How F1’s rules got to be so complex

This month I am combining two questions from readers. Steve Butler has asked whether we will ever get to a set of regulations that will enable teams to arrive at different solutions, and Darren Faraway asks what might be the ideal dimensions for a Formula 1 car to enable good racing.

There is no doubt that the current regulations are amazingly prescriptive compared to those of 50 years ago. In the 1970s the regulations governing what was then called, rather archaically, ‘coachwork’ were just a paragraph. Even by 1982, when we were well into ground effect, flexible skirts and trick suspensions, the rules governing the overall shape of the car and the aerodynamic performance were just 496 words.

Article 3 of the 2027 regulations, which governs aerodynamics and therefore the basic shape of the car, runs to 51 pages and 17,711 words. If this were not bad enough, there are three pages that just define the conventions by which the dimensions are established and the fundamental dimensions such as the width, height and wheelbase of the car.

It doesn’t even end there. A further 15 pages define what are termed ‘Regulation Volumes’. These are the volumes defined within the overall dimensions of the car in which, in some cases, you must have bodywork and conversely volumes in which you are not allowed to have bodywork.

This level of detail has two effects. Firstly, it makes it impossible for fans to understand the regulations. Even those of us involved in the sport cannot picture all the shapes involved without having a CAD screen in front of us. Secondly, it gives a level of prescription that leaves very little room for innovation or even the ability to differentiate designs.

Mr Butler feels that all the cars look similar to the spectator and he is correct. Some years ago, I took a set of photographs of the cars taken at the same spot on the track and turned them into silhouettes. I then asked several people who were involved in the sport to identify the cars. None of them could do so, and some didn’t even recognise the cars they were involved with.

So why are we in this position? I think the answer lies in the way the sport has developed since those times when we saw six-wheel cars, cars with vastly different sidepod shapes and of course different engine configurations. In this time, the 1970s and 1980s, aerodynamic understanding was in its infancy.

The use of wind tunnels started in the mid-1970s as teams realised that the exploitation of ground effect aerodynamics needed a level of understanding rather than an intuitive approach. Even then, the models were very basic compared to the hugely complex wind tunnel models of today.

The last generation of V8 cars got longer as designers strove to reap downforce benefits

Photo by: Sutton Images

Initially just at quarter scale, and later growing to third scale and running on solid nylon tyres with minimal instrumentation, the amount of development was limited. Teams used just two wind tunnels, one at Imperial College and one at Southampton University, so time in the tunnel was limited. No team had even contemplated building their own tunnel.

Under these conditions it was probably reasonable to have pretty open regulations. But as sophistication increased so too did the feeling that regulations needed to increase their complexity to ensure that absolute performance was kept under control for safety reasons, and relative performance was limited to ensure the sport retained some jeopardy rather than one team dominating due to successful innovation.

Year on year this complexity has increased because the philosophy of the FIA these days is to regulate to the nth degree to keep a level playing field. This doesn’t just apply to the bodywork. The engine regulations have grown from just 42 words – of which 32 told you what you could do and 10 what you couldn’t – to a heady 10,642, and that’s before you get to the endless documents about energy management.

The real question is whether this is a good thing. It is hugely frustrating for the engineers but you cannot argue that the racing is not close. Detail design still differentiates the winners from the rest of the field, as it should. I believe we have gone rather too prescriptive with regulations, but I also think this is significantly better than too much freedom destroying close racing.

I believe we have gone rather too prescriptive with regulations, but I also think this is significantly better than too much freedom destroying close racing

As to what is the ideal size for an F1 car, I don’t think there is an exact answer, but I would certainly like to see the wheelbase of the current cars reduced further. Steps in this direction have been made in recent years, and the cars look better for it. A smaller car is a lighter and more nimble car and a short-wheelbase car is also slightly harder to drive, which I believe is a good thing.

I think a width of perhaps just under two metres and a height of around 1m are OK. The wheelbase needs to be defined by minimum packaging for a tall driver, a suitable fuel tank size and the length of the power unit and transmission. The current 3.4m is OK but it would be nice to get it down further.

The last generation of V8 normally aspirated cars with fuel tanks designed for no refuelling were initially around 3.3m but lengthened year on year. This was because designers realised that longer floors produced more efficient downforce. I would hope that with the next generation of V8 cars we could get back to 3.3m while still providing a cockpit long enough for tall drivers.

Packaging will be challenging, but that is exactly what the design of a Formula 1 car should be – challenging.

Want to ask Pat a tech question for a future issue? Let us know on autosport@autosport.com

This article is one of many in the monthly Autosport magazine. For more premium content, take a look at the November 2026 issue and subscribe today.