The questions Audi needs to answer in its first F1 season

Audi will hold its 2026 Formula 1 launch in Berlin, celebrating a moment when years of planning, recruitment and expectation come together.

But unlike established teams, the true significance of Audi’s launch lies in what it reveals about the project behind it.

The German manufacturer enters Formula 1 at a time of profound change, with new technical regulations that could reset the competitive order.

Audi has positioned that reset as an opportunity, acquiring Sauber, building its own engine programme and committing to a long-term vision that targets championship contention by the end of the decade.

But the launch is only the beginning. Audi’s debut season will not offer instant answers on competitiveness, and nor should it.

Instead, 2026 will be about signals: of leadership stability, technical direction, organisational coherence and intent.

These are the five benchmarks by which Audi’s inaugural F1 campaign will ultimately be judged.

Has Audi found the right leadership structure?

Audi’s Formula 1 project has not lacked ambition, investment or intent. What it has lacked, at times, is visible stability at the top.

Since announcing its entry, Audi has already lived through a full leadership cycle: the appointment of Andreas Seidl, his subsequent departure, and the decision to reset the project under a new dual structure led by Mattia Binotto and Jonathan Wheatley.

That history means Audi enters its first season under the 2026 rules with something to prove before a wheel has even turned.

Leadership churn is not unusual in modern Formula 1, but it is rarely benign. Every change in direction costs time, trust and institutional memory – commodities that are especially precious for a project still building its identity.

Audi’s first season will therefore be judged not on how loudly its leaders speak, but on how quietly the organisation functions.

Binotto and Wheatley bring contrasting but complementary credentials. One represents deep technical understanding and long-term development thinking; the other offers operational discipline forged in championship-winning environments.

On paper, it is a strong pairing. In practice, it must translate into clarity about who decides what, how conflicts are resolved, and how the project responds when it inevitably comes under pressure.

If its first season is marked by consistent messaging, calm decision-making and visible alignment between the trackside team and the wider project, it will suggest that the turbulence of its early planning phase is finally over.

Was taking over Sauber a better option than starting from scratch?

Audi’s entry into Formula 1 was never going to follow the romantic ideal of a clean-sheet arrival. Instead, it chose the pragmatic route: acquiring control of Sauber and inheriting an existing organisation, infrastructure and workforce.

In theory, that decision should shorten timelines and reduce risk. In practice, it could introduce a different kind of challenge.

Taking over an established team means inheriting habits as well as assets. Sauber’s strengths – operational experience, race-day competence and a functioning base in Hinwil – are obvious. Its weaknesses, from fluctuating competitiveness to limited technical influence in the hybrid era, are equally well documented.

Audi’s task in its first season is not to erase that history, but to demonstrate that it can build on it faster than it would have from zero.

This is where comparison with Cadillac becomes unavoidable. Starting from scratch allows total control over culture and structure, but at the cost of time and early competitiveness. Audi chose continuity over purity.

Its 2026 campaign will be judged on whether that trade-off pays off.

Did Audi get its power unit conceptually right?

Audi’s identity will ultimately be defined by its power unit as a result of joining Formula 1 for the start of an era in which engines will have huge importance.

As a manufacturer entry, the engine is not just a component, but more like a philosophical core of the project. In its first season, Audi does not need to prove that it has built a race-winning engine, but it does need to show that it has built the right one.

The 2026 regulations will reward efficiency, energy management and long-term development more than peak output. That makes early design choices disproportionately important.

Decisions around architecture, cooling philosophy and electrical deployment will shape Audi’s competitive ceiling for years to come.

What matters in 2026, therefore, is not where Audi sits on the timesheets, but how its power unit behaves. Is it reliable? Is it flexible in different operating windows? Does it integrate cleanly with the chassis without forcing visible compromises? Those will be the markers of a sound concept that will not be easy to get back on track if is not solid from the start.

History suggests that new manufacturers rarely get everything right immediately. The difference between success and stagnation lies in whether the underlying design allows improvement. An engine that starts slightly behind but offers clear development paths is a far healthier proposition than one that peaks early and runs out of headroom.

Audi’s first season will be watched closely for signs of that headroom.

Does Audi have the commitment and patience to reach its 2030 ambition?

From the outset, Audi has been clear about its ultimate objective in Formula 1: to fight for the championship by 2030. It is an ambitious target, and deliberately so. But ambition in F1 is cheap unless it is underwritten by sustained commitment.

Audi’s first season will therefore be judged not on how close it comes to the front, but on how it behaves when it doesn’t.

Financial commitment is the easy part to demonstrate. Investment can be announced, facilities can be showcased, and recruitment can be highlighted. What matters more in 2026 is whether Audi shows the discipline to stay the course when progress is uneven and external pressure mounts.

Patience is harder to signal than spending, but it is visible in decision-making. Will Audi resist the urge to overreact to early struggles? Will it allow its leadership and technical structure time to mature?

The path to 2030 will require continuity of people, philosophy and intent.

If the project exits 2026 looking cohesive, well-resourced and unflustered by inevitable challenges, confidence in its long-term ambition will follow naturally.

Has Audi chosen the right drivers?

Audi’s first F1 season is highly unlikely to be defined by podiums, but by its progress. That places a specific demand on its drivers, one that goes beyond raw speed. From 2026, Audi will need drivers who can lead a project, not simply race within it.

In Nico Hülkenberg and Gabriel Bortoleto, Audi has opted for a deliberately asymmetrical pairing: one driver with deep Formula 1 experience and technical credibility, and another whose value lies as much in long-term potential as in immediate results.

Hülkenberg will offer reference points, technical feedback and a calm presence inside a team still finding its feet. His career has been shaped by adaptability, which may suit Audi’s early phase better than a driver conditioned to winning environments.

Bortoleto, by contrast, represents a long-term investment. Audi will be not asking him to carry the project, but to grow with it. His integration into a factory-led structure from the start will be a test of Audi’s ability to develop talent without overwhelming it.

The driver choice is a sensible balance for a manufacturer entry starting from a blank regulatory slate, but it also highlights the low-key approach Audi wants for its first campaign.

Audi has prioritised stability and development over star power.

Success in 2026 will not be measured by immediate podiums, but by whether the pairing can guide development and lay the groundwork for sustained competitiveness.

If both drivers can deliver that, it will suggest that Audi has made the right choice, proving that, sometimes, patience and balance outweigh the allure of pedigree.