Mercedes and Renault warn that agreed engine regulations for 2026 must not be tweaked.

While the teams' social media admins dutifully reposted the images of the proposed look of 2026, eulogising the work of F1 and the FIA, the engineers and drivers were pawing over the accompanying official statement, subsequently admitting their fears that all was not well.

However, it isn't only the teams that are unhappy, for proposed tweaks to the agreed engine regulations have left the manufacturers unhappy also.

In its bid to achieve a 50/50 split between the traditional Internal Combustion Engine (ICE) and electrical energy stored in batteries, a major influence in terms of Audi and Ford entering the sport, new fuel flow limits were to be introduced.

However, as part of the drive to make the new generation of cars faster it has been proposed that the limits be increased in order to increase the output of the ICE.

"If there are some tweaks needed, I'm quite confident the PU manufacturers would help and be collaborative," said the FIA's single-seater director, Nikolas Tombazis in Montreal last week in reaction to criticism of the proposed regulations from the teams and drivers.

However, in the same way that aspects of the chassis and aero regulations appear to have been agreed without agreement from the teams, the engine manufacturers are none too happy about decisions such as this being made when the regulations were essentially set in stone.

"On the power unit side, the ship has sailed," said Toto Wolff. "On the chassis side there are tweaks that are possible that we need to do, but on the engine side the process is far too advanced.

"There are teams that feel they are on the back foot," he added, "and there are other teams that will feel, and OEMs, that they have done a good job. That's the normal kind of wrestling on regulations."

It's fair to say that one of those Wolff referred to as being on the "back foot" is Renault, which, still seeking to catch up after the previous rules overhaul, is looking to turns things around significantly in 2026. However, any tweaks this late in the day would likely set the Frernch manufacturer back again.

"We need to be careful because on the chassis side, almost nothing is done, because there is no regulation," said Bruno Famin. "But on the PU we have two years of work."

However, ever the contrarian, Christian Horner, whose Red Bull Powertrains enters the sport in its own right in 2026, doesn't agree.

"There is always one that doesn't want to change," he said. "But that's down to the FIA. They have all the knowledge and simulations.

"As I say, it is never too late," he insisted. "You have got to look at what is best for F1 at the end of the day and what will produce the best racing. So, trust in the FIA and FOM to make the right calls. Whether that is required or not, they have got all the knowledge to know."

LATEST NEWS

more news >

LATEST IMAGES

galleries >

Click to go to the main galleries section

READERS COMMENTS

1. Posted by Italian Job, 18/06/2024 21:00

"Sorry, typo:
should read "...come up with a more...""

Rating: Neutral (0) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

2. Posted by Italian Job, 18/06/2024 20:59

"Quite some time ago, Keith Duckworth (who? ask the younger readers!) suggested a free fuel formula - x weight of fuel, ANY FUEL, which teams could then burn to the best effect. Diesel being heavier than methanol would possibly give CI based teams an advantage over spark ignition, kerosene would work in turbines.. ..
Has anyone, including the FIA, come up wish a more interesting challenge?
The FIA could also do away with the artificiality of DRS......"

Rating: Positive (1) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

3. Posted by ancient70!, 18/06/2024 9:14

"@kkk and @kenji totally agree. Hybrids have zero relevance for racing cars. I do see that they can have benefits in the consumer environment."

Rating: Positive (1) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

4. Posted by Tyrbiter, 17/06/2024 16:28

"If it doesn't burn proper sucked out of the ground and refined non-sustainable liquid fuel then I'm against it.

Battery, schmattery. And other grumpy exaltations."

Rating: Positive (1) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

5. Posted by Team Hack, 17/06/2024 11:34

"@kkk @kenji
Agreed

What worries me is the fire risk these batteries pose and the extreme difficulty of actually extinguishing them once a fire erupts.

Just look at the Rallycross meeting at Lydden circuit last year where a battery on charge caught fire and went on to destroy Sebastian Loeb's entire team assets i.e. two comp cars and the team transporter.

It does not bear thinking about in a crowded pit lane.
"

Rating: Positive (4) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

6. Posted by Spindoctor, 17/06/2024 11:29

"As a certified grumpy old git I should, at one level, love to return to the days of high-revving ic engines. Unfortunately genies can not be put back in bottles & you can't swim in the same river twice
.
Formula 1's problems are not the type of motive power dictated, nor even the broad sweep of the aerodynamic regs. The problem is that it has a terrible identity crisis:purporting to be the "pinnacle" of motorsport, while simultaneously stifling all or any real innovation with red tape & irrational regulation. A simple solution would be to set broad parameters of size & weight, maybe maximum fuel load, definitely safety requirements & a total budget (to keep beancounters happy). Then let the designers & engineers have their best shot. Some might go V12, others hybrid, others V10 etc. Some might implement active aero, others active suspension.
Whatever comes out of this would surely be the "pinnacle" of motorsport."

Rating: Positive (4) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

7. Posted by kenji, 17/06/2024 0:51

"@KKK your expressed opinion mirrors that of a lot of committed posters/fans. With the proposed intro of 100% sustainable fuels why bother with this electrification nonsense.Hybrids do have a place in the consumer market but not in F1 and I believe that's an acceptable compromise. What we are witnessing is the slow death of what we all signed up to support...the 'by stealth' electrification of F1 which is being introduced with the new regs is evidence of this and it makes for depressing reading. "

Rating: Positive (4) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

8. Posted by KKK, 16/06/2024 14:57

"Both the FIA and FOM already changed things, and it made racing worse. I fear that will do it all over again. Get rid of the battery and have a proper ICE that runs on sustainable fuel. Leave the electric to Formula E"

Rating: Positive (12) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

9. Posted by Spindoctor, 16/06/2024 11:54

"Horner appears mainly to be pot-stirring. He might be better advised to focus on getting the best out of the car & drivers
Seems somewhat absurd to start changing fundamentals at this stage, but it has DTS appeal I suppose.....
"

Rating: Neutral (0) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

10. Posted by Max Noble, 16/06/2024 11:08

"Trust FIA and FOM… Wow… That’s a leap of faith most would not wish to make. This is going to be a classic.
"

Rating: Positive (6) Rate comment: Positive | NegativeReport this comment

Engine manufacturers against 2026 rules revision

LATEST NEWS

RELATED ARTICLES

LATEST IMAGES

POST A COMMENT

Post your comment

READERS COMMENTS

Share this page