Welcome to Saturday’s edition of the RaceFans round-up.
Comment of the day
Dino Beganovic is the right choice for Ferrari to get a run in practice, says @Maisch:
I’m really glad for him, considering how fast he was up to speed when he jumped into an F2 car last year I think he might adapt fast to this one too. @Maisch
Pat Symonds: 'I think there's a lot of wishful thinking. With so much invested in the 2026 engine it would be negligent to throw that investment away - particularly for the new people like Cadillac, Audi, Red Bull Powertrains who have had to start from scratch and produce an engine which needs a reasonable life to pay that back.'
'During an investigation into the fire involving the number 83 (Robert Shwartzman) in Friday’s practice at The Thermal Club, IndyCar determined the required and approved emergency pull cable, which activates the onboard fire suppression system, was not used as supplied and was replaced by the team with an unapproved product that failed to activate.'
'Dixon’s number nine Honda set the pace with a 1'09.966 lap across his 90 tours of the circuit. Team mate and championship leader Alex Palou was second in the number 10 Honda (1'10.129) ahead of Juncos Hollinger Racing’s Conor Daly in the number 76 Chevy (1'10.180) and teammate Kyffin Simpson in the number eight Honda (1'10.222).'
'Richard Verschoor set the fastest time of the final day of in-season testing for MP Motorsport, recording a 1'43.273 for the top time ahead of AIX Racing’s Joshua Duerksen'
'The Brazilian driver was in strong form to start the day, completing a 1'48.252 in the opening segment. He continued to show that pace in the afternoon, setting a 1'48.673 in the final moments of the session to sweep the day.'
'The Sports Authority of Thailand (SAT) has signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) with F1, following a visit by its CEO Stefano Domenicali to discuss the project with Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra last week.'
Red Bull uniquely has a junior team on the grid so it’s doubly confusing they are in such a mess with drivers. And their only driver they desperately need appears to be casting around for the future. Liam Lawson’s reputation is temporarily trashed and he has nothing to lose now.…
I don’t see why it has to be one thing or another for the engine regulations. It used to be much broader in the past. For example, there was a turbo and non-turbo spec at one stage; V8s, V10s and V12s raced alongside each other, too.
For 2028 they can allow the hybrid engines alongside non-hybrids. This would allow innovative independent teams to compete with a lower budget cap, but with perhaps a theoretically lower limit on engine power.
Of course, by then Lando will be a three-time world champion and Christian Horner may have finished reading Adrian Newey’s book on how to design a car!
On the Red Bull business, I like Fred Vasseur’s comments. Since I haven’t seen them quoted in many places, here they are:
“We don’t know what’s going on there and what made them take that decision. There could be billions of reasons for that, known only to the team and the individual driver. And sometimes even the driver doesn’t know them.”
“So I would rather not comment, I probably feel that it is too harsh to make such decisions after only two races. But at the same time, we do not have even 10 percent of the information, so it is better not to try to judge anyone.”
Isn’t rushing to judgement without the full facts one of those things that’s allegedly discouraged in the modern world? Granted, that’s rushing to judgement about a situation that appears to be a hasty judgement. I hope to see Liam racing for Red Bull again. Not that I’m expecting it, but I’ll wait to see what happens.
Probably the only way to have different engines is like in Hypercar, where certain performance metrics are capped and things of interest to endurance racing are the differentiators. It doesn’t really work in F1, with relatively short races, no refueling. The reliance of customer teams on manufacturers further complicates this. A mix of hybrids and non-hybrids doesn’t work in this scenario either. It could be interesting with refueling, but as we saw in LMP1, the rules would likely be such that the manufacturers and their hybrids would get big advantages.
Anyway, Symonds is wrong again. The point of the discussion the FIA started is to look beyond 2026, to start a long process that involves getting new and existing participants to buy in to the concept, adjust it, market it, find suitable partners, explore marketing potential, all that jazz. It doesn’t happen in three or so years.
MichaelN, what Symonds is referring to is the fact that some of those advocating for the V10 engine have talked about scrapping the 2026 engines and extending the current engine regulations to 2028. Whilst you might say that “it doesn’t happen in three or so years”, Tombazis has explicitly made references to 2028 or 2029, as well as talking about the prospect of scrapping the proposed 2026 regulations and extending the current regulations until 2028 or 2029.
