FIA resists pressure to scrap 2026 F1 rules amid engine debate

FIA insists on 2026 regulation stability as Formula 1 manufacturers clash over engine formula and future direction.

Lewis Hamilton of Great Britain (44) Scuderia Ferrari SF-25 leads Yuki Tsunoda of Japan (22) Oracle Red Bull Racing RB21 and Jack Doohan of Australia (7) Alpine F1 A525 Renault during the F1 Grand Prix of Bahrain at Bahrain International Circuit on April 13, 2025, in Bahrain. Photo by Clive Rose/Getty Images

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

While the Formula 1 grid was focused on racing in Bahrain, key stakeholders were engaged in a separate high-stakes meeting that could shape the long-term trajectory of the sport. The center of the discussion: the FIA 2026 F1 rules and what lies beyond them. Despite increasing debate over future engine concepts—including nostalgic calls for a return to V10s or V8s with sustainable fuels—the FIA remains committed to its electrified engine formula, and crucially, to not abandoning the upcoming 2026 regulations.

Manufacturers oppose scrapping 2026 rules

The latest developments follow a media session in China, where FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis raised two fundamental questions about the sport's technical direction: What should F1’s engine architecture look like in the future, and what should be done until that new direction is implemented?

These questions sparked an intense behind-the-scenes discussion, culminating in a Bahrain meeting between the FIA and manufacturers. While some had speculated that the FIA might consider abandoning the 2026 rules before they are implemented, it quickly became apparent that this was off the table.

Three manufacturers—Audi, Honda, and Mercedes—immediately opposed any such move. Their message was clear: the FIA 2026 F1 rules are the framework under which these companies invested in the sport. Audi’s commitment is closely tied to hybrid technology, and Honda returned to F1 specifically due to the new sustainability agenda. Mercedes, under the leadership of CEO Ola Källenius and team principal Toto Wolff, echoed the stance that last-minute changes would erode trust.

Wolff has long emphasized the importance of F1 being “a reliable partner,” and his virtual participation in the Bahrain meeting reaffirmed Mercedes’ view that any changes must stem from consensus, not reactive politics. As Tombazis later clarified, the FIA will only move forward with modifications that are grounded in broad agreement.

Electrification remains part of F1’s future

The FIA reiterated its commitment to electrification as a core component of Formula 1’s future. A complete shift away from hybrid technology—such as replacing the current engines with V10s or V8s equipped only with KERS—is viewed as regressive by several manufacturers. The debate, however, is far from straightforward.

Some teams and fans continue to push for louder, naturally aspirated engines that recall the sport’s iconic past. Drivers like Esteban Ocon have voiced disappointment with the current turbo-hybrid engine sound, lamenting the lack of visceral audio that defined earlier eras of F1.

Yet, not everyone agrees on how best to strike a balance between sound, performance, and sustainability. Audi, for instance, prefers turbo engines due to their relevance to road car development. Others, however, worry that such engines mute the spectacle and compromise fan engagement.

F1 faces political battle over 2026 concerns

Amid this technological tug-of-war, there’s also unease about what the 2026 regulations will deliver in practice. Some drivers, including Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz, have expressed skepticism about the racing product those rules may generate. Sainz admitted that he would support a return to V10s not out of nostalgia but because he’s unimpressed with the projected performance characteristics of the 2026 cars.

That sentiment is echoed across the paddock. While no one is officially campaigning to reverse the 2026 rules, concern is spreading. McLaren team principal Andrea Stella cautioned against fueling public negativity before the regulations are even introduced, urging teams to work collaboratively rather than prematurely discredit a potentially successful platform.

Stella emphasized the importance of unity and responsibility among F1 stakeholders, warning that speculation about alternative engines could undermine the sport’s credibility with fans. “We are here to protect the interests of the sport,” he said. “Let’s all work toward delivering a good product in 2026.”

Competition fairness and fears of domination

Underlying the pushback against the 2026 F1 rules is a deeper anxiety: that one manufacturer may develop an overwhelmingly superior engine, distorting competition. To address this, the FIA and the F1 Commission have introduced mechanisms that offer underperforming teams increased development allowances—not through the outdated token system, but via extended test bench time and flexibility within the engine budget cap.

Still, this does little to resolve the more controversial concern: whether the current ratio between internal combustion and electric power is appropriate. Red Bull has reignited the debate by urging the FIA to reconsider the energy deployment strategy during races. The concern is that the current setup could lead to excessive lifting and coasting, which would harm the racing spectacle.

Red Bull team principal Christian Horner noted that the team raised this issue as far back as two years ago. “It’s not something that we’ve pushed to be on the agenda this week at all,” Horner explained. “But if the FIA’s own research shows the need for a change, and it’s in the interest of the sport, we support that.”

Mercedes and Red Bull clash again

Mercedes, unsurprisingly, sees things differently. Toto Wolff dismissed the renewed debate as political maneuvering, likening it to reading satire. “Reading the F1 Commission agenda is as hilarious as reading American political comments on Twitter,” he quipped.

The ongoing back-and-forth between Horner and Wolff highlights the entrenched positions teams have adopted. Horner argues that with 10 months still remaining before the 2026 season begins, there’s time to make key adjustments. Wolff, however, insists it is too late.

This tension underscores the core of the dispute: how to align what is “in the interest of the sport” with what individual teams perceive as competitive advantages. Any change to electric deployment—such as reducing the current 350kW limit to a lower figure, even 200kW in extreme scenarios—could shift the balance of power. Teams like Mercedes, who feel prepared for 2026, oppose such changes, while others may benefit.

FIA must navigate complex path forward

Ultimately, the FIA’s position is that hardware changes are off the table, and the focus is now on managing energy use during races to avoid anti-climactic driving. Tombazis emphasized that any action must balance sustainability, road relevance, weight and safety, performance, and fan appeal.

If there’s one point on which all sides agree, it’s that the sport cannot afford to alienate fans or manufacturers. Whether through retaining some form of hybridization, preserving engine sound, or offering more equal opportunities for success, the next era of Formula 1 must serve multiple masters.

The debate over the FIA 2026 F1 rules will likely intensify as teams finalize their engine designs. For now, the rules remain intact, electrification is here to stay, and the paddock is left wrestling with the question that defines F1 politics: is anyone truly willing to compromise short-term gain for the long-term health of the sport?