MPH: Entertainment and old-school racing!? China showed F1 the way

F1
Mark Hughes
March 18, 2026

The Melbourne spectacle was tough to digest, but Shanghai exposed an upside to Formula 1’s new rules, showing that the series can deliver racing that's thrilling and skilful, as Mark Hughes explains

George Russell (Mercedes) leads Lewis Hamilton (Ferrari) in the 2026 Chinese Grand Prix

Russell and Hamilton battle it out in the Shanghai sprint

Grand Prix Photo

Mark Hughes
March 18, 2026

I said on the last Motor Sport podcast that I stood firmly with the purists on whether the Australian Grand Prix was a great race or just a facsimile of one, rendered artificial by the latest electrical/combustion/active aero regulations. But the superficially similar Chinese Grand Prix actually demolished most — but not all — of those objections. As outlined in our Monday reflections piece, the very different layout of the Shanghai circuit and its different energy demands meant that the many passing moves were generally not being made because one guy was suddenly over 400 horsepower down on the other at the end of the straight.

The moves, when they came, were invariably outbraking and/or positioning moves into Turn 14 and the Turn 1/2/3 sequence, moves which absolutely required the driver’s skill to make work.

All the various deployment strategies were doing was keeping the dicing cars together for longer, keeping the car which had been overtaken in the game, ready for retaliatory moves. So it was still a yo-yo race like Melbourne but with a crucial difference: the moves were being done by the driver, not the battery.

Lewis Hamilton leads Ferrari teammate Charles Leclerc in the 2026 Chinese Grand Prix

The fight between Hamilton and Leclerc was the highlight of the race

This distinction, while not visually obvious to the casual fan, and largely ignored by both sides of the polarised opinions around the new F1, is fundamental to pointing the way forward. The exact same regulations on two very different tracks produced one artifice of a race and one genuinely great race, both of which the new fans that F1 is chasing would have found thrilling.

As we’ve said before, the electrical/combustion energy split is not quite right yet and long term we probably do need a greater contribution from the combustion ‘half’ of the equation. But we now know that it is possible to get authentic racing, requiring old-school skills, to be compatible with the current formula. Greater variation of the maximum harvest, deployment and storage limits, tailored to the track layout, is going to be key. Not easy, given how much the optimum deployment changes with grip levels, etc., but probably achievable.

Related article

With the right tweaks, we could get a satisfactory set of constraints which retain the thrilling wheel-to-wheel drama of both races but without the ludicrous battery passes seen repeatedly into Turn 9 at Albert Park. It doesn’t solve the problem of lift-coasting through key corners being the fastest way to do a qualifying lap, but it’s a big step in the right direction.

Those tweaks have been postponed for the time being in order to gather more data from a greater variety of tracks – and it’s probably a blessing in disguise that Jeddah is off the calendar for now because that would potentially combine the worst case scenario of a layout which is both energy-starved and featuring fast blind exit corners where the sudden deceleration of a car could present a nasty situation.

The Chinese Grand Prix was always going to show the new F1 in a better light than Melbourne by minimising its downsides. But it actually went further than that and pitched a series of virtues not widely envisaged. Active aero, the battery boost facility and cars which are aerodynamically friendlier for passing meant wheel-to-wheel dices lasting multiple laps, something almost unheard of in the last few decades.

That’s entertainment, but in Australia it wasn’t really sport. The Chinese race suggested the two could be combined.