Fernando Alonso has consistently expressed his opinions regarding the 2026 rules throughout the current season. From the initial pre-season trials in Bahrain, he highlighted how Formula 1 vehicles, with their significant reliance on energy recuperation, diminish the challenge in turns—the precise sections where a driver’s skill ought to remain crucial.
Before the Canadian Grand Prix, Alonso restated his stance as F1 considered potential modifications for 2027. The proposal involves shifting from an almost equal distribution of internal combustion engine and electric power to a more conventional 60/40 ratio. Nevertheless, this outcome is uncertain because manufacturers have not finalized an accord, and any adjustments might be postponed until 2028.
Alonso contends that F1 needs to implement more extensive changes, intensifying his critique of the current engine regulations. He suggests that even a regulatory shift in 2027 wouldn’t fundamentally change things, describing the following season as merely a transitional period before the technical evolution planned for 2031. Crucially, the two-time F1 titleholder reiterated his longstanding conviction: that the hybrid epoch has robbed the sport of a full decade of authentic competition.
“The path the world embarked on, or believed it would, towards electrification was perceived as the way forward, but this doesn’t hold true for competitive motor racing,” Alonso stated. “Racing operates on distinct principles. Currently, we’re reverting somewhat to a 60-40 split, with an expectation of further reduction in the future. Regrettably, the period from 2014, marked by the turbo era, and even more so now, has caused us to forfeit almost, or even more than, a decade of unadulterated racing.”
However, has Formula 1 genuinely sacrificed ten years of authentic competition due to its hybrid power systems?
It is undeniable that the initial effect—across both the preceding and current technical phases—lacked significant exhilaration, which is somewhat expected. By 2014, the intricate nature of the new power unit hardware instantly made dependability a major concern, as teams and racers contended with nascent and challenging-to-operate systems.
Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin Racing
Photo by: Maya Dehlin Spach / LAT Images via Getty Images
Given its completely novel nature, a seamless implementation of the technology was improbable. Nevertheless, these power units eventually achieved reliability, contributing to numerous record-breaking performances. Furthermore, F1 cannot arbitrarily halt technological advancements if they offer benefits to the championship. Alonso’s primary concern, however, centers on a different aspect: the effect of electrical power on the sport’s competitive dynamics.
Initially, the problem of vehicle mass presents itself. Although it’s accurate that enhanced chassis safety features have also led to heavier cars, the inclusion of a pair of electric motors and a battery intrinsically increases overall bulk. This results in less nimble vehicles—a critical concern for drivers, who have persistently requested lighter, more agile cars, reminiscent of the machines Alonso piloted twenty years prior.
Those who experienced that period understandably recall those vehicles with affection and a touch of wistfulness. Yet, another factor exists: when electric power functions not merely as a Kinetic Energy Recovery System (KERS) but as a fundamental element of the propulsion unit—as it did until the conclusion of 2025 and will continue to in the forthcoming technical phase—specific constraints emerge. A prime example is ‘derating,’ which refers to the decrease in velocity at the conclusion of a straightaway once the electrical energy supply is depleted.
With the prior regulatory framework, this velocity decrease was considerably less noticeable, owing to the MGU-K’s reduced output, which facilitated energy distribution across extended straight sections. Additionally, the ‘unseen’ input from the MGU-H played a role.
On certain occasions, teams were unable to commence a lap with a completely full battery, typically pausing at about 90% capacity, or they needed to strategically plan laps during races to replenish energy reserves before initiating an offensive maneuver. Prudent energy management was vital to optimize the roughly 160 extra horsepower offered by the MGU-K during attempts to overtake.
This version of F1 diverged significantly from what supporters were used to, yet the restrictions of that initial hybrid iteration proved comparatively controllable.
Alonso’s 2005 title-winning Renault, which boasted a screaming V10
Photo by: Rainer Schlegelmilch / Getty Images
“Even with our previous engines, which featured an 80-20 or 85-15 distribution, at certain tracks, we couldn’t achieve complete power deployment universally,” clarified Oscar Piastri of McLaren in Montreal.
“We came very close, and at many circuits, we achieved it, but until a power distribution is established that allows for continuous full electrical output, it will consistently feel somewhat peculiar for us drivers on the straight sections. Irrespective of the specific power ratio, challenges will persist when commencing a qualifying lap, such as ensuring the battery is at the optimal charge level.
“Achieving the correct battery condition is an exceptionally precise and arduous balancing act, because, indeed, one either begins the lap with an incomplete battery charge or with insufficient boost pressure in the turbocharger, and there isn’t truly a remedy for this beyond modifying the underlying hardware.”
The core difficulty emerges when concessions are unavoidable, and hybrid technology transitions from being an auxiliary aid to an indispensable reliance. This is exactly the predicament that has grown increasingly obvious under the existing technical framework.
Employing such a potent electrical element without the requisite supporting mechanisms—particularly after eliminating the MGU-H while maintaining virtually identical battery capacity—unavoidably highlights the system’s inherent compromises.
Such constraints have resulted in considerable reductions in velocity at specific circuits and necessitate a driving approach where racers must meticulously consider accelerator pedal application, particularly during qualifying sessions, despite the fact that adjustments implemented in Miami have somewhat alleviated these challenges.
Honda Power Unit
Photo by: Take Itoh
It might appear astonishing, but in Formula E, these particular restrictions and tactical driving approaches are less prominent, primarily because the series was conceived entirely around electric propulsion from its inception, incorporating a comprehensive understanding of its inherent limitations.
Achieving an optimal equilibrium with hybrid powerplants is considerably more challenging, particularly under a framework such as the present regulations, which are themselves founded upon a series of concessions. It is therefore not unexpected that current dialogues center on reinstating a 60/40 power distribution for either 2027 or 2028.
Hybrid technology does not possess intrinsic defects—even within the context of motor racing—however, it necessitates optimal utilization and backing, considering the present technological confines. Its role should be supplementary to the primary propulsion system, rather than an element upon which the entire mechanism is reliant.
Not every competitor holds Alonso’s exact perspective. Carlos Sainz, for instance, has articulated a more moderate viewpoint, considering the 2025 power units as a satisfactory culmination that didn’t inherently detract from F1’s entertainment value.
“I believe for us drivers, that will never be adequate,” Sainz commented. “I think we are all passionate about the same thing: if electrical power is involved, it ought to be an auxiliary component, not a fundamental reliance on electrical power as we experience it currently.”
“Previously, we utilized KERS, and under the former power unit regulations, the electrical element felt more like an enhancement to an already robust power unit. I anticipate that drivers, traditionalists, and even journalists such as yourselves will universally consider that a 60-40 split is likely still insufficient, but at minimum, it offers a framework conducive to genuine competition until truly authentic racing and conventional engines return by 2030.”
