Before answering this question directly, it’s important to point out that not everyone views the new rules in such a negative way.
There is an acceptance in F1 that qualifying has been significantly negatively affected, in terms of the driving experience of being on the limit.
Efforts have already been made to address that up to a point this year, and larger steps are in the making for next year.
At the same time, most senior figures in F1 – including some of the drivers – agree that there has been a positive effect on the racing, even if some of the increased number of overtakes that have been seen can be argued to be artificial and down to offsets between states of charge.
TV figures over the first three races were up by more than 20% – all three of Australia, China and Japan had significant increases. Miami’s are not available yet.
Now, as for the genesis of the new regulations, the target when talks started five or so years ago was to attract more manufacturers.
At the time, the direction of road-car technology was firmly electric, so it was decided in concert with the manufacturers to increase the amount of electrification.
A nominal 50-50 split between internal combustion and electric was agreed. Fully sustainable, carbon-neutral fuels were added for further environmental credibility.
The MGU-H, a part of the hybrid system that recovered energy from the turbo, was removed. The reasoning being it was complex and expensive – and therefore hard for new manufacturers to compete with existing ones – and not road relevant.
Following the announcement of those rules, first Audi committed to F1. Soon afterwards, Ford and General Motors did the same, and Honda reversed its decision to quit.
Had the rules not changed, F1 now would have a maximum of three manufacturers or possibly only two, Mercedes and Ferrari, if Renault had gone ahead with its withdrawal.
Instead, it has six.
The problems started when the teams started to look at what a near 50-50 energy split with an engine devoid of an MGU-H meant in terms of operating the cars.
Very early on, at least by 2023, there were warnings that the cars would be energy starved.
Energy recovery from the front axle could have solved this, but this was rejected on the basis that it could give Audi an advantage as it had experience in it from world endurance racing.
The result was a series of sticking-plaster solutions – such as active aerodynamics – that only tickled with the fundamental problem.
It’s hard to get a definitive answer as to why someone in authority did not ask everyone to stop, step back for a minute, look at the big picture, and ask whether the 50-50 split was really so important. And whether the sport should change tack. Clearly, that was a failure.
So now the rules have to be amended. And solutions that could have been introduced before 2026 – such as altering the energy split and making it more in favour of the internal combustion engine – are now likely to be introduced for 2027.
Parallel to that, talks are now ongoing on what comes next – from either 2030 or 2031.
The trajectory of road cars has changed. Electrification is still coming, but – it seems – not to the same degree or at the same speed as was thought five or so years ago.
In F1, a reversal away from electrification to some degree is inevitable. But how much remains to be seen.
A naturally aspirated engine – most likely a V8 – with token hybrid is being pushed by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem.
But for various reasons that exact solution may not be acceptable to all stakeholders, nor the panacea its proponents claim. Negotiations are ongoing.
