How the 2027 F1 rule changes will work

Of late, Formula 1 CEO Stefano Domenicali’s appearances have put one in mind of Young Mr Grace from the venerable BBC comedy series Are You Being Served?  The doddery proprietor of the Grace Brothers department store appeared in a walk-on role in 46 of the 69 episodes, usually but not always with a vastly younger woman on each arm (this being the 1970s), and had just one line of dialogue: “You’ve all done very well…”

Despite all the assurances from above that all is shipshape and Bristol fashion with the 2026 regulations, hot on the heels of a package of tweaks implemented for the Miami Grand Prix weekend, the FIA has announced further and more wide-reaching changes for 2027.

All this while not ruling out more twiddling of the knobs between then and now.

The latest announcement represents a rubber-stamping of discussions which have been taking place behind the scenes during the enforced April interregnum. Increasing the contribution of the internal combustion engine by around 50 kilowatts will be achieved by raising the permitted fuel flow, while the contribution of the electrical motor will be reduced by 50 kilowatts – in most cases, 350kW per lap to 300kW.

This brings the ratio of internal combustion to electrical motor output from around 50/50 to around 60/40.

Separately, F1’s Technical Advisory Committee is considering a proposal to reduce car downforce by up to 50 points from 2027 onwards. The thinking behind this is that the leading cars are already achieving greater levels of downforce than anticipated, so it follows that within a handful of months this bar will rise further.

Downforce and electrical power have irreconcilable differences because the motor has to ‘spend’ more energy pushing the car through the air – and, since batteries are less energy-dense than the equivalent fuel load, this budget is expended too quickly. The downforce levels also exert an effect on harvesting and deployment.

Nikolas Tombazis, FIA

Photo by: Kym Illman / Getty Images

FIA single-seater boss Nikolas Tombazis acknowledged all this in his recent media appearance:
"One of the reasons it hasn't been right there from the start is that cars are going a bit faster. They [the teams] have found a bit more downforce than we were expecting, and therefore the energy recovered during braking is a bit lower than it would normally be. So we have a bit more of a challenge than we would have liked to have."

Cutting downforce is easier in principle than in practice, though, since it can affect some teams disproportionately more than others, so discussions in this area tend to become mired in politics.

On top of that, it’s understood that the most viable options presently on the table still amount to a smaller reduction than the gap that presently exists between the top teams and those at the back of the grid. So this falls into the category of a problem everyone acknowledges, which has no clearly defined solution.

Changing the engine hardware is therefore a case of harvesting the lowest-hanging fruit, because the process is relatively straightforward. It had to be agreed this early, though, because implementing the changes required a fair amount of runway.

The internal combustion engines will have to be adapted to achieve the higher power outputs while retaining the required reliability characteristics. Raising the fuel flow cap will require changes to the monocoques because the cars will need to carry more fuel, so larger tanks are required.

This will come with a knock-on effect in terms of weight, of course.

The desired outcome is for the drivers to be able to push harder for longer, rather than the present state of affairs in which running out of power on the straights is an inevitable – and farcical – consequence of pushing the car’s limits around corners. Among the most frequent complaints from the drivers has been that they are effectively punished for going as fast as they can, since the quickest way around the lap is determined by energy-management algorithms.

Charles Leclerc, Ferrari

Photo by: Brett Farmer / LAT Images via Getty Images

“Evaluation of the Miami package is ongoing with a view to the introduction of further adjustments at future events,” said the FIA in its statement. "It was agreed that further detailed discussion in technical groups comprising teams and power unit manufacturers was required before the final package was decided.”

What none of the stakeholders are saying out loud is that in the long run, something closer to 70/30 or even 80/20 is what’s required to rid F1 of the quirks of energy management.

Max Verstappen said in Miami that the early season revision amounted to “just a tickle” and that there is more work to be done. He confirmed that so long as it remains the case that going faster around corners leaves you slower on the straight, he will not be satisfied, because “that’s not what it should be about”.

What the 2027 change represents is a kicking of the can down the road – because the present hardware is the fundamental limitation, as Verstappen’s boss Laurent Mekies said last weekend. The hope is that this latest sticking-plaster solution will see the formula through until its projected end in 2030.

On top of that, the aim is for the next engine formula to be agreed before the end of this year. And while a consensus seems to be emerging around the principle of a return to normally aspirated V8, its size and the proportion of electrical input remain points of contention.

The key threat is encoded within the 2027 changes: a less electrified engine is a thirstier engine. At a time when F1 is struggling to contain car bloat, added weight is an issue waiting in the wings – alongside Domenicali, no doubt, as he prepares to launch into his Young Mr Grace routine once more.