FIA Single-Seater Director Nikolas Tombazis has explained why Formula 1’s governing body did not revise the controversial 2026 power unit concept before it reached the track, despite being aware of several potential problems years in advance. According to the Greek official, agreements established with Formula One Management and the engine manufacturers severely limited the FIA’s ability to make substantial unilateral changes.
The debate surrounding the 2026 Formula 1 cars did not begin with their competitive debut. Concerns over energy management, the increasingly decisive role of electrical power and the influence of control algorithms had accompanied the regulations throughout their development. Drivers raised doubts well before the new cars appeared, while Christian Horner publicly campaigned against the planned 50-50 balance between electrical and combustion power.
The former Red Bull team principal ultimately lost that regulatory battle to the group led by Toto Wolff, which supported the greater electrical contribution. The original philosophy consequently formed the foundation of the major technical revolution introduced for the 2026 Formula 1 season.
Despite the warnings, the regulations remained broadly unchanged until their introduction. That delay was not simply caused by a lack of political will or an unwillingness to acknowledge the emerging concerns. Nikolas Tombazis has now outlined the regulatory, industrial and contractual restrictions that reduced the FIA’s room for manoeuvre.
FIA knew about the problems before the 2026 cars raced
The complaints expressed during 2026 by Max Verstappen, Oscar Piastri, Fernando Alonso, Lewis Hamilton and several other drivers did not come as a surprise to the FIA. Nikolas Tombazis acknowledged that many of the same observations had already emerged while the regulations were still being developed.
Simulations carried out in previous years indicated that the unusually high electrical contribution could create driving and racing situations that felt unnatural. The FIA had already identified the risk of super clipping, the need for drivers to manage their available energy almost continuously and the growing influence of software on the behaviour of the car.
Super clipping became one of the most visible consequences after the regulations were introduced. The phenomenon can cause a significant reduction in straight-line performance when the electrical system changes from delivering energy to recovering it, leaving the combustion engine to carry more of the load. The effect and its consequences were examined in greater detail in the explanation of why F1 cars can lose speed so dramatically on the straights.
The FIA also understood that the control systems required to optimise such a complex energy balance could reduce the driver’s influence over certain aspects of performance. Instead of relying entirely on instinctive throttle application and conventional corner preparation, drivers sometimes had to adapt their technique to the demands of the electrical deployment model.
Those concerns have continued throughout the season, particularly as teams have refined the algorithms governing recovery and deployment. The wider effect of this trend has raised questions about how software-led energy management is influencing driver control in 2026.
Why F1’s 2026 power unit rules were not changed earlier
Because the FIA already knew about many of these potential weaknesses, it considered possible modifications before the regulations entered into force. However, those attempts did not lead to concrete changes.
Nikolas Tombazis explained that it would have been preferable to introduce earlier some of the corrections that have now been approved for 2027 and 2028. The balance of power will be shifted progressively towards a 60-40 division in favour of the internal combustion engine, moving away from the equal split that defined the original regulations.
Introducing that rebalancing before the start of the 2026 season would probably have prevented many of the arguments that developed once the cars began racing. It could have reduced the severity of energy-management problems and made the power units less dependent on highly specific deployment strategies.
Instead, the technical philosophy remained almost untouched. The reason lay in the decision-making structure created around the new generation of engines rather than in the FIA’s technical assessment alone.
Manufacturer agreement restricted the FIA’s authority
In 2022, a specific agreement was signed between the FIA, Formula One Management and the power unit manufacturers. Its purpose was to guarantee equal and stable rules for all participants, particularly ahead of the arrival of new manufacturers such as Audi and the introduction of a dedicated power unit cost cap.
Long-term regulatory stability was essential because manufacturers were being asked to commit substantial financial, technological and personnel resources to entirely new programmes. New entrants needed confidence that the fundamental rules would not change after their investment decisions had been made.
However, that agreement also created a significant restriction. The FIA could no longer freely alter fundamental elements of the technical regulations without securing a broad majority among the power unit manufacturers.
In practical terms, a major intervention required the support of at least four manufacturers. During the years preceding the debut of the new power units, that level of agreement was never achieved. The FIA could analyse the concerns, discuss alternatives and propose corrections, but it could not simply impose a different technical philosophy.
The situation illustrates why the Formula 1 power unit remained a major political issue as well as an engineering challenge. Every manufacturer approached the regulations with different commercial priorities, technical strengths and long-term objectives.
Electrification was central to manufacturer investment
The industrial environment of the period also shaped the debate. The automotive sector was moving rapidly towards electrification, and Formula 1 manufacturers believed the championship needed to place much greater emphasis on electrical power than it had during the previous regulatory cycle.
That direction was not merely a sporting preference. A stronger electrical component was one of the main reasons several manufacturers were willing to invest in Formula 1. The new regulations offered a platform that was perceived as more relevant to the technological and marketing priorities of the road-car industry.
Reducing the electrical contribution before the engines had even raced would therefore have challenged the central compromise upon which the entire regulatory cycle had been constructed. It could also have weakened the business case used by manufacturers to justify their programmes.
Nikolas Tombazis acknowledged that the FIA was already aware of possible shortcomings in 2022, when the initial simulations revealed the limitations of the concept. By that stage, however, the manufacturers had committed enormous financial and technological resources to developing the new turbo-hybrid power units.
Those engines were being designed without the MGU-H, the motor-generator connected to the turbocharger that had played an important role in the previous generation. Removing it placed greater responsibility on the MGU-K, battery and control systems, but reversing the decision would have compromised years of preparation and altered commitments already made by every party involved.
Why the corrective changes had to wait until 2027 and 2028
The 2026 regulations consequently reached their debut in an almost unchanged form, even though several potential difficulties had been identified long before the first race. Corrective measures had to be postponed until later seasons, when the required political and manufacturer support could finally be secured.
The approved 2027 and 2028 power unit changes will progressively reduce the peak electrical contribution, increase combustion-engine power and expand the usable battery energy window. These measures are intended to create a more sustainable balance between energy recovery, storage and deployment.
The FIA has already introduced more immediate refinements during 2026 in an attempt to improve racing quality and reduce extreme differences in energy deployment. However, changing the fundamental architecture and power balance required a much longer process, as detailed in the wider assessment of the FIA’s efforts to correct the 2026 regulations.
The governing body now accepts that the timing was not ideal. Nevertheless, within the governance structure established with the manufacturers, delaying the main corrections was effectively the only viable route.
The episode demonstrates how Formula 1’s rule-makers can find their hands tied by overlapping agreements and competing political requirements. Every participant seeks regulatory stability while also protecting its individual investment, but the resulting vetoes can make rapid intervention almost impossible.
It is a familiar paradox for Formula 1. The fastest sport in the world can move at remarkable speed on the track, yet its regulatory reaction times are often slowed by the complex political structure operating behind the scenes.
Leave a Reply