Red Bull team principal Christian Horner is trying to “kill” Formula 1’s new engine rules for the 2026 season, according to his Mercedes rival Toto Wolff.
Wolff claimed Horner’s recent calls to change the rules, which were agreed last year, show he is concerned about the competitiveness of the engine his team will use in 2026.F1 has set a target for the power generated by its 2026 engines to be split 50-50 between the conventional engine and the battery.
But Horner claimed F1 cars are at risk of becoming “technical Frankensteins” under the new rules and warned drivers might have to change down gears on the straights on some tracks in order to top up the charge on their batteries.
Wolff rubbished that claim, telling media including RaceFans yesterday: “That’s not going to happen.”
“Do you think that in all reality we are not innovative in this sport to come up with chassis and engine regulations that can avoid drivers shifting down on the straights?” he asked.
While the power unit regulations for 2026 were agreed last year, the chassis rules are still under discussion. F1 is considering drastic changes to the cars’ aerodynamics including the introduction of more moveable devices to reduce the drag generated on the straights.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
However Horner believes a simpler way to address the problem would be to allow greater power generation by the internal combustion engine.
“I think there’s some very positive things about 2026, the sustainable fuel and so on is extremely positive. But I think that perhaps where we need to pay urgent attention before it’s too late is to look at the ratio between combustion power and electrical power.”
Horner sees several potential down sides to the current regulations. He said F1 must “ensure that we’re not creating a technical Frankenstein which will require the chassis to compensate to such a degree with movable aero, and to reduce the drag to such a level that the racing will be affected, that there will be no tow effect, there will be no DRS because effectively you’re running that at all points in time. And that […] the combustion engine doesn’t just become a generator to recharge a battery.”
He believes the problem “could easily be addressed with just tuning the ratio between combustion and electrical power.”
“We still have two and a half years,” Horner continued, “and I think if there is a slight redress it would then create potentially a better platform for the chassis. Because otherwise the chassis regs that are undefined yet and uncommitted, we’re going to be trying to cater for those compromises.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“I think you’ve got to look at the thing holistically from both a technical point of view but the most important thing is: what is Formula 1? And Formula 1 needs to be wheel-to-wheel racing. We can’t afford to lose that challenge [and have] drivers downshifting on straights to regenerate batteries. So I know the FIA are taking it very seriously, and they’re looking at it very closely as the simulations become more advanced.”
Increasing the amount of power generated by the conventional engine to 60% of the total would be sufficient, said Horner.
“We’ve got approximately 50/50 at the moment. It doesn’t need to change that much, but to cater for the circuits maybe even a 5% swing could have a significant effect, even a 10% swing, because obviously one of the biggest weight additions as well is the cell weight. The size of the battery is colossal for these 2026 regs and I think with the work that’s going on with sustainable fuel and then the car has been effectively carbon zero, it’s phenomenal.
“So I think if we just tune that ratio, I think very quickly you could take the dependence away from having the need for active aero and constantly movable diffusers and wings and the complexity that will bring.”
However Wolff said there is no possibility F1 will reopen discussions on the 2026 power units rules. Six manufacturers have already committed to enter the series under them, including Ford which will partner with Red Bull, along with Audi, Honda and the existing competitors.
A revisions of the rules is “not going to happen, zero chance, capital letters,” said Wolff. “I don’t know why these things are coming up.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“We’ve developed those regulations over many years with all the auto manufacturers being involved. It was a compromise that attracted Audi to finally join the sport, for Honda to stay in there. The best possible case that one could imagine for Formula 1.
“Is it challenging? Are our chassis designers saying ‘how are we going to do this?’ Yeah, super.
“But zero [chance]. These regulations are not going to change any more. They’re not going to be postponed any more because the world needs to show innovation around sustainability. We need to reduce emissions and we’re super-excited.”
He accused Horner of being a “doom monger” by claiming drivers might have to down-shift on the straights. Wolff said that would only happen if the current chassis were used with the 2026 power units.
“There is a few tracks with very long straights where we would have massive de-rates in the power unit, but we’re not bolting on today’s chassis which are heavy like a prototype and big like an elephant.
