I am a rule keeper – Get me out of here!

(Motorsport-Total.com) – The venerable board game “Diplomacy” does without dice. To achieve a position of Europe-wide dominance, players at the table must cooperate with each other – and then choose the optimal moment to stab their former allies in the back.

Read more Every beginning is hard: The first victories of the Formula 1 racing teams

The underlying mechanisms of Diplomacy are brutally simple, the rulebook correspondingly concise. Conquest is determined by the sheer weight of army and naval units and not by the pseudo-random whim of a dice roll.

Hence the necessity for players to work covertly with and against each other, and the inevitability of betrayal. It is therefore not a game for the faint-hearted.

The Formula 1 rulebook, on the other hand, is downright Byzantine, but that is not solely the fault of those entrusted with creating and enforcing the rules. Too many actors are involved – and the inevitable result of trying to please too many people is a chaos of compromises that satisfies very few.

Nikolas Tombazis, Director of Formula Sport at the FIA, held a roundtable discussion for selected media this week ahead of the rule changes for the Miami Grand Prix. In doing so, he reflected the assessments that Formula 1 CEO Stefano Domenicali expressed two weeks ago in an exclusive interview with Autosport.

Challenging task for the FIA

Whether the similarities in wording were an unintended consequence of trying to present a united front with the holder of the commercial rights or not – it was a finely nuanced diplomatic dance around the issue that the car manufacturers involved in Formula 1 have too much say in politics.

The sporting and financial ecosystem of Formula 1 requires their involvement, but their priorities change faster than the regulatory framework of Formula 1 can keep up.

The many peculiarities and controversies of the 2026 season so far all stem from a decision made in summer 2022: committing to a mix of electric power and internal combustion engine power in a ratio of almost 50:50.

In the intervening years, Tombazis and his team had the thankless task of trying to make the impossible possible. “It is true that the political landscape has changed. When we discussed the current regulations, the very involved car manufacturers told us that they would never build a [new] combustion engine again,” he says.

“They wanted to phase it out and be fully electric by a certain year. Obviously, that did not happen. This is not to underestimate the importance of electrification worldwide, but it did not happen to the extent claimed.”

In a later conversation with Italian media, Tombazis went a bit further: “There was a strong direction from several stakeholders towards significantly more electric components,” he reveals. “And in my opinion, this potential of electrification was perhaps overestimated, which pushed towards this 50/50 split.”

As an engineer, Tombazis is a fascinating interview partner due to the depth, precision, and nuance he brings. But it was inevitable that a quote like this would be picked out and then, taken out of context, circulated on social media as some kind of “smoking gun.”

It is well known that electrification in the automotive industry was considered inevitable in summer 2022 when the 50/50 principle was agreed upon. In the meantime, this has become less certain for various reasons.

The challenge for the rulemakers was to mitigate the inherent disadvantages that arise when so much energy must be charged and discharged each lap.

From the start, the prospect of cars running out of power in unfavorable places and the safety aspects due to large speed differences set the direction towards today’s scenario – a scenario in which drivers have less influence on vehicle performance than they ideally should.

Too much power for manufacturers

Behind the scenes, engine manufacturers have continued to play an annoying and disruptive role in the development of the 2026 regulations, even if this is a sentiment that neither Formula 1 nor the FIA will say too loudly.

However, it is known that various proposals on material decisions for the combustion engine, for example to save weight and costs, were ultimately rejected by the manufacturers and their allied teams.

Here we encounter the problem that competitors have a say in shaping the rules, as the common good can be neglected in favor of establishing or defending a competitive advantage. This was touched upon, albeit indirectly, in several areas of the roundtable discussion.

“It is true that the entire energy management becomes more demanding when you have such a ratio of electric energy to combustion energy and power,” says Tombazis.

Formula 1 fails: These rule changes were a flop

“We knew that from day one of this regulation, and I think we have worked to mitigate many of these compromises. One of the reasons why we feel it was not perfect from the start is that the cars are driving somewhat faster and have found more downforce than we expected. Therefore, the energy recovered during braking is somewhat less than it normally would be.”

“So we have a slightly bigger challenge than we would have liked. About a year ago, we proposed a power reduction, which was rejected. The point back then was that we wanted to wait for the first few races, which we have now done,” says the FIA man.

