MPH: If F1 wants equal engines, where does artificial competition stop?

F1

Fears that one engine manufacturer will dominate F1 from 2026 are likely to see strugglers allowed to catch up. If power units are to be artificially equalised, how much of a technical competition will it be? asks Mark Hughes

Mercedes of George Russell in 2025 F1 Saudi Arabian GP

Mercedes stole a huge advantage after the last major engine regulation change

Mercedes

Mark Hughes

Further to our piece here a couple of weeks ago about the crisis meeting held in Bahrain about the 2026 power unit regulations, those early talks are now coalescing into something more solid. The F1 Commission met yesterday for more detailed discussions, with representatives of Formula One Management, the teams and power unit manufacturers, chaired by the FIA’s technical chief Nikolas Tombazis.

As predicted a couple of weeks ago, there is a plan to loosen the homologation freeze for those manufacturers struggling to be competitive. So they would be allowed to continue to develop, addressing any shortfall in performance or reliability. This is likely to go through, but with the stipulation that it must first be demonstrated that any shortfall is with the power unit – ie further developing a power unit cannot be used to overcome, say, the aerodynamic shortfall of a particular car.

As was also suggested a couple of weeks back, the electrical/internal combustion power split looks set to be made less ambitious so as to avoid the prospect of cars suddenly being 200bhp down on the middle of a long straight. An electrical contribution of 36% (200kW rather than 350kW) on race day was proposed, while still retaining the 50% (350kW) for qualifying. There is some disagreement about this, with Mercedes’ Toto Wolff insisting this could easily be implemented if deemed necessary after a few races. Why, he argues, should it be changed before the cars even run?

It’s tempting to draw the lines of where each manufacturer believes they are in their development by their position on this. Wolff’s comments confirm that Mercedes is strongly in favour of starting the season retaining the full 350kW limit. Honda and Audi both reportedly feel that 200kW is way too low given all the investment they have made so far. Red Bull is in favour of the 200kW limit running from the start and Ferrari would not be strongly opposed to that.

But what it is really significant about these discussions happening at all is that a very challenging engine formula and the potential performance spread that may result has brought consensus that F1 should not be an engine formula. That power units should not differentiate the performance of the teams to any significant degree. Competitively of course that’s good. But it does beg the question of whether the technical competition which has always been the distinguishing feature of the sport’s top category is being squeezed out.

Related article

MPH: F1 in ‘crisis meeting’ as engine civil war threatens to erupt
F1

MPH: F1 in 'crisis meeting' as engine civil war threatens to erupt

Friday's summit in Bahrain between the FIA, teams and manufacturers may have been dressed up as a gathering to discuss the idea of a return to V10 engines. But make no mistake: they're crunch talks as the 2026 rules continue to create problems, says Mark Hughes

By Mark Hughes

No-one is proposing a balance-of-performance equation or weight penalties and there is obviously still a lot of cutting edge technology and learning involved in creating these power units. But if F1 is then saying the technology race between engine manufacturers exists only up to a certain point pre-season and if there are then differences in performance they will be equalised, it is quite a step. What would be the difference between that and stipulating that there is a regulation downforce limit? Furthermore, what competitive motivation is there to create the best engine when you’re all going to artificially equalised anyway? The commercial imperatives have gradually eroded the dimensions in which the F1 game can be played.

It’s complicated of course by the cost concerns. Imposing a cost cap on F1 was previously thought impossible but it has been achieved and one of the original premises of that happening was that it could lead in future to an opening out of the technical regulations: ‘You can do what you like so long as it doesn’t cost more than X’. But that’s clearly not the direction it’s going.

It’s step that can be argued as either good or bad depending upon where your interest lies in what has always been a multi-dimensional competition. But it’s a step that should be acknowledged.

Comments

Loading Comments