That said, quite a few seem to think that the talk about V10’s is nothing more than a deliberate distraction and about the internal politics of the sport. Many think Sulayem doesn’t actually believe it’s a realistic proposal, but knew that it was an easy piece of populist politics that would make people criticising the FIA talk about something else instead.
We can see that the amount of criticism about the FIA and Sulayem has dropped off noticeably on this website and on other sites, suggesting that diverting attention towards the prospect of V10 engines has been rather effective on that front.
Additionally, there are some suspicions that Red Bull would prefer the 2026 regulations to be scrapped and has also been stirring up talk of V10 engines. Whilst it seems that the Red Bull-Ford engine project is making OK progress, there is talk that they think they’re behind some of their rivals and are worried that they would lose competitiveness (and, perhaps more pertinently, could lose Verstappen if they are uncompetitive).
The suspicion is they want the 2026 rules scrapped and the current rules extended because they think that will wipe out any advantage any of their rivals might otherwise have under those new rules. The actual engines that might be used in the future are irrelevant – it’s about serving the argument that “well, since that’s only a few years away, won’t it be much easier to simply extend the current rules until then and scrap the 2026 rules?” to try and disadvantage their rivals and extend any advantages they might have for as long as possible.
Tombazis has explicitly made references to 2028 or 2029, as well as talking about the prospect of scrapping the proposed 2026 regulations and extending the current regulations until 2028 or 2029.
The 2030 Net Zero Carbon date is important for F1, but the rest seems just them giving off vague numbers. There are no serious plan at the moment, and Tombazi’s tone, in as much as it can be gleaned from written words, seemed quite ‘yeah it’s an option if the manufacturers want it’. He even said so directly as a reminder that the FIA can’t decide these things on their own.
I suppose we’re also seeing some politics related to the governance part of the Concorde Agreement at play here. Whatever the technological merits of the current engines, they’re insanely expensive and no doubt some manufacturers, as well as potential manufacturers, have voiced concerns about this. F1 will also have noticed Hypercar get flooded with manufacturer entries, whereas they’ve had to move heaven and earth to get just one (VW) and a somewhat vague commitment from another (GM).
Additionally, there are some suspicions that Red Bull would prefer the 2026 regulations to be scrapped and has also been stirring up talk of V10 engines.
We’ve been hearing talk about Red Bull having second thoughts for a while, even long before these engines were even being tested, and it mostly seems to be based on ‘Red Bull has never done this so it’ll be bad’ thinking. I suspect that’s both underestimating Red Bull, who have set up a very serious department to build these engines, and sort of missing the point about the 2026 engines which aren’t actually all that new nor do they allow for much differences between manufacturers.
There have been different engines on the grid at least as recently as the 90s (and before refuelling was reintroduced in 1994). I think v10s were eventually written into the rules, but not before everyone started using them anyway because they were better than the V8s and V12s. Schumacher had won in a V8 in 1994 against the mighty Renault V10, which had a power advantage. Ferrari switched from V12s for 1996 (when Schumacher joined the team). At the beginning of the turbo era, having a turbo was optional, and there was a different spec for turbo and naturally-aspirated engines. Williams didn’t use a turbo in years Renault, Brabham and Ferrari did. I think it was eventually written into the rules that a turbo was required, but not before several years of competition between the different types of engine. In the early years, the turbos would qualify ahead of the others, run away with the race, but often fail before the end (especially the Renaults).
If there were to be at least V10s and V6 hybrids on the grid, the already restrictive rules for 2026 would have to be considered when adding the cheaper category. It would be important to keep the faith with the large manufacturers while allowing independent teams in, so the 2026 rules would not change (although when they become active could be delayed). For naturally-aspirated engines there would be a lower budget cap, lower minimum weight and lower power for the engines. When all things are considered, the original, more expensive turbo hybrid rules for 2026 would have a slight advantage in terms of power-to-weight, so those in the “cheap” teams would have to make up the difference using aerodynamics. Of course, the non-hybrid cars would use more fuel. It would be desirable to have teams compete on fuel efficiency no matter the category. Perhaps no weight limit, with only a minimum safety standard might work here?
I liked it when the rules allowed engineers to solve problems. The regulations have been very restrictive lately. It’s a bit like how the car industry was told by governments what technology they had to use to decarbonise. Perhaps the same thing would happen if they steadily tightened the emissions allowed, but I still say let the engineers work it out.
