Formula 1’s controversial 2026 engines will receive significant changes next season to make them “more intuitive” for drivers after widespread criticism of this year’s new formula.

The 2026 rules were designed to create power units with an almost equal split between combustion and electrical output, but drivers have found they aren’t able to recharge the battery enough lap to lap to prevent running out of charge.

This has led to some bizarre driving requirements from the cockpit to get power to the battery, particularly in qualifying, which is the source of most of the driver displeasure this season.

Fox Sports, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every practice, qualifying session and race in the 2026 FIA Formula One World Championship™ LIVE in 4K. New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.

Software tweaks made ahead of last weekend’s Miami Grand Prix smoothed out some of the quirkier demands by reducing the need to lift off the throttle down the straights, but the Florida circuit was also one of the friendlier layouts for the power unit given its big braking zones, muddying the results.

Drivers were restrained in their praise for the changes, noting that progress was ultimately hemmed in by engine hardware, which requires a much longer lead time to change — and the current engine formula is regulated to last until the end of 2030.

But now high-level meetings between the FIA, F1, the teams and the engine manufacturers have agreed to pursue hardware-side changes as soon as 2027 to rescue the sport from another year of dissatisfaction.

“It was agreed in principle to introduce evolutionary changes to the rules regarding hardware components, making competition safer, fairer and more intuitive for drivers and teams,” the FIA said at the end of last week.

“The measures agreed in principle today for 2027 would see a nominal increase in internal combustion engine (ICE) power by [approximately] 50 kilowatts alongside a fuel-flow increase and a nominal reduction of the energy recovery system (ERS) deployment power by [approximately] 50 kilowatts.

“It was agreed that further detailed discussion in technical groups comprising teams and power unit manufacturers is required before the final package is decided.

“The final proposals presented during today’s meeting are the result of a series of consultations over the past few weeks between the FIA and multi-stakeholders with input from F1 drivers.

“The next step is to formally present these regulatory changes, once refined, for a World Motor Sport Council e-vote once the power unit manufacturers voted on the package.”

The FIA said further software-side tweaks would made during 2026 as well.

A couple of 50-kilowatt swings might not sound significant, but they’re bold in the context that they must be achieved within the same engine architecture — that is, without deviating from the turbo-hybrid V6 engines designed to be used until the end of 2030 — and that they could come into effect in only a matter of months.

But with the clock ticking down to 2027, the hard work must begin to get the rule changes over the line.

McLaren are back!? 1-2 sprint triumph | 00:46

THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAIL

It’s important to note that this in-principle decision is not a regulation change but rather a statement of intent. The detail is lacking, and the rules for 2027 at the moment are unchanged.

But it’s positive for those looking for change — in particular Max Verstappen, who is threatening to quit the sport if the rules can’t be rewritten for next season.

This could be the change he’s looking for, assuming the sport can come to some workable compromises.

Let’s cover the basics first.

Currently the 2026 power unit outputs around 400 kilowatts from the internal combustion engine and up to 350 kilowatts from the hybrid motor for a theoretical maximum of 750 kilowatts, or just over 1000 horsepower.

That’s close to an equal split — around 53-47 in favour of petrol power.

The proposal is to change these numbers to around 450 kilowatts from combustion and 300 kilowatts from the battery, rebalancing output to 60-40 in favour of petrol power.

This seemingly small adjustment would represent a significant change.

The battery would deplete more slowly, meaning fewer instances of cars suddenly losing speed down the straights. The greater ratio of combustion power would also mean the loss of electrical power would be less noticeable. Further, more power from the petrol motor could be used to charge the battery — known as superclipping — without as noticeable a decline in performance.

It all sounds great. The only question is how it can be achieved without totally overhauling the power unit — that is, without starting from scratch.

Fernandez bike on fire in France! | 01:03

INCREASING OUTPUT

Consensus seems to have formed around increasing engine fuel flow to instantly boost power relatively uninvasively.

Since 2014 the regulations have limited fuel burn as a means of enforcing efficiency and controlling power.

Under the 2014–25 rules it was 100 kilograms of fuel per hour.

From this year it’s calculated not by mass but by energy density, with the limit set at 3000 megajoules per hour. Mercedes estimated before the season that this in practice would mean around 75 kilograms per hour.

But boosting fuel flow is easier said than done.

With only four internal combustion engines allowed for each driver for the entire season, an F1 motor must be carefully calibrated to be reliable within certain strict parameters. Suddenly boosting power output by 50 kilowatts would be a significant change that would throw out those delicate calculations.

Further, given teams would be able to use fuel over a race distance, increased fuel flow means a larger fuel tank.

But the size of the fuel tank is a key factor in chassis design, and chassis can’t be redesigned during a season given the stringent and costly crash testing regime and the time and resource required to build them.

It’s why these changes can’t be made sooner than 2027.

But even with almost a full season of notice, these changes can’t be made easily.

