The proposal on the table
FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem is understood to be studying one of the more consequential regulatory shifts Formula 1 has considered in over a decade: reintroducing mid-race refuelling alongside a move away from the current turbocharged hybrid power units toward naturally aspirated V8 engines. The change is targeted for F1's next power unit cycle, provisionally set for 2031, with 2030 floated as a possible earlier start if manufacturers can agree to it.
Neither piece of the proposal is small on its own. Dropping hybrid turbo architecture for a naturally aspirated V8 would reverse the direction F1's engine regulations have moved in since 2014. Bringing back refuelling would undo a rule that has now been in place for a decade and a half. Together, they are being discussed as a package — because, as the engineering argument below shows, one is difficult to justify without the other.
The engineering crux: weight versus fuel
The starting point for all of this is weight. F1 cars have grown steadily heavier across successive regulation cycles — hybrid batteries, energy recovery hardware, and safety structures have all added mass — and the next generation of cars is targeting a reduction of up to 100kg. That target is difficult to hit while keeping the current turbo hybrid power unit, which is efficient but mechanically complex and heavy.
A naturally aspirated V8 is simpler and lighter than a turbo hybrid unit. But it is also thirstier — N/A engines burn more fuel per lap than the current turbo hybrids, which were originally introduced partly for their fuel efficiency. Burn more fuel and, under today's no-refuelling rules, you need a bigger fuel tank to carry a full race distance from lights-out. A bigger tank adds back a meaningful chunk of the weight the engine change was supposed to save.
Refuelling is the piece that closes the loop. If cars only need to carry enough fuel to reach the first scheduled stop rather than the full race distance, the tank can shrink dramatically — the FIA's thinking is that this alone could save more than 50kg at the start of a race compared with carrying a full fuel load. In other words: the V8 switch creates the weight problem, and refuelling is the fix being proposed for it. Take refuelling off the table and the case for a thirstier, naturally aspirated engine gets considerably harder to make.
Why the FIA wants an independent engine supplier
A second strand of the proposal is separate from the weight question but tied to the same regulatory reset: the FIA is said to be considering a neutral, FIA-selected V8 supplier — in the mould of Cosworth's historic role as an independent engine builder — to reduce how much influence individual manufacturers have over the customer teams they supply.
That influence is real and current. Mercedes currently supplies power units to four teams on the grid, and Ferrari supplies three. A manufacturer that builds engines for half the field has meaningful leverage — over pricing, over technical priority, and in some cases over the competitive fortunes of teams that aren't its own works outfit. An independent, FIA-run supply option would give customer teams an alternative that isn't tied to a rival's competitive interests.
Where the manufacturers disagree
The proposal does not have unified support from the manufacturers who would have to build to it. Ferrari, Cadillac, and Red Bull have signalled openness to a naturally aspirated V8. Mercedes and Audi are on the other side, preferring to stay with turbocharged architecture on the grounds that it stays closer to road-relevant technology their production-car businesses can draw on. Renault, meanwhile, has been the most direct: Alpine has said no to building its own engine under this kind of framework right now.
| Manufacturer | Position | Stated rationale |
|---|---|---|
| Ferrari | Open to N/A V8 | Supports simpler, lighter engine architecture |
| Cadillac | Open to N/A V8 | New entrant, no legacy turbo hybrid investment to protect |
| Red Bull | Open to N/A V8 | Supports simpler, lighter engine architecture |
| Mercedes | Prefers turbocharged | Closer to road-relevant hybrid technology |
| Audi | Prefers turbocharged | Closer to road-relevant hybrid technology |
| Renault / Alpine | Against, for now | Has said no to building its own engine under this plan |
The strategic tension: pit lane versus track
Refuelling wasn't banned in 2010 by accident, and the reasoning behind that ban is the strongest argument against reversing it. Removing refuelling was credited with increasing genuine on-track overtaking, because race position could no longer be manufactured through fuel-strategy pit stops — drivers had to pass each other on the circuit rather than gain track position by running lighter fuel loads between stops. Reintroducing refuelling risks reopening that door: races decided by pit-wall fuel strategy rather than wheel-to-wheel racing.
There's also a logistics contradiction sitting alongside the safety and racing arguments. F1 has been actively working to reduce the sport's transport and sustainability footprint — cutting the number of tyre sets allocated per race weekend from 13 to 11 specifically to reduce the volume of freight moved between races. Refuelling rigs are heavy, specialised equipment that every team would need to transport to every race weekend. Bringing them back runs directly against the same weight-and-logistics reduction the sport has been pursuing elsewhere in the regulations.
Weight is the thread connecting every part of this proposal — and refuelling equipment is exactly the kind of hardware the sport has spent the last few years trying to strip out of its logistics chain.
— Pit Wall Notes analysisThe safety history refuelling can't escape
Cost and sustainability weren't the only reasons refuelling disappeared from F1 in 2010 — pit lane fire risk was a core part of the original decision. Handling large volumes of fuel under pressure, at speed, in a crowded pit lane during a live race is inherently more dangerous than a single dry tyre stop. Any proposal to bring refuelling back has to address that risk from first principles, not just the strategic and weight arguments in its favour.
What this means heading toward 2031
Nothing here is decided. This is a proposal being studied, not a confirmed regulation — and the manufacturer split described above is exactly the kind of disagreement that has, in the past, forced the FIA to compromise, delay, or abandon similar ideas. What makes this one worth watching closely is how tightly the pieces are linked: the case for a lighter, simpler naturally aspirated engine depends on refuelling to solve the fuel-tank weight it creates, an independent engine supplier depends on manufacturers accepting reduced influence over customer teams, and all of it has to be reconciled against a decade of hard-won safety and racing-integrity arguments for keeping refuelling banned. Whatever the FIA lands on for 2031 will be a genuine trade-off, not a clean win on every axis at once.