All of that said, yes, they may well be looking further into the future and there’s no harm in looking at what we can do. Things may change in the world, but the electric switch seems to have been a disaster for Europe, in particular. It is surrendering its car industry to China at a time of increasing tension due to the naked imperialism of the communist party. Russia has the potential to dominate on energy if pressure is relaxed. Ceding any industrial or energy advantages we have is tantamount to surrender. I don’t think F1 is thinking this way, but these are the forces that I think are already influencing industrial (and military) policy. Manufacturers may soon forget about electrification and look for other options. We don’t have the minerals (in many ways).
An Sionnach – I agree that FIA should allow for more than one powertrain concept at once as used to be the case in the distant past.
Red Bull isn’t known to give second chances in their main team to demoted drivers, albeit Liam’s case is different because he only competed in two GPs, not to mention Yuki is only a stop-gap choice on borrowed time until the season’s end, so Liam could very well be back at Red Bull Racing from next season onwards.
MichaelN – The initial point of discussion or wishful thinking has specifically been about next season, though, with 2028 speculated alongside.
Both Domenicali and Ben Sulayem didn’t put a date on it when they said, respectively, “maybe we don’t need anymore to be so complicated or so expensive in terms of engine development” and “We should consider a range of directions including the roaring sound of the V10 running on sustainable fuel. Whichever direction is chosen, we must support the teams and manufacturers in ensuring cost control on R&D expenditure.”
A change in 2026 is never going to happen. And 2028 is extremely unlikely unless something massive upsets current plans. The only date that matters somewhat is 2030, as it is the target for carbon neutral F1. Other than that, there’s plenty of time to discuss the new engine regulations.
I’m not sure when Formula E loses its exclusive deal for an FIA electric world championship, 2040 or something, but either way, it’s not a technologically feasible road for F1.
MichaelN Nothing indeed can be done for the next season anymore & a change for 2028 would mean only two seasons for the upcoming V6 concept with a 50-50 ICE/electric power ratio, so the upcoming technical regulations will definitely remain in place until at least the 2020s-end.
I don’t know what the team dynamics of this might be. I’d just like to see more attitude for actual engineering in F1. That’s why I think this cannot be an option unless it can be done without disadvantaging those who have gotten the new rules right. The non-hybrids would be underpowered, but the new teams would know this going in and could budget for a handful of points per year. Same with Red Bull, if that’s what they want to do! Their problems now seem to be everywhere but the drivers (and I say this deliberately, as I rate them all) and the race team. They have not demonstrated that they can get the aerodynamics right, so they would struggle to compete without finding the next Adrian Newey. That may need to be a team with a deep understanding of what they are doing using advanced R&D methods in future, perhaps? Is that what McLaren is doing with the intricate detail of its body shape in places?
Yeah, I agree on the motor formula needing to be widened up, but at the same time, with the influence that some have these days, and with all the lobbying going on, I doubt it will happen.
Take into account, that the minimal weight rule must then be altered too, and probably a couple of other things.
Even if they do it, there will likely be some sort of ‘Balance of Power’ introduced, that miraclulously favors the big manufacturers over the small ones.
Sometimes, when something has slid down a slope too far, it’s better to just leave it there and just start something new.
I’d welcome that, but without FiA and Liberty interference, please.
Pat Symonds is right that next season comes too soon for any changes due to all the investment, effort, & time spent on the upcoming technical regulations, so neither will a V10 (or V8) type with synthetic fuel arrive nor will the current V6 concept remain for longer use in any case, especially as the likes of Audi & RBPT don’t even have existing current concept units to use for the interim period.
All in all, everything considered, all these sudden talks about late changes for next season have been wishful thinking from the get-go, with the 2028 season the earliest viable for any alterations, in any case, should the upcoming V6 concept be used for a shorter period than planned.
Ironically, V10 with synthetic fuel was an option initially until the planned changes got set in stone, so simply a missed opportunity due to being excessively hell-bent on hybrids.
I’m positive a Thailand GP will become a reality eventually & 2028 seems a reasonably achievable timeline target.
