Car 2031, what options: the risk is repeating the mistake of 2026

Formula 1 works on two fronts, thinking on the one hand about how to intervene on the current regulations in the short and medium term, and on the other already looking to the next technical cycle. There is no shortage of proposals on the path to take with the new engines, but the important thing will be not to lose sight of what the priorities should be. The risk is repeating the mistake already made with the 2026 regulations: conceiving the machine as a sum of parts and not as a whole. The options for the engines The latest indiscretion on the 2031 engines comes from Auto Motor und Sport, which reports the proposal to downsize or even eliminate the hybrid component. In this scenario, the image of environmental sustainability would be entrusted to synthetic and/or bio-based fuels, whose carbon footprint, however, is not zero. We then ask ourselves what characteristics the combustion engine should have, starting from the choice between turbo and aspirated. The second would be the most fascinating from a noise point of view, while keeping the turbo would benefit efficiency, fuel consumption and weight. As regards the splitting, however, there are no particular constraints, being able to achieve excellent performance depending on whether you aim for 10, 8 or again 6 cylinders. Wanting to break the mold, from a purely technical point of view there would also be the conditions to give participants freedom of choice regarding the architecture of the engine, as there is now a regulation that sets the budget cap, the minimum weight of the power unit and above all the energy flow of the fuel. However, this solution is unlikely to be reached, as there is fear that it could lead to large differences in performance. Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images The fate of the hybrid The other big question concerns the hybrid, even evaluating whether to completely give up the electric component, given the slowdown in electrification in the automotive industry, especially the Western one. However, we will have to be careful, since not everyone seems to agree. “The power unit will have to partly have a hybrid system,” Koji Watanabe, president of Honda HRC, declared to FormulaPassion a few weeks ago. “This is the requirement for Honda to be present in Formula 1.” It is realistic to think that the thought is also shared by Toyota, which continues to monitor Formula 1, pondering a possible return. Even if the power units were to maintain a certain electrical component, it is highly probable that the hybrid will be simplified. It’s not just a matter of reducing the power, but of setting the electrical part simply to give an extra boost for short periods, rather than to provide prolonged assistance. IndyCar, for example, has chosen this path, focusing on supercapacitor batteries rather than lithium ion ones, exploiting their better power-to-weight ratio. Jakub Porzycki/NurPhoto via Getty Images The priorities for the chassis Unfortunately, the only rumors that leak out concern the proposals for the engines, raising the risk that the mistake made with the 2026 regulations could be repeated, the original sin of which was not so much the ratio between thermal and electric power. The problem, if anything, was defining the power unit first and only then the aerodynamics, then persisting in moving forward, perhaps erring on the side of optimism, despite the simulations warning of the danger of an anomalous Formula 1. Fortunately, by focusing on a less powerful hybrid for the next cycle, there are also fewer risks, but not conceiving the car as a whole right away would feel like a wasted opportunity. The priorities for the chassis part are to reduce weight and size, as well as reduce aerodynamic disturbance. They are objectives aligned with each other, as shortening and narrowing the cars would lead to their lightening, also reducing the aerodynamic load necessary to have sufficient grip when cornering. The discussion is intertwined with that of the power to be achieved with the combustion engine, given that less downforce equals less resistance on the straight. Much will also depend on what you decide to do with the active aerodynamics. Continuing to open the wings in a straight line would make sense from the point of view of reducing consumption and the weight of the fuel on board, but at that point a less powerful power unit would be needed to avoid reaching dangerous top speeds. Wan Mikhail Roslan/NurPhoto via Getty Images The problem of overtaking There is then another risk, that of underestimating the difficulties of overtaking, as the opposite problem now exists. With a downsizing of the hybrid, unfortunately, the theme will arise again, since the closer the performance of the cars are to each other, the more difficult it becomes to overtake. We need a tool capable of opening up performance differences for a few moments, without necessarily returning to the old DRS scheme, which only benefited the attacker. One solution could be an IndyCar-style push-to-pass system, a button to press to squeeze more power from the combustion engine and/or hybrid, with a limited time of use over the course of the race or a single lap and possibly also exploitable by the defender. The study of the feasibility of overtaking, however, cannot transcend the characteristics of the tracks, in a calendar increasingly full of citizens. Furthermore, beyond the circuits, a track can be difficult or easy for overtaking also depending on the cars racing on it, as perfectly highlighted in Suzuka by the comparison between 2026 and the ground effect era. Overall, the success of the next regulatory cycle will depend on the ability of the FIA ​​and teams to learn from the mistakes of the past, designing tomorrow’s Formula 1 as a whole rather than as the sum of distinct parts.