerimca98I unsubbed because of that little quip. The engineering talk is fantastic, but the little identity politics hit was entirely inappropriate and offensive.

[@googleaccount3161]

@@F-Man that’s awfully defensive from someone criticizing another for identifying with politics.

[@rhollyday]

Awesome!

[@gertjevanpoppel7270]

Toyota had a v10 3liter engine that weighed 93 kilo... revved over 20.000 rpm and produced 890 hp... Also peugot made one of the most extreme v10 at that time Also... these engines are short stroke engines. Short stroke engines are more about horsepower and long stroke engines are more about torque... The stroke of a formula 1 engine can be 43 mm or 43 mm and the bore of the cilinder aprox 94 mm

[@dwakim1]

The KZbin captioning at the beginning said “Applause” and “Music”….about right.

[@IGG2002]

We want the V8's and V10's engines to return in Formula 1.

[@Clangokkuner]

Speak for yourself.

[@BradfordtheEclectic]

V12s for me, thanks.

[@Celatra]

They'd be too heavy

[@theofficialfluffy]

some of these f1 cars managed to idle at the redline of my dads car 💀

[@martinh4630]

Shame about the background noise - it isn't music and it is unnecessary.

[@vmafferreira6466]

Were is the "Sound"? I only heard some guy talking the all video.

[@bricekoirokpi9954]

Bring back the V10

[@BLKBRDD]

3:08 I guarantee you didn't get to experience it trackside with a comment like that.

[@jdockii]

The new engines are amazing, but they lack the passion of the V10s. But maybe that’s just nostalgia

[@kerimca98]

To be fair I don't hear anyone saying that 80s turbos sound better than even the V8s and such, loud engines are just objectively better in entertainment value I even preferred to go to Boss GP over F1 which featured classic V10 and V8 F1 cars

[@Sarge-R1]

they even hat qualifing engines in the v10 era and they lastet a few laps

[@kevinkarbonik2928]

I have a V10 B MW M5 ... it just sings.

[@Ridesharereflections]

“guys who are afraid of hybrids and big cities” 😂😂😂 Yeah we’re familiar with them. The scary thing is they vote.

[@shameelmohammed3632]

A V10 with todays knowledge and efficiency would do 2000hp

[@EleanorPeterson]

F1 lost its appeal (for me) precisely because the governing body embraced the modern ethos of 8-race capable engines, modest power outputs, tightly controlled budgets, sustainable fuels, renewable this, recyclable that, yadda, yadda, yadda. That's all WRONG. Go down that route for lesser formulas if you must, but F1 should represent the pinnacle of what can be achieved in motorsport, regardless of cost - and I mean that both financially and environmentally. One unlimited race series isn't going to destroy the planet. It may not tick the right 'green' boxes, but some things are more important than that. I did some rally driving [only amateur] in the Group-B era. The cars, the drivers, the teams, the engineering, the innovation - even the spectators - were unlike anything the sport had seen before. Like F1 at the time, it was not a safe sport. Tragically we lost far too many drivers and spectators to accidents and incidents, and rallying was changed radically to lessen the dangers. And as a result, rallying itself died. To many people the demise of Group-B signalled the end of all that they loved. Modern WRC rallying, just like modern Formula 1, is certainly far safer than it used to be - but I see no PASSION in it. I no longer care who drives what because all the cars are... dull. No one team can be allowed to dominate or even innovate because 'that wouldn't be fair'. Oh, please. I'm glad that I lived through the greatest years of F1 (and rallying). It's sad that many of today's motorsport fans find more excitement and thrills on their sophisticated racing simulators at home than at the race tracks of the world. Of course safety matters, and nobody wants to see drivers forced to participate in a sport that claims several lives a year; but that's the point, isn't it: nobody forces drivers to take part. They know the risks now just as well as they knew the risks back in the '80s. Drivers would still be fighting to get an F1 drive, even if the cars were as deadly as they once were. F1 should be an extreme sport, without compromise. The shrieking, screaming, 20,000 rpm V-10 era was magnificent and is sorely missed. Just look at the viewing figures for any KZbin video on the subject. Look at the viewing figures and Comments for THIS video! People cared about Formula 1 racing 20, 30, 40, 50 years ago in a way that they don't any more. Designing an engine that explodes as it crosses the finish line after a 200 mile race is not a failure: it's an example of the kind of precision engineering that made F1 special. It's not special any more.

