When the decisions were made around the basic architecture of F1’s new 2026 engines, there was a desire from manufacturers to do something different from other racing series—but remain eco-friendly.
There was little point taking a punt on the future being all-electric, given Formula E has stolen a march in this style of racing. Hybrid was where F1 had thrown its hat back in 2014, and so a “super hybrid” with three times the electrical power was planned for 2026.
Yet Formula One was not the first to switch its power source to hybrid engines, given that in 2012 the World Endurance Championship (WEC) was the first global racing category to trial these kinds of powertrains.
F1’s 50/50 engine error
In an effort to differentiate itself from the WEC, F1 set itself the target of a 50/50 split between power from the battery and power from the internal combustion engine (ICE). The WEC mode, whilst different in many ways, has a 40/60 split in favour of the ICE.
Yet the most significant difference between F1’s electric power and that of the WEC is the fact that the electrical power is not additive. Under the current regulations, the total combined power output is strictly capped, meaning the more electrical energy you deploy, the less power the engine is allowed to produce at that moment.
The total combined power of a WEC Hypercar (ICE + ERS) is typically capped at 500 kW, though this fluctuates slightly due to Balance of Performance (BoP) rules, which will see it peak at 520 kW at Le Mans.
Total output is capped at 500 kW, so if a hypercar like the Ferrari 499P or Toyota GR010 deploys its full 200 kW of electrical power, the ICE is throttled back to 300 kW to remain within the total output cap.
WEC electrical power is not additive
So energy is displaced by one source or the other rather than adding to it; the intention was to improve fuel efficiency and tyre life rather than increase top speeds. Most of the teams manage the energy split by a “virtual energy tank,” where each car is allowed a specific amount of megajoules per stint. The ERS (battery) is used to “stretch” the fuel, and so the more energy harvested from braking and redeployed through the battery, the less fuel the engine burns to achieve the 500 kW total.
In F1, the electrical charge is additive—most of the time—but its finite supply is forcing drivers into some strange styles of driving. After experiencing the rule tweaks agreed upon since Japan, Max Verstappen was unimpressed despite the new recharge limits, claiming in qualifying that everything still “felt the same.” He added: “It’s still punishing you. The faster you go through corners, the slower you go on the next straight. So, that’s not what it should be about.”
This going deliberately slower to achieve an overall quicker lap time is an anathema to drivers and fans of F1 alike. In qualifying, certainly, the drivers want to push to the limit across the entire lap, not have to play “energy management chess” to strategically manage certain corners at much slower speeds than they are capable of hitting.
Haas driver Esteban Ocon broke down the issue in Miami, explaining the drivers were being forced to drive in a counterintuitive fashion. “The problem is you can’t drive the way you want,” said the Haas driver. “You need to over-push the first part to not go on throttle for the second one. It would be more important [previously] to prepare, for example, [Turn] 4, get good minimum [speed] into [Turn] 5 with some throttle and then keep the minimum speed higher—which you can’t really do right now.”
F1 new power units energy starved
And this goes to the crux of F1’s problematic new powertrains: they are energy-starved and cannot run flat-out for a complete lap. This also leads to ‘yo-yo’ racing, where one driver deploys their energy boost to overtake the one in front. Yet before the end of the lap, the car now behind has a surplus of energy and uses it to reclaim its place as its rival struggles for the extra energy deployment it doesn’t have to defend.
F1’s world champion Lando Norris was unimpressed in Miami with the rule changes agreed upon. “It’s a small step in the right direction, but it’s not the level F1 should still be at yet. If you go flat out everywhere and you try pushing like you were in previous years, you still just get penalised for it. You should never get penalised for that kind of thing, and you still do. So honestly, I don’t really think you can fix that. You just have to get rid of the battery. So hopefully in a few years, that’s the case.”
The issue can be better mitigated through hardware changes to the power units by upping the fuel flow rates to give more power to the internal combustion engine. Yet this would break the illusion of the 50/50 F1 engine energy split—something the manufacturers rejected back in 2025.
Manufacturers resisting changing the F1 engines
Given the comments of Toto Wolff in Miami, there’s little hope the manufacturers can be persuaded to change the architecture of the engines even for 2027. Following a detailed briefing from McLaren’s team boss on how the engines could be improved, Wolff was dismissive: “Whoever talks about changing engine regs in the short term should question his way of assessing Formula 1 at that stage. A spectacular race. Fight for the lead, fight in the midfield. And it’s splendid.” Only that was to be expected given Mercedes’ Kimi Antonelli won the race.
The solution to F1’s problem is relatively simple, although politics will always get in the way of a sensible change of direction. The internal engine’s contribution to the power output must be boosted to prevent it from “super-clipping.” This is where the ICE is powering both the wheels and charging the battery at the same time. The cars currently visibly slow during this process.
Further, F1 could eat some humble pie and, following the example of the WEC, cap the total power output allowed. So if the battery is in full deployment, the ICE is pared back.
F1 should take a leaf out of the WEC playbook
By looking toward the World Endurance Championship, Formula 1 has a ready-made blueprint for salvaging its 2026 regulations without abandoning its hybrid ambitions. The current trajectory—defined by “energy chess,” counterintuitive cornering, and the artificial “yo-yo” effect of additive power—threatens to alienate the very drivers and fans who demand “flat-out” purity. Transitioning to a capped total output model would immediately resolve the farcical sight of cars slowing on straights to harvest energy, effectively ending the era of “super-clipping.”
Ultimately, the sport must decide if it is a laboratory for marketing-driven “50/50” power splits or a theatre for the world’s best drivers to push to the absolute limit. While the politics of engine manufacturers like Mercedes may stall immediate hardware changes, the WEC model proves that electrification can be integrated without punishing speed. If F1 continues to ignore these lessons in favour of political optics, it risks a future where the technology is sophisticated and the investment is immense, but the racing is fundamentally broken. As Lando Norris suggested, F1 should never penalise a driver for going fast; it’s time the regulations reflected that basic truth.
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
With over 30 years of experience in Formula 1 as an insider journalist, I have built trusted connections across the paddock, from race engineers and mechanics to senior team figures. At The Judge 13, I and a handful of trusted colleagues share exclusive Formula 1 news, expert analysis and behind-the-scenes stories you will not find in mainstream motorsport media.
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.
The power ratio would automatically shift more towards the ICE by merely reducing the total electrical power output without changing the total ICE output at all, or increasing the fuel flow limit, etc.