What next for Formula 1’s rules?

Although it remains borderline heresy for senior stakeholders in Formula 1 to admit it, a consensus has formed that the latest set of technical regulations is fundamentally flawed. The tweaks to electrical harvesting and deployment announced ahead of the early-May Miami Grand Prix weekend are merely the opening steps of a complicated dance performance.

In public, the messaging is positive. During the April break enforced by the cancellation of the Bahrain and Saudi Arabian GPs, F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali spoke to Autosport in a video interview (available on our YouTube channel) in which he dismissed one of the key criticisms of the new style of racing, which is that overtaking manoeuvres have been devalued by technical requirements to manage energy.

“Overtaking is overtaking,” he said. And if this was not quite the Gerald Ratner-style self-own Domenicali’s critics in the comments section made it out to be, it certainly failed to meaningfully address the misgivings of a wide section of the fanbase.

In the background, a set of parallel processes are under way that aim to find a solution to the problem which dare not speak its name, and they are political as well as technical. The pre-Miami changes to the energy harvesting and deployment regime are part of the short-term fix; there will be more incremental adjustments through the season, but the major shortcomings are baked into the format.

The near-50/50 split of electrical power to internal combustion engine (ICE) output is inherently compromised, and what these changes represent is a shifting around of those compromises rather than an actual solution.Essentially, they are filling a hole by digging another hole.

Taking a slightly longer view, the pragmatic solution is to dial back the proportion of electrical input – since adopting more capacious batteries, while mitigating the downsides of having to continuously charge or discharge, would have the undesirable effect of adding weight. At the time of writing, proposals to shift towards 60/40 in favour of the ICE for next season – which can be achieved by adapting the existing hardware – are well in train, even if the details are yet to be agreed.

In this discussion, politics has already entered the frame since teams and their associated power unit suppliers (in some cases one and the same entity) are either anxious to preserve such competitive advantages as they have, or keen to erase any disadvantages inherent in their current hardware. This naturally sets them in opposition to the FIA and F1, who want to maintain a relatively level playing field.

Another strand of debate is what comes next when the present ruleset runs out of road at the end of 2030, when the current Concorde Agreement also expires. Here the political scenario is more febrile still, because there are clear indications from both the FIA and F1 that they would like to reduce the influence of the power unit manufacturers by gently opening the door for independents.

In Tombazis’s view, the potential for electrification was overestimated

Photo by: Kym Illman / Getty Images

The politics of dancing

To understand the broad political direction of travel, examine the rhetoric coming out of the governing body and the commercial rights holder. While phrasing their thoughts carefully (and similarly), Domenicali and FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis both attributed the shape of the present regulations to pressure from the engine manufacturers at the time the 50/50 principle was agreed in the summer of 2022.

“It is true the political landscape has changed and back when we discussed the current regulations, the automotive companies who were very involved told us that they’re never going to make another [new] internal combustion engine again,” said Tombazis in a round-table interview with media including Autosport ahead of the Miami race. “They were going to phase out and by whatever year they were going to be fully electrical.

“Obviously this hasn’t happened. That’s not to underestimate the importance of electrification globally but it didn’t happen as much as said.”

In a subsequent interview with Italian media outlets, Tombazis elaborated on that topic: “There was strong direction from several stakeholders towards much more electric component. And in my opinion, perhaps this potential of electrification was overestimated, pushing towards a 50/50 split.”

What the present kerfuffle amply demonstrates is the difficulty of satisfying a group of interested parties whose priorities diverge

“I think we are in a moment, a unique moment, where we don’t have to mix mobility and racing,” Domenicali told Autosport. “But of course, racing is done by teams and manufacturers. And therefore, if you look how quickly the landscape of the manufacturers changed after ‘Dieselgate’ [where the VW Group in 2015, followed by other manufacturers, were ‘outed’ as fitting devices to cheat emissions tests] – and I was at that time in Audi [as CEO] – is impressive.

“If I connect these two elements that should be kept separate, it is true that at that time there was a clear indication from all the manufacturers that either we go in this direction [electrification] or we will not be interested in any sport. And I could be even more direct. If we would have had an independent manufacturer, we could have said, ‘You know what, OK, let’s offer a white-label F1/FIA engine to the teams who want to race, let’s go for it.’ But we didn’t. There was no one at that time [to provide an independent engine].

“That’s the status of five years ago. Now it’s clear that electrification has shifted versus hybridisation. And everyone understands that if sustainable fuel will be there in terms of quantity with the right pricing, it could be the way to be realistically ready to tackle the emission point.”

What the present kerfuffle amply demonstrates is the difficulty of satisfying a group of interested parties whose priorities diverge. As the governing body, the FIA’s primary aim is to ensure a fair and strong competition, although it also has a responsibility to control costs that puts it in alignment with the commercial rights holder, which has to maximise profits while laying on an entertaining ‘show’.

