And finally, it came: the announcement from the FIA that the shiny new 2026 Formula One engines need to be redesigned. The much-lauded 50/50 split between hybrid and internal combustion engine power is officially dead.
Despite certain manufacturers suggesting in Miami that there should be no change to the F1 engines for 2027, in a statement on Friday, the FIA said the power of the internal combustion engine would be increased by 50kW, alongside a reduction of 50kW from the hybrid. “It was agreed that further detailed discussion in technical groups comprising teams and power unit manufacturers was required before the final package was decided.”
Yet the many references made to the engines now being closer to a 60/40 split on total power output are nonsense. 300/700 is a 43% contribution from the hybrid and a 57% contribution from the ICE. The regulations agreed prior to the Miami Grand Prix already moved the dial to around 55/45, so this announcement is somewhat of a con.
Fuel flow rates must be increased
The performance road cars the manufacturers produce have splits in the region of 25-30% hybrid power and 65-70% ICE, and there’s a reason for that. Any more battery power and the car becomes too unintuitive to drive and requires a huge amount of algorithm programming to manage the energy.
Even then, the car will at times become energy-starved and suffer a significant loss of drive. Ambitions for 50/50, which will now be 43/57, were always a laboratory experiment on behalf of the manufacturers.
To beef up the ICE’s power, fuel flow rates will have to be increased, which itself is causing somewhat of a problem. When asked about a solution that included increasing the fuel flow rate for 2027, Steve Nielsen, Sporting Director of Alpine, appeared to suggest some teams are not planning to build a new chassis for next season, which would be required to accommodate the extra fuel.
“When do we need to know? Now. More fuel means a bigger fuel tank, which means a different chassis. Not every team will be planning to make a new chassis for next year [2027]… you spend your money where the most performance is,” he said.
Cutting Grand Prix race distance – a nonsense
The blunt answer to this is simple: the teams have to spend the money where the regulations determine it is required. Yet for some, the issue is more complex. Having designed all-new cars for this season, much of the 2026 budget for some teams will be spent on upgrading this year’s car, leaving little left for a complete chassis overhaul.
There is another solution to this conundrum. The FIA could simply cut the distance of a Grand Prix for 2027 to ensure current fuel levels work with an engine using more fuel per kilometer. This solution is doing the rounds in the F1 media, yet surely this would be akin to slashing the distance of the Indy 500 to 425 miles and renaming the “greatest spectacle in racing” as the Indy 425.
This suggestion has to be one of those: “Really? You disagree? Well, this is how we solve the problem… [insert ridiculous idea].” There are some considerations to be made, which is why the FIA stated the move was “agreed in principle.”
Firstly, there is the catch-up mechanism for manufacturers who are way behind the performance of the leading power units. The first tranche of allowances for any manufacturer eligible for ADUO will begin following the Canadian Grand Prix.
The ADUO advantage for some manufacturers
The ADUO will almost certainly apply to Honda and potentially other manufacturers too. The incremental spend and testing time allowed under ADUO is surely a huge advantage for those eligible to use the additional resources to develop the uprated fuel pumps and associated technology required for next year.
Further, it may be for some manufacturers that their current rate of fuel flow is not merely restricted by architecture. It could be there is an element of redundancy built into the system which means it’s not running flat-out all the time. Whether it’s capable of the 15% fuel flow increase or not, only each manufacturer knows.
Another option would be to allow the increased fuel flow rate in qualifying alone. The cars run light on fuel for the best lap times, so increased fuel cells are not required. Then, for the races, the fuel flow returns to its current level of 75kg/h—a simple adjustment made by the car’s ECU.
Yet the biggest question of all is whether these “tweaks” the FIA is proposing actually fix the problem of energy-starved F1 cars. For the average GCSE maths student, the answer is obvious: no.
Proposed changes drastically fail in their intentions
On average, the cars run flat-out for around 60% of a lap, and the current 4MJ battery is incapable of delivering enough charge even if the harvesting rates were significantly increased. However, braking—which generates most of the thrust harvesting capabilities—is only around 15-20% of a lap. During the rest of the lap, some charging is possible, but at a significantly lower rate than under heavy braking.
The reality is that to run flat-out, the battery needs to be fully recharged around five times per lap to deliver flat-out racing; otherwise, it’s back to the dreaded super-clipping and “lift and coast” the drivers hate so much this season.
Of course, the mainstream F1 media may well hail this move by the FIA as a step in the right direction, yet in reality, it is a drop in the ocean in terms of providing F1 cars enough energy to operate as they did before the new Frankenstein monsters—the F1 2026 power units—were implemented.
If this rate of progress was achieved year-on-year and the current engines were retained for their planned five-year term, the cars in 2030 would still be energy-starved—just slightly less so than they are today.
F1 – Road car relevance mantra must die
On a positive note, the many detailed exposes being written about the badly conceived current F1 power units should seep into the fans’ psyche more and more, building support for a return to a simpler form of F1 power unit and a break from the talk about the sport needing “road car relevance.”
As a form of transport, the family road car is a million miles away from F1’s racing prototypes already. Just as happened with horse racing and the former transport of the horse-drawn cart: to enjoy the former, one does not need to own a thoroughbred equine beast—or even a donkey.
It is time the FIA defended Formula One from the obsession of manufacturers who use their role in the sport to create ever-more complex laboratory experiments—which they then claim will become relevant to the average person’s shopping trip to the supermarket.
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.
