Is the 2026 Regulation going to achieve it goal?

[Nitrodaze]

In a few days, 2026 cars are going to start official shakedown runs and public reveal. Some of us have pored through the regulations governing the design of the car over Christmas. And there may be some concerns, as well as potentially exciting things. The most exciting things I noticed are summarised here:-

1. The transition from outwash designs of the previous cars to an inwash philosophy means less instability for chasing cars behind

2. The underfloor design and the air channels at the rear of the floor mean the air flow out of the rear of the car is lifted higher than in previous regulation cars via a much narrower flow band. Which means that the following cars can be closer and tucked under the wake of the car in front without disruption to the flow dynamics of their front wing. Hurray! Closer racing seems very possible for a change.

3. The car is more driver-oriented than car-oriented. What I mean here is that the driver makes more of a difference to success than car speed and aerodynamics for a change.

4. This is because the most successful drivers are going to be the smartest and most talented drivers who can most intelligently deploy the battery usage to achieve the fastest lap relative to the competition. This could mean that midfield teams may shine more often this season by winning the odd races.

5. Aerodynamic stability seems to be a big target in this regulation. Balancing the downforce from the rearwings to the front wings is one of the new concepts on the car. This is achieved by both the movable front and rear wings. Downforce is removed from the front wing by deflecting the front movable elements when downforce at the rear has dropped. Front overloading while cornering, which was a typical problem with the 2025 cars, for instance, is greatly reduced by this gizmo. But this potentially has the side effect of a lesser grip due to reduced downforce. We may see cars sliding at or through the corners this season. I think the drivers would need to learn afresh how to get fast around corners with less downforce without sliding. Sliding eats up lap times

6. Boost button, the new DRS of sorts. Cars attacking would now have the advantage of being able to use the power boost to overtake the car in front. Boost, of course, means deploying both the ICE and Electric power combined to achieve maximum horsepower. Unlike the old DRS boost, there is a price to pay for using the boost button. One could run out of battery charge and become vulnerable to the cars behind.

7. The speed on the straights may be faster than we have seen in recent times.

While there are lots of other interesting things to talk about, this new regulation is, by far, the most promising regulation for some time. It addresses the carbon footprint of F1 and the environmental negatives typically associated with motor racing, with the new bio-fuels powering the cars this season. My main concerns are the following:-

1. It is still a fat boy; the 2026 cars, at some 770kg, they are still very heavy.
2. While it is narrower, it is still too long relative to the pre-hybrid regulation cars.
3. The consequential narrower tyres mean less of the engine power can be deployed to traction. Traction control would work harder this season to avoid wheelspin from a standstill.
4. Any damage to the aero-fixtures would have a dramatic (probably steeper) drop in performance

I am sure you have noticed a few things as well. Please share your thoughts.

[Used to be Starter]

In a few days, 2026 cars are going to start official shakedown runs and public reveal. Some of us have pored through the regulations governing the design of the car over Christmas. And there may be some concerns, as well as also seen potentially exciting things. The most exciting things I noticed are summarised here:-

7. The speed on the straights may be faster than we have seen in recent times.

This. The result will be longer braking areas, that means the drivers will have more opportunity to contest overtaking into corners and should result in more wheel to wheel driving. (Which may also result in more contact.)

[Nitrodaze]

This. The result will be longer braking areas, that means the drivers will have more opportunity to contest overtaking into corners and should result in more wheel to wheel driving. (Which may also result in more contact.)

Yeah, faster with smaller tyres, means braking would be tricky on approach to corners. Wet races may be just as interesting this season.

[airshifter]

Keep in mind that electrical energy deployment will start tapering off at about 180 mph, and be down to zero at 220 or so IIRC. And that is only IF a driver has enough energy to keep deployment up. Even with the last regs we had cars clipping at the end of the longer straights at times.

I don't really expect the top speeds to change much. They will get there quicker possibly, but now with a longer time to expend energy they might have to do some lift and coast to keep energy stores up.


But IRT 1 and 2, hopefully both are evident at the start of the reg, but I think similar to the last reg that ability to follow closely and having less dirty air will be developed away slowly as they learn the cars.

As for 3 and 4, I think it will reward drivers who are savvy in the use of energy deployment, but the overall car will still be a huge factor and likely dictate the orders of the race most of the time. Without a solid handling and predictable car underneath them, crafty use of energy deployment won't save the driver from faster machinery.


For 5, it's essentially still just a double ended DRS for designated areas. Similar to DRS and aero surfaces that don't move, teams and drivers will have to find the setup and overall balance that works best for them. I see this as an area where certain teams might find critical designs that make the car more aero efficient in one vs the other mode, and somewhat expect some strange wing shapes, along with some crazy actuator designs and locations on the wing areas.

Depending on car design, I also wouldn't be shocked to find even some of the best drivers in the best cars taking some time as the season progresses to find out how to set up for their preferences on different tracks. As in the past they have to exploit the car the best they can while also figuring out where driver differences might help them overcome a weakness in the setup balance.



As for "Net Zero" goals... I think they already failed. Using synthetic fuels that require great energy to produce while loudly proclaiming "no emissions!" is to not look at the big picture. I would think on the overall scope of F1 it's a mere drop in a bucket. Better than nothing, but not really setting a great example above anything else.