“That’s why we need to reinvent for 2026 season, whether it is some retractable aerodynamic elements or whether the shapes of the cars are going to change in order to meet the more sustainable world, more aerodynamic efficiency. I think that’s great, so spectacular as a regulation.”
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
However Wolff acknowledged F1 will “need to have good chassis regulations because we have a challenging power unit.”
“It will be very efficient and state-of-the-art in terms of architecture, between 50% electric and 50% combustion, that is very important that in Formula 1 we are still at the forefront of innovation. That means we need to build a car and define a car that has to be very aerodynamically efficient in order to compensate simply for the loss of energy. So that is an exciting project to aim for.
“How does the modern Formula 1 car for 2026 look like? How can we make it aerodynamically so efficient and capable that it can compensate for the lack of emissions, for the lack of combustion engine? And that should all excite us because we will come up with new concepts of Formula 1 cars that will be great.”
Red Bull created its own Powertrains division after Honda announced during 2020 it would leave F1 at the end of the following season. Red Bull Powertrains is developing its 2026 engine in conjunction with Ford, while Honda is returning to the series with Aston Martin.
Wolff believes Horner has only proposed changing the engine regulations for 2026 because he is concerned about the state of their development programme.
“I think what frightens him more is maybe that his engine programmes is not coming along and maybe he wants to kill it that way,” he said. “So you always have to question what’s the real motivation to say something like that.”
Bringing the F1 news from the source
RaceFans strives to bring its readers news directly from the key players in Formula 1. We are able to do this thanks in part to the generous backing of our RaceFans Supporters.
By contributing £1 per month or £12 per year (or the equivalent in other currencies) you can help cover the costs involved in producing original journalism: Travelling, writing, creating, hosting, contacting and developing.
We have been proudly supported by our readers for over 10 years. If you enjoy our independent coverage, please consider becoming a RaceFans Supporter today. As a bonus, all our Supporters can also browse the site ad-free. Sign up or find out more via the links below:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
2023 Austrian Grand Prix
- Mercedes left scratching heads by lack of performance at Austrian GP
- Verstappen’s determination to grab every point makes him a record-breaker
- Austrian GP track limits farce was avoidable like ‘IndyGate’ and Spa 2021 – Brown
- Alpine now “definitely beatable” for McLaren after upgrade – Brown
- Paddock Diary: 2023 Austrian Grand Prix
GT Racer (@gt-racer)
2nd July 2023, 13:28
Horner has been the one thats mentioned them publicly but he isn’t the only person within F1 to raise these concerns in private. And there are also people outside of F1 who have seen the current outline of the regulations who have a similar concern.
There is also a concern that the move to active aerodynamics that will essentially allow the wings & maybe other areas of the bodywork to move & reduce drag on the straights is going to make overtaking significantly more difficult as by reducing as much drag is been discussed your massively reducing the effect of the tow & there will be no DRS as it currently works.
x303 (@x303)
2nd July 2023, 14:00
That’s interesting, thank you for your insight @gt-racer.
OOliver
2nd July 2023, 21:29
If the simulation is run with the present cars there might be a problem. There will be new chassis regulations for the 26 era.
Nick T.
3rd July 2023, 0:28
While I am sure Horner’s statements are not at all selfless, this upcoming formula sounds like the opposite of everything 99% of fans want. It sounds like, once again, F1 has allowed attracting new manufacturers in the sport to take precedent over what fans and drivers would like to see.
It also sounds like these cars will be highly automated nightmares. Like many 4th and 5th gen fighters jets, which would fall out of the sky without flight computers making billions of tiny adjustments to interpret what the pilot wants the plane to do and then make dozens of tweaks to make it happen (something beyond the capacity of a human pilot). Thus, the pilot is essentially a secondary system.
Also, much more weight = opposite of what every fan, pundit and driver has said numerous times they want. I’ve never seen a single F1 fan say they’re into FE, but unsurprisingly F1 is step-by-step evolving to that to satisfy marketing relevancy for manufacturers and this uber green image all at the cost of the spectacle. I am a huge environmentalist, but F1, in both the technology it produces and the emissions its whole 20 cars are producing, is about is about 70k places down the list of what is going to help us save the planet.
