Why F1's hard-to-love turbo-hybrid decade has been so important

When turbocharged engines returned to Formula 1 in 2014 after being outlawed for a quarter of a century, their new beginning was hardly an auspicious one.

The V8s that had been in use previously had been largely frozen in spec since 2007, albeit with a few modifications made on "reliability" (read: with performance-imbuing side effects) grounds, and had bordered on earning the descriptor 'time-tested'. By the end of their lives, the V8 engines had been reasonably low-cost and largely reliable and had just about sated those seeking aural pleasure in the grandstands. They couldn't deliver the V10's wailing falsetto or the V12's ear-splitting roar, but the 2.4-litre eight-pot units nonetheless had the ability to perforate a few eardrums along the way.

But, amid a burst of forward-thinking as manufacturer withdrawals at the end of the noughties prompted the FIA and F1 to target the notion of road relevance, the V8s were not long for this world. F1 needed to be seen as part of the solution, rather than the problem, as awareness of green agendas became increasingly widespread. Auto companies were diversifying into the hybrid and electric spaces and, had F1 stuck with the naturally aspirated formula, it risked becoming outdated.

The turbocharger returned, having been banned at the end of 1988. But this was no simple return to small engines being fitted with a weighty turbine, where the lag was so poor that one F1 insider joked there was time to make a cup of tea before the turbocharger kicked in.

The new breed of turbocharged 1.6-litre V6s were to be augmented by a more powerful kinetic energy recovery system (the MGU-K) and a motor generator attached to the turbine (MGU-H). Together with the battery pack, the vernacular changed - engines were now "power units", altogether capable of producing about 1000bhp. The original plan was to scale the internal combustion engine right down to an inline-four, but concerns over packaging prompted the switch to a V6.

PLUS: The secrets behind F1’s MGU tech

Adding the electrical energy components and the turbocharger meant that the FIA could mandate fuel flow limits and a maximum of 100kg of fuel carried on board the car. As the fuel flow sensor was FIA-monitored, it could hand the data over to the world feed - and the first few years of the 2014-spec engine formula featured on-screen graphics of how much fuel was left in each car. The teams naturally hated that this information was so freely available, as it showed if a driver was saving fuel or pushing more at a given phase in the race.

F1's new technology for 2014 was a significant step in sophistication, but its message was poorly communicated

Photo by: Sutton Images

As efficiency increased over the years, and the fuel limit upped to 110kg, the graphic faded from view as drivers seldom had to fuel-save. Advancements with the power unit pushed efficiency figures well over 50%; half of the energy available in a drop of fuel was being used for forward momentum.

The rest of the technology was impressive on its own merits; the MGU-K could add 160bhp at the rear axle, up from the 80bhp available from the driver-deployable KERS units which debuted in 2009. The MGU-H also directly affected the turbocharged element, drawing energy from the turbine off-throttle and using it to spool up the turbine as the power was deployed to cut turbo lag entirely. This was no longer about simply designing the most powerful engine, and instead, the early-season technical lexicon spoke of the "architecture" to demonstrate the added complexity.

But the change in regulations didn't bring anyone new to the party - at least, not immediately. Rather, Cosworth pulled out albeit having developed a powertrain for the new rules, as sole team Marussia switched to Ferrari power. The Italian manufacturer was one of three suppliers, with Mercedes and Renault also producing power units for the new rules. Honda later arrived in 2015, which proved to be initially disastrous.

A diplomatic way of addressing the key issue would be that F1 had not quite mastered how best to encapsulate the V6 turbo-hybrid's sound for the viewers on television. It was as if someone had turned the volume down significantly in those early races

The disparity between the powertrains at the start of the year was considerable, and the competitive order was reset as a result. Mercedes nailed the brief and its works team waltzed to both titles, while customer team Williams also found a huge swing in competitiveness after a dire 2013.

Renault's power unit was about 50bhp away from the Mercedes in the power stakes, but was woefully unreliable at the start of the year, while Ferrari's design was allegedly 80bhp short relative to Mercedes. It took both manufacturers a few years to catch up, by which time the Brixworth-produced powertrains had chalked up a handful of titles over the succeeding seasons.

After Sebastian Vettel's hegemony over the titles in the previous four seasons, however, fans would usually have been delighted with a change in order. In this case, it was not so, and watching the 2014 season opener gives some clue as to why.

A diplomatic way of addressing the key issue would be that F1 had not quite mastered how best to encapsulate the V6 turbo-hybrid's sound for the viewers on television. It was as if someone had turned the volume down significantly in those early races and, in the context of another unpopular rule change that led to cars sprouting unsightly appendages at the front to satisfy the low-nose requirement, F1's perception had changed. The field of fast, noisy, and pretty(ish) cars had been replaced by ugly, lumbering cars that sounded like a fleet of vacuum cleaners, a shock to anyone who'd got up for the Melbourne opener.

