F1 | Ceccarelli: “This time the drivers played an active role in changing the rules”
Formula 1 has approved a highly significant regulatory shift for the future, with the balance of power in the hybrid power unit set to change from 2027. Under the revised concept, 60% of the total output will come from the internal combustion engine, while the electric contribution will be reduced to 40%.
The move appears to reflect growing frustration from drivers over the way modern Formula 1 cars have become heavily shaped by energy management, forcing competitors to focus as much on battery deployment strategy as outright driving performance. While drivers were not formally seated at the negotiating table, their increasingly vocal criticism seems to have played a meaningful role in influencing the final direction of the rule changes.
Riccardo Ceccarelli, mental coach and founder of Formula Medicine, believes this marks a rare moment in Formula 1 history where drivers have genuinely helped shape the sport’s future.
“I remember back in 1982, when I was little more than a child, the drivers went on strike in South Africa at Kyalami. They barricaded themselves inside a hotel and all slept there together. I remember drivers occasionally launching protests like that, but nobody listened to them.”
Ceccarelli pointed out that historically, drivers have had very limited influence over major decisions in Formula 1.
“Historically, the driver has always had very little impact on decision-making, partly because figures like Bernie Ecclestone knew exactly how to handle them. The philosophy was always the same: tell them to behave, remind them they were being paid very well, and make it clear they could be replaced at any moment, so it was better if they stayed quiet.”
Today, however, the atmosphere in Formula 1 appears to be very different, even if the stars of the paddock have not needed to stage dramatic protests or strikes to make their voices heard.
“Now, I genuinely believe the complaints from the drivers may have played a role in the 2027 regulatory changes. Formula 1 today thrives on media impact. In fact, it has achieved extraordinary success precisely because of the massive attention it has managed to generate globally. The drivers’ complaints were consistently reported across newspapers and online platforms. It wasn’t just one driver complaining, but many of them, and that does not help Formula 1’s public image.”
According to Ceccarelli, there is also a deeper sporting issue at stake.
“The second aspect to consider is more sporting than political. Formula 1 should reward the best driver, not the best energy manager. They realised that the defining qualities of a champion should not be distorted. It makes more sense to allow driving talent to emerge, rather than placing excessive importance on managing the car’s available resources. There has been an important rethink because until the new cars actually ran on track, it was difficult to fully understand how they would behave, despite the endless simulator work. Reality only became clear during the first tests, so I’m not surprised adjustments have been made.”
The revised 2027 framework will therefore break the previously planned hybrid balance by restoring greater importance to the combustion engine, while maintaining a strong electrified identity.
“For the wider public, the philosophy of the regulations will not be revolutionary because hybrid technology will still play a major role. But when you put all the factors together, I believe Formula 1 is moving in the right direction, precisely the direction indicated by the drivers, who this time expressed reasonable and understandable views. Formula 1 has made the correct decision, one that should not reduce the spectacle. The drivers’ suggestions were heard, and in the end I believe they played an important role in the final choice.”
Attention is already beginning to shift even further into the future, with Formula 1 and the FIA reportedly exploring the possibility of an entirely new engine formula for 2030, potentially centred around naturally aspirated 2.6-litre V8 engines equipped with a smaller KERS system.
The long-term ambition behind such a concept would be to simplify the power units significantly, potentially reducing dependence on major manufacturers and moving toward a more standardised customer-engine model for teams.
But Ceccarelli remains sceptical about whether such a strategy could realistically succeed.
“As long as manufacturers are deeply embedded in Formula 1, it will be extremely difficult to push them out, because being part of the Circus brings enormous advantages. It delivers influence, power, and huge global visibility. The manufacturers will fight to preserve the role they have built, even though I understand how heavily rule-making can be affected by the presence of extremely powerful brands that naturally try to shape regulations in their own favour, as has always happened throughout Formula 1 history.”
The political tension between independent teams and manufacturers is far from new in Formula 1.
“There was a time when the manufacturers were growing in strength and wanted to form a united front in order to secure economic advantages from Bernie Ecclestone, while also gaining greater influence over decision-making because the financial commitment was becoming much larger. If I remember correctly, they succeeded in securing more money and more influence over the rules.”
The question remains whether a low-cost customer engine model could eventually become a genuine threat to the current competitive structure.
“In the end, everything comes down to costs. Clearly, if there were an affordable engine, it would allow major savings under the budget cap system, giving teams stronger margins and making the entire structure more stable. But whether the FIA and Formula 1 can truly take greater control of the Grand Prix ecosystem remains uncertain, because standing in their way would be Mercedes, Ferrari, Alpine, Honda, Audi, Ford, and Cadillac — and those companies will certainly not simply step aside. Offering a low-cost naturally aspirated engine to a team like Williams is one thing. Reducing the influence of the major manufacturers is something entirely different.”
Leave a Reply