The Le Mans manufacturer magic that could hand F1 a boost

Twenty-three cars graced this year's Hypercar class at the Le Mans 24 Hours, three more than the current 20-strong Formula 1 field. It was quite the statement of success for the current rules cycle at the top level, one that had become increasingly sparse in the final days of the LMP1 formula across a World Endurance Championship season.

Let's not forget that the Hypercar ruleset had been devised to renew interest among the manufacturer entities for endurance racing. The decision to unify those regulations with those in the new GTP category - a replacement for the DPi class - at the top of the IMSA SportsCar Championship has bolstered the field further; Lamborghini, Cadillac, BMW, Porsche, and Alpine all based their cars on the greater standardisation present in the LMDh platform. Add that to the 'pure-blood' LMH cars of Toyota, Peugeot, and Ferrari, and you have a hugely compelling line-up brimming with star power.

And, of course, the WEC would welcome more. Aston Martin's long-awaited Valkyrie is set to come online in 2025, Isotta Fraschini filled the token privateer role vacated by Glickenhaus and ByKolles/Vanwall, and the extension of the Hypercar regulations may tempt further manufacturers to return to top-level endurance racing. Mercedes? Nissan? McLaren? You can never rule anyone out...

That's in stark contrast to F1, which last seemed to leave things as a closed book when it came to Andretti's potential entry. The FIA said that the American squad met the criteria, FOM said it didn't, and Andretti has pressed on anyway while the existing teams do everything in their power to stop an 11th team making the grid. You've got a 'come one, come all' approach that distinctly contrasts with an attempt to introduce a franchise model.

Could F1 be learning from endurance racing's current-day manufacturer pull? In its own bid to appeal to manufacturers, F1's 2026 powertrain regulations were formulated to do just that; dropping the expensive and barely road-relevant MGU-H was a big part of getting automotive giants to buy in. Audi has done so, Honda has made a full return after its end-of-2021 part-withdrawal, and Ford has partnered with Red Bull Powertrains to get back involved in F1 without needing to make a significant outlay on infrastructure.

Problem is, one of the six manufacturers signed up for the 2026 power unit rules looks set to give up. Alpine is considering the possibility of dropping the Renault powertrains under development at Viry-Chatillon and becoming a customer team, which seems utterly bizarre given that Alpine would be a Renault subsidiary with engines developed by a competitor. It's a damning indictment of how the French company has fallen, and of its progress on 2026 thus far.

Cadillac wants to come in for 2028, albeit only with Andretti, and the likes of McLaren, Williams, Haas and RB will remain customer operations under the new regs. There's plenty of space for more manufacturers to come in, but having to develop everything requires a lot of outlay and no guaranteed return on investment.

Andretti are attempting to join the F1 grid with Cadillac

Photo by: Andretti Autosport

It's always dangerous to base an entire championship around the whims of manufacturers. The boom of automotive giants all dipping their oar into F1 in the early 2000s had largely been extinguished when the global financial crisis of 2008 pushed Honda, BMW, Toyota, et al towards the exit door, which led to a renewed push for privateer teams to fill up the field. It's a bit like how WEC was a few years ago: just five LMP1 teams filled the top class in 2020, and the Hypercar grids have only grown in recent years thanks to the LMDh/GTP contingent joining the fray. Yet, the guidelines of the Hypercar formula seem to have managed to corral a clutch of car giants onto the same page despite two differing rulesets.

In many ways, it's almost like a two-tier formula, an idea F1 flirted with well over a decade ago. It gives manufacturers two ways to get involved: either dive in and have unfettered control over the full design of the car, or take standardised parts and reduce the outlay on some of the more involved parts. Toyota, for example, wanted to showcase its hybrid technology in its WEC efforts and thus put its focus on the LMH regulations to do so. For others, it's a less important consideration; thus, following the LMDh route ensured they could put their stamp on the bodywork but not have to worry about investing into or sourcing hybrid components or batteries.

Attracting manufacturers is one thing: retaining them is quite another. And say what you will about the LMDh regs, but it gives manufacturers a chance to have 'their' cars on-track without having to build a chassis, a hybrid system, or even a race team. The long-term retention rate of the Hypercar rules will not be known for a few years, and the follow-up (Hypercar 2?) series of regulations will truly test if the FIA and IMSA can capture lightning in a bottle more than once.

It would surely serve F1 to have more manufacturer involvement at a sustainable level, particularly as Alpine/Renault looks set to cede its manufacturer status in 2026

It's true that the 2026 powertrain regulations were drafted with manufacturers in mind, and the deletion of the MGU-H cuts the development costs significantly. But could it have drawn more interest - and thus, sweetened the pot in the argument for additional teams - if there was provision for a 2026-lite effort? This is not simply about enticing a manufacturer to sign up to F1's terms and conditions, but to stay there; with flexibility in the ruleset, it creates opportunities for an entrant to upscale their involvement at a later date should they wish to double their fun.

A lot of manufacturer interest in current sportscar racing is also due to the reduced cost to compete. The rules on in-season development are tight, and this ensures that a budget for a WEC or IMSA team is comparatively modest - less than €30 million - when measured against F1. In the meantime, F1 appears set to raise its cost cap to $220m, although this includes fewer exemptions against the current budget in the cap.

It would surely serve F1 to have more manufacturer involvement at a sustainable level, particularly as Alpine/Renault looks set to cede its manufacturer status in 2026. That's an area F1 should begin to focus on; after all, the championship is arguably more valuable when car companies are not only involved but actively engaged. F1 can kowtow to them with all the regulations in the world, but their intentions to showcase a product will only really prove engaging for a few seasons before the costs inevitably rise. So, why not have an option to do it just as competitively, but cheaper?

Here's a solution to making future engine regulations sustainable for manufacturers: get the car companies doing the internal combustion engines, and put the turbochargers, MGU-K, gearboxes, fuel, and batteries out to tender. That way, the manufacturer gets exactly what they want out of F1: either the involvement and the opportunity to reclaim the old racing truism of "win on Sunday, sell on Monday", or the chance to genuinely enhance their technology through the power of motorsport.

But that only works as long as F1 is willing to open its doors. And, currently, those doors are locked up as tightly as Fort Knox...

It is easy to argue that WEC has never been in better health

Photo by: Shameem Fahath