The roots of motorsport, which emerged in the late 19th century, were rooted in testing the reliability and speed of “horseless carriages” while promoting the embryonic automotive industry. The world’s first motoring competition, the 1894 Paris-Rouen race, was predicated on the idea that vehicles should be safe, easy to operate, and reliable.
In fact, many of the early races at that time were pushing the boundaries of distance rather than raw top speed, as the auto manufacturers set out to prove their technology was better than a horse. It was the case in the early decades of motoring that racing served as a laboratory to accelerate engineering developments in tire technology (the detachable tire) and fuel efficiency.
This relationship between racing and auto manufacturers has been retained for over a century, although most top-level racing series are now specification-driven. The top level of single-seater racing in North America, IndyCar, sees the teams and drivers race identical chassis designed and built by Dallara. This is known as a spec series.
The F1 spec series argument
There are also just two engine manufacturers to choose from in IndyCar, Chevrolet and Honda, which brings economies of scale to the cost for the teams. Building racing prototypes each year is eyewateringly expensive, which is why few motorsport series remain that attempt this feat. Indycar racing is tight and exciting with multiple race winners each season.
Formula One is one of the few remaining racing series to continue with the long-held principles that the cars on show should be an advertisement for the manufacturers who finance the works teams. Although cracks have begun to appear in this philosophy—with Red Bull being a prime example, building their own engine for 2026—which has no road car relevance whatsoever.
You can’t be so impressed by Max Verstappen in his Red Bull Racing car that you go out and buy the road-going equivalent brand. It doesn’t exist. Whilst F1 should not become a spec series, its questionable whether road car relevance should be a founding principal for the sport anymore.
Ferrari’s journey into motorsport was quite different from the established manufacturers, given Enzo Ferrari used motor racing to fund the birth of his road car empire. As the old adage goes, “win on Sunday, sell on Monday” was something the Italian maestro understood all too well.
F1’s heyday was mostly customer teams
Formula One, which began in 1950, was dominated in its early years by auto manufacturers Alfa Romeo, Mercedes, and Ferrari. Yet by the ’60s, only Ferrari remained as a team building its own engines and chassis—a “works” outfit, as it became known.
The rise of customer teams, who built their own chassis and bought in an engine, swamped the F1 grid. While towards the latter part of the 20th century auto manufacturers were building F1 engines but not owning teams, Ferrari and Renault (on and off) ploughed the F1 auto manufacturers’ furrow alone.
Come the 21st century, there was a significant shift from this racing model, as Toyota, Honda, and Ford-Jaguar joined Renault and Ferrari in owning F1 works teams. So expensive was it to build and race an F1 car that the sport required the manufacturers to sustain grids of 20 or so cars.
Then came the crisis of the late nineties, when auto manufacturers slashed their motorsport budgets due to the global financial crisis. In a couple of years, Ford, Honda, Toyota, and Renault were gone, leaving F1 in crisis.
Manufacturers vital to F1 during global financial crisis
The FIA spent the best part of the decade from 2010–2020 making efforts to persuade the manufacturers to return, with the all-new 2014 hybrids meant to be a step in the right direction. Renault rebought their team while Honda came back in partnership with McLaren, but the Red Bull crisis, which almost saw them with no engine supplier, heightened the FIA’s insecurity. For the next era of F1 power, they were determined to attract more auto manufacturers into the sport.
Now the F1 grid sports the names of Ferrari, Cadillac, Mercedes, Aston Martin, Audi, and Ford—somewhat a revolution from just 15 years ago. Yet a price had to be paid by F1, and this was to hand control of the sport’s future direction over its engines to the global manufacturers.
The result? Formula One once again became the test laboratory for their global car makers as they pushed for a ramp-up in electrification of the sport’s engines. In a defense of the FIA’s decision to hand over the keys to F1’s next era of power units, the head of single-seater racing, Nicolas Tombazis, had this to say recently:
“It’s true the political landscape has changed,” noted the Greek official, “and back when we discussed the current regulations, the automotive companies who were very involved told us they were never going to make another internal combustion engine again. Obviously, this hasn’t happened… [but at least] we did go for sustainable fuels.”
Manufacturers dominated the debate on 2026 F1 engines
And so F1 fans are now subjected to a farcical kind of “Mario Kart Racing” each weekend, where drivers use their “mushroom” energy boosts to overtake another car. Then, when they are out of electrical power, the other car retakes the place given they have not used up their electrical energy.
And this is just the most obvious of F1’s current woes. Behind the scenes, the complex algorithms which decide when and when not to deploy power boosts are a mystery even to the drivers. Yet F1 is not as desperate for the manufacturers’ investment as it was some 15 years ago, and there appears a determination that it take back control from the road-carmakers.
It was announced across the Miami Grand Prix that F1 would, in its next era of new power units, return to V8 combustion engines with “very, very little electrification,” stated the FIA President, Mohammed Ben Sulayem. But the manufacturers will not go without a fight, as Toto Wolff indicated in his response:
“Whoever talks about changing engine regs in the short term should question his way of assessing Formula 1 at that stage,” said the Mercedes team boss. “So, spectacular race. Fight for the lead, fight in the midfield. It’s splendid.”
Electricity cannot entirely replace the need for hydrocarbons
While the likes of McLaren’s chief, Andrea Stella, are pressing for changes to the engines for 2027, even he understands the manufacturers will drag their feet. “From the perspective of power unit manufacturers, I see this is difficult for 2027 because the implication for the battery size and the implication for coping with the higher fuel flow, they are normally a longer lead time than the time available to go into the 2027 season.”
As Mark Hughes, writing for The Race, observes: electrification may be great in saving the world from carbon emissions, but for certain power-related solutions, it’s a waste of space. The problem is batteries are around 50 times less dense than hydrocarbons, which means to replicate the role of conventional fuel, the cars would need to become 40 tonne trucks—with giant batteries.
Hughes cites the example of a tanker with batteries the same weight as its usual diesel propellant being just about able to make it out from the harbor on its way from China to Europe before the batteries were flat. Equally, long-haul flights will be impossible to electrify for the same reason.
The close association between F1 racing and road car relevance must now be broken, as was the case for transport and horse racing, Hughes concludes. With fully sustainable fuels now in use by the sport, its Net Zero ambitions remain fully intact without the need for electrification.
Road car relevance is an illusion
In terms of road car relevance, even the most high-performance cars have something like a 25–75% split in total power, with the battery the minor partner in the affair. So aiming for a 50/50 engine was always the manufacturers’ attempt to use F1 as a laboratory, and the experiment has been a complete failure and must be rectified as soon as possible.
F1 does not need the manufacturers’ cash to make it viable anymore, given the era of Drive to Survive and other popular media portrayals of the sport. And the manufacturers will stick around regardless of whether they’re forced to build V8 combustion engines.
F1 has always been about glamour and the pinnacle of motorsport; it can’t let the manufacturers redefine what is good racing in their quest for some electrical fantasy that would never become road relevant anyway.
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.
