Refuelling could return to Formula 1 by 2031 in a bid to reduce car weight, according to FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem, who is also pushing for the return of a third-party generic engine manufacturer to the sport.
A return to V8 engines is all but a done deal by 2031 at the latest, with both the FIA and Formula 1 keen to reduce the complexity and cost of the F1 power unit. Auto manufacturers currently involved in the sport have also tacitly approved the move.
But as much as the administrators are determined to bring costs down, there is increasing momentum behind the push to reduce the weight of the cars, which has ballooned exponentially over the past decade.
Fox Sports, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every practice, qualifying session and race in the 2026 FIA Formula One World Championship™ LIVE in 4K. New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.
The introduction of hybrid power has been a major factor in the increase, with the turbocharger and battery pack particular culprits.
The 2026 regulations were the first to try to peg back mass, with minimum weight dropped from 800 kilograms last year to 768 kilograms this season, but that’s still up 126 kilograms on the minimum weight of the pre-hybrid cars.
A return to simpler engines would represent an immediate weight saving.
However, left unsaid is that the stripping back of hybrid elements and turbocharging would force cars to carry significantly more fuel — so much that it could effectively negate the weight saved, at least in the early stages of the race, when the cars are fat with petrol.
Speaking at the British Grand Prix, Ben Sulayem said the sport was open to reintroducing refuelling to limit tank sizes and thereby reduce starting weight.
“How much you start with, how much you fill, this is what we are studying right now,” he said, per The Race.
“Of course if you want to run the whole race, you have to have a bigger tank or you have to stop [to refuel], so this is something that we are going to look into.”
‘F*** THIS’ Verstappen rages after crash | 01:09
HOW MUCH DIFFERENCE WOULD IT MAKE?
Minimum weight is a measure of the car with its driver, but it excludes fuel.
Fuel mass, then, is something of a shadow figure in the battle to reduce car weight given it doesn’t appear in the headline numbers.
Though there has never been a hard limit on fuel load — though fuel flow limits have been in place since 2014 — we know the rough numbers for average fuel loads over the years.
V8 refuelling era (2006–09)
Dry weight: 605 kilograms (2009)
Full tank: 675 kilograms
Minimum weight was raised by 20 kilograms in 2009, the last year of the refuelling era, to account for the introduction of KERS (kinetic energy recovery system), which was the sport’s first dalliance with hybrid power. The system produced around 60 kilowatts.
V8 post-refuelling era (2010–13)
Dry weight: 642 kilograms (2013)
Full tank: 802 kilograms
Weight was increased again in 2010 and 2011 to account for larger fuel tanks as well as safety improvements. By the end of the rules cycle, it the cars had grown by 37 kilograms in just four seasons, adding to the almost doubled fuel load not counted in the minimum weight.
First hybrid era (2014–25)
Dry weight: 800 kilograms (2025)
Full tank: 910 kilograms
Minimum weight increased by almost 50 kilograms in the first season of the turbo-hybrid engines and ballooned progressively from there, albeit largely thanks to the decision to introduce larger, wider cars as well as new safety infrastructure.
Second hybrid era (2026–2031)
Dry weight: 768 kilograms (2026)
Full tank: 858 kilograms
Weight was finally pegged back slightly this year, with savings coming from a decrease in car and tyre dimensions.
Though the current generation of power unit is the heaviest — notwithstanding overall car weight has decreased — it’s also the most efficient, meaning it carries the least fuel of any car in non-refuelling history.
Today’s cars start races with around 90 kilograms of fuel. The last time naturally aspirated engines were in play, in 2013, they started with on average 160 kilograms of fuel — and in fact the total engine-plus-fuel weight was around 15 kilograms heavier in 2013 than it is today.
It’s clear, then, why refuelling would be under consideration.
Leclerc wins amidst safety car confusion | 03:32
WHY DID F1 STOP REFUELLING?
Refuelling in Formula 1 was a relatively recent — by historical standards — and short-lived phenomenon.
Mid-race fuel stops were necessities in the early decades of grand prix racing but disappeared quickly in the Formula 1 era thanks to smaller engines, simpler fuels and shorter races rendering them impractical.
It re-emerged briefly in 1982, when the Brabham team designed F1’s first pressurised fuel rig. Being able to refuel a car in less than 30 seconds meant the time lost in pit lane was more than offset by the time gained from steering a lighter car — the fundamental equation at the heart of fuel strategy.
The idea took off, but by 1983 the sport had experienced its first fuel fire in pit lane, and the FIA banned refuelling from 1984.
The ban lasted only a decade, however, with refuelling reappearing in 1994 as part of sweeping new rules in part inspired by the Williams team’s domination through the likes of traction control and active suspension, which some argued had made the racing dull.
The back-to-basics 1994 rules included refuelling in the hope it would inspire more variable strategies.
All teams were required to use standard equipment to prevent them pushing the limits and compromising safety, yet in the very first season the sport experienced perhaps its most famous fuel fire, when Jos Verstappen’s Benetton burst into flames at the German Grand Prix.
Refuelling survived the scrutiny until it was culled once more at the end of the 2009 season.