From this, it can be inferred that at least some reasons why the regulations are still effectively in a beta phase lie in the ongoing intransigence of the manufacturers. Again, it is about defending competitive advantages.

Read more 50 Stars for Miami: Cadillac unveils US design at the home game

ADUO: It gets complex – or not?

To enable manufacturers fighting for their competitiveness to catch up, Formula 1 introduced the framework for Additional Development and Upgrade Opportunities (ADUO) from this season. As expected, this has become a hotbed of intrigue, as the various engine suppliers stir up opposition against each other.

Essentially, ADUO grants relief under the cost cap for engines for additional research and development as well as room for upgrades, depending on the performance deficit of the combustion engine compared to the class leader. The measurements and upgrade windows are planned for specific intervals of the year.

And – surprise, surprise – this also seems to have been a process akin to herding cats, with much haggling about what lies inside and outside the measurement range. With cats, at least you can rustle the treat bag to get their attention and distract from the conversation about backpressure and compressor sizes.

“The fact that engine power is not just a single number was, of course, known,” says Tombazis.

“In spring 2025, we had quite long discussions with them; we offered to consider whether we wanted to take into account certain things like boost pressure, turbo diameter, or the operating temperature of the plenum and the like. The unanimous position of the engine manufacturers back then was that we should keep it simple.”

“So the fact that it is the current horsepower measurement of the combustion engine was accepted from the start. Personally, I would be quite open to the idea of making the parameters a bit more complicated, but this discussion took place more than a year ago, and the result was quite clear.”

Perhaps this is a rare example of manufacturers doing the audience a favor by rejecting complications.

Does the driver have too little influence?

In every other respect, the excessive complexity of the current technical regime goes back to the basic concept. To fulfill the 50/50 split, there are too many rules: for example, the hidden subdivision of tracks into “zones” where different shares of electric power may or may not be used.

There are performance reasons for this, as teams and drivers rightly want to ensure that the limited electric support is used where it is most useful. A more urgent reason, however, is safety and reducing the risk that cars suddenly run out of electric power at high speed.

The solutions that Tombazis and his team have found for these mitigations are clever – but as many involved, including the drivers, have emphasized, they are patch solutions for a flawed basic concept. By limiting the drivers’ ability to make a difference, Formula 1 represents a failure to understand the fascination of motorsport.

The fastest cars on the planet are only part of the attraction. Seeing the best drivers in the world demonstrate their skill is what captivates the audience.

So much of this is now lost in the swamp of varying deployment and energy modes. When Motorsport-Total.com creates its driver ratings after the race, there are clearly readers who view these through the lens of their fan affiliation and therefore tend to disagree.

But we really try seriously to analyze the performance of the drivers strictly over the course of a weekend.

What the current regulations have done is confuse, hide, or even disregard the driver’s input. The analysis of onboard and telemetry data used to provide a very clear picture of individual skill and performance; today this is obscured by the intervention of energy release and the software that allocates it.

Did this driver lose time in this particular corner, or did he accidentally trigger a reset of the power-limited mode while correcting a drifter earlier and is now paying for it with a lack of electric punch?

Honestly, that is enough to make one lose the will to live – or, if not that, at least bring one close to switching to “limited will to live mode.”

Please no plaything of the manufacturers

These deficiencies are firmly embedded in the current regulations and will become more complicated rather than simpler. What we need in view of the next rulebook is a “less is more” approach.

As with Diplomacy, a simpler game mechanic makes the competition purer. Formula 1 fans do not want to see race results dictated by opaque algorithms and software wizardry while the driver plays the role of the frustrated passenger. They come for the spectacle, the skill, and the killer instinct.

That should be the starting point for the next rulebook. Instead of setting an arbitrary ratio of electric power, the focus should be on reducing weight from the cars and costs as well as complexity from the engines.

This would make the category as a whole less susceptible to the whims of manufacturers, who as companies bend like reeds in the wind of market forces. They have had too much influence for far too long.

The next formula must be better. How about giving the rulemakers the chance to make that happen?

Read more Simulation shows effects of the new Formula 1 rules in Miami