F1 Q&A: Engine rules, Alpine improvement, wet-weather racing and fitting in extra races
Before answering this question directly, it’s worth noting that not everyone views the new rules so negatively.
There is a recognition in F1 that being at the limit significantly detracts from qualifying in terms of the driving experience.
Efforts have been made to solve this problem to a certain point this year, and greater steps are being taken for next year.
At the same time, most senior figures in F1 (including some drivers) agree that there is a positive impact on racing; Although it is claimed that some of the increased overtaking is artificial and caused by balances between charge states.
TV figures for the first three races were up more than 20%; Australia, China and Japan all experienced significant increases. Miami’s is not yet available.
As for the genesis of the new regulations, when negotiations began about five years ago, the goal was to attract more manufacturers.
At that time the direction of road car technology was completely electric, so together with the manufacturers it was decided to increase the amount of electrification.
A nominal 50-50 split between internal combustion and electric was agreed upon. Fully sustainable, carbon-neutral fuels have been added to increase environmental reliability.
MGU-H, part of the hybrid system that recovers energy from the turbo, has been removed. This was because it was complex and expensive and therefore difficult for new manufacturers to compete with existing manufacturers, and it was not road-related.
After these rules were announced, Audi first decided to join F1. Shortly thereafter, Ford and General Motors followed suit, and Honda reversed its decision to leave.
If the rules had not changed, if Renault had continued to withdraw, there would now be a maximum of three manufacturers in F1, or possibly just two (Mercedes and Ferrari).
Instead there are six.
The problems began when teams began examining what a near 50-50 energy split with an MGU-H-less engine meant for the vehicles’ handling.
There were warnings very early on that cars would be short on energy, at least by 2023.
Energy recovery from the front axle could have solved this problem, but this was rejected on the grounds that it would give Audi, which has experience in world endurance racing, an advantage.
The result was a series of adhesive plaster solutions, such as active aerodynamics, that only addressed the fundamental problem.
It’s hard to get a definitive answer as to why someone in authority wouldn’t ask everyone to stop, step back for a minute, look at the big picture, and ask whether the 50-50 split really matters that much. And whether the sport needs to change direction. Frankly, it was a failure.
That’s why the rules need to change now. Solutions that could be implemented before 2026, such as changing the energy distribution and making it more in favor of the internal combustion engine, are now likely to be implemented for 2027 as well.
In parallel, discussions are ongoing about what will happen after 2030 or 2031.
The trajectory of road vehicles has changed. Electrification is still coming, but it seems not as much or at the same pace as thought five years ago.
Some degree of move away from electrification in F1 is inevitable. But how much remains to be seen.
FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is working on a naturally aspirated engine (most likely a V8) with a coin-op hybrid.
However, for various reasons, this definitive solution may not be accepted by all stakeholders or may not be the panacea that its proponents claim. Negotiations are ongoing.