Its second axing was partly due to safety concerns, with several refuelling-related incidents in pit lane — albeit none as dramatic as Verstappen’s fire — in the preceding years.
“It’s not a concern if you do it in the right way,” Ben Sulayem insisted. “We are studying this, and nothing has been done yet.”
Cost was another reason refuelling was dropped, with The Race reporting that teams estimate it could cost as much as US$4 million (A$5.8 million) per year per team to buy and freight refuelling gear around the world.
That would equate to around 1.9 per cent of the US$215 million (A$310 million) annual cost cap.
There was a third reason too, however, with many linking refuelling with a dearth of overtaking.
Teams realised they could avoid having their drivers attempting to overtake rivals on track if they just ran with an alternative fuel strategy, effectively passing cars in the pit lane. Long stretches of a race could pass by with would-be victory contenders lapping on their own and out of position at different parts of the circuit only for the order to suddenly appear after the last fuel stops, at which point the places would be effectively locked in — a technically interesting but visually uninspiring spectacle.
Overtaking data backs up the assertion, with fewer overtakes on average per season between 1994 and 2009 than the decades on either side of that period.
But refuelling has long been popular among a section of fans such that the concept has refused to fade away.
Now, much like V8 engines, the FIA could be poised to take F1 back to the future.
WILL A NEW ENGINE REALLY BE NATURALLY ASPIRATED?
Ben Sulayem revealing the governing body is considering refuelling is just the latest crumb of information being fed into the 2031 engine debate that otherwise hasn’t really started in earnest.
For example, despite the various assertions of the FIA president, there is no clear direction beyond general consensus around V8 engines being the preferred route.
A V8 motor is most likely because it is a common configuration among the auto manufacturers currently involved in the sport. V10 engines are extinct in the real world, and there has been little said about the possibility of a V12.
However, there is so far no agreement on whether any hybrid element or a turbocharger should be included.
Audi, for one, is insisting that the new engine be turbocharged, declaring a turbo is “definitely more important than talking about the number of cylinders,” per the BBC.
“That’s crystal clear from an Audi perspective. We prefer turbo due to the efficiency aspect,” said Audi CEO Gernot Döllner.
“[That is] the most important aspect for Audi, that we keep the idea of being sustainable and having a regulation that has energy efficiency in the focus as the main pillar of Formula 1 regulations.”
Mercedes, meanwhile, is insisting that there must be an electrical component to any new engine.
“How do we give it enough energy from the battery side to not lose connection to the real world?” team boss Toto Wolff said. “If we swing 100 per cent combustion, we might be looking a bit ridiculous in 2031 or 2030.”
Ben Sulayem believes the sport should pick one or the other but not both.
“A turbo means a lot of weight and a lot of money,” he said, per The Race. “And what does a turbo do? It removes the sound.
“Then you have a battery [that is heavy].
“I believe a turbo or a battery — one of them — and [that] the FIA should lead. If we just go in circles, we will not decide things.”
He cautioned, though, that any hybrid component would be minimal.
“[It] could be 10 per cent, it might be 15 per cent, but it won’t come to what we have now, that the electrification is at 46 per cent or something,” he said.
“We don’t want to go through the current issue where some drivers are lifting off in a straight line. This is not what we want, so lesson learned there.”
Brown won’t rule out Verstappen move | 00:27
BEN SULAYEM’S POLITICAL ENGINE PLAY
There’s even debate about the timeline.
The current engine formula — along with all the commercial and regulatory deals binding the sport together — will expire at the end of 2030.
Ben Sulayem would prefer to change the rules as quickly as possible and has earmarked 2030 as his preferred start date, less than four years from now.
To do so, however, he will need agreement among the engine manufacturers, who have collectively spent billions of dollars on the 2026 motor.
Alternatively, he could dictate the regulations for 2031, though it would run the risk of turning off the current manufacturers, who might walk if the rules aren’t to their liking.
Ben Sulayem has a solution for that too, however: a generic-label engine manufactured by a third-party supplier.
It’s another idea from F1’s past, when engine builders weren’t necessarily also constructors. The most renowned is Cosworth, which powered 176 victories, fewer than only Ferrari and Mercedes among motor manufacturers.
Not only would a generic engine increase competition, but it would also dilute the political power of the big manufacturers, who wield influence through their customer relationships.
“It will be an FIA-selected engine that would be allowed to the teams,” Ben Sulayem said.
“Then we control the neutrality, we control the power and the money. We cannot just give it away and say, ‘Go and do it to X, Y, Z’. Prices might go up and down, but the FIA will always be the judge.”
“There will be no control over the teams, A-team over the B-team, that’s supplied with their engines,” he said.
“If it is affordable, then we will have one engine for the rest of the B-teams, so nobody can leverage them and tell them, ‘Vote this way or we are not going to give you a good engine’.”
Just one year into its new-rules era, Formula 1 is eager to chart a course for its future.
Ironically, the future might be found in its past.
#Adessonews seleziona nella rete articoli di particolare interesse.
Se vuoi leggere l’articolo completo clicca sul seguente link
Source link
