Last Thursday, the teams, F1 and the FIA met to discuss the contentious points of the 2026 power unit technical regulations. Here’s what we know so far: It was agreed that regulation changes would be made before the next grand prix in Miami. The FIA then laid out the framework for achieving that and an official FIA sporting regulation meeting was rubber-stamped for today, Wednesday, with a follow-up meeting the following day between technical staff from the teams, FOM and the FIA.
On Monday, informed by the meeting between the technical staff, the team bosses meet with the FIA and FOM to agree on the actual changes proposed by the technical people. With that in place, there is then in principle no reason why the agreed changes would not be voted through at the F1 Commission at a date still to be determined but which will be before Miami.
That’s the process. But what are the changes likely to be? The tweaks generally discussed include:
1. Upping the super-clipping rate from 250kW to 350, so that the battery charges more quickly.
2. Reducing the energy deployment from 350kW to maybe as low as 200kW, so that the battery depletes more slowly.
3. Reducing the permitted energy store of the battery, so there is less lap time reward over the lap of backing off in certain corners.
There has been a more extreme suggestion of increasing the fuel flow of the internal combustion engine, said to be favoured by Red Bull.
All of these moves would address, but not completely solve, the two problem areas identified by the group:
Changes are expected before F1 makes its next start in Miami
Grand Prix Photo
1. The unsafe sudden big speed differential between a car with an empty battery ahead of a chasing car on full deploy, as demonstrated by Franco Colapinto and Ollie Bearman at Suzuka
2. The pathetic spectacle of drivers deliberately backing off in key corners in qualifying to get the optimum lap time.
But what they are specifically not addressing is the yo-yo multiple pass/repass style of racing, which has been ‘generally agreed’ — according to the FIA post-meeting statement — to have been a good thing. Note, it doesn’t say universally agreed, so suggesting there may have been at least one dissenter on that point. The FIA further noted that the meeting was constructive, “especially when considering the competitive nature of the stakeholders”.
If F1’s appeal relies on viewers not knowing the reality, something isn’t right
Superficially, that style of racing has made for a great improvement in the immediate spectacle, and for sure a casual viewer would find it more entertaining than what has gone before. But when that viewer was told what the more seasoned fan already knows – that the overtake was only the result of one car running out of battery and the other not – then even they might see it as meaningless and cease to be entertained by it.
If the sport’s appeal is relying on viewers not knowing the reality, then something isn’t right.
If those same people were then to discover that sometimes the overtake wasn’t even intentional, but just the software algorithms of two different cars weaving in and out of phase with each other, what then?
We do need to be careful to distinguish between those pass/repass races facilitated by a 470bhp difference at the crucial moment (Melbourne, Suzuka) and those where the multiple moves were genuine (Shanghai) and where all the battery charge differences were doing was keeping the following car in play well before the braking zone, ready for a driver-controlled pass with equal battery power. However, it’s predictable that F1 does not wish to surrender the spectacle of the yo-yo.
We reveal why F1’s 2026 rules have penalised Max Verstappen and Charles Leclerc — and how the Ferrari driver has found a new advantage. Plus: a crunch meeting on the new regulations, and the best team boss in Formula 1 history
By
Motor Sport
Reducing deployment rates and increasing harvest rates will tend to dampen down that phenomenon as well as improving the safety and qualifying issues. But not to a radical extent. So we may see some extra procedural changes in how the energy can be used, separate from the harvesting/deployment/storage numbers.
But for any meaningful fundamental improvement in all the targeted areas, as well as the untargeted artificial passes, an increase in internal combustion engine power is needed – and that comes with all sorts of technical and competitive complications in the short term (ie this season).
So it would be surprising if the suggestion of increasing fuel flow was adopted. But perhaps it should be? If it leads to a few more mechanical retirements and a different competitive order? If it requires some races to be shortened slightly to ensure there was enough tank capacity? If the upside of that was an F1 which finally hit upon an ideal balance and which rewarded once again drivers going flat out throughout a qualifying lap and which banished meritless passes?
It’s a question of whether F1 considers this to be a crisis of credibility or merely needing a few tweaks, and of how unified it is in that view. Because the scope of achieving the ideal energy split only through tweaking one side of the equation is limited.
