F1 has trimmed its 2026 regulations ahead of Miami. Mark Hughes points out that these minor changes don't address the real issues — and pretending otherwise helps no-one
Okay, we now have a specified series of tweaks to the F1 technical regulations, taking effect from the next grand prix (Miami), designed to address the many criticisms of the new formula arising in the first three races.
We can run through them briefly here, but let’s not let them distract us from seeing the whole forest. These changes are not even the trees, merely a few branches which have been pruned back. Anyway, the headline prunings are:
The battery can be charged only to 7 Megajoules rather than the previous 8.
The rate at which energy can be harvested during superclipping (ie when the PU is charging the battery even when the driver is on full throttle) has been increased from 250kW to 350kW.
The number of circuits set to run with lower energy limits than the norm has been increased from eight to 12.
Maximum power available from the driver-controlled boost button now capped at an extra 150kW.
Deployment maintained at 350kW in key acceleration zones, but newly limited to 250kW in other parts of the lap.
These changes should reduce the number of corners where it’s advantageous to lap time not to go flat-out and they should reduce the risk of dangerous speed differentials in the race. As a side effect, the cars are expected to be up to 2sec per lap slower.
F1 will be hoping that the sequence of energy-friendly tracks coming up, in combination with these changes, will take the sting from widespread criticism and claims that the sport has been fundamentally damaged by these regulations, that its essence has gone. This despite a wildly enthusiastic reception from newer or more casual fans to the multiple overtakes the regulations have generated.
The danger for F1 is that those less hardcore fans may cease to be entertained by the action if they find out that what they are watching is not what they thought it was, that very often the overtakes are just different algorithms being out of sync with each other. The new formula has got them watching and excited when they weren’t before, but through artificial means which risks them feeling fooled when/if they discover the reality.
Which brings us to the point about the forest.
Wolff doesn’t like F1 criticisms
Mercedes
In the run-up to the latest changes, F1 boss Stefano Domenicali and Mercedes’ Toto Wolff each made a plea not to be too critical of the sport and to respect and safeguard what it has done for all of us. “Drivers, FIA, teams, F1 need to understand our responsibilities as the guardians of the sport,” says Wolff, “and need to respect what the sport has done for us and work constructively among ourselves to improve when things need to be improved and to safeguard when it’s needed.
“We all have our opinions and that’s absolutely legit but these opinions and discussions should happen between the stakeholders more than in the public eye… In order to protect the future we shouldn’t bad mouth in public our own sport and we’ve all fallen foul of this in the past.”
Neither he nor Domenicali specifically mentioned the media in this plea but it was surely implicit, given the rough ride the specialist media at least has given F1 since the season began and the artificial nature of the racing became evident. The inference seemed to be the media too is living off this sport so should not be too critical. But a crucial part of the specialist media is to try to represent true north.
Giving a frank appraisal rather than a PR-glossed account for everyone to hide behind is surely vital to the sport’s health regardless of how awkward it may feel in the moment. We absolutely share Toto’s wish for the future of the sport to be safeguarded, but the media’s role in that process is to be critical when appropriate – and what we saw in the first three events made criticism totally appropriate.
The 2026 regulations have not just changed how Formula 1 cars are driven, they have changed what it is possible to see
By
Pablo Elizalde
Having drivers deliberately not driving to the limits of their driving skill in qualifying because it’s faster that way is a nonsense. Yes, it’s still a skill to judge your energy usage optimally, just as it’s a skill to play high-speed chess with your opponent in the race, trying to induce him into suddenly running out of 470bhp of battery at a point you still have it. But it’s not driving skill.
This isn’t the first time F1 has wrestled with the demon of artificiality, nor that of rewarding skill other than pure driving skill. There were similar misgivings when it switched from the tyre war era to that of thermally-degrading control tyres in which the quickest way to complete a race was to drive slowly enough – at a pace 3sec or more off what was possible – to prevent the tyres overheating and thus save a pitstop. The difference then was that the changes hadn’t made for a superficially wildly exciting style of racing. So there was no real tension between wildly impressed new fans and those who understood the reality.
But the drivers were complaining just as bitterly as they are now. At least in private. Some were a little more public, but even the straight-talking Mark Webber understood that tightrope when he said, “I know we need not to piss in the soup. We all drink from the same soup. But we also need to make a better soup.”
That was him seeing the forest, strident words but wise, and just as fitting today as they were back in 2012.
