- F1’s 2027 engine regulations hinge on a 60/40 power split vote in 15 days.
- Super clipping backlash forces the paddock to confront hardware problem.
- Four out of five manufacturers must agree, but self-interest blocks the path.
The FIA has, reportedly, roughly two weeks to agree on changes to its 2027 F1 power unit rules. The debate centres on a proposal to shift the balance of power between combustion and the electric motor.
This means the sport could move away from the current 50/50 split that has defined, and largely troubled, the opening rounds of the 2026 season.
The proposal under discussion would change the power distribution to approximately 60/40 in favour of the combustion engine.
If no decision is reached by mid-May, F1 might end up getting stuck with its current specification, with only minor refinements possible within the existing hardware.
The problem with the 50/50 split
The 2026 regulations introduced a near-equal balance between thermal and electric power. The design was intended to attract manufacturers and show F1’s commitment to electrification.
In practice, it has drawn criticism from drivers, teams and fans from the very start of the season. The clearest illustration came at the Japanese Grand Prix.
Onboard footage showed Max Verstappen losing around 55 km/h through Suzuka’s iconic 130R corner during FP1. This was despite the telemetry confirming he was flat on the throttle throughout.
The reason was “super clipping,” a phenomenon where cars shed speed on straights because the electric deployment runs out and the system begins harvesting energy instead. The driver is at full throttle, but the car is slowing.
Verstappen had raised concerns about the direction of the regulations as far back as 2023.
When the 2026 cars finally arrived, his verdict was unambiguous. He called the new machinery “Formula E on steroids” and described the experience behind the wheel as one of management, not racing.
The Miami tweaks: a step, not a solution
Ahead of the Miami Grand Prix, F1 and the FIA agreed on a package of short-term fixes. The maximum harvestable energy in qualifying was cut from 8MJ to 7MJ.
Peak super clipping power was raised from 250kW to 350kW. The aim was to reduce the need for aggressive energy harvesting and allow drivers to push more naturally.
On the race side, the maximum boost power was capped at 150kW.
That move addressed safety concerns raised after Ollie Bearman’s 50G crash at the Japanese Grand Prix, where dramatic speed differences between cars contributed to the severity of the accident.
But a senior insider involved in the discussions told The Race that the Miami changes had addressed only around 20% of what ultimately needs fixing.
The view shared widely in the paddock is that software adjustments cannot solve a problem built into the architecture of the power unit itself.
Verstappen’s assessment of the adjustments was equally measured. He told reporters the changes felt like “just a tickle.”
“I think we’re still far away from proper F1 cars and pushing flat out without thinking about batteries,” the Dutchman said.
The 60/40 proposal: shifting the balance
The proposal at the centre of the current debate would change the power split from the current 400kW ICE and 350kW electric arrangement to roughly 450kW ICE and 300kW electric.
A secondary version of the proposal would retain 350kW electric deployment during races. This would be done to preserve overtaking opportunities, landing somewhere closer to a 55/45 split.
Implementing the change would require boosting the ICE output. It would go from around 530 horsepower to approximately 600 horsepower.
That increase in combustion power would raise fuel consumption, which in turn would demand a larger fuel tank. A larger tank affects car dimensions significantly. This is not a cosmetic adjustment.
An anonymous team principal, speaking to Autosport, laid out the timeline plainly.
“If a decision is made within two weeks, there is time to get everything done,” the team boss said.
In the worst case, they added, race distances could be shortened by three laps to accommodate the higher fuel load.
The goal behind all of this is straightforward. To give drivers the ability to race without managing energy reserves at every corner, restoring something closer to the experience F1 offered through the end of the 2025 season.
The earlier rejection and the FIA’s dilemma
The current debate did not appear from nowhere. At a key FIA meeting on April 20, officials proposed altering the power balance. However, the proposal failed to reach the required supermajority.
Manufacturers defended their existing engine philosophies. They reportedly cited the enormous financial and technical investment already committed to the current hybrid architecture.
FIA technical director Jan Monchaux described the dynamics that made agreement impossible.
“One thinks ‘this gives me an advantage,'” he told Auto Motor und Sport. “Another thinks ‘I’m winning races right now, so I don’t want to change anything’. And the third says, ‘I need 16 months to develop a new engine, and 2027 isn’t realistic.'”
Monchaux also noted that the option of reducing the electric component had been on the table, but that the required supermajority was never reached.
FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis offered a sharper perspective on how the governing body sees its own position.
“We mustn’t let ourselves be held hostage by the car manufacturers,” he said. “Of course, we want them involved. But we mustn’t be vulnerable if they decide to leave.”
A formal meeting on the 2027 power unit rules has not yet been scheduled. The window is closing fast. If no decision lands by mid-May, the shape of F1’s next engine rules will be set not by consensus, but by inaction.
