The terrible all-new 2026 Formula One powertrains are in part a result of the FIA bowing to pressure from newcomer manufacturer Audi. In a desperate bid to attract more OEMs to the sport, F1’s governing body bent over backwards—doing a triple somersault in the process—to accommodate the demands of the likes of Audi and Porsche.
Way back in 2017, the FIA established a power unit manufacturers’ working party to discuss the next generation of F1 power with existing and new manufacturers, with a projected date for introduction of 2021, which was subsequently delayed a year due to COVID-19.
The Push to Drop the MGU-H
The initial proposal was to simplify the current engine designs, cut costs, and promote new entrants along with addressing the criticisms of the 2014 generation of engines. Both Audi and Porsche, who had no experience in other racing series where they competed with the heat recovery systems of the MGU-H, insisted that it be dropped despite the efficiencies it delivered.
Porsche were keen for the FIA to introduce all-wheel drive, with the front axle being powered only by electrical power—something they had developed on their 919 Hybrid race car. However, Audi and the rest of the manufacturers threw this idea out, given they believed this would give the German manufacturer a significant advantage over the field.
As it transpired, the working party became a mere talking shop and there was no commitment from any new manufacturer to join the sport in 2021/22. Frustrated, the FIA decided to freeze any development of the F1 engines from 2022 to 2025 in an effort to focus the minds of the manufacturers on the future of F1 power.
Red Bull’s V8 Campaign and the Wolff-Horner War
At this time, Red Bull Racing and Christian Horner made a bold attempt to persuade the sport’s decision-makers that, in fact, a return to simpler V8-based engines with less emphasis on electrical power was the right course of action for the FIA to take. Yet Audi and Porsche, who had failed to commit to F1 but remained lurking in the background, again threatened to abandon their tenuous applications to become part of F1 should the sport continue in this direction.
Mercedes joined with their German compatriots, and with Toto Wolff in the midst of a battle with his arch-rival Christian Horner for F1 supremacy, the debate became toxic. Following Honda’s initial decision to pull out of F1 in 2020, Red Bull made the massive financial gamble to build their own engine department, Red Bull Powertrains (RBPT). Wolff mockingly suggested that Horner was trying to blow up the 2026 regulations because his own in-house engine program was struggling behind closed doors.
“I think what frightens him more maybe is that his engine program is not coming along, and maybe he wants to kill the regulations that way,” Wolff taunted. “You always have to question what the real motivation is behind saying something like that.”
Ferrari’s Warning Signs and Smart Engineering
The sweet irony behind the foresight of Christian Horner’s views is only now becoming a reality, as both the FIA and F1’s commercial rights owners are insisting the future of F1 power from 2030/31 must be V8-based. But we must return to the influence Audi had on the current disastrous powertrains F1 must now endure for the foreseeable future.
Refusing to countenance anything less than an F1 power unit with 50% of the total power coming from an electrical source, Audi, together with Honda, refused proposals from the FIA to ‘tone down’ the hybrid element despite objections from the likes of Ferrari. The most historic and iconic F1 manufacturer warned the planned set of regulations for 2026 governing the start of Grands Prix were flawed on safety grounds.
With the MGU-H (Motor Generator Unit – Heat) completely removed from the new power units, mostly at Audi’s behest, there was the potential for a loss of power when the cars began to race from a standstill. The Scuderia’s team boss, Fred Vasseur, warned that launching the cars would become incredibly tricky, highly unstable, and would likely lead to a rash of dangerous stalls on the grid.
Yet, as with Horner previously, the German manufacturers, together with Honda, brushed aside Vasseur’s concerns. In light of this, Ferrari decided to engineer their way out of the impending issues by designing their V6 engine architecture around a much smaller turbocharger.
The single logic behind this decision was that a smaller turbine spins up and generates electrical energy significantly faster than a larger unit, nullifying the extreme turbo lag of a larger propeller off the line. Thus, Ferrari mitigated the loss of the MGU-H.