[@perpetualgrin5804]

At last I've found an engine I can relate to. A BMW owner😅 .

[@schanche1965]

They never removed and replaced piston rings between qualifying and F1 race, where did you get that 'fact'?

[@LCRLive687]

You are hilarious. You can't seem to decide whether nothing matches the NA V10 era or the current V6 hybrid era. 😂 And your ending is misleading. The V6's of today would not be capable of insane levels of power even with higher revving as would be possible if you turbo'd the V10 engines with lower revs. That would be on another level. What you really should have asked was imagine what performance would be possible if you Turbo'd the V10. And regardless, nothing beat the aura, brutality and magic of the 90s and early 2000's F1. Also CART Indys were pretty cool turbo V8's. All you are trying to to is justify the vaccuum cleaner F1 nonsense of today and its not working. Its not the real deal. You can try to explain this till the cows come home but you are wasting your time and effort. People do not like today's F1. The vibe is just not there and really sucks.

[@anthonyrowland9072]

The v12 era was the last era to actually sound good. The v10 and v8 cars sound *crazy* but not good to me. The v12 still sounds like a real engine and not a power drill.

[@michelod.i.y.5202]

200 miles! Same as a BMW M5 😂

[@alandavid5201]

Only last 200 miles, A Top Fuel dragster engine only lasts 400m or 1/4 mile. and only rotates about 750 times.

[@Terrestrial..1]

Today's top fuel engines need a rebuild each 3.6 second run at 340 mph because they make 12.000 bhp

[@robsdeviceunknown]

This engine technology is what we are seeing in modern cars. 4 bangers putting our 400ish HP is just making them not last long and very unreliable. All for the sake of some mythical climate change crap.

[@scotthammer4007]

Even participation trophies who have their Subarus in pieces in their mother’s garage know there’s no reliability in turbos. The rules are the only reason for the modern shit formula reliability. Stop begging for support for the worst era in F1

[@pauljbusby]

You are incorrect. These Engine were build to much closer CLEARANCES not tolerance. The tolerance is only as good as the Tooling. Are we learning yet?

[@Emily-b6r8d]

They actually get 4 engines per season not 3 because of the extra sprint racing

[@Amm17ar]

Unless youre Ferrari, then you get 3 cuz your guarenteed to blow one in the first couple races.

[@ergoproxy-gx2cq]

​@@Amm17arFerrari bringing back the old times of unreliable f1 and their racing heritage by having Leclerc retire during the formation lap 😂

[@Amm17ar]

@@ergoproxy-gx2cq Lool, they gotta keep EVERY tradition alive at Ferrari!

[@sleebanger]

the 1994 & 1995 Ferrari V12;s made the v10's look quiet. i was trackside to see the last V12's in F1. The BMW V10 was rated over 960hp. younger generations have absolutely no idea how amazing this era was. the current cars are absolutely garbage.

[@marshgatelaneposse]

I never thought I would have to say this but F1 is so diluted now road cars sound better back in the day of the V10 it’s was like trying to explain drag racing Top Fuel that sound

[@BasedF-15Pilot]

@03:13 Ok cool. Unsubscribed. Try a keep politics out of your videos unless you want to run a partisan politics channel.

[@johndef5075]

I got a feeling if it was anti liberal you wouldnt give a f.

[@James1369]

"set a standard for performance that hasnt been matched by any production engine since" what on earth are you on about? Vid has potential but you killed it for me 15 secs in.....