You’ve given me what might be a fairer idea for a rule change. I don’t like them when something has been agreed and I think two years seems like too little time. You could continue the new rules into 2028 and beyond, but open it up to other technologies. That won’t help Red Bull retain Max, of course, but I want the rules to be fair and the time and effort teams have already spent on the new rules must be respected. I’d see a non-hybrid category as more a way to allow both big companies and small independent teams to compete in F1. Ultimate performance may come with the big budget, but it would also allow for brilliant new ideas to compete with fewer dollars. I’m not just interested in racing, I want to see the engineers not have their hands tied behind their backs. It’s not quite that, but I think nobody but McLaren seems to have a clue what to do at present. Well done to them, but I think there are genuinely few options to optimise these cars when you’re not allowed do any of the things that make the most sense for ground effect cars (active suspension, skirts, fans and so on). It’s as if the challenge is how to build the best non-ground effect car that uses ground effect!
What happened with the test that Romain Grosjean was about to perform with a Mercedes? He was going to do it at Paul Ricard in 2022, I think, but a reschedule forced a postponement. I know no more.
@diezcilindros it has not yet taken place, but from what Grosjean said last year, that has mainly been due to him being too busy in IndyCar (up until the end of 2024), and also the recent move to join Lamborghini to race the SC63.
@diezcilindros To be honest, I’d partly forgotten about that on occasions, including until I saw your post, but at the current rate, that test run will either never occur in the end or it’ll happen in the 2030s at the earliest.
To the V10 topic, I’m sure many of us follows WEC too and had the pleasure to experience the mighty roar of this V12, even through a speaker, now imagine 20 of this on track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvdCHq2i4AI
To the Lawson/Tsunoda topic, I think Red Bull’s headache is not really having a solid second driver alongside Verstappen, but rather having a solid allround driver in case Verstappen decides not to see out his contract and move elsewhere as early as in 2026. If either Tsunoda or Lawson could fill those shoes, it’s a questionmark, but the evaluation has to happen at some point.
Honda has said they’d back Tsunoda to move to Aston in some capacity until a seat is available, so it looks like they haven’t stepped away from him to open up his non-Honda options. My guess is Red Bull may be writing off their second driver this year, or that they don’t care about risking Tsunoda and putting him in the sink or swim seat. There’s no way to know if any other driver can drive that car and I suspect only someone like Alonso or Lando (Russell?) might manage it. Tsunoda can have at it this year and Red Bull need a better car for 2026 so that their mortal drivers can drive it. There’s still a chance that Liam might be their most experienced driver in 2026, although I’m sure Tsunoda won’t mind being the star if he can perform miracles this year. Interesting times!
If Verstappen decides to continue somewhere else, which most certainly could be either Mercedes or Aston Martin, interestingly enough the guys you mentioned, Alonso and Russell could be either his teammate, or going in the other direction, taking the vacant Red Bull seat.
Indy car – It looks like there is the same kind of loose thinking and wording as the FIA are wont to use.
Unless the rules also have a paragraph that states all parts must be approved (in which case why not quote that?) the quoted rule (below) does not apply. Rule 14.1.3. All parts provided by an Approved Supplier must be used as supplied without modification unless otherwise approved by INDYCAR and stated in these Rules or in update bulletins.
Why? Because the approved part: was replaced by the team with an unapproved product No modification, just use of an unapproved part. They really should quote the applicable rule, or chain of rules. On its own, 14.1.3 it does not make the case.
Nit-picky I know, but when there is a dispute those little details are where the legal people dive in.
The old regulations back in the earlier turbo era were that you could have a 3.0L naturally aspirated engine or a 1.5L turbo. They left it to the teams after that. Renault was the turbo pioneer, but never got the reliability right due to, in part, insisting on sourcing a very cheap part in France. Prost came close, but they fired him and ended up leaving the sport empty-handed. Prost was fired by Ferrari too for being outspoken.
There’s nothing wishful about thinking the sport should return to a focus on being entertaining than solely pursuing specs whose purpose is to allow manufacturers and F1 to pretend the sport is actually pioneering tech that will move forward green tech in road cars. The reality is that F1 has absolutely no need for the manufacturers (aside from Ferrari).
And maybe not even Ferrari.
It’s about advertising value, right? So, showcasing what you can do, and conveying the message that your roadgoing machinery is built with the same fanatic drive, same perfectionism, same care and expertise, but not necessarily the same technique.
