Great Debate: What should the next F1 ruleset look like?

Bigger engines, with just a pinch of electric – Stuart Codling

It would be tempting, if flippant, to answer the question “What should the next F1 ruleset look like?” with “Nothing like this one”. But that would be to ignore the fact that a portion of the audience is enjoying the more action-packed nature of the races, even if much of the overtaking is unearned.

How, then, to eject the rancid bathwater without sending the baby down the drain too? Broadly speaking, the cars look livelier than their predecessors while only being 30kg lighter. They change direction faster and seem less painted onto the track. So a smart direction of travel would be to preserve the philosophy of narrower cars and tyres with less downforce – and, crucially, less dependence on rear ride height.

I would happily consign the hybrid systems to history on account of weight and the ‘meh’ factor, but would grudgingly retain them in order to keep the road car manufacturers engaged. The risk otherwise is for F1 to become a one-make championship powered by Mecachrome or whatever, which would make it F2. 

What’s needed is a naturally aspirated vee engine of a meaty enough size, augmented by a mild KERS system. The proportions would have to be delicately calculated so the lap time gain is worth the weight, and the requirements of deployment and recharge both contribute to the racing spectacle and are under the full control of the driver. Remember them? Nobody watches F1 to see algorithms racing each other.

Free choice with controlled outputs – Jake Boxall-Legge

In an age when F1 is amenable to cost caps, with sensors that can measure power output, fuel flow and other such parameters, we have the resources to change how we think about setting regulations. My preference would be the following: set a maximum power output and maximum displacement, set a cost cap for development and a per-engine build price, and let the manufacturers choose what suits them best. Free choice.

From 1990-95, for example, F1 had V8s, V10s and V12s (and a W12 in 1990, but the less said about that the better). In 1988, the V6 and inline-four turbo engines were joined by a smattering of naturally aspirated V8s and the Alfa 890T V8 turbo.

In theory, this would be good for the manufacturer. Rather than having to come up with some kind of compromise with other manufacturers over the engine formula, arguably something that has worked to 2026’s detriment, the marques involved can produce the engine they feel most comfortable with. Perhaps Ferrari would see fit to return to its V12 roots, pitted against a Mercedes twin-turbo V8 or a Honda inline-four hybrid. Or, assuming you’ve heard the 787B sounding off, could you imagine the fun if Mazda rocked up with a rotary engine? 

Does a mix of V8, V10 and V12 engines appeal? Welcome to the early to mid-1990s

Photo by: Motorsport Images

It’s the essence that counts, not the details – Kevin Turner

One of F1’s strengths has been its adaptability and innovation over the years: saying what the rules should be too far ahead is folly. 

Instead, there are certain things F1 should be. It should feature the fastest road-racing cars on the planet. We want the best people, particularly drivers, and the cars should be cutting edge. It’s the last point that has proved increasingly difficult due to the cost and safety issues of unrestricted technology. 

We’d also like great racing, but not for it to be ‘artificially’ created. DRS was sub-optimal, Balance of Performance unacceptable for F1. Having tyres that degrade and a way for cars to use their energy differently (boost levels in a fuel-restricted turbo formula or the current electrical deployment) are better, providing they are controlled by the driver. 

People often look back to the period in F1 that they grew up with, but there have been great cars and drivers throughout: Jim Clark in a Lotus 25, Niki Lauda’s Ferrari 312T, Alain Prost’s McLaren MP4/2, Nigel Mansell’s Williams FW14B, the Mercedes W11 of Lewis Hamilton – the list goes on…

There’s no single, correct answer. I don’t mind what the details of the next ruleset are, providing it sticks to F1’s values. Even the current regulations (whisper it) don’t offend me, aside from qualifying, which the stakeholders are trying to fix…

Back to the future with hybrid V8s – Filip Cleeren

There are two ways of answering that question: a romantic and a pragmatic one. My inner child wants to see a colourful-sounding mix of V8s, V10s and especially V12s return to the grid. Let the manufacturers sort it out themselves, obviously within a certain regulatory framework to keep different engine formulas relatively on par. 

This is, of course, not going to happen, as it will be extremely tough to keep the grid within the same ballpark. It’s a surefire way of chasing away those OEMs who got it wrong without a quick and cost-efficient way to catch up. The more pragmatic solution is the obvious one. With the industry pivoting away from this aggressive EV policy and embracing sustainable fuels, hybrids are back on the menu, and the new generation of e-fuels means it doesn’t feel as important for F1 manufacturers to demonstrate quite how complex the hybrid component is. 

That opens the door to a return to bigger, louder and racier engines while maintaining a simpler and cheaper electric component to satisfy the market. A return to V8 engines with a token KERS system feels like a step backwards to 2013, but the advent of sustainable fuels appears to have changed that equation for manufacturers. Back to the future, it is.

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

Add sustainable fuels to the 2013 season’s mix of V8 with a token energy recovery system…

Photo by: Patrik Lundin / Motorsport Images