A Formula 1 car with all-wheel drive or powered by a two-stroke engine. What may sound like science fiction were actually serious proposals for the 2026 regulations. Technological limitations and the interests of individual manufacturers ultimately led to an evolution of the current power units, but the cars debuting next year could have been very different from what the public is used to. Here’s how.
The two-stroke idea
In 2020, Pat Symonds, then Formula 1’s technical director, spoke at a Motorsport Industry Association conference about the ongoing work on new regulations: “We need to start looking at what our future power units will be like. […] I’m very excited that we are working on the idea of a two-stroke engine, which is currently much more efficient, has fewer issues than in the past, and can deliver a great sound.”
In a two-stroke engine, the intake, compression, combustion, expansion, and exhaust phases of the air-fuel mixture are completed in a single engine rotation, unlike the two rotations required in a four-stroke engine. The intake and exhaust fluid frequencies match the engine’s, allowing the process to be managed through ports opened and closed by the pistons themselves, eliminating the need for distribution components such as valves and camshafts.
With the same displacement, a two-stroke engine has the potential to produce greater torque and power. However, over the years, four-stroke technology has prevailed due to better efficiency and lower fuel consumption. Formula 1 was optimistic about closing this gap thanks to advances in materials, which are now more resistant, and virtual CFD simulations. Combined with new direct injection strategies, these developments could have optimized fluid dynamics and maximized cylinder volume usage while completing the entire combustion cycle in one engine rotation instead of two.
Opposed-piston engines
The two-stroke project went even further, embracing the idea of an opposed-piston engine. This design features two pistons per cylinder, facing each other and moving toward and away from one another during operation. This architecture improves energy conversion from combustion into useful work by preventing heat loss through the ceiling of a traditional combustion chamber, which is replaced by the second piston. According to SAE (the Society of Automotive Engineers), at the time, two-stroke opposed-piston engines promised an efficiency of 55%, surpassing the 50% efficiency of current power units.
Listening to Pat Symonds, applying this technology in Formula 1 was more than just a suggestion: “The concept of an opposed-piston engine is making a comeback and is already being used in some road models with an efficiency of around 50%. Direct injection, pressurized charge, and new ignition systems have made modern two-stroke engines highly efficient and compliant with current emissions regulations. I think they have a good future.” However, these words did not lead to further developments.
All-wheel drive
Ultimately, the decision was made to continue with traditional four-stroke technology, focusing instead on revising the hybrid system. The MGU-H, the electric generator coupled with the turbo, was removed for cost reasons and to accommodate new manufacturers—especially Audi and Porsche—who were wary of their technological disadvantage compared to existing competitors. This decision, later confirmed in the final regulations, deprived power units of a valuable source of energy for battery recharging, just as hybrid power was set to increase from 120 to 350 kW.
To compensate, one proposal involved adding another electric generator to recover braking energy, doubling the existing MGU-K. However, this second unit would have been installed on the front axle, similar to modern Formula E cars, and could have been activated during acceleration, effectively creating an all-wheel-drive Formula 1 car. “It’s an option to consider,” commented then-Ferrari Team Principal Mattia Binotto.
However, some existing manufacturers feared that newcomers Porsche and Audi might have an advantage in this area, despite plans to standardize the second motor-generator for all teams. An even greater obstacle was the added weight: the electric motor, drive shafts, additional components, and chassis modifications would have increased the car’s weight by at least 30 kg. As a result, the decision was made to proceed with a single, more powerful MGU-K while developing a more efficient car body and using active aerodynamics to reduce drag and fuel consumption, compensating for the removal of the MGU-H.
The transverse engine
Another proposal for 2026 involved further downsizing the internal combustion engine. The new cars would have adopted compact four-cylinder engines, allowing them to be mounted transversely rather than longitudinally. This setup would have shortened the wheelbase by 40 cm, leading to significant weight savings. However, the decision was ultimately made to evolve the existing V6 engines, both to capitalize on development since 2014 and for better engine sound.
The final version of the regulations still faces skepticism from a large portion of fans, but one wonders what the reaction would have been if Formula 1 had fully pursued any of the alternative ideas on the table.
Leave a Reply