The real problem threatening F1 2027 engine rules reform

F1 engine rules look increasingly likely to remain unchanged for another year after Ferrari and Audi, as revealed by PlanetF1.com, expressed reservations over proposed regulation changes announced by the FIA following the Miami Grand Prix.

While neither manufacturer is especially against changes, they hold concerns over their implementation with cost and technical considerations.

Ferrari and Audi objections expose deeper issues with F1 engine rules governance

Want more PlanetF1.com coverage? Add us as a preferred source on Google for news you can trust.

It raises an important, if slightly uncomfortable, question: is it appropriate that teams and the sport’s commercial rights holder have direct influence over regulations?

The process to push through regulation changes is defined in the Concorde Agreement, the secret covenant that binds the FIA, Formula One Management, and the 12 teams together and lays out roles and obligations for the sport’s commercial interests and its governance.

The caveat is that on issues of safety, the FIA can take actions without having to go through the various Committees, Commissions, and Councils – which is precisely what it did ahead of the Miami Grand Prix.

Whether that argument would stand up as a means to change F1 engine rules ad increase the proportion of combustion power is another question; it’d be a sizeable political risk on the FIA’s part to head down that path on this instance.

For changes to be made, a super majority of the Power Unit Advisory Committee has to be reached. Failing that, the FIA can use its overarching powers to force the change through, however that’s unlikely to be well received by the teams or their associated car companies.

The super majority requirement means the concerns held by Ferrari and Audi are enough to derail the current push, and with time fast running out that will mean the sport has no option but to roll the current regulations over for another year.

Their influence extends beyond simply expressing an opinion. Through the sport’s governance framework, concerns ultimately feed into the Formula One Commission, where the FIA, FOM and teams all have a vote.

If it passes that hurdle, it’s moves onto the FIA World Motor Sport Council where any change is essentially rubber stamped.

In practical terms, the FIA’s view becomes one vote among many within the sport’s governance structure.

That is by design. There’s good reason for that structure; it ensures the regulations are in line with what the teams and their backers are interested in supporting and gives the commercial side of the sport a degree of stability allowing it to maximise value.

In short, while the FIA controls the regulatory side of Formula 1 and FOM the commercial side, both operate within governance structures that also give teams a voice, and a vote, on regulation changes.

The other side of that coin, however, is that it can introduce lag and can be held hostage to vested interests. In this instance, both are at play at a time when many within the sport believe action is needed.

But if we’re going to question whether the current governance structure is right, we have to consider the alternative as that is an unbridled governing body with carte blanche control of the regulations.

While empowered to make rapid decisions, such power would ultimately be to the detriment of the sport as it in turn becomes liable to the whims of individuals.

Such an environment creates uncertainty which undermines confidence for all involved; teams, promoters, fans, sponsors.

Instead, diplomacy is the better option, but with time running out the prospects of reform for F1 2027 look bleak.

Analysis: F1’s 2027 engine regulation tweaks

Ferrari and Audi raise concerns as F1 2027 engine talks reach critical stage

Why F1’s agreed 60/40 engine split could still unravel

On balance, the current structure is a superior choice, even if it does come with downsides that mean fans can lose out at times.

In this instance, the need for a super majority through the Power Unit Advisory Committee is a reasonable and prudent measure; the changes that have been proposed seem minor but could have significant implications.

Perhaps there’s a middle ground, something that empowers the governing body when there’s a clear issue or concern on grounds beyond safety.

Exactly what that looks like would have to be very carefully considered for all the reasons listed above, but as fans look poised to endure another year of impressively engineered but otherwise underwhelming power units it has at least raised a question that warrants being asked.

Ironically, to be addressed, any change would likely take even longer given the governance process is baked into the Concorde Agreement, which doesn’t expire until the end of 2030.

In the coming week, the sport could either commit to a significant F1 engine rules change or effectively lock itself into another year of the status quo.

If that happens, with momentum lost and 2031 drawing ever closer, the bigger question may become whether meaningful reform happens at all.

Want to be the first to know exclusive information from the F1 paddock? Join our broadcast channel on WhatsApp to get the scoop on the latest developments from our team of accredited journalists.

You can also subscribe to the PlanetF1 YouTube channel for exclusive features, hear from our paddock journalists with stories from the heart of Formula 1 and much more!

Read Next: What’s going on with radical Mercedes and Red Bull rear wings in Monaco?