How F1's energy deployment headache and high fuel costs might affect 2026

With the possible exception of the new 1.5-litre formula for 1961, it feels that there's never been an upcoming regulatory change as contentious as the plans afoot for 2026. Nobody seems to be very happy – or, in this case, the teams don't seem to be very happy with Formula 1's upcoming new era. 

Let us rattle through the complaints that have surfaced from various sources over the past couple of seasons: the drivers will have to lift and coast at the end of straights, engines will have to be mapped to charge the battery in corners, the names 'X-mode' and 'Z-mode' are stupid (okay, that was me), the weight target is too ambitious, it's going to be too dependent on engine manufacturers, there's no mechanic for manufacturers who are behind to catch up, and the cars won't have enough downforce. Let's add a new concern to that list: sustainable fuels are too expensive.

Now, some of those concerns are globally legitimate. Some of them can be put into the category of 'fear-mongering to lobby for more favourable conditions', and others can be put into the category of 'please just get on with it'. 

Despite the best efforts to firm everything up in June last year, the ruleset tinkering has continued at a pace. Although the chassis regs now seem thankfully set in stone, the powertrains have been subject to all sorts of bargaining in the wake of the dead, V10-shaped cat being cleared from the table. There are now talks to change the rules governing energy deployment, as the lift-and-coast concerns have resurfaced.

The maximum battery 'state of charge' of 4MJ remains in place from the current ruleset to power the electric motor - the MGU-K. To deliver the maximum 350kW output, a maximum of 9MJ can be used over a lap. This places a colossal level of importance on regeneration of energy into the corners. That means you've got to top the battery up more than twice over a lap to ensure the 350kW output is not diluted.

That's where the discussion of lift-and-coast comes into play, as it's by the far the most efficient system of preserving electrical energy: by not using it. Many contemporary EVs have regenerative braking systems set to kick in when a driver lifts off the throttle, so it automatically reverses the current flowing from the battery to the motor and starts feeding energy back in again. You don't recapture ALL of your energy by doing so, and it's ultimately a case of how efficient the regen braking and motor is, but you'll get a good dose of it back.

Formula 1 is under pressure to be greener under the skin too

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

This provides more regen than using a combination of this and the physical brakes on the car. In some commercially-available EVs, the cars are based around a single-pedal arrangement; the driver lifts off, and the car uses an aggressive regenerative braking mode to slow it down and recapture energy. The ultimate efficiency of this is debated, however; different manufacturers have different philosophies.

"If it’s genuinely in the interest of the sport and racing, not to have all this lifting and coasting, then I think it’s something that warrants looking at" Christian Horner

When you're relying on a near 50-50 split between the internal combustion engine and the electric drive motor to provide the power (its actually 55-45, but you get the gist), this means that the regen over a lap has to be tooled to ensure the 350kW motor output can be attained throughout the lap. And that's difficult, because teams want to have their cake and eat it; there's no way that braking normally for the corners is going to offer that level of regen, even with an aggressive MGU-K braking strategy allied to the carbon brakes on board the car. There'd have to be some degree of more-efficient regenerative braking off-throttle to feed the battery before the driver hits the actual brake pedal.

There is currently a solution in the rules which states that power output from the MGU-K must decrease when a car reaches its top end, which ramps down to 0 kW when "the car speed is equal to or above 345kph". The equations determining this provided by the FIA produce the following electrical motor power output graph.

The power output from the MGU-K decreases as a car increases in speed

As can be seen, there is already a ramp-down rate in place, but one suggestion would be to start the decrease in power earlier than the current 290kph (180.2mph) sooner to reduce the rate of battery discharge. This might reduce the rate of lifting and coasting into corners, and would likely alleviate some of the issue of cars running out of electrical power on the Monza and Baku straights - although it's understood that tweaks to the powertrain clipping have been made to limit this. But this does not address the concern that the scope of regenerative braking will be limited in the faster circuits where there's fewer hard stops - like Suzuka, Spa, or Silverstone.

As an aside, this ramp-down rate also allows for the drivers to use the "overboost" function to sidestep that for a short time, effectively as an ersatz-DRS. But would the drivers able to use it even have enough power to play with to employ it?

Alternatively, the view of Red Bull's Christian Horner is slightly different. He's suggested that the full 350kW output of the electric motor remains in place for qualifying, but this is turned down to 200kW for the race. This equates to a 200bhp drop for a race, putting the cars at about 800bhp rather than the full circa-1000bhp available in qualifying - it's still a high output, but not as high as that initially promised.

He argues that the results are two-fold: firstly, that this will cut down on the lifting and coasting that has been prevalent in simulations. Let's dissect what he said in Friday's team principal press conference in Miami and read between the lines.