The ungainly appearance of the 2014 cars, combined with their reduced noise, meant they were a turn-off for fans

Photo by: Patrik Lundin / Motorsport Images

Part of the noise complaints - or lack thereof - was thanks to the new powertrains' dedication to not wasting energy. Sound is after all expelled energy, but it's not as if the cars were deathly silent; the trackside microphones were just not sensitive enough. Eventually, improved trackside microphones managed to capture the 'true' noise of the V6s, with a separate wastegate opening adding to the cacophony. Early experiments with a flared 'trumpet' exhaust were unsuccessful and rightly ridiculed.

Compared to the V10s and V12s of old, a reduced level of noise is still considered a downside of the current era of powertrains, but those who maraud the Monaco tunnel with a camera in hand still need ear protection. Otherwise, the sound is slightly more spectator-friendly, and the guttural snarls of today's cars still carry a primal energy to some degree. Now, after 10 years, the majority of the fanbase probably tolerates the noise a bit more - but there's still a clamour for F1 to find a louder voice for the next set of regulations.

In retrospect, F1 did a dire job of marketing the new powertrains to the viewer. In this article, there has been a conscious effort to reduce the use of "hybrid" when discussing the current era of engines - not out of any personal sense of disgust, but rather to mirror the early language those in F1 used at the time. Perhaps the fixation with the turbo element was an effort to link then-contemporary F1 to a rose-tinted view of the 1980s when the likes of Ayrton Senna, Alain Prost, and Nigel Mansell guided their turbocharged machinery around Monaco with one hand on the wheel, and the other on the gear shifter.

But that only led to unflattering comparisons, as F1's public image in 2014 looked cold in comparison to the raw and rugged competition of the mid-'80s. Perhaps F1 also feared the hybrid tag being associated with milquetoast road cars perfect for city use, but hardly viewed as the cutting edge of performance. Nonetheless, there seemed to be little to build anticipation for the new generation of cars at the time, and the stories of unreliability in testing and ugly car launches rather formed the narrative.

Now 10 years on, the perception has changed somewhat. All four powertrain suppliers seem to be on an even playing field (unless Renault's claims that it's about 30bhp shy of the rest are true) and even Honda managed to transform its miserable return into a championship-winning project with Red Bull. Time heals all, but there are still key lessons in how F1 must manage the next set of regulations pegged for 2026.

Its current ownership in Liberty Media is far better equipped to produce a positive message about the 2026 powertrains. They'll still have issues at the start of their life, and the likes of Red Bull boss Christian Horner have already laid bare their concerns about how the next generation of power units are operated. But these are issues that will be overcome.

PLUS: The future high-stakes F1 battle that could transform the pecking order

Improving the MGU-K further and eliminating the MGU-H (which has been expensive with little trickle-down into consumer projects) has managed to entice Audi, lure Honda back, and prompt Ford into linking up with Red Bull Powertrains - so clearly, the manufacturers believe it's a worthy pursuit.

Even with Red Bull's 2023 domination, the playing field is much more even now the engine rules have reached maturity

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

It's important that F1 manages to market the new powertrains correctly because there are increasing calls for an alternative. Advancements in carbon-capture technology to produce synthetic fuels at an apparent net zero carbon cost (e-fuels) have unearthed a section of the fanbase that will clamour for a V10 return with those fuels at the forefront. It's seemingly a match made in heaven, but it remains to be seen if those fuels can a) scale up to mass-market production to extend the life of the internal combustion engine and b) do so with negligible effect on the ecosystem.

The transition from the early fragile powertrains to the ultra-reliable, ultra-efficient versions powering F1 cars today has been a spectacular feat of engineering and, even if complaints still persist, they should be admired

Even if the rise of e-fuels allows for its mass production and subsequent reduced reliance on fossil fuels, why give up the hybrid component? The gains in efficiency will iterate towards 60% with continued development and, as fuel costs money and resource, it still makes sense to use as little of it as possible.

Insight: The big questions over a future with synthetic fuels

Synthetic fuels that have their ecological impact mitigated by their production processes will have an important part to play in the future of mobility, and will likely pose as a means to keep ICE cars on the market alongside electric vehicles. But it makes no sense to pursue that technology and then indulge in profligacy, as that undermines the gains made in efficiency.

The transition from the early fragile powertrains to the ultra-reliable, ultra-efficient versions powering F1 cars today has been a spectacular feat of engineering and, even if complaints still persist, they should be admired. It's hard to say that in the future the turbo-hybrid powertrain will ever be as revered as the V10s and V12s that captured hearts in the 1990s, but their importance to the championship and its ability to remain relevant in the modern age must be respected.

F1's current engine regulations won't be revered, but have been significant for the world championship's evolution

Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool