The F1 power unit formula solution that could suit all parties

At this point, it might be fair to say that neither of Formula 1's turbo-hybrid eras have been particularly popular. Actually, let's rephrase that: there's a huge collection of people who don't really care what engine is in the back of an F1 car, but there's also a vocal opposition to anything that doesn't cause lingering effects of tinnitus. Cynicism aside, there are people who genuinely care what F1 sounds like and feels like, and that the cars should be an ear-splitting tribute act to heavy metal or breakcore - not Aphex Twin's Selected Ambient Works 85-92 (or Volume II), or John Cage's 4'33". 

It's abundantly clear that there is significant clamour for a simpler arrangement for 2031 and beyond. The current momentum seems to sit behind the combination of a naturally aspirated V8 with a smaller, KERS-adjacent electrical system - in essence, what F1 had in service prior to the turbo-hybrid era, albeit with an undisclosed displacement. For reference, the most recent generation of V8s ran to a 2.4-litre size.

There's plenty of arguments in favour of this, and plenty against: many would suggest that F1 is currently too dominated by the electrical component of the powertrains, and that it should at least take a more passive role as it had done with the previous turbo-hybrid iteration, if not removed altogether. Others less convinced will point to F1's status as a technology disruptor, and that effectively reverting to the framework of two-decade-old regulations marks a significant backwards step. 

One imagines that it won't be as simple as 'reinstating the old formula' and that the manufacturers have their own strings to pull in a bid to massage the regulatory pondering towards their own sensibilities. Mercedes chief Toto Wolff has remarked that V8 engines would be a favourable solution, but wants the electrical component to be a bit larger than the 'very minor' size proposed by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem. 

The writer's question about that proposal is the implied removal of turbochargers. Ben Sulayem did not necessarily state that his preference for the V8s would do away with it, but the around-the-grounds discussion about the future direction of F1's powertrain formula does tend towards a naturally aspirated future.

Given that this is underpinned by the use of sustainable fuels, which has entered the lexicon as some kind of pollution-free magical pixie dust (rather than the result of a series of reactions that require a considerable quantity of energy to produce), it surely makes sense to retain the turbo. Sustainable fuel production remains small scale and demand far outstrips supply, and removing something that considerably increases efficiency feels wasteful.

F1 introduced a mandatory single-spec formula in 2000, although V10s were already used universally

Photo by: Motorsport Images

But here's the question: why does F1 and the FIA need to dictate the specific inputs of the engine formula? This stretches back to the turn of the millennium, when V10s were made mandatory; since everyone had a V10 at that stage, it made little difference, although it stopped the incoming Toyota from setting the cat among the pigeons with the V12 it had in development. The rationale was to reduce costs behind engine development, which had swelled to increasingly exorbitant levels amid the manufacturer boom in the early 2000s, with control over power being behind the switch to V8s in 2006.

Genuine cost controls were not accepted at that point. Even in the lead-up to 2010, when a batch of new entrants were brought in under the attempted auspices of a cost cap, this caused such a ruckus among the established order that the system was never truly implemented; thus, Lotus, Virgin, and HRT had no chance of competing on yearly budgets about the fifth of the size of some of the midfield teams. 

Today, almost everything in F1 runs within some kind of cost cap framework, including powertrains. If this is in place, and the FIA no longer needs to fear a cash-burning arms race in the engine development stakes, why can't the next ruleset decree a free engine choice?

Mercedes may still feel that a hybrid V8 fits the bill, and so it is at liberty to produce one. Meanwhile, Ferrari might want a twin-turbo V6, or even a V12, while Audi might feel that the hybrid V6 or an inline-four might be more contiguous with its road car range

This could be managed in a simple fashion: set a maximum power output, which can be monitored by the FIA (as it has done so with the current regulations to manage its ADUO upgrade catch-up mechanism), the total cost structure, and a fuel/energy flow rate. With those two parameters in place, the manufacturers then have the freedom to produce the power units that aligns with their brand, and can do so without too much of an advantage given that power output retains some degree of parity. 

I suppose it's not that simple, as power output does not govern everything; you need to consider additional parameters such as torque, fuel economy, parity in the event someone does want to hybridise, but output control should be a lot simpler than trying to funnel the teams and manufacturers through a narrow input window. The exercise would effectively work as follows: 'here's the box, built what you want, but make sure it fits within that box'. 

For example, Mercedes may still feel that a hybrid V8 fits the bill, and so it is at liberty to produce one. Meanwhile, Ferrari might want a twin-turbo V6, or even a V12, while Audi might feel that the hybrid V6 or an inline-four might be more contiguous with its road car range. There's all sorts of possibilities here.

WEC's hypercar pack already has a mix of engine formulations - each with a unique sound

Photo by: James Moy Photography via Getty Images

It might even inspire a few more manufacturers to register their interest. It's the sort of spread you see in the World Endurance Championship's Hypercar class: Aston Martin produces its own naturally aspirated V12, Toyota, Ferrari, and Alpine have turbo-hybrid V6s, BMW and Genesis have turbo-hybrid V8s, with Cadillac running a naturally aspirated variant. 

Such a varied mix of engine layouts gives each manufacturer an additional signature sound, which is of some importance to a subset of motorsport fans. Rather than the subtle differences between each engine with a common layout, a V8 cry might be drowned out by the banshee's wail of a V10, or the throaty roar of a V12. F1 hasn't had that kind of variety since the first half of the 1990s. 

As much as my little scheme sounds nice, it would be remiss not to poke holes in it. One of the key reasons in locking manufacturers into a specific engine layout lies in performance parity; it's a lot easier to keep engines in the same ballpark if they're all of the same type. This argument might be undermined slightly by Honda's lowly performance so far in 2026 but, equally, the performance catch-up regulations apply to all. If this was to be transposed into a mixed engine formula, how do the regulators help a V12 catch up to a V8 fairly, or vice versa? Maybe if the formula was open with a fixed output end-point, then the FIA could eschew that entirely.

If the FIA had the stomach for it, it could be a workable solution - one beyond simply the hypothetical of "what I'd like to see". In theory, the manufacturers would simultaneously get what they want but at the cost of their rival manufacturers also doing so, rather than finding a compromise solution between them.

But please, allow a man to dream: I'm hung up on the idea of a rotary-engined Formula 1 car fighting against its brethren with V12s...

F1's last V12 - the Ferrari 412T2

Photo by: Motorsport Images