"It's a concern that’s been flagged from two years ago by all the power unit manufacturers, the amount of harvesting there is and inevitably the chassis designers will inevitably outperform the criteria of the regulations, and a consequence of that will be the amount of lift-and-coast that there will be in a grand prix," he began. 

With a cynical view, one might suggest that Horner's view of the situation is one made of a deficiency when marrying the computer simulations of Red Bull's 2026 and its powertrain. He's expecting to see his drivers, whoever they may be, barrelling down a straight and then lifting off 100-200m sooner than the braking zone to start regen. But then there's the interesting bit...

"You also have to remember that, the car is effectively constantly in DRS mode. As soon as you enter the straight, the wing opens. So, there’ll be no passing mechanism. If it’s genuinely in the interest of the sport and racing, not to have all this lifting and coasting, then I think it’s something that warrants looking at. It doesn’t change the spec or output of the engine. It’s just the amount of battery deployment maybe at certain grands prix."

Horner is keen to reduce the amount of lift-and-coast drivers will have to do

Photo by: Sam Bagnall / Motorsport Images

Clarifying this later, Horner effectively suggested that reducing the race power from the MGU-K to 200kW opens the door to a bonafide push-to-pass system. Depending on how it's defined, this could be a good tool for the racing spectacle; while DRS is divisive and has been criticised for making passes too easy (or, conversely, not being effective enough at some venues), a push-to-pass system offers a little bit more latitude, especially if a defending car can use it. It'd be a little bit more like the 2009-13 KERS button, but a bit more potent with a 200bhp boost.

In effect, what F1 would have come up with is Formula E's attack mode, where the cars operate at full race power for a set time if they've successfully triggered an offline activation zone. It might be a bit less arcane as a solution but, if well managed by the rules, could offer a slightly more 'legitimate' replacement for DRS. It's certainly food for thought.

Toto Wolff, however, believes that F1 should suck it and see a little bit and - if it's needed - F1 can dial back the software governing the MGU-K use if early forecasts don't look good. But he rightly points out that the ICE-ERS split was introduced to pull new manufacturers in, and restricting the power use might be pulling the rug from underneath the likes of Audi and Honda.

"Are we going to see energy harvesting disasters in Baku or Monza? I don’t know. We hope not." Toto Wolff 

"The closer you come to new regulations, the more people act – all of us – in the interest of the team, that’s their duty. Where we’re coming from is we don’t know how it’s going to pan out next year," Wolff said.

"Are we going to see energy harvesting disasters in Baku or Monza? I don’t know. We hope not. What we’ve signalled is that, rather than act now based on assumptions – like we’ve been great at in previous years and then overshot or undershot – you don’t need to throw the hardware away and come up with something new – it’s within the software and bandwidth of what you can do. 

"We’ll see the final product next year in testing. As a power unit manufacturer, we want this to be a great show. We want to win, but we are also aware that in the sport there needs to be variability and unpredictability. We enjoyed the years from 2014 onwards, but over a prolonged period of time, that’s certainly not the best for the sport. I try to be very balanced between what is good for Mercedes, which I need to do, and what is the right solution going forward. We need to avoid these swings."

Wolff is trying to find the right balance between what's best for his team and what's best for F1

Photo by: Sam Bloxham / Motorsport Images

As for the sustainable fuel cost issue, it's of little surprise that has now cropped up – in fact, it's surprising that it's not been brought up sooner given that a 2026 'fuel war' has been raging for some time already. Given the need to synthesise hydrocarbons in as carbon-neutral a manner as possible, it's expensive to source materials like green hydrogen, Fischer-Tropsch catalysts (the usual process to produce synthetic fuels), and the like. And then there's the additives to boost things like combustion to ensure an efficient burn. It's a huge investment to produce these sustainable fuels.

Plus, demand far outstrips supply; it's why the book-and-claim market exists - where companies can effectively 'claim' sustainable aviation fuel used in a completely different flight to offset their carbon emissions by paying for someone else to pollute the atmosphere less.

Horner says that "it's not a significant issue" for Red Bull and fuels partner ExxonMobil, but did cite the development costs involved and its place as "potentially one of the bigger performance differentiators". Wolff, on the other hand, did admit that the per-litre costs were a lot more expensive than anticipated and suggested there might need to be a change in the rules on the materials used in production to bring that cost down.

But, in theory, these are costs that the fuel manufacturers should eat and consider it as an investment - because if these products end up becoming more widespread and end up for use in garage forecourts, they can be sold at a premium price. After all, fuel production, development, and supply costs are exclusions from the revised 2026 cost cap - so for the customer teams, it's not at the top of their worry-list.

The fuel production topic is towards the bottom of the priority list for F1 teams but regardless, the 2026 debate is expected to rumble on for quite some time

Photo by: Erik Junius