Ferrari has said no this time. The Maranello team is leading a group that also includes Audi, Honda and possibly Red Bull Powertrains, while Cadillac is understood to have abstained. Mercedes appears to be the only manufacturer still defending a proposal that would have allowed the Silver Arrows to effectively neutralize the value of the ADUO mechanism available to manufacturers eligible to benefit from it.
This time, Ferrari has chosen a firm and highly strategic stance. The Scuderia did not need to resort to its veto power, which would theoretically allow it to block regulatory changes outright, but the proposal to alter the 2027 power unit balance by shifting to a 60% internal combustion and 40% hybrid split now looks increasingly destined to be revised or shelved altogether. That means Formula 1 is still likely to retain power units with a near-equal balance between combustion and electric power next season, preserving the original philosophy behind the incoming engine regulations.
No final decision has been taken yet, but approving the measure would require a qualified majority among manufacturers and stakeholders involved in the discussions. Ferrari and Honda have now joined Audi, which had opposed the proposal from the outset and had made its concerns clear from the early stages of the debate. It is worth noting that Cadillac, which is present in discussions among engine manufacturers but is not yet producing its own power unit and instead relies on Ferrari technology for the time being, has appropriately chosen to abstain rather than influence a decision that may not directly reflect its own long-term technical position.
At this stage, the feeling is that Mercedes has been left increasingly isolated in supporting the idea, especially amid strong speculation that Red Bull Powertrains may also have changed its position, much like what happened previously in discussions surrounding the compression ratio issue involving the Brixworth-built power unit. If that scenario is confirmed, Mercedes would effectively find itself alone in defending a technical direction that now appears to have lost broader support within the paddock.
So why did Ferrari, which initially appeared open to the proposal, change its position? There are several reasons worth examining in much greater detail. Simply increasing fuel flow would not automatically deliver the intended result of boosting the internal combustion engine by around seventy horsepower, as some had initially suggested. Formula 1 power unit development is far more complex than simply adjusting a single operating parameter and expecting immediate, reliable gains.
Some had raised concerns over fuel tank capacity being sufficient to cover the standard 305-kilometre Grand Prix distance, while others had even floated the idea of shortening race distances altogether as a possible workaround. But beyond those theoretical discussions, the engineering implications are significantly more substantial and potentially disruptive. Not only would the turbocharged V6 need extensive redesign work to ensure reliability over its intended lifecycle, but the transmission itself would also likely require major structural modifications to cope with the increased loads and altered performance characteristics generated by a more combustion-heavy power delivery profile.
It is clear that the available timeframe would not realistically be sufficient to complete all the necessary development work and have fully revised power units ready for the start of the 2027 Formula 1 season. Modern Formula 1 engine projects are planned years in advance, with architecture, packaging, cooling solutions and integration concepts developed around highly specific regulatory assumptions. Changing a fundamental pillar of those regulations at this stage would force manufacturers into a costly and technically disruptive redesign process.
There is also a major financial dimension to consider. It remains difficult to see how manufacturers could stay within ADUO-related development constraints while absorbing modifications that would significantly disrupt long-term technical planning and resource allocation. Reworking an engine concept is not a minor update; it affects multiple departments, from combustion engineering and hybrid systems to gearbox design, packaging, cooling infrastructure and reliability testing. All of this comes with enormous costs, both financial and operational.
It seems increasingly clear that the original intention behind the proposal was to send a message to Formula 1 fans that the technical regulations could still be adjusted without completely disrupting the competitive balance that is only now taking shape. There may also have been concerns that the new generation of engines could produce racing scenarios that were not ideal from an entertainment perspective, particularly if energy deployment limitations created awkward racing dynamics. However, that assumption now appears to have been badly misjudged.
There is also another, more strategic and perhaps more politically sensitive factor at play. Ferrari and Honda, following their latest evaluations during the Canadian Grand Prix weekend, are now expected to wait for the FIA’s final decisions regarding ADUO — Additional Development and Upgrade Opportunities. In theory, Ferrari’s 067/6 power unit could become eligible for an upgrade package that may help reduce the horsepower deficit to Mercedes from the second half of July onward, offering a pathway to improved competitiveness without the need for wholesale regulatory intervention.
This is where the political dimension becomes particularly important. The concern is that if the FIA were to allow all manufacturers to redesign their engines as part of a revised power split regulation, Mercedes would effectively gain the opportunity to reinforce or even extend its current technical advantage, making the intended benefit of ADUO largely meaningless in competitive terms.
ADUO was specifically conceived as a balancing mechanism designed to prevent one manufacturer from establishing an overwhelming and unassailable performance lead under the new regulations. If teams that are already ahead were granted broad redesign freedoms under the guise of regulatory adjustments, that principle would be significantly weakened, if not entirely undermined.
From Ferrari’s perspective, allowing such a scenario would make little strategic sense. If the Maranello team believes that the current engine deficit can be reduced through the mechanisms already built into the regulatory framework, then supporting a broad rules reset that benefits the strongest manufacturer would be counterproductive. Ferrari’s position therefore appears not only technically justified, but also entirely logical from a competitive standpoint.
The stance taken by Honda follows a similar logic. As another manufacturer that could potentially benefit from ADUO provisions depending on FIA evaluations, supporting a rule shift that opens the door for Mercedes to redesign from a position of strength would carry obvious competitive risks. Audi, meanwhile, had opposed the proposal from the beginning, likely due to the immense complexity of preparing for a Formula 1 engine debut under already challenging conditions.
Cadillac’s abstention also deserves context. Although the American manufacturer is part of the conversations, it is not yet operating with an independently developed Formula 1 power unit. Its current reliance on Ferrari technology makes neutrality the most appropriate course of action, avoiding the appearance of influencing a decision while not yet fully exposed to the same engineering realities as the established manufacturers.
At the same time, Ferrari’s decision also sends another important message internally and externally: the Enrico Gualtieri-led power unit project is not viewed in Maranello as fundamentally flawed or conceptually broken. While the current performance gap to Mercedes remains a concern, the belief appears to be that the architecture still contains development potential that can be unlocked over time.
That is a significant distinction. Rejecting the proposed rule changes suggests Ferrari does not see its only solution as rewriting the regulations. Instead, the team appears confident that continued development, supported by ADUO if approved, can deliver meaningful progress.
This does not mean Ferrari expects an immediate transformation. Even with additional development freedoms, the 067/6 power unit is unlikely to suddenly erase the entire gap overnight. Performance gains in Formula 1 typically arrive incrementally, especially under restrictive technical regulations. But reducing the deficit to a more manageable level could significantly alter the competitive picture, particularly when combined with aerodynamic and chassis improvements.
That brings the conversation naturally to the SF-26 itself. Even if Ferrari succeeds in narrowing the engine performance gap, the power unit alone will not define the team’s competitiveness. The rest of the gains will need to come from the continued evolution of the chassis, aerodynamic package, mechanical setup and operational execution across race weekends.
In modern Formula 1, success is never determined by a single component in isolation. Even teams with power advantages can be beaten if rivals optimise other performance areas more effectively, as seen repeatedly in recent seasons involving Charles Leclerc, Lewis Hamilton, Max Verstappen and Lando Norris.
Ferrari’s position, therefore, reflects a broader strategic calculation rather than a simple rejection of change. The team is effectively backing the existing regulatory framework, trusting that the tools already available offer a more balanced and fair route toward competitiveness than a late and disruptive rule overhaul.
For now, the message from Maranello is unmistakably clear: Ferrari does not believe rewriting the 2027 engine formula at this stage is the right answer.
Leave a Reply