A significant talking point following the 2026 Japanese Grand Prix was Lando Norris’s disclosure that he had unintentionally passed Lewis Hamilton by mistakenly activating an alternative engine setting. The core principle of motorsport truly lies in the driver’s ability to maximize a vehicle’s performance.
The ‘Boost-gate’ incident further emphasized the current non-linear nature of F1 car boosting, a stark contrast to previous turbocharging periods, due to the constant, quick cycles of energy accumulation and release happening throughout each lap.
A notoriously difficult aspect of turbocharging during the 1970s and ’80s, largely mitigated by the MGU-H in the hybrid era beginning after 2014, is known as turbo lag. This describes the time gap between a driver’s demand for engine power and the moment it is actually delivered, caused by the compressor’s rotational inertia as it accelerates.
Turbo lag has resurfaced as an F1 consideration due to the MGU-H’s elimination, intended for system simplification. This component, exceptionally challenging to design for consistent operation given its requirement to spin at speeds reaching 100,000 rpm, was crucial for recovering thermal energy and using it to pre-accelerate the turbocharger.
When engine power outputs climbed significantly past 1000bhp during the mid-1980s zenith of F1’s initial turbo era, drivers had to meticulously control the raw, abrupt power delivery with their accelerator pedal. This immense power often surged forth suddenly, largely because innovative fuel mixtures allowed engineers to increase compression ratios and integrate larger turbochargers.
Nigel Mansell described the method of piloting a twin-turbo F1 car as ‘completely thoughtless’ when prompted for an explanation.
Martin Brundle, in my opinion, perfectly captured it by stating that during this period of motorsport, the vehicle at every turn felt intent on harming you.
I entirely concur with his sentiment. Approaching each bend, we were constantly uncertain of the car’s reaction due to the inherent delay…
Nigel Mansell, Williams FW11B Honda.
Photo by: LAT Photographic
Mansell is scheduled to appear as a distinguished attendee at the Pop-Up Hotel hospitality area during this year’s British Grand Prix, a location offering views of where he accomplished one of his most extraordinary feats: disregarding his fuel gauge, maximizing engine boost, and relentlessly pursuing and overtaking his Williams colleague Nelson Piquet at Stowe corner to claim victory in the 1987 event. During the cool-down lap, his FW11B reportedly stopped due to fuel exhaustion and, legend has it, suffered at least one melted piston.
Similarities can be drawn between Honda’s present F1 struggles and their initial turbocharged endeavors with Spirit and Williams. The inaugural RA163E 1.5-liter V6 engine from 1983 was essentially a compact-stroke adaptation of their acclaimed 2-liter naturally aspirated F2 power unit, enhanced with a turbocharger. Characterized by an extremely oversquare design, featuring a 90mm bore and a 39mm stroke, this engine frequently experienced piston malfunctions due to the extensive surface areas being exposed to excessive heat that could not be uniformly managed.
The issue of lag was more pronounced, a fact Mansell highlighted upon his transfer to Williams in late 1984 from Lotus, where he had experienced Renault’s potent yet comparatively smoother V6 turbo. For the subsequent three seasons, Honda progressively reduced the bore size through 82mm and 79mm versions, while extending the strokes to 47.2mm and 50.8mm, aiming to achieve a broader, more practical rev range and to bridge the transition more seamlessly between no power and full power.
Despite these enhancements and the incorporation of variable-geometry turbochargers, the precise moment of power delivery still relied on the driver’s discretion.
Mansell commented, ‘The turbo lag experienced currently is not comparable to what we faced in that era.’ He clarified, ‘Especially in ’85, ’86, and even portions of ’87, the extent of lag varied based on the specific turbocharger installed in the vehicle.’
He recounted, ‘In ’85, Keke Rosberg and I were involved in several terrible crashes because we would demand power and depress the accelerator. One, two, even three seconds would pass, yet no power would materialize.’
‘Then the corner would rapidly approach, prompting you to ease off the throttle, but still, nothing would occur. Subsequently, the power would surge mid-corner, precisely when it was unwelcome, leading to excursions off track and collisions.’
‘This made one appear foolish. Consequently, with Honda at the outset, we encountered numerous iterations of the early turbo engine—designated A, B, C, D, and so on—there were just so many variations.’
Alain Prost, McLaren, Nigel Mansell, Williams and Nelson Piquet, Williams
Photo by: Sutton Images
He also recalled, ‘One particular time in Monaco was dreadful. I believe we destroyed six engines over a single weekend. The fuel quality was poor, causing the pistons to detonate.’
‘Consequently, driving these vehicles was an astonishing, exhilarating, and frankly incredible experience, as you had to cling to them through every turn. Picture entering a corner, braking intensely, yet having to anticipate applying power two seconds ahead of when it’s truly needed… all to reach the apex and allow the car to propel you through it.’
‘If your timing is precise, it’s perfect. However, if you’re mid-corner and misjudge the timing, and the power either arrives too soon or too late, it could send you crashing into the wall.’
‘Therefore, indeed, it stands as one of Formula 1’s legendary periods, during which I believe drivers truly merited every cent of their earnings. The level of danger was simply extreme.’
Naturally, this period predated any restrictions on the number of engines drivers could utilize throughout a season. It was possible to destroy and substitute as many as required, assuming one belonged to a factory team backed by an eager and financially robust provider.
Currently, only singular turbo compressors are allowed, with features like variable-geometry compressors prohibited for cost-saving reasons. The operating conditions within the combustion chamber are markedly dissimilar: unlike the 1980s, when high compression ratios, advanced ignition timing, and elevated intake pressures were supported by hazardous anti-‘knock’ substances like toluene, today’s compression ratio is set at a more moderate level, and the fuel used is a specially formulated, entirely sustainable mixture.
Despite being heavier and achieving lower peak power than their 1980s turbocharged predecessors, modern cars are, in fact, quicker around a lap due to progress in aerodynamic comprehension. During that era of extravagance, a cumbersome ‘barn door’ style wing was a tolerable trade-off, serving the purpose of delivering immense power to the track surface.
Mansell recollects, ‘The horsepower available to us in those days was truly astounding.’
‘To elaborate, these power units were capable of generating as much as 1,500 horsepower. There were tracks where wheelspin would occur in sixth gear, even at speeds of 170 to 180 miles per hour…’