The history and evolution of Formula 1 (ignore the two-wheeled interloper)

Photo by: JEP

While the automotive manufacturers enjoy a marketing value from their investment, they also need to maintain a road-relevance narrative. The audience, meanwhile, though increasingly broad and diverse, includes a substantial number of long-time fans with strong opinions on what F1 should be.

It is hardly surprising that all these parties don’t necessarily get everything they want, although the car manufacturers have historically been more successful than others. The 2014 hybrid regulations came into being because of manufacturer pressure (Renault, for instance, made it a condition of its continued involvement), and the 50/50 principle was based on the anticipated roadmap in which internal combustion power was rapidly phased out in the road car industry. That timeline has extended in the interim and it has become apparent that the ICE will be around for longer than anticipated, if not forever.

Something else has happened since the 50/50 principle was agreed: F1’s wealth has ballooned. Revenue almost doubled between 2021 and 2025, from $2.1billion to$3.9bn, while the teams are well on their way to becoming billion-dollar franchises thanks to the more equitable share of income enshrined in recent Concorde Agreements.

This is the context in which we must view the recent – and very strident – proclamations of FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem. Last year his push to ‘bring back V10s’ was thwarted by the manufacturers, but he has brought a subtly amended and more agreeable proposal to the table – at the same time as being very vocal about his power to make it happen anyway, should any of the stakeholders push back.

‘Weight’ for it

Ben Sulayem’s proposition is a naturally aspirated V8 with a relatively low level of electrical augmentation. The earliest this could be introduced under the present arrangements is 2031, after the current Concorde Agreement expires, at which point the FIA could theoretically bring in any regulatory framework it wants. But ‘take it or leave it’ is a very dangerous game to play when there are so many billions of dollars at stake.

Still, this has not dissuaded Ben Sulayem from claiming he could impose a new format in 2030, his position being that normally aspirated V8s are coming whether the manufacturers like it or not. This is remarkably aggressive rhetoric given the delicacy of the relationships between the stakeholders, but the president clearly feels he is negotiating from a position of strength. While Ben Sulayem is wont to be cantankerous, he is a clever opponent who seldom overplays his hand.

The response from the manufacturers has been interesting, and can be interpreted as supporting the theory that they now enjoy less leverage than they did in the past – or at least that they are not yet ready to declare war. Most of their public statements have been anodyne – even the mood music coming from Audi, which is understood to want turbocharging to remain part of the package, has been encouraging.

There is broad agreement that having lighter, simpler engines could reduce costs as well as encourage competition. But of course, such consensus starts to fizzle once the parties get around the table and competitive advantage begins to dictate proceedings.

Ben Sulayem’s ideal solution likely won’t tally with the “real world” needs cited by Wolff

Photo by: Watson / AFP via Getty Images

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff, who tends to act as self-appointed shop steward for the manufacturers on these issues, said during the Miami weekend that his company “loves V8s”. Here Mercedes is in accord with the likes of Ford and Cadillac, as well as Ferrari, in anticipating that V8s will remain part of their offering until the 2030s.

The points of friction will come in the details. Ben Sulayem has made it clear his preference is for the V8s to have a swept capacity of up to three litres, and with no more than 10% electrical contribution. Autosport understands that privately he would prefer that element to be zero, but is well aware this is a Rubicon even he cannot cross.

“How do we give it enough energy from the battery side,” said Wolff in Miami, “to not lose connection to the real world? Because if we swing 100% combustion, we might be looking a bit ridiculous in 2031 or 2030. So we need to consider that, make it simpler and make it a better engine.”

A more likely outcome is, after the push and pull of negotiations, for the electrical input to be between 20% and 30%.

“How do we give it enough energy from the battery side to not lose connection to the real world? Because if we swing 100% combustion, we might be looking a bit ridiculous in 2031 or 2030” Toto Wolff

But even if a lighter, simpler power unit format can be agreed – and that has to happen by the end of this year to provide enough runway for development – it won’t necessarily be a complete solution. There will have to be more work, continuing the trajectory set this year, of making the cars lighter too.

When the 50/50 principle was agreed, it was hoped that the 2026 cars could be made substantially lighter than the 800kg (including driver) reached by the ground-effect generation in 2025. Instead the target was whittled down to 768kg – and most teams have struggled to hit that.

While downsizing the electrical systems for the post-2030 ruleset will provide some weight-saving opportunities, it is of a smaller order than you might think – the current power units, including all the hybrid components, weigh 185kg, which is 55kg more than the old KERS-augmented 2.4-litre V8s that exited service in 2013.