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
2nd July 2023, 13:54
Mr Horner needs to forget about the ratio of engine power and electric motor power, he needs to worry about Audi making an engine small enough and light enough to fit in less space and use less fuel while producing enough power to ensure Max has the best car on the grid. Red Bull doesn’t want to become a low powered guinea pig for Audi like McLaren did with Honda.
Dusty
2nd July 2023, 15:39
Audi? The Audi Ford Honda RBPT engine is going to be great
Stephen Crowsen (@drycrust)
2nd July 2023, 15:56
Doh! Ha ha, foolish me! Yes, the plan is to fit a Ford engine into the Red Bull.
Todfod (@todfod)
3rd July 2023, 8:36
@drycrust
And then launch Ford vs Ferrari part 2 in theatres.
It will still have Ford winning in the sequel, as Flintstone engines in a Red Bull will beat a peak Ferrari.
SteveR (@stever)
2nd July 2023, 19:56
Pretty sure there’s a minimum engine weight…..
Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
2nd July 2023, 13:58
Everyone should try and kill the 2026 PU regulations because they are a step back technology-wise, and didn’t succeed in attracting the very brand they were intentionally dulled down for – Volkswagen’s Porsche.
x303 (@x303)
2nd July 2023, 14:01
You are rewriting history here: Porsche tried and failed to enter the sport. That’s on them, not the FIA.
Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
2nd July 2023, 14:08
Oh, I’m not blaming anyone but Porsche for not being in Formula 1.
It’s just that without them, the whole idea of dumbing down the current PUs and giving up efficiency in the process has become pointless.
MichaelN
2nd July 2023, 14:06
Porsche did try to get into F1, but they couldn’t find anyone willing to partner with them.
That’s just the marketplace doing its work. Their offer was bad, nobody wanted it.
Proesterchen (@proesterchen)
2nd July 2023, 14:09
And now Honda, Mercedes, RBPT-F, Ferrari, Renault and Audi are stuck with dumbed-down PUs for no reason whatsoever.
MichaelN
2nd July 2023, 14:25
The MGU-H is indeed a clever trick that definitely improved the efficiency of the ICE, but it’s a highly specific piece of equipment that has almost no relevance outside of F1 (or another competitive setting) because the gains are limited and the system very expensive.
The move from mass to energy caps on the ICE in 2026 is a somewhat interesting change, as is moving the electric motor from 120 kW to 350 kW – but it’s indeed nothing too spectacular from a technical point of view. And the big con people have brought up often is that whatever the merits of these rules, they’re so incredibly prescriptive that it’s basically a blueprint.
drmouse (@drmouse)
2nd July 2023, 15:47
The biggest differentiator in F1 for most of the past few decades, aerodynamics, has practically no relevance outside F1. No other land vehicle does it needs anything similar. If we’re going to look at lack of relevance, there are bigger fish to fry…
BasCB (@bascb)
2nd July 2023, 16:45
Really good point with regards to a wider relevance for the world there @drmouse.
MichaelN
2nd July 2023, 17:02
@drmouse That might well be, but F1 wants manufacturers to be involved and manufacturers have traditionally been focused on the engines, and more specifically, on engines that have some marketing angle they can use.
That can be anything from sheer power to hybrid prowess, but whatever the case, they can’t very well market themselves on the back of the MGU-H which is almost non-existent outside of F1, and very few people outside of motorsport even understand.
MichaelN
2nd July 2023, 14:20
Horner claims:
Why? In both 2023 and 2026 the “the difference between the maximum and the minimum state of charge of the ES [Energy Store] may not exceed 4MJ at any time the car is on the track” (Article 5.4.8 of the 2026 rules).
The MGU-K is getting a big upgrade (from 120 kW to 350 kW), so the allowed recharge rate per lap has been increased as well. Also partly to offset the the uncapped MGU-H being scrapped.
Cars aren’t supposed to “run out of battery” because energy deployment is also capped relative to speed; linearly to 340 km/h, and to a flat 150kW above that speed. (Article 5.4.7). And if they do, it means the engine is no good and that’s a Horner problem, not a regulatory problem.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
2nd July 2023, 16:34
MichaelN,
Horner’s recent remarks about the battery size indicate a lack of familiarity with the 2026 Power Unit (PU) rules, which isn’t the case. It seems that he is engaging in his typical lobbying tactics to secure advantages for his team. The sudden interest in this matter might be attributed to his recent realization of Ford’s true capabilities in electrification and battery technology.
osnola
2nd July 2023, 17:22
It’s a pity an interesting discussion gets polarised by Toto’s remarks.
Horner is right, if there is not enough power in the battery you have to recharge during the race.
Or a bigger battery and even heavier cars.
So please no polarised discussion but an open one .
MichaelN
2nd July 2023, 20:37
The ES is the same in 2026 as it is now, at 4 MJ, but they’ll be allowed to charge ES over four times as much from the MGU-K (at 9MJ/lap vs the current 2MJ/lap). That goes hand in hand with the stronger electric motor which will change from 120kW to 350kW.
Any team that can hit that 9MJ recharge limit is fine, anyone who isn’t will have to do less deployment. Especially since there’s no more secondary system to help charge the ES. As @tifoso1989 notes, Horner is probably seeing some concerning numbers from Ford.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
2nd July 2023, 21:00
osnola,
I hope you realize that I’m well known in this forum to be a Fleet admiral of the anti-Mercedes and anti-Toto keyboard armies !
SteveP
2nd July 2023, 15:58
Let’s see,
Who complained about the elimination of the double diffuser, mastered by AN for RBR ??
Who complained about the introduction of hybrid tech that their engine supplier hadn’t mastered?
Who thought ground effect, that their tech head had mastered previously, was a great idea?
Has a certain someone discovered that the Ford expertise in electrical power isn’t quite as good as they hoped?
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
2nd July 2023, 16:26
So all that bragging about Ford capabilities with regard to electrification and battery technology was empty boasting ? RBR may have struck a better financial deal partnering with Ford though Honda probably was a no-brainer ! Time will tell. On another note, just curious to know where is Ferrari from all this ?
SjaakFoo (@sjaakfoo)
2nd July 2023, 17:45
Consider the source of these statements.
x303 (@x303)
2nd July 2023, 20:59
Racefans.net?
Todfod (@todfod)
3rd July 2023, 8:43
Ferrari know that they have no strengths.. LMAO.
They will lose the electrification battle to Mercedes, and the smaller battery (lighter and more aero focused car) to Red Bull. They will just see how the regs pan out, then waste 3 seasons prepping for a championship run, and then work on next year’s car by the mid point of their championship contending season.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
3rd July 2023, 14:45
@todfod
I’m talking about politics. Besides, The technical team, excluding the strategy aspect, should not be underestimated. Ferrari has been giving Mercedes a run for their money ever since the removal of the token system. Ferrari do currently have the most powerful PU.
If Mercedes are so confident in their ability to outperform Ferrari in electrification, then why they have recently recruited two power unit (PU) engineers from Ferrari and have been attracting senior Ferrari technicians since their return to F1 (Aldo Costa, James Allison, Lorenzo Sassi).
Additionally, it’s important to remember that Toto and Mercedes have actively lobbied the FIA to eliminate any tricks Ferrari may have been employing with their PU in the past, such as oil burn and ERS deployment, as soon as Ferrari started posing a threat.
Moreover, Ferrari has been utilizing a unique battery design, featuring a double battery pack, since the beginning of the hybrid era, causing quite a stir, especially in 2018. Furthermore, since 2022, Ferrari has been known to employ a highly compact solid-state battery. The only other manufacturer utilizing a similar technology is Honda, which will be parting ways with RBR starting in 2026.
Todfod (@todfod)
4th July 2023, 15:41
@tifoso1989
I’m talking politics too. Ferrari hasn’t lobbied either ways (for or against anything), because they will either ways get beaten by either Mercedes or Red Bull.
Disagree. The only time Ferrari were competitive against Mercedes was at the start of the new regulations in 2017. They lost their competitiveness by the mid point of the season. The were only competitive in 2018 because they had a cheat engine running in their car.
Man.. I get that you’re tifosi.. but please lets not blame Toto for banning blatant cheats by Ferrari such as oil burning and messing with the electrical systems sensors that fool the FIA. There was a reason why Ferrari had a secret agreement and fine levied behind closed doors with the FIA. It wasn’t because they invented something brilliant.. but instead, it was as blatant an act of cheating, as much as the Red Bull budget cap breach.
The funniest thing is that despite cheating Ferrari couldn’t even mount a title challenge against Mercedes.
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
4th July 2023, 17:54
@todfod
I think you’re confusing some facts and attributing that confusion to me as a Tifoso. I hope you realize that I have been so critical to Ferrari management ever since I joined this forum but that’s not the point. The token system was scrapped by the end of 2016 which confirms what I’ve just said.
Just some facts, the oil burn saga came to light when RBR requested a clarification about it back in 2015. Nico Rosberg’s car was subject to a check by the FIA in the 2015 Canadian GP and fuel samples were taken. The FIA continued napping for almost 2 seasons till 2017 where Mercedes guys noticed that Ferrari’s use of oil burn trickery was far better than they have expected and they probably blew the whistle.
At first, Ferrari were asked to remove a secondary oil tank from the SF70H in Baku that was believed to contain a different type of oil to the primary tank which enabled Ferrari to increase its PU performance by deploying a more aggressive map and reliability at the same time. This decision did have a clear impact on Ferrari PU performance and development plan. That drop in both performance and reliability is what many believe was the reason behind Lorenzo Sassi losing his job as a Head of Powertrains.
Second, Mercedes introduced their final upgraded PU in Spa instead of Monza to continue operating it within the limit of 1.2L of oil per 100km while the rest of the manufacturers who introduced their 3rd PU from Monza have had respect the stricter limit of 0.9L of oil per 100 km.
As for 2018, I think you’re confusing the fuel-flow meter saga with ERS deployment. The fuss caused by Mercedes in 2018 was about Ferrari ERS deployment strategy when the former Ferrari head of powertrains Lorenzo Sassi blew the whistle about Ferrari unique battery pack – that solved the issue of simultaneous energy harvesting and deploying it – and ERS deployment strategy which led the FIA to add additional sensors to make sure that Ferrari were not exceeding the maximum power output from their hybrid system.
The fuel-flow saga was in 2019 not 2018.
The first reason was Jean Todt who badly insisted that Ferrari won’t get away unpunished as part of his personal power struggle with the team that was triggered once Marchionne who was behind sacking him returned as a president to Ferrari in 2014.
The second reason which was reported by almost everyone in the paddock is the inability of the FIA to prove whatever Ferrari were doing with their PU, albeit knowing the end result (major fuel flow) despite the fact that rival teams (RBR and Mercedes) were pointing them in the right direction and PU components were seized for the entire winter back in 2019.
The funniest thing is that Mercedes have returned to being a midfield team once they have no longer they couldn’t manipulate the rules in their favours !
Frasier (@frasier)
2nd July 2023, 21:44
Today’s race had over 1200 cancelled lap times due to track limits and may not be decided before a few races time given the potential for protests over yet to be allocated penalties and their defence.
Why am I bringing this up? Clause 5.4.2 in https://www.fia.com/sites/default/files/fia_2026_formula_1_technical_regulations_pu_-_issue_1_-_2022-08-16.pdf says that the energy flow and power delivery regulations will be policed on each and every lap the cars complete. This may be a simpler task than I envisage, but it seems on the face of it to be a recipe for chaos and protests.
Coventry Climax
3rd July 2023, 9:42
There’s a couple of things that stick out from what Wolff says:
As far as I know, you can’t at all -and certainly not constantly- be on the forefront of innovation if you cast all possible options, parameters and directions of development into fixed regulations beforehand. That’s not innovation, that’s spec.
Remember,
4LegitTitlesSebastianVettel
4th July 2023, 19:31
Emmm this horner tears are freaking delicious. thew 2026 regs are here to stay horner Fix your engine or keep drowning in your tears because you cant build a good engine LOL