What an engineer with four decades of F1 experience would choose as the ideal engine rules

Our reader, Michael Skeet, has set me a challenging question this month. He asks what a good set of engine regulations for 2031 might be, which could encourage independent manufacturers to build engines again. 

Now I have to say straight away that my answer to this reflects my personal opinion, which may or may not coincide with that of my employer, the Cadillac Formula 1 Team. However, I think there are several aspects of a future engine that are indisputable and some which are open to debate. 

While I would accept an ‘independent’ engine supplier, let’s not forget the enormous contribution of the manufacturers to our sport over many decades. To think that we can return to the simplicity of buying a modern version of the Cosworth DFV that supported so many teams decades ago is naive in the extreme. We should recognise the contribution the manufacturers have made to modern F1 and welcome their support. 

However, to answer the question perhaps we should start by examining where we are now, how we got here, and what the good and not-so-good aspects of the current power unit are. The story starts with the 2014 regulations that introduced a fundamental change in the way that performance was found from race engines.

Prior to this, the way to get performance was to ingest the maximum amount of air possible into the engine and then add the amount of fuel required to obtain maximum power. The 2014 power unit saw considerable change, the reintroduction of turbocharging, increased hybridisation and, most importantly, the introduction of a restriction on the amount of fuel that could be injected into the engine.  

This was a very clever move as it drove the engine designers to consider fuel efficiency to a much greater degree than they had before. Prior to this the thermal efficiency of engines was around 30%. In other words, of the chemical energy that could be extracted from the fuel, only 30% was being transmitted to drive the car, the rest being wasted. The 2014 rules, helped by the basic efficiency derived from turbocharging the engine and the MGU-H, lifted this to over 50%. 

This was achieved by running the engines very lean, in other words using more air than might be expected for the given flow of fuel. This is not without problems. Lean mixtures are hard to ignite and this led to the use of a system called turbulent jet ignition.  

Like many engineering ‘discoveries’ it was not actually new, having been used in gas and diesel engines in the past, but the F1 incarnation took the total engine efficiency to realms undreamt of before. This system is now to be found in production engines produced by Maserati, Stellantis and BMW. For sure it would not have been rediscovered by mainstream production without the development instigated in F1.  

A modern equivalent of an off-the-shelf Cosworth DFV is a bit of a pipedream

Photo by: Rainer W Schlegelmilch / Motorsport Images

I mention this because I believe it would be a retrograde step to go back to an engine that was similar to those used in 2013. I think there is plenty of evidence now that the internal combustion engine is not as dead as may have been thought 10 years ago. However, if it is to survive, it must put a premium on efficiency and carbon reduction that can only be achieved by a combination of improved combustion and advanced sustainable fuels. 

Efficiency has always been fundamental in motorsport. The next generation of engines will start races with more fuel onboard but we should do what we can to limit this. Reintroducing refuelling would be a disaster as not only does it massively increase costs, but it also leads to deterministic racing and kills the tactical aspect of allowing pitstop decisions to be made on the fly. 

When looking at the next generation of engines there are perhaps three main considerations. Firstly, the cost of the engine should decrease. Secondly, it should push the boundaries of internal combustion unit efficiency in order to remain relevant to the manufacturers while not discouraging an independent supplier to enter the fray. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it must be emotive. It must leave fans feeling they have seen something special, something that made them smile and something visceral that makes them come back for more. 

This last factor comes from two aspects. The emotive sound of a high-revving, loud engine and regulations that enable a gladiatorial battle between drivers.  

I believe that we should accept the loss of efficiency from dropping the turbo in order to improve the sheer emotion of the normally aspirated powertrain

When thinking about efficiency, we need to consider turbocharging. Of course, turbocharging increases efficiency by a huge amount but it comes at a cost. Firstly, in terms of emotion, it muffles the pulsative nature of the exhaust note, replacing it with a filtered muffled sound. Secondly, it adds to the cost and complexity.

And perhaps most importantly, it also adds to the mass of the car as it requires additional components such as intercoolers and wastegates as well as the turbochargers themselves. This goes against the concept of nimble cars. Overall, I believe that we should accept the loss of efficiency from dropping the turbo in order to improve the sheer emotion of the normally aspirated powertrain. 

I have not yet mentioned hybridisation. There are many who would say drop it altogether, but I disagree. Electrification is part of the modern powertrain and the intelligent exploitation of the attributes of both electric motors and internal combustion engines leads to a superior solution. I do not advocate the use of the electric motor to improve lap time per se. I do however believe it is a better solution to enabling on-track battles than DRS ever was.  

When discussing electrification, we must distinguish between power and energy. I would propose a high-power, low-energy system. Why? Well, the answer is that using high power to enable overtaking is a good thing but relying on energy to reduce lap times is not. I would propose keeping around 250kW of electrical power but reducing the available energy such that there was to around six to eight seconds of electrical boost available, enough to overtake but only requiring a smaller, lighter battery. 

It is fundamental to Formula 1’s fan appeal that engines have a visceral effect

Photo by: Rainer Schlegelmilch / Getty Images

Furthermore, I would limit the use of electrical boost to perhaps 30% of the total lap number with the addition of freedom to use when lapping cars under blue flags. This would avoid the situation that arose in Abu Dhabi in 2010 when Fernando Alonso could not pass backmarker Vitaly Petrov, the situation that led to the introduction of DRS. More importantly, it puts the onus back on the drivers to make tactical decisions rather than the engineers making strategic decisions. 

A final word on fuels. F1 has done an amazing job of showing that a totally sustainable fuel is a viable alternative to fossil fuels, and the sport is to be commended for showing absolute honesty in demonstrating the process of producing these fuels in isolation. The reality is that as these fuels are introduced to consumers it will be done so by co-processing ever increasing amounts of sustainable components with fossil fuels.

This is analogous to blending wind and solar electric power with that produced by conventional power stations. Maybe this is what now needs to be demonstrated. It is perhaps a more realistic, lower cost, scenario and one that might encourage fuel companies to diminish their reliance on fossil fuels. 

So, to summarise my vision of the next generation F1 power unit: I would encourage a non-turbocharged V8 as this is a conventional road vehicle configuration for high-performance engines. The engine capacity would be a function of fuel flow and how lean we run the engines, but I would perhaps be aiming at a capacity that produced at least 750bhp running the lean mixture.

The electrical augmentation would be a high-power, low-energy hybrid unit to enable the sort of overtaking we have seen this season without the need for a large battery. I would also move fuel regulations toward developing realistic industrialisation methods while keeping the sustainable credentials that have been developed already.  

I believe this would be a solution that reduces costs, maintains efficiency as a competitive differentiator, improves the racing and above all puts the emotion back into F1.  

Finally, a bit of mischief. If we want a truly emotive V8 sound, why not mandate a cross-plane crank rather than a flat plane to get that glorious rumble we all love about V8s…

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 Summer 2026 issue and subscribe today.

Electric power beats DRS as an overtaking aid, reckons Symonds

Photo by: Andy Hone / LAT Images via Getty Images