How F1 has tried to avoid repeating its 2014 engine rules mistakes

The 2026 engine regulations have finally been agreed. They make for interesting reading, both for what they do and do not include. 

Gone is the innovative, complex and hugely expensive MGU-H spinning at 125,000rpm, which came into the sport in 2014. A piece of technology which added very little to the show but got some of those sitting around the table in Place de la Concorde terribly excited when they agreed that last set of regulations. It was road-irrelevant, as it turned out.

What proved to be of far greater significance was the ability of the engine manufacturers to take the combustion efficiency of the fuel-flow-limited internal combustion engine (ICE) to an entirely new level: Mercedes reached 50% thermal efficiency five years ago.

It’s not the first time in F1 history that a regulatory wrong turn has occurred, but I don’t suppose anyone will add up all the time, effort and money spent on MGU-H technology over the past decade.

Also gone are variable trumpets. Instead, the MGU-K is where all the hybrid action is to be had. Its output will be increased to 350kW, or 470bhp in old money, albeit subject to limited deployment at certain speeds.

The 2014 regs were designed by technocrats with little concern for the wider business of F1, never mind its fans. Here was a set of rules about which the FIA was deeply passionate, yet the governing body’s fervour wasn’t shared across F1. The new rules weren’t refined or communicated properly to sponsors, media and fans.

Instead, the new engines caused confusion and disappointment thanks to their muted sound. Indeed, it was only at the end of last year that F1 got around to launching a marketing campaign promoting the efficiency of the current engines.

“The world’s most efficient engine, powered by Hybrid” declared the new logo, before adding “since 2014”, just to remind us.

The 2026 engine rules have undoubtedly benefitted from lessons learned. As is typical of the new collegiate style of management, all stakeholders were involved – the FIA, F1, teams and manufacturers. Including new ones such as the VW Group.

Audi arrives in F1 as an engine supplier from 2026, enticed by the new rules

Photo by: Mark Sutton / Motorsport Images

The stakeholders considered not only the road-relevancy of the hybrid technology but also the way in which it could best be communicated. Keeping 1000bhp is good news for race fans, while producing it from a synthetic drop-in fuel which adds nothing to the stock of CO2 in the upper atmosphere is great for everyone. Sponsors will love it, even the oil companies.

While environmental sustainability is highlighted in the new rules, the case for commercial sustainability shows F1 is firmly wedded to the way in which car manufacturers spend money. It’s not cheap.

The biggest concern is whether anything can prevent 2014’s most painful lesson from being repeated. The intent was that no single manufacturer should gain a significant competitive advantage. The opposite happened: Mercedes’ talented team won the next eight constructors’ titles

There is an engine cost cap, fixed at $95m for 2022-2025, rising to $130m per year from 2026 onwards. You read that right: the engine budget cap will end up not far off the (separate) budget cap for designing and operating the cars and the race team. With around $260m of total ‘cost cap’ to play with each season, plus all the excluded costs including driver salaries, it’s not difficult to see $400-500m being run through the books by the largest manufacturer outfits.

Perhaps the biggest concern is whether anything can prevent 2014’s most painful lesson from being repeated. The intent was that no single manufacturer should gain a significant competitive advantage. The opposite happened: Mercedes’ talented team won the next eight constructors’ titles.

With at least six manufacturers entering the fray this time, the rule-makers must hope a repeat performance is unthinkable. Fingers crossed?

Which manufacturer will come out on top with the 2026 engine rules?

Photo by: Erik Junius