While this might seem appealing, the inevitable consequence of a larger, naturally aspirated engine with less electrical input is a much greater starting fuel load. At the moment the cap is 100kg, but teams look to start with 90-95kg to reduce lap times with the expectation that the driver will have to manage fuel at some point. In the previous V8 era, the starting fuel load was 160kg. 

Could there be a repeat of the democratisation of Formula 1 brought by Cosworth?

Photo by: Rainer W. Schlegelmilch / Motorsport Images

You could approach this by saying that a 60-70kg gain in starting fuel load – hypothetical for now – is offset by a similarly hypothetical reduction of 55kg in power unit weight. But that extra fuel has to be accommodated in a larger tank, which reduces the opportunities for saving weight elsewhere in the car.

In all likelihood, then, shifting to naturally aspirated V8s won’t provide the easy and simple fix for the spectacle that its most noisy advocates claim. But what it could achieve is a profound shift in the political landscape. If the new engine formula makes it possible for independent suppliers to produce a competitive offering, it makes the health of the championship less dependent on road car manufacturers. 

This would then change the web of influence enjoyed by the likes of Mercedes and Ferrari at F1 Commission level, where customer teams generally align with the manufacturer who supplies them. In the 1960s and 1970s, Cosworth in effect democratised grand prix racing by giving teams access to competitive engines without having to make their own or go cap in hand to manufacturers.

Imagine something similar happening in the 2030s – there are certainly those who would very much like to see Wolff cut down to size.

We will receive the first signals of where this process is headed when the next-generation powertrain format is agreed, likely before the end of this year. The greater the proportion of electrification enshrined therein, the more the manufacturers have clung to their position of power.

The art of noise

Engine noise, or lack thereof, has been hotly debated since the hybrid turbo regulations were introduced in 2014. It was a pronounced step from naturally aspirated 2.4-litre V8s, albeit capped at 18,000rpm, to 1.6-litre turbocharged V6s theoretically capped at 15,000rpm; not only were the engines smaller, turbos naturally have a muffling effect, and the exigencies of energy management meant the ICEs rarely hit the rev limiter.

After the season-opening Australian GP that year, commercial rights holder Bernie Ecclestone declared himself “horrified” by the change in volume, saying “these cars don’t sound like racing cars”. Grandees of the past including Stirling Moss and John Surtees joined the chorus of complaints, and various sticking-plaster solutions were duly implemented to add raspiness to the exhaust note.

Engine noise remains on the wishlist for those hankering after a return to the “halcyon days” (a term which in itself represents a moveable feast). When the FIA president first staged an intervention last year, posting a statement online immediately after the glitzy season launch at London’s O2 Arena, he spoke of the “roar of V10s”.

V10s are widely lauded as the aural panacea – and seemingly the cure for all F1’s ills

Photo by: Lorenzo Bellanca / Motorsport Images

But there are uncomfortable questions to navigate as the stakeholders contemplate the post-2030 ruleset. As with the subject of how much overtaking is good overtaking, is it possible to reach a consensus over how much noise is good noise?

The fundamental problem of giving people what they want is that those who shout loudest tend to draw the most resource – and may not have indulged in the necessary second-order thinking.

In this case, a lot of water has flowed under the bridge since 2014. There are those in the manufacturer camp who point out that returning to pre-hybrid noise levels would have significant implications for ‘new’ city venues such as Miami, Las Vegas, Jeddah and Madrid, and might even be problematic for more established locations such as Singapore and Monaco.

Although the difference in decibel count may appear numerically small – around 145 for the V8s at full chat compared with 130 – a three-digit gain represents a doubling of the sound energy. 

The fundamental problem of giving people what they want is that those who shout loudest tend to draw the most resource – and may not have indulged in the necessary second-order thinking

Time-served fans may not like it, but the ticket-buying audience for grands prix has grown more diverse, encompassing more families with young children. A return to previous levels of noise would be a turn-off for this demographic, as it might also be for the many VIPs and corporate guests who have become accustomed to doing business without interruption.

Tempting though it might be to play the smallest violin in the world at the thought of VIPs not being able to chat while the cars are on track, corporate entertainment and big-ticket sponsorship are substantial net contributors to the wealth F1 is now enjoying – and enabling it to contemplate a future including independent engine manufacturers.

There is also a question of whether proper audience research has been done to ascertain the exact proportion of those who want F1 to be louder and, if so, by how much.

So the matter of noise is likely to become another point of friction between ‘old’ and ‘new’ fans. While the best solution is likely to follow the Goldilocks principle – neither too loud nor too quiet – this is such a subjective concept that inevitably there will be those who remain unsatisfied.

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

A new generation of fans (and VIPs) know nothing other than the muted F1 noise experience

Photo by: M Sutton/Formula 1/Getty Images