- Andrea Stella says software fixes have hit their ceiling under F1’s 2026 rules.
- Three hardware changes, bigger batteries, higher fuel flow, rebalanced harvesting, could fix it.
- A summer deadline looms. Miss it, and 2028 becomes the earliest anything changes.
McLaren team principal Andrea Stella has called on Formula 1 to commit to hardware changes to its power unit regulations, targeting the 2028 season.
He argues that software fixes alone cannot resolve the fundamental problems exposed by the sport’s new engine formula.
Stella made his case in the Miami paddock following the 2026 Miami Grand Prix, where a first round of regulatory refinements had already been trialled.
Speaking to media, he said hardware adjustments to the power unit are required to improve racing and that the sport must finalise that conversation before the summer break to meet manufacturing lead times for 2028.
The problem runs deeper than energy management settings
Formula 1 introduced a set of changes ahead of Miami, targeting the most visible symptoms of the 2026 power unit problems.
For qualifying, the maximum permitted recharge dropped from 8 MJ to 7 MJ. Super clips were raised from 250kW to 350kW to shorten their duration.
For race conditions, boost mode power was capped at 150kW, and MGU-K deployment was limited to 250kW in certain sections of the lap.
Drivers acknowledged the tweaks but were unconvinced they had solved anything significant. McLaren’s Oscar Piastri said in Sunday’s post-race press conference that races were “basically exactly the same.”
Race winner Kimi Antonelli described the changes as only “a small step in the right direction.”
Stella agreed with that verdict, but pushed the diagnosis further. He told reporters, per PlanetF1, that the sport has reached the ceiling of what software and energy management changes can deliver.
In his view, the issue is structural.
Stella’s three-point hardware prescription
Stella did not stop at identifying the problem. The Italian came to Miami with a specific set of proposals.
He wants an increase in fuel flow to extract more power from the internal combustion engine. He also wants the harvesting-to-deployment ratio rebalanced.
Cars currently spend significantly more time deploying electrical energy than harvesting it.
“This can be rebalanced by harvesting to a larger power than we do today,” Stella explained. “From 350kW, can we go to 400kW? Can we go to 450kW?”
His third proposal is an increase in battery size.
Each of these changes carries real engineering consequences. A higher fuel flow rate demands changes to the fuel tank and chassis.
Several teams have already committed to carrying their current chassis into 2027.
Stella acknowledged this constraint openly, saying the implications for battery size and fuel flow make those changes unrealistic for the 2027 season, given available lead times.
That is exactly why he wants the discussion concluded before the summer break. The deadline is not symbolic. It is driven by how long it takes to design, manufacture and homologate new components.
Why teams must learn to live with “cryptic” engine behaviour until then
With hardware changes almost certainly off the table before 2028, Stella offered an unusually candid account of what teams are managing in the meantime.
He described a system so sensitive that a shift in wind direction triggers a chain of recalibrations across the power unit.
When conditions change on a straight, the software tool that manages power unit optimisation begins chasing the new inputs.
The engineers then chase the tool. The tool chases the conditions. The cycle repeats.
Stella was careful to stress that this complexity cannot be understood through a simple energy-deployment lens. He told reporters:
“It is much more interlaced between the electrical behaviour and the ICE behaviour itself. Sorry for being cryptic, but that’s what we deal with.”
It was a rare moment of transparency from a team principal admitting that even the engineers running these systems are navigating something genuinely unprecedented.
Wolff pushes back, but the consensus may be shifting
Not everyone shares Stella’s position. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff, whose team has won all four grands prix in 2026, defended the regulations strongly after Miami.
He told reporters that anyone pushing for short-term engine regulation changes should question how they are reading Formula 1 at this stage.
He did allow, however, that Mercedes would not oppose efforts to improve the show over time, and pointed to straight-line speed settings as one area worth examining.
Alpine’s Steve Nielsen raised a practical concern about the fuel tank and chassis implications of more fuel, noting that not every team under the budget cap will build a new car for 2027.
The counter-argument, noted by several observers, is that a mandated rule change would direct every team to spend resources in broadly the same direction, which is the point of a regulated sport.
The split in the paddock follows an identifiable pattern. The drivers most satisfied with the 2026 regulations tend to be in the fastest cars.
World champions Max Verstappen, Lando Norris and Fernando Alonso, each having endured difficult starts to the new era, are among the loudest voices for change.
Stella occupies an interesting position. McLaren is competitive, which gives his argument credibility. But the team runs Mercedes customer engines, which means he has a stake in the outcome that is different from a full manufacturer.
Whether Formula 1’s stakeholders move before Stella’s self-imposed summer deadline is uncertain.
What is clear is that he believes the current regulations have more to give, and that unlocking it will require more than a settings change.
