Audi has planted its flag in the ground over Formula 1’s proposed 2027 engine tweak, and it’s not the kind of “we’ll see” stance that leaves much room for polite interpretation in the next Power Unit Advisory Committee meeting.
In Monaco, Audi CEO Gernot Döllner made it clear the manufacturer would rather the sport didn’t revisit the power split that underpins the 2026 regulations. The idea on the table is to tilt the balance back towards the internal combustion engine by shifting from a near 50-50 split to roughly 60-40 in favour of combustion, achieved by increasing fuel flow to effectively add around 50kW from the ICE while trimming 50kW from the electrical side.
Audi’s argument is bluntly practical: stability and cost.
“We would prefer to stay with what we have right now, due to two reasons,” Döllner said. “First of all, we first of all have to work on the system we have in the car right now, and there’s a lot of stuff to optimise in our project, and the change would not help us on our path to optimise the actual drive train.
“The other aspect is a cost cap. It would take away money from other areas that we would prefer to put the money to.”
For a manufacturer still in the build phase of its works programme, that’s the key subtext: the 2026 rules were the pitch that helped bring Audi to the table, and it’s hardly surprising the company doesn’t want the goalposts nudged before it’s even had a proper chance to play the game.
The politics of this one are messy because the sport isn’t talking about a clean-sheet engine. It’s talking about a mid-cycle correction — a change for 2027 that would, at least in theory, make the cars read better from the grandstands and sit better with audiences who’ve not warmed to the direction of the current formula. The existing architecture was designed around attracting major OEMs and putting efficiency and sustainability front and centre. The unintended consequence, as the paddock has found, is that “what looks right on a PowerPoint slide” doesn’t always translate to what fans or even drivers want to hear and feel on a Sunday.
That’s why this proposal exists at all. It’s an attempt to pull the needle back towards combustion without detonating the broader regulatory framework the FIA and F1 have already committed to. And it’s why Audi’s objections land with extra weight: this isn’t a team fighting for a competitive edge in next month’s upgrade cycle, it’s a manufacturer warning against destabilising a long-term project inside a cost-controlled environment.
The sticking point is that the rules don’t require unanimity. The change needs a supermajority among the PU stakeholders. So Audi can be a “blocker” in mood and messaging, but still find itself outvoted if the rest decide the show needs the adjustment badly enough.
Ferrari, though, has also voiced concerns, which is what turns this from a footnote into a proper fight. If another major player is uneasy — even if open to compromise — it complicates the arithmetic and the diplomacy. The engine manufacturers aren’t just arguing about numbers; they’re arguing about the value of sunk costs, development trajectories, and what the sport can credibly ask them to rework on short notice without blowing up budgets or timelines.
Döllner didn’t offer much in the way of a soft landing. Asked about adapting if the regulation changes, he acknowledged the reality — if it happens, Audi will comply — but he didn’t dress it up as anything other than reluctant acceptance.
“First we need the decision on the regulation, and then of course we have a view, what that would mean to our development process,” he said. “But if the regulation comes, we have to adapt to it. It’s like that. But we would prefer not to have it, that’s crystal clear.”
There’s also a broader tension humming away underneath the 2027 conversation: the sport’s longer-term engine identity crisis.
The current PU layout is effectively locked in for years yet, with any truly radical shift unlikely before the next major governance window. And while there’s been noise around simpler engines and even a return to V8s — with FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem among those publicly championing the idea — that’s not something you flip on with a year’s notice. It’s a structural change that would reshape supply deals, manufacturer commitments, and the entire technical roadmap.
Audi, for its part, is signalling it’s engaged in those longer-range discussions, and its priorities aren’t especially mysterious. It wants efficiency and sustainability to remain central, and it’s more interested in turbocharging than cylinder-count nostalgia.
“The regulation discussion regarding the year 2030-31 is led by FIA,” Döllner said. “We are part of that process, and I think it’s a good process been set up. We are open to what’s coming.
“Our perspective was always that we want a regulation that has efficiency and sustainability in the focus. If you ask me for my preference, [it is] to have a turbo charged engine is more important than the number of cylinders.”
So where does this leave the 2027 proposal? In the awkward middle ground where F1 often finds itself: a sport trying to fix a perception problem without creating a governance and spending problem, while manufacturers weigh the marketing upside of “better racing” against the engineering reality of “more change, more cost, more risk”.
Audi is essentially saying: you sold us a set of rules, we’re building to them, and we’re not thrilled about paying for a detour. Whether that stance holds depends on how much appetite the rest of the room has for compromise — and how hard F1’s commercial and sporting stakeholders push for a more combustion-forward product.
Either way, the next round of talks isn’t going to be a technical seminar. It’s going to be a negotiation about trust.
