Formula 1 entered its new regulatory era in 2026 with the bold promise for a near-equal split between combustion and electrical power, a statement of intent that the sport’s technology could speak directly both sustainability and to the road car industry.
It has taken less than a quarter of a season to realise that that promise was harder to keep than anyone in the paddock is willing to admit publicly.
On Wednesday evening, the FIA announced a package of changes that will gradually shift the ICE/ERS balance from its current 53/47 ratio to 58/42 in 2027, and then to the headline 60/40 figure in 2028.
The mechanics of the deal are simple enough: The shift will be achieved by raising maximum ICE power from 400kW to 420kW for 2027 and then to 450kW for 2028, alongside fuel flow increases of 5% and 13% respectively.
At the same time, maximum MGU-K power drops from 350kW to 300kW next year and remains there in 2028, while the maximum harvesting limit rises from 250kW to 375kW in 2027 and 400kW in 2028.
Overtake mode, the one area where drivers have retained a useful on-demand electrical boost, stays fixed at 350kW throughout.
The post-2025 rules have already been tweaked several times
Grand Prix Photo
On paper, it looks like a measured, technically coherent solution to the problem created by the unpopular current regulations so heavily criticised by drivers and fans.
However, the question that will follow this agreement around the paddock for the next two years is a simpler one: is it enough?
To understand why scepticism is warranted, it helps to recall that the pre-2026 regulations ran at roughly 80/20 in favour of the combustion engine.
The 2026 framework was always going to represent a dramatic shift in that balance; the question was never whether the electrical contribution would grow, but by how much.
Even at the eventual 60/40 destination, the MGU-K’s share of total power will be more than double what it was under the previous rules.
That is not a marginal adjustment, and it explains why some may feel the rebalancing is less like a fix and more like another compromise orchestrated by the manufacturers interested in keeping the formula relevant to their needs.
The problem it’s solving, and the one it isn’t
The complaints about the 2026 power unit are not confined to qualifying. On certain circuits, the racing itself has drawn criticism; the energy management dynamics producing outcomes that feel managed rather than fought for.
Drivers just want to push flat out in qualifying
However, overall, the sport’s bosses have been happy to see more action, even if it’s often been artificially fabricated.
But it is in qualifying where the dysfunction has been most acute, and the FIA’s own statement is careful to acknowledge this, noting that the changes are designed to “make qualifying more flat-out while not impacting the positive and exciting racing generated by the new regulations.”
It is a significant caveat, because it implies that the problem, in F1 bosses’ eyes, is quite specific: it lives in qualifying.
Fernando Alonso, speaking at the Monaco Grand Prix, was characteristically outspoken about the reality.
“This is probably the worst generation of cars I ever drove in Monaco,” he said. “The way you charge the battery, with the braking and lifting off and things like that, obviously creates a lot of inconsistency into the engine braking of the car.
“Sometimes you have less, sometimes you have push and sometimes not. If the battery is completely full, then you don’t recharge because the battery is full. So you don’t have engine braking. It’s like pushing.”
His conclusion was blunter still: “Hybrid cars should not be racing. It’s as simple as that.”
Alonso: Not a fan of the current cars
His verdict is not one that the 60/40 rebalancing will fully fix.
Under the current 53/47 framework, the electrical contribution is large enough that when a car runs out of deployable energy mid-lap, as they routinely do, the performance drop is dramatic and sudden.
That has led to so-called yo-yo racing at some tracks, with drivers overtaking each other without even meaning to.
Raising ICE power and reducing the MGU-K ceiling should, in theory, reduce the severity of that drop-off, like some of the rule tweaks already implemented this year. The car will be less dependent on a battery that can run flat.
But increasing harvesting limits alongside reducing deployment limits means the energy management game doesn’t disappear — it simply changes shape.
The compromise within the compromise
The staggered approach — moving to 58/42 in 2027 rather than jumping directly to 60/40 — emerged as a political necessity around the time of the Canadian Grand Prix, as it became clear that a single-step change was unworkable.
Manufacturers like Mercedes and Red Bull Ford Powertrains were reportedly keen to move faster, while Ferrari and Audi were concerned about the resources and ambitious lead times involved in the bigger fuel flow change required for 60/40.
The 13% fuel flow increase needed to reach the final ratio demands more fuel tank volume, which has chassis design implications that not every team can absorb in a single off-season.
This is the reality behind the diplomatic language of “staged rebalancing.”
The timetable is not primarily driven by what is technically optimal, but rather by who could deliver what, and by when.
The result is a regulation written, in part, around the slowest mover.
ADUO was Formula 1’s insurance policy against another decade of engine dominance. Its first verdict appears to have done the opposite
By
Pablo Elizalde
That is not necessarily a criticism. Formula 1 regulations have always been a negotiation between what the sport needs and what its commercial and technical partners can deliver.
But it does mean that the 2027 season, the first year of the revised framework, will be another transitional year, with the competitive distortions that entail.
What happened to 50/50?
Stepping back further, the agreement is an implicit acknowledgement that the foundational philosophy of the 2026 power unit — that road relevance and racing spectacle could coexist in equal measure— was, at minimum, overambitious.
The warning signs were visible years before the season started, as teams ran virtual cars and power units in simulators and the problems became apparent. But the rules had been set, manufacturers had signed up, and the sport found itself unable to change course.
The eventual destination of 60/40 still represents a far greater electrical contribution than the pre-2026 regulations, so the direction of travel remains broadly intact.
But 60/40 is not 50/50, and the road relevance and sustainability argument, the justification for the technological complexity and the cost, loses some of its coherence every time the ratio moves back toward combustion.
Whether 60/40 will go far enough depends almost entirely on what side of the fence you are on and what problem you think needs solving.
If your concern is qualifying dysfunction, the changes will probably be enough.
If your concern is the fundamental unpredictability that energy management introduces into the racing, the changes will be incomplete, something a driver like Alonso would agree about.
“At the end of the day, these power units, they have this DNA and it will be difficult to change,” Alonso said after the changes were announced. “You can make a small tweak on the rules, but it will always reward to go slower in the corners to have more energy on the straights, and that’s, as I said, the DNA of the rules.
“And by race seven of this year or whatever, that we need to change the rules for next year and potentially for 2028, it tells you that it was something wrong from the beginning.”
If your concern is that Formula 1 has spent years and hundreds of millions developing a power unit architecture that required mid-cycle surgery before its first season had even ended… well, no ratio rebalancing is going to help you.
