Shanghai shows F1’s 2026 reset can deliver authentic racing beyond Melbourne’s battery controversy

F1’s 2026 reset split fans: Melbourne’s battery duels drew scorn, but Shanghai showed authentic skill‑based racing with Mercedes and Ferrari trading blows

Formula 1 cars battling closely on Qatar track.

The smaller turbo of the Ferrari gives explosive acceleration against rivals, with their larger turbos

Fabrizio Boldoni/dppi

Mark Hughes
April 1, 2026

The first two races of Formula 1’s biggest ever regulation re-set, and we can say that it has fundamentally changed the very pattern of racing in a way that has never happened before. Both the Australian and Chinese Grands Prix featured long-running multiple pass/re-pass dices at the front, wheels often just inches apart. It’s the sort of action F1’s commercial powers have long dreamed of, their utopia where the thrill is so visceral for lap after lap. Think pre-chicane Monza levels of overtaking, sometimes multiple place changes between two cars on the same lap.

However… The reception following Melbourne among many hardcore fans – and many of the drivers as well – was damning. World champion Lando Norris – who emerged ahead in what he described as a game of “energy chess” with Max Verstappen for fifth – summarised his feelings as, “We’ve come from the best cars ever to probably the worst. It’s very artificial. Depending on what the power unit decides to do and randomly does at times, you just get overtaken by five cars and can do nothing about it sometimes. It’s not for me.”

Mercedes F1 steering wheel with complex controls.

As the Mercedes steering wheel in F1 pre-season revealed, these cars are on the button

Nurphoto via Getty Images

Verstappen has been equally scathing, describing it as, “Formula E on steroids… It’s not that we are critical just to be critical. We are critical for a reason. We want it to be Formula 1, you know, proper Formula 1 on steroids… I’m not the only one saying it; a lot of people are speaking the same – drivers, fans, we just want the best for the sport. We want it to be Formula 1, Formula 1 on steroids… Today that was not the case.”

“We want it to be Formula 1, you know, proper Formula 1 on steroids”

The main point of criticism of the ostensibly thrilling lead battle between Charles Leclerc and George Russell was that regardless of Russell’s overtakes into Turn 1, Leclerc knew he could simply power past Russell on the approach to Turn 9 where he would suddenly have an extra 470bhp than his spent-battery rival in the critical moment at the end of the straight. Leclerc could be supremely relaxed about Russell’s out-braking attempts elsewhere. Flying past another car through having almost twice as much power is not overtaking in the accepted racing sense. Superficially it looked good. In reality it was a nonsense, totally devoid of merit.

Related article

Mark Hughes: How Norris found serenity – with Mexico chaos behind
Mark Hughes

Mark Hughes: How Norris found serenity – with Mexico chaos behind

Lando Norris delivered a flawless Mexico City Grand Prix to take a one-point lead in the title chase, as Max Verstappen and Oscar Piastri struggled to find the balance that defined the winner’s dominance, as Mark Hughes explains

By Mark Hughes

A week later came China. The Shanghai circuit is nowhere near as energy-demanding as Albert Park, with many more braking zones and a lower percentage of flat-out running around the lap. The racing featured another epic contest between the Mercedes and Ferrari teams, this time for much longer than in Melbourne.

Between Kimi Antonelli, Russell, Lewis Hamilton and Leclerc, there were a riotous 16 place changes. On lap 27 alone, there were four. So it was greeted with much the same polarised response as in Australia: casual or newer fans loving it, many hardcore fans decrying it as inauthentic. But aside from Verstappen – who had a horrible time in a Red Bull with a misbehaving powerplant – this time driver criticism was much more muted.

There was a reason for that. The racing, although superficially similar to watch, was fundamentally different. Of those 16 passing manoeuvres among the top four cars, only two were decided by one car running out of battery a few seconds before the other. The remaining 14 (almost 90%) were traditional out-braking or positioning moves where the driver’s skill and judgement were making the pass, not the battery.

In Shanghai, what the battery-controlled overtake and boost modes were doing was keeping the car behind in play, ready for the driver to attempt a traditional out-braking move into the Turn 14 hairpin or a positioning attack into the Turns 1/2/3 sequence. There were even a few Turns 7/8/9 side-by-sides and a Turn 10 pass – almost unheard of previously, and nothing to do with empty batteries.

Around this track the batteries were emptying about half-way down the long back straight, so dicing cars were arriving into the hairpin with no difference in power. Same into Turn 1. They were racing so closely for three reasons, none of which were empty batteries: 1) It is much easier to follow closely in the ’26 cars as the wake of the car ahead is far more friendly; 2) The aforementioned boost and overtake buttons allowing the overtaken car to be in place to counter-attack, much more effectively than the old DRS system; and 3) The crucial traits of the Mercedes and Ferrari are diametrically opposed, the small-turbo Ferrari lightning fast off the line and vaulting immediately past the bigger turbo Mercedes, which uses its power advantage to grind by at the end of the straights despite entering them slower because of the Ferrari’s superior cornering speed.

Using the freely available boost button will make you faster at the critical moment for position change, but slower over the lap as it’s not allowing the energy to be spread in the optimum way. So even a Mercedes which was around 0.6sec faster than the Ferrari in free air would take many, many laps to get the Ferrari out of its hair and be free to no longer need the compromising boost button. In contrast, use of the old DRS would allow you to lap faster.

That – and not the horrible 470bhp mismatch at the end of the straight we saw in Melbourne – was what was powering the racing action in Shanghai. It’s not only the difference in energy deployment and harvesting allowed between the two circuits, but also the sequencing of the turns. It seems critical that any battery emptying happens before the cars are anywhere near a braking zone – and Shanghai made for a happy place in that regard.

Many seemed to be watching China through the lens of Australia and so believe the problem to be far worse than it is. It’s a long way from perfect – the lift/coast through a couple of critical corners in qualifying in order to get the ultimate lap is deeply flawed, and there probably needs to be a redrawing of the energy split tailored to each track. But it is not as intrinsically artificial as Melbourne made it look.


Paddock Talk

“I definitely feel like I’m back to my best, mentally and physically”

Lewis Hamilton is in buoyant mood after his first podium for Ferrari, finishing third in the Chinese Grand Prix

“We do things differently here”

Lawrence Stroll makes a rare public statement after Adrian Newey steps down from his team principal role, adding that the lack of a traditional team boss is “by design”

“Due to personal reasons Jonathan Wheatley will be leaving the team”

Audi announces the departure of its team principal as speculation mounts that he’s being lined up to join Aston Martin

“I’d love to do an endurance race with Max, together”

Kimi Antonelli, who took his maiden F1 win in China, says he’d like to drive alongside Red Bull’s four-time champion in GT racing

“It’s pretty surreal”

Lando Norris on getting his own waxwork at Madame Tussauds London