Star Formula 1 designer Adrian Newey believes next year’s rules change could allow one team to dominate the way Mercedes did after 2014.
Newey, who left Red Bull last year to join Aston Martin, says the incoming regulations could allow one engine manufacturer to lock in an advantage in the same way Mercedes did the last time F1 changed the power unit formula.“I think there has to be a big chance that it’s an engine formula at the start,” he told Auto Motor und Sport. “The reality is I can’t remember another time in Formula 1 when both the chassis regulations and the engine regulations have changed simultaneously and where, in this case, the chassis regulations have been very much written to try to compensate for the power unit regulations. So it’s an extra dimension.”
Newey, who was dismayed by how uncompetitive Red Bull’s Renault engines were after the 2014 rules change, expects manufacturers will be alert to the threat posed by the coming change. However he still sees a risk one could gain a significant advantage over their rivals which will keep them ahead for several seasons.
“I think engine manufacturers will have learned to an extent [from] the lack of preparation that the rivals to Mercedes did prior to that change,” he said. “But there has to be a chance that one manufacturer will come out well on top and it will become a power unit-dominated regulation, at least to start with.
“And there’s a chance that if it’s on the combustion engine side of it, that somebody comes up with a dominant combustion engine, that will last through the length of the formula, because the way the regulations are written it’s quite difficult for people who are behind to catch up. If it’s on the electrical side, then there’s much more ability to catch up if you’re behind.”
It is not yet clear how far a competitive chassis might be able to make up for an uncompetitive power unit, said Newey. “Because I’ve been out of Formula 1, really, since the end of April, then I have little detailed knowledge of the new regulations.
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
“Of course, the power unit side of the regulations has been out for some time but in terms of the chassis side of it and the aerodynamics and the vehicle dynamics, then I don’t have much knowledge. So that will be a rapid learning curve when I do start.”
One year ago Newey was embarking on his 19th season at Red Bull, following two consecutive constructors’ championship victories. He said his change in circumstances has come as a surprise.
“If you’d said to me 12 months ago, would I be leaving Red Bull and then now ultimately starting again, I would have said, ‘no, you’re crazy’.
“But, for various reasons, I felt I wouldn’t be true to myself if I stayed at Red Bull. So the first difficult decision was exactly that. Do I stay at Red Bull or not?
“I obviously came to the conclusion that, being honest with myself, I couldn’t. And then having made that decision, it was then what to do next.”
Miss nothing from RaceFans
Get a daily email with all our latest stories - and nothing else. No marketing, no ads. Sign up here:
Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and
Formula 1
- “Luck” needed to win Le Mans because of Balance of Performance – Verstappen
- Norris’s career-best point-scoring streak ended in crash with team mate
- F1: The Movie critics’ verdict tracker: 20 reviews, average score 66%
- After Red Bull’s third Russell protest, could 2025 see a peak in post-race rows?
- Why Alonso was unimpressed with Hamilton at the end of the Canadian GP
Tifoso1989 (@tifoso1989)
27th January 2025, 9:07
I was surprised by Newey’s comments till I read the following line :
“Because I’ve been out of Formula 1, really, since the end of April, then I have little detailed knowledge of the new regulations”
Nevertheless, it wouldn’t take someone with Newey’s IQ and experience 15 minutes read to realize that the main goal of the 2026 PU regulations is to marginalize the ICE which is a clear step in Liberty’s push for their “spec series” agenda.
Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
27th January 2025, 10:43
the main goal of the 2026 PU regulations is to marginalize the ICE
Really? At least 50% of the power will come from the ICE so it won’t be marginalized. It will be a massive factor still. I don’t see any evidence for what you are suggesting. Reduced yes. Marginalized No.
I honestly think Liberty don’t care that much what the technical regulations are, but they do want technical interest and close racing. Not always an easy balance to achieve.
I laugh when I hear the phrase “spec series” used like a dirty word. There are lots of great things about spec series although I agree F1 shouldn’t be one. However F1 contains lots of spec and open source parts many of which affect performance and this is a good thing. It saves money and promotes close racing.
Liberties only “agenda” is to make money.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
27th January 2025, 11:17
Yes agree. Theres then the argument that F1 should be at the forefront of tech, conveniently disregarding all of the tech developments that have been outlawed. Most famously the Williams FW15 which is arguably still the most sophisticated f1 car ever built 30+ years after its tech was banned. The series will always have the fundamentals of chassis and engine design that can differ but even then its somewhat similar to giving some an ikea flat pack and telling them to build what they want.
Cranberry
27th January 2025, 12:01
F1 could certainly be at the forefront of tech.
A big part of me is disappointed that the regulations have not already mandated a sodium battery, or perhaps go completely wild with the regs, and allow for the teams to have double the battery capacity and charge/discharge rate if they use organic batteries.
Regulations could also push for more forged carbon instead of carbon fibre. Certain panels and winglets could be mandated to be from forged carbon, and push the teams to develop the manufacturing processes, environmental impact would not necessaryli be too big in the beginning, but I am sure it would improve with time considerably.
Combustion engine should also have no other limits than Euro-whatever ,and they would achieve road relevance once again in one stroke of a pen.
anon
27th January 2025, 22:09
Cranberry, what would be the point of some of those particular mandates though?
It seems that, whilst some are investigating possible use of sodium ion batteries in the transport sector, the main interest in that technology is battery storage systems to balance energy demands for electrical grids.
As for mandating forged carbon fibre parts – what’s the point of that? The idea is not really that new – it’s simply that somebody has decided to put a trademark on it and give a fancier, if also misleading, name to pressure moulded composite materials.
There are problems with that sort of material, such as unintentional or undesirable asymmetry in the material properties due to the random orientation of the fibres, and you can have problems with dislocations in the fibres causing concentrations of stress that can locally weaken the material. It’s an area where you may have advantages in some areas, such as being able to form certain complex shapes more easily and quickly, but that is traded off against potential downsides in material performance.
To that end, I don’t see what point there is in mandating the use of that particular material for certain components. The chances are that, if a team does see an application where it can be used, it probably is already being used, and where it is not being used, that is probably because more traditional forms of carbon fibre composite materials are the better solution in terms of the required material performance.
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 11:33
Here we go again. So now don’t put in any fuel and see how far you get with that car. Fully charged batteries will not even last you one full lap.
Therefore: ALL the power, 100% of it minus the battery charge at the start, comes from the fuel and nowhere else.
Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
27th January 2025, 11:47
Haha yes of course. You are not telling us anything we don’t already know. Read the post I was responding to. I was merely pointing out the ICE will still be a significant part of the mix and is not being
IF the battery is full, when the driver hits the throttle, up to 50% of the powered delivered to the driving wheels will be electric. How’s that?
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 12:24
Brilliant. I’m not telling something you don’t already know you say.
The word missing from your first paragraph is ‘marginalize’ or equivalent, I assume, as that was the initial source for discussion.
Then consider this:
The hybrid trick is all about optimizing (lowering) the ICE’s power consumption. The most efficient way for an ICE to run is at a constant rpm, and use it as a generator for batteries feeding a full electric drive train.
Every and any time the FiA raises the amount of power to be delivered electrically, that either means bigger batteries or further ‘optimizing’ the ICE. Either way, that’s equivalent to marginalizing the ICE.
Transport is all about getting things from A to B with a minimalised cost and energy usage: efficiency.
Motorracing is allmost all about the exact opposite of that, as there’s the element of getting there in the least amount of time involved.
Mark Z.
27th January 2025, 20:14
Your point is taken, but you are abusing physical definitions somewhat to invoke it, conflating energy with power (energy over time). The OP’s statement that 50 percent of the power comes from the ICE is perfectly fine. 100 percent of the energy comes from the fuel.
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 20:50
No fuel, no energy, no power.
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 11:45
And I cry when I hear people completely ignoring the unique essence of F1 that sparked interest for it with manufacturers and the crowd alike in the first place.
In terms of F1, spec is a dirty word.
You want spec? Go watch ALL the other series out there.
Then guess again as to why F1 became top notch.
Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
27th January 2025, 11:51
Please read my comments carefully and stop misrepresenting them. I said I didn’t want F1 to be a spec series!
Also read Tony Mansell’s comment above as to why F1 is already has many spec elements to it.
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 12:12
This is not about the color of your flag. I’m not to pick a fight with you, and your opinion counts as much as mine. But: Opinions should be based on facts, so I do care about how things are worded and created, which is what people base their opinions on. Therefore:
What’s there to misinterpret you in what I quoted?
You think 50% of the power comes from electricity, I prove you wrong.
You laugh, I cry.
Maybe being more exact in your choice of words would be the answer to ‘misinterpretation’?
You sound very FiA to me, where the fans “don’t undestand what they exactly meant by the rules”, instead of wording them concise, clear and straightforward in the first place.
Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
27th January 2025, 12:04
Yes the technical side is a big draw. You could argue less technical restrictions have made F1 “top notch”, but if that were the whole story, why wasn’t Can Am bigger than F1?
The fact that F1 is the series used to deliver the World Drivers Championship and World Constructors Champions and that prominence is a big part of the reason F1 is “top notch”
Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
27th January 2025, 13:57
Yep I missed out the word “marginalised”.
You didn’t prove me wrong. I made the assumption you understood that I meant 50% of the power could come from electric when the driver put their foot down, which it can in some circumstances. That’s my bad. I should be clearer, but I wasn’t wrong.
You wrongly assumed I meant 50% of all of the power needed for the race and won’t accept my clarification. That’s on you.
Also it is extremely condescending to say my opinion counts as much as yours and then say of course those opinions should be based on fact. As if to say your opinions are more valid than mine because they are based on facts.
Which of my opinions do you take issue with because they are not based on facts?
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 21:32
The one that triggered me is:
That’s why I gave you evidence the ICE actually IS marginalized.
Good or bad? Not the issue here.
Another one is:
‘Good’ is an opinion, not a qualification or quantization, and depends solely on the (interests and gathered knowledge on the topic by the) person using it.
I’m fine with it, but it is not based on facts or evidence.
Spec parts are indeed affecting performance, but in the downward sense. Does it bring closer or better racing then? Well, they reduce cost and ‘improve’ reliablity, but there’s no proven fact(s) that spec cars make for better racing, especially since ‘better’ is yet another one of those words.
Personally, I loved it when they came up with the most outrageous ideas, like six wheels and any such, and that you were never sure if the car in front was going to make it to the chequered flag.
Funny how they artificially try to bring in the uncertainty factor again. But I have yet to see any actual proof that the racing is better now, and quantising all aspects of racing.
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 12:00
Would be interesting to know why he felt he couldn’t stay at Red Bull and be true to himself.
Let me be clear about this, I do not ask for any speculation, I’d like to know where and on what aspects this man feels his boundaries are, while keeping in mind that his salary, now paid for by the Stroll conglomerate, will not be any lower than it was before. So what is the ‘true to himself’ Newey about?
Then there’s him saying he doesn’t know to what extent a clever chassis and aeroynamics might make up for a not so good engine. So that could potentially bring him back to a ‘Renault situation’, which this article states he didn’t ‘enjoy’ too much, with an ever smaller allowance FiA-wise, to develop and improve than back then.
I somehow feel Newey does not say it all here. Which brings me back to my first question.
Biskit Boy (@sean-p-newmanlive-co-uk)
27th January 2025, 12:09
Unless Max, Christian, Helmut or Adrian himself have Racefans accounts and are inclined to answer I think the only answers you get will be speculation. But yes I agree with you it would be fascinating to know.
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 12:33
Well, there’s always a chance he writes about it after he’s retired and there’s nothing at stake for him anymore regarding burning bridges of any kind.
Or, I’d love to have a chat with the guy over a drink or two. Engineer to engineer, human being to human being.
SteveP
27th January 2025, 12:20
If my judgement of AN’s character is correct, then you will probably never get an answer.
Reading between the lines on the combined comments he has made in various media, the issue(s) is/are not technical or monetary and lie in the personal/moral arena. That, you probably deem speculation, but he has said in interviews that he was largely happy with technical stuff, so it then falls into the “other” category.
Alec Glen (@alec-glen)
27th January 2025, 12:31
Go watch/listen to his conversation on High Performance, he was pretty clear and detailed on it there.
https://youtu.be/JvkzUzpWuo4?si=yWhvwh-gjK4P2K1v
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 13:04
Not a fan of using the imperative, but otherwise a very good suggestion, thanks.
My ‘between the lines’ then, although he’s quite clear about it, is he needed a new challenge.
I can respect that.
No speculation needed, great.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
27th January 2025, 15:34
If what happened to Horner emanated from Austria, and a willingness to get rid of him in favor of Porsche. The drama of course just being the public spectacle / headline grabber. Then the first thing you do to undermine someone in a position of leadership is to cut their relationships up in order to isolate them. On top of the smears.
Of course this is pure speculation, but the guys in Austria could have blackmailed Newey, or threatened hims someway. Based off of the timeline, it looks like the ‘operation’ kicked off right after the season ended in 2023, and was attempted to have been settled in the court of public opinion right about the time their car started having ‘issues’ and the FIA prompted with the speculation pertaining to a biasing valve for the brakes.
Thankfully, Horner is still in charge, and willing to run down the boy who cried wolff.
Coventry Climax
27th January 2025, 21:40
I like the man’s own answer (thanks @alec-glen) better: In need of a new challenge.
grat
27th January 2025, 14:09
Like Red Bull in the 2022 spec rules… Mercedes in the 2014 spec rules…. Red Bull in the 2010 era… Ferrari in the 2000’s…
This is news?
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
27th January 2025, 15:50
Humans are not all that good at predicting the future, even someone with Neweys intellect. Saying f1 could be dominated by one team and that would then be locked in isn’t news, its the weather. The key with the current rules is they do have some latitiude to change the rules to improve the show, or else RBR wouldn’t have been neutered after some ‘clarifications’ were made by the FIA. To be honest if the cars slid around more visibly and sounded great it would go a long way to appeasing fans