Andrea Stella is basically telling the paddock what it already suspects: the current power unit formula still leaves too many unanswered questions in energy management, and the cure may require hardware, not just a tweak in software philosophy. According to our F1 coverage, the first emergency-style fixes were agreed in time to ease some of the 2026 teething issues—Jogo Hoje has been tracking how those changes are landing on-track.
But the urgency comes with a reality check. Stella argues that structural changes before 2028 are extremely unlikely, not because nobody wants them, but because the calendar and engineering lead times don’t care about good intentions.
What Stella wants to change in the power unit
Stella’s starting point is blunt: the category has improved how cars behave, yet the fundamental balance between combustion and electric energy still isn’t where it should be. The key levers are the MGU-K and the way the car handles recovery of energy, alongside the hardware that governs the fluxo de combustível and battery sizing.
Right now, the MGU-K target level being cited is 350 kW. Stella floats the idea that F1 could move to 400 kW or even 450 kW, but that’s only half the story. He also argues that the system needs to be able to harvest and store more energy, which points directly to a battery maior to prevent the car from falling off a cliff in the middle of a stint.
- Increase the fuel flow to raise combustion output and rebalance the power split.
- Boost recovery of energy capability so the car spends less time “using” stored electric energy and more time “making” it back.
- Adopt bigger battery hardware to reduce the risk of energy running out too quickly.
And if F1 wants a lower-impact lever while the big decisions are debated, Stella’s line of thought also includes aerodynamic relief. A slight reduction in downforce could lower cornering speeds enough to cut energy demand, which is the kind of band-aid that sometimes keeps the spectacle alive while engineering catches up.
Why the solution hits fuel, battery, and chassis at once
Here’s where the tactical/engineering reality really bites. If you raise the unidade de potência combustion potential by increasing fluxo de combustível, you don’t just “get more power.” You also force knock-on changes across the car. More fuel means a bigger tank, and a bigger tank means you have to rethink packaging, weight distribution, and structural layout.
That’s why Stella’s hardware talk inevitably drags in the chassi. The cars built under the current assumptions can’t simply “absorb” a sudden jump in fuel consumption and battery requirements without redesign work. Even if the team keeps the same basic architecture, the internal constraints can become brutal.
It’s not just a power-unit question; it’s a full-system question. The cost cap turns it into a budget chess match, because every design hour and every new part has to justify itself in performance terms. If a team can keep its current car and still be competitive, it will. If it can’t, then the trade-off becomes: spend now on structural adaptation, or wait for the next clean window.
What changes between 2027 and 2028 on the schedule
Stella is clear that the unrealistic timeline is the real villain. He sees manufacturers struggling to land hardware revisions in 2027 because the changes aren’t plug-and-play. Moving from the cited 350 kW baseline to something like 400 kW or 450 kW isn’t just an MGU-K calibration job; it reshapes the battery and the energy flow logic, and it forces physical changes to accommodate a bigger battery and the implications of altered fluxo de combustível.
In his view, the sensible target is to close the discussions before the mid-year pause so the category can actually apply the changes in time for 2028. He also points to 2027 as a deadline that looks way too tight for the scale of adaptation required.
That “finish the debate early” message isn’t about politeness. It’s about giving teams enough runway to design, validate, and integrate without rushing the kind of decisions that later become reliability nightmares.
The positions of Mercedes, Alpine, and the FIA
Mercedes, through Toto Wolff, isn’t waving the white flag for change, but he’s also not buying the premise that the power-unit rulebook needs a dramatic short-term reset. Wolff argues that anyone calling for quick engine regulation shifts should reconsider the bigger picture, pointing to how the cars delivered a spectacular GP of Miami under the adjusted 2026 framework.
Wolff’s angle is pragmatic: yes, F1 can always optimize, and yes, the category should aim for more aggressive performance in the “modo de reta” moments. But he insists that extracting extra combustion output and improving overall spectacle requires time—time to do it properly, time to develop, and time to validate.
On the Alpine side, Steve Nielsen underlines the engineering and budget implications. He basically says: the moment you add more fuel, you need a larger tank, and that implies a different chassi. With the cost cap, teams will invest where they see the best performance return, which means a new structural package for 2027 may not be the priority for everyone.
Nielsen also adds a concrete warning: if the tank needs to grow by something like 10 or 20 liters, and the current design can’t swallow that extra volume, then you’re forced into adaptation—and you must know that in advance. He’s also hoping the flurry of last-weeks changes slows down, because the response capacity for big technical shifts will be tested if decisions land too close to the next season.
So where does the FIA fit? The organization has already approved the first emergency-style adjustments to address early 2026 issues and improve the classification show. The next question is whether it’s willing to steer toward deeper hardware changes—or whether it will keep the focus on incremental fixes until the 2028 window opens.
What’s at stake for the show and for the manufacturers
The spectacle problem isn’t abstract. If energy management leaves cars vulnerable to running out of usable power, overtaking gets messy in the wrong way. You end up with gaps that feel more like strategy failures than racing battles. That’s exactly what Stella is trying to prevent by talking about recovery of energy, bigger battery capacity, and a better power balance.
But hardware changes come with a cost in complexity. Manufacturers aren’t just building engines; they’re building an entire ecosystem around the unidade de potência. A change to fluxo de combustível impacts packaging and the chassi, and a change to the energy targets impacts battery sizing and integration. That’s why the cost cap matters so much here—because it limits how many “parallel experiments” teams can afford while they chase the optimum energy profile.
For the FIA, the balancing act is clear: performance, safety, cost control, and a development calendar that doesn’t magically stretch. If F1 gets this wrong, it risks either cars that don’t have enough energy to race hard, or teams that struggle with reliability and development thrash.
O Veredito Jogo Hoje
We’re not buying the idea that this can be solved with another round of clever energy-management tweaks alone. Stella is right: when the category talks about MGU-K targets moving beyond the current 350 kW and hints at bigger battery capacity, you’re already in hardware territory, and hardware doesn’t respect wishful thinking. If F1 wants full-throttle weekends with fewer “dead” moments, the real decision is whether it’s willing to pay the engineering price—and that’s why 2028 is the only window that makes technical sense.
Perguntas Frequentes
Why does F1 want to change the power units?
Because the current energy and power balance can still leave cars vulnerable during stints, affecting overtaking and race rhythm. Teams and the FIA are looking to refine recovery of energy, improve how the MGU-K contributes, and ensure the unidade de potência supports closer, more consistent racing.
Why are the changes so hard before 2028?
Because deeper updates would require hardware work tied to fluxo de combustível and battery capacity. Increasing fuel flow typically forces changes to the fuel tank and the chassi, while higher energy targets require a bigger battery and integration effort. With the cost cap and development timelines, the 2027 window is too tight for this scale of adaptation.
What could change in the engine, battery, and fuel tank?
Stella points to possible increases from the cited 350 kW in the MGU-K direction toward 400 kW or 450 kW, alongside bigger battery hardware to support more sustained recovery of energy. He also suggests higher fluxo de combustível, which would likely require a larger fuel tank and therefore packaging adjustments in the chassi, potentially involving 10 to 20 liters more fuel depending on the final targets.
