The Formula 1 Commission gathered in London for its second high-profile summit of the year. Chaired jointly by F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali and FIA Single-Seater Director Nikolas Tombazis, the governing body and teams hammered out foundational revisions to the Technical and Sporting Regulations.
The immediate outcomes focused on ironclad logistical and physical car adjustments, but the meeting was defined just as much by a massive looming political battle over the sport’s engine architecture.
Testing Expansion & Tightening Technical Loopholes
The headline agreement from the London summit is a vital buffer for teams grappling with the current generation of machinery. For 2027, there will now be four days of pre-season testing, expanding the status quo from three days. This extra track time—expected to take place at the Bahrain International Circuit—gives teams critical telemetry runway to mature their mechanical packages and prevent reliability failures early in the campaign. Of course, the unrest in the region may not be resolved by next February, and F1 would then need to find an alternative venue.
The grid collectively agreed to subtle aerodynamic and bodywork modifications aimed at stabilizing wake management and optimizing airflow. Furthermore, restrictions were tightened around the Testing of Previous Cars (TPC), which teams utilize to train young drivers.
Only cars two years old can be tested to prevent teams from learning how to develop the current generation of machinery they are running—although the previous generation of cars in 2025 are nothing like the new 2026 versions, given the massive engine and aerodynamic overhauls.
Teams are now explicitly barred from scheduling TPC runs at circuits scheduled to host a Grand Prix in the upcoming calendar year. This aggressive loophole-closing measure stops outfits from exploiting “young driver mileage” testing as disguised, data-gathering reconnaissance missions for upcoming race weekends.
The Looming 2027 Engine Dispute
Conspicuous by its absence from the meeting were ongoing discussions over the future of the current power units. In Canada, the FIA announced it had agreed in principle that there would be architectural changes, which would see the combustion engine contribution rise from its current 50% to 60%.
The current 50/50 split has drawn intense criticism across the opening rounds of the championship. Drivers have openly blasted the heavy energy-management profiles, which force them to engage in “super-clipping”—charging the battery on full throttle during high-speed corners rather than pushing flat out. This has created massive, artificial speed differentials during races and ruined the natural, intuitive flow of a qualifying lap.
Transitioning to a 60/40 balance via an increased fuel-flow rate would heavily mitigate super-clipping, but it demands an entirely new engineering compromise. Burning 10% more fuel means expanding the physical real estate of the fuel cell. In an era where engineering teams slice away millimeter-level structural tolerances to maximize floor-tunnel efficiency, changing the fuel tank means you cannot simply expand outward without completely disrupting the sidepod packaging and the critical “coke-bottle” bottleneck at the rear of the chassis.
To circumvent a total structural redesign, a radical alternative under review includes shortening Grand Prix race distances, allowing teams to carry over their base chassis concepts with minimal structural upheaval.
Of course, this would require an increase in fuel-flow rates and a larger fuel cell to be incorporated into the car designs. While Honda has now conceded it is in favor of this arrangement, Ferrari, Cadillac, and Audi are holding out for a variety of reasons.
Audi Digs in Its Heels
Audi is again throwing its weight around, just as it did when the Power Unit Manufacturers’ working party initially settled on the new rules. To compensate for losing 50kW of electrical power, the proposed new Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) has to burn more fuel and work harder. This completely rewrites the combustion chamber pressures, piston stress tolerances, and cooling requirements.
For Audi, changing the rules for 2027 means a massive chunk of their early research and development goes straight into the bin. Building an F1 power unit program from a blank sheet of paper is a monumental task. Established manufacturers like Ferrari and Mercedes have decades of continuous infrastructure, telemetry data, and institutional knowledge. Audi is starting from scratch.
Paddock insiders have consistently noted that Audi’s engine program is working to an incredibly tight timeline to ensure competitive reliability. If the FIA changes the fuel-flow rates and energy deployment curves for 2027, Audi’s engineers cannot simply carry over their 2026 baseline data. They have to pause, recalculate, and redesign components.
For an incumbent like Mercedes, pivoting an engine map or a fuel cell is a known variable. For Audi, it’s a disruption that threatens to leave them stranded at the back of the grid for their first two seasons. Then again, newcomer Red Bull-Ford is in the same position, and yet for the good of the racing product, they believe such changes are necessary.
The Political Battle Over ADUO Data
Also notably absent from the F1 Commission meeting was the FIA’s revelation of the relative power levels each manufacturer’s internal combustion engine is producing. Following the Canadian Grand Prix, they are committed to revealing this data; any manufacturer with a greater deficit than 2% of the leading ICE will be allowed Additional Development & Upgrade Opportunities (ADUO).
Ferrari believes it will qualify for this, estimating that its ICE is at least 2% down on the power being produced by Mercedes. Lead driver Charles Leclerc made it abundantly clear that he believes the Scuderia should qualify.
“I think it’s going to be very difficult [to catch Mercedes],” Leclerc said. “I think they have a very big advantage—and ADUO, I mean, I obviously don’t know yet if we are in. I’ll be surprised if not, because I can see sometimes on the straights that we are lacking a little bit compared to the Mercedes or even the Ford power unit.”
However, senior officials in Maranello are concerned that should the FIA find an agreement for the new 2027 60/40 engine architecture, the ADUO program will be scrapped as a result. For this reason, the FIA has not yet published the data on the relative power differences between the manufacturers’ internal combustion engines, despite it being a relatively simple metric to track.
Of course, Cadillac — a current Ferrari customer — is currently siding with its powertrain supplier. To pass the new 2027 engine regulations, it would take a change of position from at least one of the resisting parties: Audi, Cadillac, or Ferrari.
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.
