“They’re a huge change,” he told Autocar following the announcement of his switch to Aston Martin.
“I mean, I can’t remember – it probably has happened at some time in the distant past – but I can’t remember the last time we had completely new power unit and chassis regulations at the same time.
“In reality, the power unit regulations because there’s a much longer lead time associated with power unit research than there is with the chassis side.
“Then the power unit regulations were fixed quite a few years ago without, in truth, properly, considering what chassis regulations were then needed to suit those PU regs. That’s something that the FIA, with support from teams, has been battling with since. How it will work out is, in truth, still not clear.”
With the confirmation of the F1 2026 power unit rules convincing Audi to sign up for F1 as an engine supplier and team owner, as well as attracting Ford to partner with Red Bull Powertrains and Honda’s full-time return as a supplier for Aston Martin, Newey said there’s no doubting the rules have worked to keep the manufacturers happy.
But the legendary car designer said he has doubts over the spectacle of Formula 1, remaining unconvinced that the new F1 2026 regulations won’t detract from the show.
“The original idea that the FIA wanted was 400 kilowatts from the PU and 400 kilowatts from the hybrid side – the electric machine,” he said.
“They then started to realise that 400 from the electric was too much to be sustainable, in terms of sustainable from lap to lap, so they’ve reduced that to 350 but even now there is still a lot of concern that, actually, the cars will be going significantly slower at the end of straight than at the start of the straight because they just run out of battery.
“It was a regulation that was brought in really, I think, primarily to keep the existing OEMs, the manufacturers in, and hopefully attract new ones.
“In that sense, you can argue it’s been successful. Audi is coming in. Honda has reversed their decision to exit and are staying in but what the show and the spectacle will be, I think it’s a concern.
“But Formula 1, somehow, seems to have a habit of being all right on the night!”
While Newey could have opted to stay away from F1 for a few years following confirmation of his pending split from Red Bull after almost two decades, the British engineer has put pen to paper to embrace the technical challenge for 2026.
But, asked what he would have done if he had a part to play in the rule-making process, Newey said he would have done the opposite and outlined the chassis regulations first and foremost.
“I think, first of all, the most important thing for Formula 1 is the individuality of the cars,” he said.
“So if the chassis regulations, which in particular and of course, means the aerodynamic regulations, become overly restrictive, then all the cars look and look the same.
“If you look at other categories who have kind of gone one make – IndyCar, perhaps being the worst example…or best example – then they went from a very successful series with many manufacturers in it through to the mid-’90s, to then going the one-manufacturer route with Dallara.
“Then everybody runs the same car, and public interest waned. You could argue, to an extent, that’s also happened in sports cars, at times.
“I’m not saying necessarily that prescribed aerodynamic performance is the route, but I would have done the opposite.
“This is the big question of does Formula 1 need manufacturers, OEMs, in the sport or not?
“Because, to me, the value is in the teams, not the manufacturers. Manufacturers come and go – they change CEOs, who decide suddenly that, actually, they’d much rather sponsor a tennis tournament than Formula 1, and they go off in a different direction. And that happens regularly. We’ve seen it.
“The teams themselves, that’s their sole livelihood. So, unless they get themselves into deep financial trouble, they’re not going to go away.
“From a spectator point of view, I’m not sure they’re that worried about whether it’s more fuel efficient or so on and so forth.
“I also feel, frankly, that the prescribed electric route, which most European governments have gone down, is not the right route.
“They’ve done the typical governmental thing of rather than saying, ‘This is a problem’, which I totally agree with, we need to do something to help save the planet, to improve ecology, etc, rather than say, ‘Right, this is the target, you OEMs go away and come up with some proposals’.
“They’ve said, ‘This is what we want, and this is what you will do. You will now go fully electric’.
“Don’t get me wrong, I think electric has definitely has its applications. It’s a great technology. It’s clearly developing fast.
“But to say that’s the prescribed technology and that’s all you can have, without allowing the manufacturers to go away and do the research to come up with alternatives, I don’t agree with that.
“It is very anti-engineer, and it’s by no means guaranteed that it’s going to produce the right solution in all cases, it won’t.”