An Sionnach
29th March 2025, 0:34
I don’t see why it has to be one thing or another for the engine regulations. It used to be much broader in the past. For example, there was a turbo and non-turbo spec at one stage; V8s, V10s and V12s raced alongside each other, too.
For 2028 they can allow the hybrid engines alongside non-hybrids. This would allow innovative independent teams to compete with a lower budget cap, but with perhaps a theoretically lower limit on engine power.
Of course, by then Lando will be a three-time world champion and Christian Horner may have finished reading Adrian Newey’s book on how to design a car!
On the Red Bull business, I like Fred Vasseur’s comments. Since I haven’t seen them quoted in many places, here they are:
“We don’t know what’s going on there and what made them take that decision. There could be billions of reasons for that, known only to the team and the individual driver. And sometimes even the driver doesn’t know them.”
“So I would rather not comment, I probably feel that it is too harsh to make such decisions after only two races. But at the same time, we do not have even 10 percent of the information, so it is better not to try to judge anyone.”
Isn’t rushing to judgement without the full facts one of those things that’s allegedly discouraged in the modern world? Granted, that’s rushing to judgement about a situation that appears to be a hasty judgement. I hope to see Liam racing for Red Bull again. Not that I’m expecting it, but I’ll wait to see what happens.
MichaelN
29th March 2025, 1:27
Probably the only way to have different engines is like in Hypercar, where certain performance metrics are capped and things of interest to endurance racing are the differentiators. It doesn’t really work in F1, with relatively short races, no refueling. The reliance of customer teams on manufacturers further complicates this. A mix of hybrids and non-hybrids doesn’t work in this scenario either. It could be interesting with refueling, but as we saw in LMP1, the rules would likely be such that the manufacturers and their hybrids would get big advantages.
Anyway, Symonds is wrong again. The point of the discussion the FIA started is to look beyond 2026, to start a long process that involves getting new and existing participants to buy in to the concept, adjust it, market it, find suitable partners, explore marketing potential, all that jazz. It doesn’t happen in three or so years.
anon
29th March 2025, 8:55
MichaelN, what Symonds is referring to is the fact that some of those advocating for the V10 engine have talked about scrapping the 2026 engines and extending the current engine regulations to 2028. Whilst you might say that “it doesn’t happen in three or so years”, Tombazis has explicitly made references to 2028 or 2029, as well as talking about the prospect of scrapping the proposed 2026 regulations and extending the current regulations until 2028 or 2029.
That said, quite a few seem to think that the talk about V10’s is nothing more than a deliberate distraction and about the internal politics of the sport. Many think Sulayem doesn’t actually believe it’s a realistic proposal, but knew that it was an easy piece of populist politics that would make people criticising the FIA talk about something else instead.
We can see that the amount of criticism about the FIA and Sulayem has dropped off noticeably on this website and on other sites, suggesting that diverting attention towards the prospect of V10 engines has been rather effective on that front.
Additionally, there are some suspicions that Red Bull would prefer the 2026 regulations to be scrapped and has also been stirring up talk of V10 engines. Whilst it seems that the Red Bull-Ford engine project is making OK progress, there is talk that they think they’re behind some of their rivals and are worried that they would lose competitiveness (and, perhaps more pertinently, could lose Verstappen if they are uncompetitive).
The suspicion is they want the 2026 rules scrapped and the current rules extended because they think that will wipe out any advantage any of their rivals might otherwise have under those new rules. The actual engines that might be used in the future are irrelevant – it’s about serving the argument that “well, since that’s only a few years away, won’t it be much easier to simply extend the current rules until then and scrap the 2026 rules?” to try and disadvantage their rivals and extend any advantages they might have for as long as possible.
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 13:18
quite a few seem to think
there are some suspicions that
Whilst it seems that
there is talk that they think
The suspicion is
Somehow, I’m not really convinced..
anon
29th March 2025, 21:13
Coventry Climax, you’d be singing a rather different tune if I’d put forward a post that reinforced your particular beliefs.
MichaelN
29th March 2025, 17:04
The 2030 Net Zero Carbon date is important for F1, but the rest seems just them giving off vague numbers. There are no serious plan at the moment, and Tombazi’s tone, in as much as it can be gleaned from written words, seemed quite ‘yeah it’s an option if the manufacturers want it’. He even said so directly as a reminder that the FIA can’t decide these things on their own.
I suppose we’re also seeing some politics related to the governance part of the Concorde Agreement at play here. Whatever the technological merits of the current engines, they’re insanely expensive and no doubt some manufacturers, as well as potential manufacturers, have voiced concerns about this. F1 will also have noticed Hypercar get flooded with manufacturer entries, whereas they’ve had to move heaven and earth to get just one (VW) and a somewhat vague commitment from another (GM).
We’ve been hearing talk about Red Bull having second thoughts for a while, even long before these engines were even being tested, and it mostly seems to be based on ‘Red Bull has never done this so it’ll be bad’ thinking. I suspect that’s both underestimating Red Bull, who have set up a very serious department to build these engines, and sort of missing the point about the 2026 engines which aren’t actually all that new nor do they allow for much differences between manufacturers.
pcxmac (@pcxmac)
30th March 2025, 9:09
2030 Net Zero won’t be reached. Even if the price of oil goes to 400$/barrel.
An Sionnach
29th March 2025, 10:40
There have been different engines on the grid at least as recently as the 90s (and before refuelling was reintroduced in 1994). I think v10s were eventually written into the rules, but not before everyone started using them anyway because they were better than the V8s and V12s. Schumacher had won in a V8 in 1994 against the mighty Renault V10, which had a power advantage. Ferrari switched from V12s for 1996 (when Schumacher joined the team). At the beginning of the turbo era, having a turbo was optional, and there was a different spec for turbo and naturally-aspirated engines. Williams didn’t use a turbo in years Renault, Brabham and Ferrari did. I think it was eventually written into the rules that a turbo was required, but not before several years of competition between the different types of engine. In the early years, the turbos would qualify ahead of the others, run away with the race, but often fail before the end (especially the Renaults).
If there were to be at least V10s and V6 hybrids on the grid, the already restrictive rules for 2026 would have to be considered when adding the cheaper category. It would be important to keep the faith with the large manufacturers while allowing independent teams in, so the 2026 rules would not change (although when they become active could be delayed). For naturally-aspirated engines there would be a lower budget cap, lower minimum weight and lower power for the engines. When all things are considered, the original, more expensive turbo hybrid rules for 2026 would have a slight advantage in terms of power-to-weight, so those in the “cheap” teams would have to make up the difference using aerodynamics. Of course, the non-hybrid cars would use more fuel. It would be desirable to have teams compete on fuel efficiency no matter the category. Perhaps no weight limit, with only a minimum safety standard might work here?
I liked it when the rules allowed engineers to solve problems. The regulations have been very restrictive lately. It’s a bit like how the car industry was told by governments what technology they had to use to decarbonise. Perhaps the same thing would happen if they steadily tightened the emissions allowed, but I still say let the engineers work it out.
All of that said, yes, they may well be looking further into the future and there’s no harm in looking at what we can do. Things may change in the world, but the electric switch seems to have been a disaster for Europe, in particular. It is surrendering its car industry to China at a time of increasing tension due to the naked imperialism of the communist party. Russia has the potential to dominate on energy if pressure is relaxed. Ceding any industrial or energy advantages we have is tantamount to surrender. I don’t think F1 is thinking this way, but these are the forces that I think are already influencing industrial (and military) policy. Manufacturers may soon forget about electrification and look for other options. We don’t have the minerals (in many ways).
Jere (@jerejj)
29th March 2025, 6:54
An Sionnach – I agree that FIA should allow for more than one powertrain concept at once as used to be the case in the distant past.
Red Bull isn’t known to give second chances in their main team to demoted drivers, albeit Liam’s case is different because he only competed in two GPs, not to mention Yuki is only a stop-gap choice on borrowed time until the season’s end, so Liam could very well be back at Red Bull Racing from next season onwards.
MichaelN – The initial point of discussion or wishful thinking has specifically been about next season, though, with 2028 speculated alongside.
MichaelN
29th March 2025, 8:46
Who said that?
Both Domenicali and Ben Sulayem didn’t put a date on it when they said, respectively, “maybe we don’t need anymore to be so complicated or so expensive in terms of engine development” and “We should consider a range of directions including the roaring sound of the V10 running on sustainable fuel. Whichever direction is chosen, we must support the teams and manufacturers in ensuring cost control on R&D expenditure.”
A change in 2026 is never going to happen. And 2028 is extremely unlikely unless something massive upsets current plans. The only date that matters somewhat is 2030, as it is the target for carbon neutral F1. Other than that, there’s plenty of time to discuss the new engine regulations.
I’m not sure when Formula E loses its exclusive deal for an FIA electric world championship, 2040 or something, but either way, it’s not a technologically feasible road for F1.
Jere (@jerejj)
29th March 2025, 19:13
MichaelN Nothing indeed can be done for the next season anymore & a change for 2028 would mean only two seasons for the upcoming V6 concept with a 50-50 ICE/electric power ratio, so the upcoming technical regulations will definitely remain in place until at least the 2020s-end.
An Sionnach
29th March 2025, 10:57
I don’t know what the team dynamics of this might be. I’d just like to see more attitude for actual engineering in F1. That’s why I think this cannot be an option unless it can be done without disadvantaging those who have gotten the new rules right. The non-hybrids would be underpowered, but the new teams would know this going in and could budget for a handful of points per year. Same with Red Bull, if that’s what they want to do! Their problems now seem to be everywhere but the drivers (and I say this deliberately, as I rate them all) and the race team. They have not demonstrated that they can get the aerodynamics right, so they would struggle to compete without finding the next Adrian Newey. That may need to be a team with a deep understanding of what they are doing using advanced R&D methods in future, perhaps? Is that what McLaren is doing with the intricate detail of its body shape in places?
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 13:27
Yeah, I agree on the motor formula needing to be widened up, but at the same time, with the influence that some have these days, and with all the lobbying going on, I doubt it will happen.
Take into account, that the minimal weight rule must then be altered too, and probably a couple of other things.
Even if they do it, there will likely be some sort of ‘Balance of Power’ introduced, that miraclulously favors the big manufacturers over the small ones.
Sometimes, when something has slid down a slope too far, it’s better to just leave it there and just start something new.
I’d welcome that, but without FiA and Liberty interference, please.
Elvira
29th March 2025, 1:51
Pointless engine discussion without addressing the key question: What do the Saudi’s want?
Unicron (@unicron2002)
29th March 2025, 6:07
I feel that might be the last time we see Yuki smiling whilst sat in a Red Bull seat….
Jere (@jerejj)
29th March 2025, 6:47
Pat Symonds is right that next season comes too soon for any changes due to all the investment, effort, & time spent on the upcoming technical regulations, so neither will a V10 (or V8) type with synthetic fuel arrive nor will the current V6 concept remain for longer use in any case, especially as the likes of Audi & RBPT don’t even have existing current concept units to use for the interim period.
All in all, everything considered, all these sudden talks about late changes for next season have been wishful thinking from the get-go, with the 2028 season the earliest viable for any alterations, in any case, should the upcoming V6 concept be used for a shorter period than planned.
Ironically, V10 with synthetic fuel was an option initially until the planned changes got set in stone, so simply a missed opportunity due to being excessively hell-bent on hybrids.
I’m positive a Thailand GP will become a reality eventually & 2028 seems a reasonably achievable timeline target.
An Sionnach
29th March 2025, 11:09
You’ve given me what might be a fairer idea for a rule change. I don’t like them when something has been agreed and I think two years seems like too little time. You could continue the new rules into 2028 and beyond, but open it up to other technologies. That won’t help Red Bull retain Max, of course, but I want the rules to be fair and the time and effort teams have already spent on the new rules must be respected. I’d see a non-hybrid category as more a way to allow both big companies and small independent teams to compete in F1. Ultimate performance may come with the big budget, but it would also allow for brilliant new ideas to compete with fewer dollars. I’m not just interested in racing, I want to see the engineers not have their hands tied behind their backs. It’s not quite that, but I think nobody but McLaren seems to have a clue what to do at present. Well done to them, but I think there are genuinely few options to optimise these cars when you’re not allowed do any of the things that make the most sense for ground effect cars (active suspension, skirts, fans and so on). It’s as if the challenge is how to build the best non-ground effect car that uses ground effect!
Jere (@jerejj)
29th March 2025, 19:14
An Sionnach I fully agree with you.
Diez Cilindros (@diezcilindros)
29th March 2025, 7:36
Completely random question:
What happened with the test that Romain Grosjean was about to perform with a Mercedes? He was going to do it at Paul Ricard in 2022, I think, but a reschedule forced a postponement. I know no more.
anon
29th March 2025, 8:13
@diezcilindros it has not yet taken place, but from what Grosjean said last year, that has mainly been due to him being too busy in IndyCar (up until the end of 2024), and also the recent move to join Lamborghini to race the SC63.
