Like many things in the modern world, it all started with a social media post.
Three days after F1’s season launch in London, FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem posted a message on Instagram, saying that, inspired by “positive discussions on the future of the sport”, the motorsport world should explore “a range of directions” for its top category – “including the roaring sound of the V10 running on sustainable fuel”.
A former rally driver and a passionate motorsport fan, Ben Sulayem would certainly be among those to support the return of the romantic atmosphere associated with one of F1’s most mythologised eras. As FIA president, he must see it as his duty to consider what’s best for the sport’s long-term future. And as one of the key figures shaping that future himself, he may well be motivated by the idea of leaving a legacy that delivers on a wish shared by many F1 fans.
Whatever his motivations may be, the sudden mention of a possible V10 engine return – something which until recently seemed like an abandoned path – triggered a debate that is growing more complex by the day and is quickly becoming one of the main political battlegrounds in F1.
Since the Instagram post, the FIA has stepped up its internal discussions, with single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis confirming in Shanghai that various scenarios are now being explored. Although he stressed that “there's no proposal on the table” yet, he didn’t rule out the possibility of introducing a new engine formula – and possibly earlier than originally planned.
The governing body is now facing two key questions, he stressed. First: is this a direction F1 wants to pursue – potentially bringing back the “roaring sound” of V10s, now powered by sustainable fuels? And second: what would the timeline be? If this path is chosen, should F1 wait until the next generation of power units – which manufacturers are already working flat out to deliver for 2026 – completes its intended five-year cycle, or look for a shortcut?
An even more complicated part of the second question is how such a change could be implemented. Should F1 shorten the 2026 cycle or abandon the ruleset entirely, sticking with the current formula for a few more years before switching to V10s? Even such a drastic scenario wasn’t completely ruled out by Tombazis.
“Certainly, the progress with sustainable fuels, etc., has led to views that maybe the engines could be simpler,” he said. “The world economy does lead to views that maybe we should try to cut costs a bit more and the current power units are way too expensive. That is a fact. We would like them to be cheaper. And that's why the president made the comments about V10 engine in '28 and so on. And that is something we are evaluating – or '29 or whatever – with the PU manufacturers.
“And we are discussing openly with them the best direction for the sport. If there was ever any such decision, what would happen in the intervening period, we would have to see. But we would never unilaterally change something and impose something without full discussion.”
Who could support it?
Although scrapping the 2026 rules may currently sound like the most far-fetched idea, it could still find support among stakeholders.
F1 is still enjoying a highly competitive grid. Gaps are small, and the pecking order shifts from race to race – much like at the end of last season. But new rules always bring the risk of spreading the field again.
Although the 2026 engine formula is less complex than the current one, there is still a high likelihood that some manufacturers will get it right more than others. With paddock talk suggesting Mercedes could emerge with the strongest package, the sport may face a 2014-like scenario of one team dominating.
There are also concerns in the paddock that the new hybrid systems – with an increased reliance on electric power – might confuse fans or make racing look different. Cheaper power units could help improve the economic picture, making the V10 direction worth considering for F1 itself.
After all, it wasn’t Ben Sulayem but F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali who first floated the idea of returning to naturally aspirated engines.
"If sustainable fuel is doing the right job to be zero emission and we are taking the point of sustainability in the right way, maybe we don't need anymore to be so complicated or so expensive in terms of engine development,” Domenicali said last August. “So we may think to go back to engines that are much lighter and maybe with a good sound."
There’s at least one outspoken V10 fan: Max Verstappen. Asked in Shanghai whether he might stay in F1 longer if the sport went that way, he replied: “Maybe. Yeah. It's definitely more exciting than what we have currently.”
There may also be some current manufacturers who aren’t fully convinced they’re on the right path with their 2026 projects. They might be open – or at least not opposed – to a conversation about changing direction. While there are no signs any of them are actively backing such a move, some may prefer to wait and see how things develop.
Who’s against it?
The primary aim of the 2026 engine rules was to attract manufacturers to F1, so OEMs are likely to be the most irritated by the current debate. Thanks to these regulations, Audi was lured into the series and Honda was convinced to reverse its exit – with the road car relevance of the new hybrid technology a key selling point.
Any sudden change in direction from F1 could send the opposite message. In the corporate world, long-term planning and stability are highly valued, after all.
Imagine Mattia Binotto having to explain to Audi’s board that the rules they committed to are now shifting, after the brand shut down most of its other motorsport activities to focus on F1. That wouldn’t go down well.
“The upcoming regulation changes, including the new hybrid power unit regulations set for the 2026 season and beyond, were a key factor in Audi’s decision to enter Formula 1," reads Audi’s official statement provided to Motorsport.com regarding the V10 discussions. "These power unit regulations reflect the same technological advancements that drive innovation in Audi’s road cars.”
