F1: the power unit remains a political issue that still needs solving. Formula 1 continues to grow commercially, but the debate over the hybrid power unit remains unresolved..

There is one thing Formula 1 does better than any other motorsport series: making it look like everything is fine. But this also comes with a negative side effect that is becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Stefano Domenicali, the top executive of Formula 1, has recently spoken about record-breaking numbers, packed circuits, and the unstoppable growth of the world championship. And he is right about almost everything, except for the one thing that truly matters: what actually happens on track.

Drivers have been saying it for months, with the necessary diplomatic tone required by their contracts, but with a consistency that leaves little room for interpretation. Qualifying sessions are no longer about pushing to the absolute limit from start to finish. Races have become windows of energy management that are not determined by driver choice or team strategy alone, but by the very architecture of the power unit itself. And when the energy runs out, sporting credibility also disappears. You cannot defend, you cannot attack, and you cannot even feel safe from an operational point of view.

The FIA knows it. Nikolas Tombazis admitted it very clearly yesterday: the electric share is too high. The current generation of single-seaters is aerodynamically efficient – which sounds like a success, and in many ways it is – but it also means they recover less energy under braking than simulation models had predicted. The result is a system that is chronically in deficit, forcing teams into conservative strategies that effectively kill the race before it even begins.

F1 power unit: the 60% target nobody can reach

Inside the F1 paddock, there is a number that keeps circulating with increasing insistence: 60%. This is the share of power that should come from the internal combustion engine to restore a more natural driving experience, less dependent on electronic energy management. Today we are closer to a 55/45 split, already shifted from the original concept thanks to development, but still not enough to create the perceptible difference that is needed.

The most direct technical solution exists: increasing fuel flow, which is currently tightly restricted. More fuel means more thermal power and less reliance on hybrid systems. It is simple to say, but impossible to implement without redesigning the entire architecture of the cars: fuel tanks, cooling systems, and structural components. This is not a matter of months, but of years. And this is where politics comes into play.

Those who are winning do not want to change the rules

Any substantial change to the technical regulations requires a super majority among manufacturers. This rule exists for understandable reasons – no team or engine supplier should be able to rewrite the rules for its own benefit – but in practice it works like a distributed veto system.

Those at the front of the field have no interest in reshuffling the deck. Those behind argue they do not have the technical time or resources to redesign power units before 2027. The result is a perfect paralysis: everyone agrees on the problem, but no one agrees on the solution.

Jan Monchaux, FIA Technical Director, describes this stalemate without embellishment: there have been discussions about reducing the electric component, but no consensus has been reached. And without consensus, the FIA cannot act. The regulations cannot be changed by decree.

Concrete changes? 2028, if everything goes well

The most realistic timeline among insiders pushes any meaningful intervention to 2028. Until then, Formula 1 will continue to race with what many recognise as an imperfect balance, hoping that pressure – from drivers, fans, sponsors, and engagement metrics – becomes strong enough to unlock a discussion that is currently frozen.

The problem is that Formula 1 is extremely good at absorbing pressure. It has turned “continuous improvement” into an identity, a way to respond to criticism without ever fully addressing it. The Miami technical update – the first corrective package of this season – follows exactly this logic: enough to say something has been done, not enough to change anything substantial.

Meanwhile, the drivers manage. The fans watch. And the engine remains a political problem disguised as a technical one.