When the all-new 2026 regulations and cars were conceived, there was an obvious absence from a certain quarter of the paddock—the drivers. The soul of the much-maligned racing of this season was handed over to one self-interest group—the manufacturers.
Obsessed with partial electrification of the internal combustion engine, Mercedes, Audi, and Honda in particular threw the full might of their global brands behind a road car future that they believed would be hybrid. Yet since the first FIA working party, which met in 2017 to discuss F1’s next generation of power, there has been a shift in demand for road car power—and much of it is towards full electric cars.
In Scandinavia, Norway this year has recorded 98.4% of new car sales as full electric, whilst in Denmark the number is 81.6%. Sweden too is on the march to electrification of all road vehicles with just a third now sold new being diesel/petrol. In a large economy like the UK, petrol and diesel cars make up just half of new car sales whilst full electric dominate the other hybrid categories. Motorsport fans have Formula E for their full electric motor racing fix and the World Endurance Championship has been promoting a wide range of hybrid power for over a decade.
The F1 drivers were ignored when engine designs discussed
So why did F1 believe it needed to pursue another hybrid powertrain dream? Mostly because manufacturers use F1 as a research and development laboratory, spending huge amounts developing technology their road car divisions could not justify. In an interview with Lewis Hamilton in 2018 aired on Sky Sports, Toto Wolff admitted the press coverage Mercedes were receiving globally each year while the team were winning was worth the equivalent of $3bn in advertising spend. This at the time was part of a desperate bid to press the FIA not to introduce the cost cap.
To put some space between F1 and the WEC, a stretch target was set for the next generation of F1 power to be 50% hybrid contribution and only 50% for the internal combustion engine. Yet even in 2023, Christian Horner criticized this mix, suggesting the sport would end up with “Frankenstein” cars. Early simulations revealed to achieve this mix of power, the internal combustion engine at times would be required to act as a generator for the battery, because under braking alone the new power units would not be able to harvest enough electrical power to match the target 50% contribution.
Three years later we see the result of F1 ignoring Horner and Red Bull Racing. Drivers are suffering ‘super clipping’ at the end of a straight. This is where the battery has run dry and the internal combustion engine continues to drive the rear wheels but also is charging the battery. This ‘super clipping’ is totally obvious to the fans as the cars slow rapidly rather than approach the corners at full tilt. During F1’s forced five-week hiatus, the FIA and the manufacturers have agreed what they describe as a ‘tweak’ to the regulations to improve safety and allow the drivers to push flat out in qualifying.
Now F1’s 50/50 hybrid is abandoned
The 50/50 ideal has been abandoned as the total amount of electrical energy now allowed per lap has been reduced from 8-7MJ. Further, by allowing the powertrains to harvest at a rate of 350kW—up from 250kW—super clipping should be reduced, but not eliminated entirely. Other quirks, like the drivers accidentally engaging ‘high power mode’ due to a blip on the accelerator, have also been modified. And should the expected rains come on Sunday in Miami, the 250kW electrical boost for the drivers will be switched off due to low grip conditions.
So what did the drivers think of F1’s efforts to finally listen to them? ‘Not a lot’ is probably a fair reflection of their views. Lance Stroll often behaves like a petulant child at his F1 media events, giving sullen one-word answers and feigning complete disinterest in his questioners. Yet in Miami there was a moment of Stroll gold on the media day held on Thursday. When asked for his thoughts on the rule change implemented, Lance was dismissive.
“Hopefully it’s better with all the part throttle and all this stuff that’s just destroying the racing, the qualifying laps,” began the Canadian. “So hopefully it’s a bit more normal to drive. We don’t have to think so much about all the management and lift and coast. But I think we’re still far away from proper F1 cars and pushing flat out without thinking about batteries and this stuff.”
Vertsappen dismisses rule changes as “a tickle”
The son of the Aston Martin billionaire owner revealed he’d spent some of the five weeks’ break watching F1 from yesteryear. He revelled in the smaller, lighter, and more nimble cars with their V10 and V8 ‘noisy’ engines. “You hear what it’s like now and the character of the cars, and just how much more intense it looked and how much more exciting it looked back then compared to now,” he noted in a damning condemnation of where F1 has gone wrong. Further, Stroll said the drivers were resigned to a number of years of ‘non racing’ until the next generation of engines are introduced.
Lando Norris noted that should the rains come, the drivers will face a plethora of counter-intuitive scenarios such as “driving with different power unit strategies.” This comment alone highlights how the new complex powertrains are making decisions for the driver which at times he does not want. When asked about the likely impact of the rule changes since Japan, the quadruple world champion was dismissive. “It’s a tickle, but it needs a bit more than a tickle for next year, that’s for sure,” he added.
“F1 is a very complex and political sport. But I think everyone has tried their best to at least do something. I hope (for) more and more (driver input). I think if we would have had that five, maybe even before, like five, six years ago, we probably wouldn’t have been in the state that we are in now,” Verstappen concluded.
FIA’s next battle over engine changes for 2027
Lewis Hamilton echoed the words of his rival, claiming the current structures within the FIA were wrong given there was no channel for driver input when such grave decisions are being made over the future of F1. “All the drivers work together, we do meet but we don’t have a seat at the table. We engage with the FIA and Formula One,” Hamilton said. “Formula One is often a bit more responsive but we are not stakeholders, we don’t have a seat at the table which I think needs to change.”
And so for now, the gladiators who thrill the fans of Formula One are consigned to shouting from the sidelines, “slagging off the sport” as Hamilton described it in Miami, which is hardly a good look for the product. It’s difficult to see how the FIA and F1 can dig them out of this massive hole given the manufacturers would refuse to agree to a new kind of power unit given the amount they’ve spent developing the much-hated hybrids. There is a small possibility the new era of F1 power could begin in 2030, but even now there are rows over changes the FIA wishes to bring about for next season.
To compensate for the fact the electrical power has been turned down, there is a proposal to change the architecture of the 2027 engines to update the fuel flow. This was cut from 100kg/h in 2025 to 75kg/h for this year. Increasing the fuel flow would add more grunt to the internal combustion engine, to compensate for its work required to charge the battery. Hardly an efficient nor ideal solution, but one that may be necessary to save F1 from persistent criticism.
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
A.J. Hunt is Senior Editor at TJ13, where Andrew oversees editorial standards and contributes to the site’s Formula 1 coverage. A career journalist with experience in both print and digital sports media, Andrew trained in investigative journalism and has written for a range of European sports outlets.
At TJ13, Andrew plays a central role in shaping the site’s output, working across breaking news, analysis, and long-form features. Andrew’s responsibilities include fact-checking, refining editorial structure, and ensuring consistency in reporting across a fast-moving news cycle.
Andrew’s work focuses particularly on the intersection of Formula 1 politics, regulation, and team strategy. Andrew closely follows developments involving the FIA, team leadership, and driver market dynamics, helping to provide context behind the sport’s biggest stories.
With experience covering multiple seasons of Formula 1’s modern hybrid era, Andrew has developed a detailed understanding of how regulatory changes and competitive shifts influence the grid. Andrew’s editorial approach prioritises clarity and context, aiming to help readers navigate complex developments within the sport.
In addition to editorial duties, Andrew is particularly interested in how media narratives shape fan perception of Formula 1, and how reporting can balance speed with accuracy in an increasingly digital news environment.