That makes Audi’s position on the topic loud and clear.
While Ferrari may find a return to V10s more fitting to its brand positioning, any suggestion of changing direction – even just shortening the 2026 cycle – wouldn’t suit Mercedes either. Especially if the team believes it is on the right development track.
Under F1’s current governance structure, manufacturers already have the power to block any proposed rule change.
“Above all, the obligation is to be fair,” said Tombazis. “And people have invested a lot of money and these decisions won't be made just… If nine people are in favour and one person is against and that one person is being treated unfairly, we'll always also try to protect the one person, if you know what I mean.
“Well, we would have to go through governance and agree and make sure that there's enough support for any change of plans. As I say, we can't just say, now it's not five [years or] it's three, or whatever. We can't do that here.
“It would be considered to be, let's say, a fundamental change, because it's pretty important, and therefore it would need more than just a simple majority.”
So even if the conversation gains momentum – and reaches V10-level noise – it may well lead nowhere. But for now, the topic remains firmly on the agenda.
The Cadillac question
An interesting subplot is where Cadillac stands on all this. The American project has cleared key hurdles with both the FIA and the commercial rights holder, but there’s still no detailed roadmap for its power unit programme.
It is supposed to be a full works team in the future, with GM developing its own engine. But at this stage, the project is still in its early days. And if GM gets a say in shaping the new rules, the V10 route may offer some advantages.
After all, the key question for GM right now isn’t road relevance, but competitiveness. With 2028 as the earliest – and still unlikely – date for its own engine readiness, Cadillac faces the prospect of a costly catch-up battle against rivals with years of development already in hand. If F1 decided to cut short the next rules cycle and go with V10s earlier, GM could enter on a more level playing field.
And given the FIA and Ben Sulayem played a major role in bringing the team into F1, it wouldn’t be surprising if efforts were made to ensure Cadillac is competitive.
The central question remains whether it’s even possible to change course at this stage. To persuade the existing PU manufacturers – especially Mercedes, Honda and Audi – the FIA would need a very strong argument. A simple majority vote won’t be enough.
Red Bull is believed to be open to either direction – not necessarily because its 2026 project is in trouble. There’s still confidence internally about its new power unit. But for Red Bull, road relevance isn’t a priority. Ford’s interests do need to be considered, but Mark Rushbrook, global director of Ford Performance Motorsports, has previously indicated – when speaking about the post-2030 era – that his company wouldn’t be opposed to a possible switch from hybrids to simpler engines.
“I think we are very proud to have brought Audi to the sport, and we fully respect that, and we don't want them to reverse that decision,” said Tombazis. “And we're also very proud to have made Honda reconsider, because they were leaving the sport and then decided to stay back.
“So anything we do is a complex balance between these factors. The thing is, there isn't a single point that answers all the questions in exactly the same way, between being fair, protecting the sport, cutting costs, protecting the PU manufacturers, protecting their investment. All of those, there's not a single place which is perfect for everything. So what we're trying to do in working with them is find that sweet spot. But that sweet spot is never going to be answering all the questions 100%.”
The main concern
It’s impossible to predict what happens next. There are far more questions than the two which Tombazis mentioned. But any attempt to alter the near-term engine formula will bring complications. If F1 scraps the 2026 rules altogether, it risks losing at least one manufacturer. If Audi or Honda ends up being overruled by a super-majority, will they stay – and if not, what happens to the teams they’re supposed to supply engines to?
The sequence in which these questions are addressed is important too. Tombazis says the first is about the long-term vision and whether a V10 future is something teams and manufacturers even want. That could take months to define. But the second question is more urgent: any changes to the 2026 regulations would require manufacturers to adjust their development plans, which are already well under way.
“I mean, that's a decision by the FIA,” Red Bull advisor Helmut Marko told Motorsport.com. “But a V10 with e-fuel could be a good solution. Such an engine is much cheaper. It's more attractive from the noise and everything. And as you see, most manufacturers are going back to combustion engines because the electric car situation does not work like it was supposed to be.
“I think there are so many questions involved. And it has to be a clearer view [on] what really the changes would be. And if changes are coming, they should come as quick as possible.”
At this point, the investments already made mean the idea of abandoning the 2026 rules is almost impossible. But could there be a middle ground – with the new rules running for only two, three, or four years before a switch to V10s?
Ultimately, there’s one question above all: does it even make sense to have this discussion in public?
It would arguably have been better to keep it behind closed doors. Because even talking openly about the possibility of change may be awkward – or uncomfortable – for some parties. Especially for those F1 worked so hard to bring on board.
But in a world as complex as F1, with so many competing agendas, such conversations inevitably become public. And now that it’s out there, putting the genie back in the bottle won’t be easy.