For one, several teams have already reported that they intended to carry their 2026 chassis into next season given there are — at the moment anyway — no major changes in next year’s technical rules.

By not redesigning a new chassis, teams would be able to redirect significant spending under the cost cap towards performance upgrades.

Some reports suggest as many has half the teams had been planning to use this year’s chassis design next season.

It all sets up some potentially fraught political battles to get the changes over the line.

Australian Grand Prix pushed back | 00:54

PESKY POLITICS

Though in-season engine development is frozen, any manufacturer down on power by 2 per cent or more will be granted spending and development concessions from after the Canadian Grand Prix.

There’s no requirement for a team to use that development time on building a new engine for this season. It could be used in pursuit of more performance for 2027.

What would Mercedes, for example — which won’t be eligible for these concessions given it has the best engine in the sport — think about the prospect of its rivals having all that extra development time and budget ahead of next year’s rule changes?

This is a potentially critical impasse.

Ferrari, for example, expects to receive concessions this year — it said as much just two rounds into the season — and doesn’t seem to believe it’ll be capable of fighting for the title this year without an engine boost.

Further, though, is that the sport appears to have agreed that Honda needs additional help, with new concessions agreed to give the Japanese manufacturer a leg up for this year. Where would that new assistance stand in a political brawl over 2027 developments?

It’s important not to forget that Mercedes feels it has already made concessions to the sport by accepting a clampdown on the engine compression ratio loophole that rival teams allege is giving it a power advantage. The loophole is due to be closed after next weekend’s Canadian Grand Prix.

When it comes to the knock-on effects on fuel tank size and chassis changes, there are several possible political outcomes too.

Affected teams could fight for cost-cap concessions that would allow them to build new chassis effectively for free. That would come with acceptance that those teams that already had accounted for the cost of a new chassis would be free to spend that extra money on performance upgrades.

Alternatively, The Race has reported that the FIA could respond by shortening race distances by around 10 per cent to account for the small tanks. It would be a controversial move, however, with a grand prix distance having long been set at 305 kilometres for every race bar super-slow Monaco.

An intriguing third option would be to apply the fuel-flow change only for qualifying, when drivers are most unhappy with rules, but maintain the current 3000-megajoule-per-hour limit for races. This might be appealing to Formula 1, which wants to retain the Sunday overtaking boost delivered by these rules.

It’s a complex set of scenarios. Having in-principle agreement on changes for the good of the sport is one important hurdle cleared, but the potentially more significant issue of team self-interest is still to be overcome.

Unpacking new F1 rule changes | 04:46

WHAT ELSE COULD CHANGE?

Other less contentious changes have also been discussed in recent weeks that could be folded into 2027 tweaks to increase the odds of success.

One is a boost to the harvesting limit. It was already increased from 250 kilowatts to 350 kilowatts at the Miami Grand Prix, but boosting it again would allow cars to make the most of charging opportunities in the big braking zones or when superclipping.

That in turn would decrease the need for some of those complained-about unusual driving styles.

The increase in the recharge rate could be paired with a bigger battery, with some speculation capacity could be increased to 5 megajoules, up from 4 megajoules.

That would ensure drivers could maximise the power banked in big braking zones, whereas today some charging opportunities are wasted if the battery is already topped up.

Combined with the faster recharge rate and a slower discharge rate — that, is, less electrical power output — it would mean the battery would be much less likely to run out at any point over a lap.

A bigger battery, however, would come at the cost of more weight and more packaging restraints, which could require further chassis changes.

There are some other changes not directly related to the engine that are being weighed up too.

One is to tweak the active aero rules introduced this year.

Currently cars can flick between their normal high-downforce states into straight-line mode — when the front and rear wings open up — only at defined parts of the track, similar to how DRS worked in previous years.

One idea thrown around for the last few weeks has been to allow free use of straight-line mode, which would see it used much more often at most tracks.

Opening the front and rear wings reduces drag. Less drag means less power is required to build speed, which means the battery will last longer.

This is one of the changes that could be made later this year to improve the 2026 spectacle.

For next year the sport is contemplating aero changes that would slash downforce even when the wings are closed.

The FIA recently admitted that cars were already producing more downforce than expected of the first year of the regulations, which means the cars are faster over a lap than expected.

In turn that means cars are at full throttle for a greater percentage of a lap than expected — which means they’re using more power than expected.

If downforce can be slashed, braking zones will increase, boosting charging opportunities, and drivers will be slower to get on the throttle, reducing power demand.

Teams may buy into the general idea, but choosing which areas to target for stricter regulations will be key, as some may feel they’re exploiting certain areas of the car better than others and therefore have an advantage to defend.

If no agreement can be found, the FIA could make changes unilaterally if it can argue they’re necessary on safety grounds — to preserve tyre integrity, for example — but it remains to be seen whether it’s willing to wade into such a quagmire.

All of this is to say that there are no easy answers to F1’s 2026 regulations.

But if the hardest part is admitting you have a problem, F1 can at least say it’s on the path to rehabilitation.