The Paddock Row: George Russell Steams In
As early as pre-season testing this year, it became evident that the Ferrari-powered cars had a blistering advantage from a standing start. Meanwhile, Audi, who for no apparent reason engineered their power unit with the largest turbo possible, see their cars repeatedly bogging down when the lights go out for the start of the races.
This led to Audi and Mercedes petitioning the FIA to implement changes on safety grounds—something that F1’s governing body can do unilaterally and without agreement through the usual processes. Thus was sparked a major paddock row, with Mercedes driver George Russell wading in and criticizing Ferrari for being “selfish” by blocking previously proposed fixes.
Ferrari’s Fred Vasseur flatly fired back with “enough is enough,” arguing that the FIA shouldn’t bail out teams who simply designed their engines poorly compared to the regulations. He suggested if there were safety concerns, the teams—mainly Audi—should start their cars from the pit lane, rather than compromise a year’s worth of engineering efforts.
The True Cost of Lap 1
Data compiled by F1.com tracking the net places gained and lost on Lap 1 across the opening rounds captures the full scale of the issue: Whilst Ferrari have gained an aggregate of 23 places across the races including the Sprints, Audi at the bottom of the league have lost an aggregate of 34 places before the end of lap one.
Such was the safety outcry from certain quarters in the paddock about the dangers of an F1 car failing to get away properly, the FIA changed the rules surrounding the starts for the Miami Grand Prix. Now, prior to lights out, there are blue flashing lights displayed along the pit wall indicating the start of the race will potentially be just five seconds away.
This allows the Audi drivers and others to rev their engines and begin the process of spooling up the turbos ready for the race start. There is also now a “Low-Power Start Detection System” in place. If a car suffers from abnormally low acceleration immediately after the clutch is released, an automatic safety override triggers the MGU-K to deploy early.This ensures a minimum level of acceleration to prevent a trailing car from slamming into a stranded vehicle, without giving the struggling driver a sporting advantage.
The original regulations did not allow the MGU-K (electrical power) to deploy until the cars had reached a minimum speed of 50 km/h. Another concession to Audi. Arriving in Canada, Fred Vasseur now speaks out for the first time on the changes made by the FIA to accommodate Audi.
Vasseur Blasts “Unfair” Rules Fixes
“Imagine without the blue light, some cars would still be on the grid in China,” Vasseur told The Race. “You can put on the table the safety grounds, and it’s the right of the FIA, and I have just to accept. But at the end, I think it’s also a bit unfair on us.
“I went to the FIA one year ago, and we spoke about this. We spoke about this in SAC, and we spoke about this in the PUAC.” The FIA’s ironic response, as Vasseur recalls, was to tell Ferrari to design their car around the regulations, not demand the regulations be designed to fit Ferrari’s idea of a design.
He notes the clever politics involved by his competitors, using the safety grounds argument to allow the FIA to make a universal decision without the unanimous agreement which is usually required mid-season. “It was a safety ground. I don’t have to accept. It was a decision based on safety grounds. It’s up to them. Even if everybody is against it, they can decide,” adds Vasseur.
He reiterated the FIA could have forced the teams with slow-starting cars to start from the pit lane instead. But the reality is that Ferrari developed an engine to the criteria set out in the regulations, whilst newcomers Audi once again threw their weight around and now receive special concessions Ferrari believe are unfair.
Ultimately, the 2026 regulations have exposed a glaring double standard in Formula One’s governance, rewarding poor engineering choices at the expense of those who played strictly by the rules. By weaponising “safety grounds” to force through mid-season starting concessions, Audi and its political allies have successfully pressured the FIA into bailing out their fundamentally flawed power unit design. Ferrari’s masterful foresight and legal engineering gamble have effectively been diluted to protect the bawdy newcomer, proving that in modern F1, political muscle in the boardroom will always triumph over superior design on the grid.
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.