Jere (@jerejj)
29th March 2025, 8:28
@diezcilindros To be honest, I’d partly forgotten about that on occasions, including until I saw your post, but at the current rate, that test run will either never occur in the end or it’ll happen in the 2030s at the earliest.
AndrewT (@andrewt)
29th March 2025, 7:58
To the V10 topic, I’m sure many of us follows WEC too and had the pleasure to experience the mighty roar of this V12, even through a speaker, now imagine 20 of this on track: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvdCHq2i4AI
To the Lawson/Tsunoda topic, I think Red Bull’s headache is not really having a solid second driver alongside Verstappen, but rather having a solid allround driver in case Verstappen decides not to see out his contract and move elsewhere as early as in 2026. If either Tsunoda or Lawson could fill those shoes, it’s a questionmark, but the evaluation has to happen at some point.
An Sionnach
29th March 2025, 11:19
Honda has said they’d back Tsunoda to move to Aston in some capacity until a seat is available, so it looks like they haven’t stepped away from him to open up his non-Honda options. My guess is Red Bull may be writing off their second driver this year, or that they don’t care about risking Tsunoda and putting him in the sink or swim seat. There’s no way to know if any other driver can drive that car and I suspect only someone like Alonso or Lando (Russell?) might manage it. Tsunoda can have at it this year and Red Bull need a better car for 2026 so that their mortal drivers can drive it. There’s still a chance that Liam might be their most experienced driver in 2026, although I’m sure Tsunoda won’t mind being the star if he can perform miracles this year. Interesting times!
AndrewT (@andrewt)
29th March 2025, 19:35
If Verstappen decides to continue somewhere else, which most certainly could be either Mercedes or Aston Martin, interestingly enough the guys you mentioned, Alonso and Russell could be either his teammate, or going in the other direction, taking the vacant Red Bull seat.
SteveP
29th March 2025, 8:09
Indy car – It looks like there is the same kind of loose thinking and wording as the FIA are wont to use.
Unless the rules also have a paragraph that states all parts must be approved (in which case why not quote that?) the quoted rule (below) does not apply.
Rule 14.1.3. All parts provided by an Approved Supplier must be used as supplied without modification unless otherwise approved by INDYCAR and stated in these Rules or in update bulletins.
Why? Because the approved part: was replaced by the team with an unapproved product No modification, just use of an unapproved part. They really should quote the applicable rule, or chain of rules. On its own, 14.1.3 it does not make the case.
Nit-picky I know, but when there is a dispute those little details are where the legal people dive in.
ppzzus (@ppzzus)
29th March 2025, 9:31
I really wish they’d do an unlimited motor but only one liter. V12 with pistons the size of pencil erasers? Knock yourself out.
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 15:37
That actually exists, in the model building world, and they (not just this one) run too.
An Sionnach
29th March 2025, 17:04
The old regulations back in the earlier turbo era were that you could have a 3.0L naturally aspirated engine or a 1.5L turbo. They left it to the teams after that. Renault was the turbo pioneer, but never got the reliability right due to, in part, insisting on sourcing a very cheap part in France. Prost came close, but they fired him and ended up leaving the sport empty-handed. Prost was fired by Ferrari too for being outspoken.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
29th March 2025, 22:55
Yeh but the turbos completely destroyed the naturally aspirated cars. It wa a 2 tier formula in the era of 30 odd cars. It would be terrible now.
El Pollo Loco
29th March 2025, 14:43
There’s nothing wishful about thinking the sport should return to a focus on being entertaining than solely pursuing specs whose purpose is to allow manufacturers and F1 to pretend the sport is actually pioneering tech that will move forward green tech in road cars. The reality is that F1 has absolutely no need for the manufacturers (aside from Ferrari).
Coventry Climax
29th March 2025, 15:43
And maybe not even Ferrari.
It’s about advertising value, right? So, showcasing what you can do, and conveying the message that your roadgoing machinery is built with the same fanatic drive, same perfectionism, same care and expertise, but not necessarily the same technique.
Tony Mansell (@tonymansell)
29th March 2025, 23:10
My god i just plus oned you ;) +1. Top comment