Is Newey right about F1 being engine-dominated from 2026?

Adrian Newey thinks Formula 1’s all-new technical regulations for 2026 may well lead to an engine-dominated series for the first few seasons, drawing parallels with 2014, but is this correct? To answer that question, we need to look back at the gestation period of the 2026 power unit rules and see how the final outcome has differed from the initial intent.

Whenever a new set of rules is proposed it is important to start with some objectives, and for 2026 the power unit objectives were to encourage new manufacturers, increase sustainability and decrease costs, while not jeopardising the closeness of performance between the various engines.

The removal of the MGU-H was done to reduce cost and, more importantly, simplify the engine. The MGU-H is not a complex device but the control strategies applied to it are very complex and fundamental to performance, so its elimination was accepted. Further simplification was proposed, which at the extreme would have dictated a near-standard internal combustion engine with the development emphasis going into the electrical system and hybrid energy management. With a near 50/50 split of power from the engine and the hybrid system this made sense. Moreover, at one stage a small four-cylinder transversely mounted engine coupled to a transverse gearbox was proposed. That would have led to a fundamental reduction in cost and weight, as well as allowing a much smaller car to be designed. Obviously, such a regime would have ensured that the formula would not be engine-dominated.

However, as the manufacturers became more involved they felt that development should not be limited and that ICE improvements were not only relevant but important. They also felt that a V6 was more appropriate for F1. Perhaps most importantly, they rejected the idea of using front axle energy recovery, which was proposed to replace the energy lost by the removal of the MGU-H. It was this final change that probably had the most profound effect on the powertrain.

With the proposed 400kW engine and 350kW MGU the car was now energy sparse, even with the drag reduction embodied in active aerodynamics. The introduction of sustainable fuel had the possibility of providing an unwanted performance differentiator, but the switch from mandating energy flow of the fuel rather than mass flow mitigated this to a large extent.

The outgoing V6 hybrid power units that arrived in F1 in 2014

Photo by: Mercedes AMG

The significant reduction in recoverable kinetic energy that followed the ban on front axle energy recovery meant that electrical energy would have to be provided by using excess power from the engine to drive against the MGU, which would provide charge to the battery. This meant that any time the car was grip limited in its performance rather than power limited, in other words at pretty well any point towards the end of braking to the point where the driver was demanding more than 350kW of power at corner exit, the engine would be running at wider throttle than would normally be the case.

It is probably in this area that differences in the engines’ abilities will be most noticed. That is not to say that full power is not significant – it is. The regulations dictate the fuel energy flow into the engine and this, given the target power of 400kW, suggests an efficiency of 48%. This is impressive when there is no exhaust heat recovery but, still, I expect it to be exceeded by the time next season starts. A 1% improvement in efficiency would relate to around an 11bhp increase which, on average, would improve lap times by around 0.13 seconds. What is also significant is that, due to the part-throttle electrical energy harvesting, part-throttle efficiency will be far more important than it is with the current engines.

While Adrian’s point is valid, the performance differentiation arising from better aerodynamics will, as always, outweigh that of engine power

A good racing engine is not just about power or efficiency. Driveability and integration are also important. The MGU-H, with its ability to drive the turbocharger, meant throttle lag was eliminated. The 2026 engine will have to use some electrical energy to infill torque until the compressor provides sufficient boost, although the part throttle use of the engine will help keep the turbo spinning. In terms of chassis integration, the ability to run high temperatures and so minimise the size of radiators will bring aero benefits and the reduced ICE power will require less water cooling, although oil cooling will likely stay the same. The increased electrical power will, however, go the other way and increase the cooling requirements and hence the radiator sizes for the energy recovery system.

So overall I would say that, while Adrian’s point is valid, the performance differentiation arising from better aerodynamics will, as always, outweigh that of engine power as he demonstrated so well with his three [Red Bull] wins in 2014. In addition, with the 2026 minimum weight limit almost impossible to achieve, the designer who gets closest to the weight limit will have a quantifiable advantage.

This article is one of many in the new monthly issue of Autosport magazine. For more premium content, take a look at the March 2025 issue and subscribe today.

With Newey arriving at Aston Martin, his main focus is on its 2026 preparations

Photo by: Zak Mauger / Motorsport Images