[Nitrodaze]

Keep in mind that electrical energy deployment will start tapering off at about 180 mph, and be down to zero at 220 or so IIRC. And that is only IF a driver has enough energy to keep deployment up. Even with the last regs we had cars clipping at the end of the longer straights at times.

I don't really expect the top speeds to change much. They will get there quicker possibly, but now with a longer time to expend energy they might have to do some lift and coast to keep energy stores up.


But IRT 1 and 2, hopefully both are evident at the start of the reg, but I think similar to the last reg that ability to follow closely and having less dirty air will be developed away slowly as they learn the cars.

As for 3 and 4, I think it will reward drivers who are savvy in the use of energy deployment, but the overall car will still be a huge factor and likely dictate the orders of the race most of the time. Without a solid handling and predictable car underneath them, crafty use of energy deployment won't save the driver from faster machinery.


For 5, it's essentially still just a double ended DRS for designated areas. Similar to DRS and aero surfaces that don't move, teams and drivers will have to find the setup and overall balance that works best for them. I see this as an area where certain teams might find critical designs that make the car more aero efficient in one vs the other mode, and somewhat expect some strange wing shapes, along with some crazy actuator designs and locations on the wing areas.

Depending on car design, I also wouldn't be shocked to find even some of the best drivers in the best cars taking some time as the season progresses to find out how to set up for their preferences on different tracks. As in the past they have to exploit the car the best they can while also figuring out where driver differences might help them overcome a weakness in the setup balance.



As for "Net Zero" goals... I think they already failed. Using synthetic fuels that require great energy to produce while loudly proclaiming "no emissions!" is to not look at the big picture. I would think on the overall scope of F1 it's a mere drop in a bucket. Better than nothing, but not really setting a great example above anything else.

I commend you for a truly great write-up. The regulation boxes on the chassis is very stringent at achieving in-wash; it would be interesting to see how the engineers find their way around it. The regulation would effectively fail the moment teams find ways to out-wash within the regulation.

I fully expect the teams to really play with the moving rear and front wings. At the moment, it is expected to flap fully open and flap fully closed. I am sure someone is thinking about graduated closing of the flap. Partially closed rear with fully open front wing and vice versa. Or even dynamic alteration of position according to wind profile. The possibilities are plentiful. Hence, this regulation era may be full of surprises l expect.

We would expect a few crashes as drivers go through the process of understanding the cars. There is a good chance that the reliability of the new power unit may drop lower than recent few seasons, especially over the first half of the season.

Any evidence of lift and coast would not be good for the regulation either. Besides, lifting and coasting in the midfield is bad news for any driver doing it. They would be vulnerable to the BOOST button. They would be boosted backwards.

On BIO FUELS, F1 is abit late to the game. Indycar, even F2 has been using biofuels for some time now. This will introduce a new kind of competition into the mix. Which of the Fuel Suppliers would produce the best biofuel this season? A team may have a great engine and a powerful MGU-K, but without fuel with the best level of octane characteristics, they may fall short of the competition.

Perfection needs to come from all aspects of the car: Aerodynamics, ICE, fuel and Electrical systems.

[Nitrodaze]

This. The result will be longer braking areas, that means the drivers will have more opportunity to contest overtaking into corners and should result in more wheel to wheel driving. (Which may also result in more contact.)

Yes, those late dives into the corner manoeuvres may not work this season. The narrower tyres mean such dives may lead to running off track or unavoidable crashes. How Verstappen adapts to these tyres would be interesting to watch. I am sure he would come up with different tactics.

[Used to be Starter]

Yes, those late dives into the corner manoeuvres may not work this season. The narrower tyres mean such dives may lead to running off track or unavoidable crashes. How Verstappen adapts to these tyres would be interesting to watch. I am sure he would come up with different tactics.

He's been able to do well with a car which no one else has been really able to master so I'm guessing he will be OK. If not, he may be spending a lot of time in the middle of the pack.

[Nitrodaze]

He's been able to do well with a car which no one else has been really able to master so I'm guessing he will be OK. If not, he may be spending a lot of time in the middle of the pack.

I agree he would find ways to adapt. He would only be in the midfield if the engine and/or chassis are not competitive. The real concern is with the engine. This is Rdbull's first serious attempt at building its own engine. The pioneer of this bold concept is not there to see it through. Add to the fact that they also have to ensure they are supplied with the optimum biofuel, there are some concerns for Redbull. They could just as easily disappear into the midfields as they could similarly launch into the sharp end of the grid. They are very hard to read at the moment.

[Nitrodaze]

Early cracks are beginning to show in the 2026 regulation. Verstappen hates it, Hamilton thinks its speed is GP2 level. Race start is looking very dicey. The energy deployment at various tracks seems to indicate that the average maximum horsepower per lap may top out at around 800HP actual output. Yes, these 2026 cars are three to four seconds slower than the 2025 cars.

I think the scariest revelation is that when a car runs out of battery juice, its power output drops to below F2 car's max power, at about 500HP. Therefore, the speed delta between cars with enough battery power that attain max HP of 800HP to 1000HP to those that have run out would be quite dramatic. Slow drivers zigging into the path of the faster driver would certainly cause a very bad accident.

All signs seem to suggest that the racing would show a lot of lifting and coasting, which would reduce the type of racing we are hoping for. This is early days. We have to see what the racing is like at Melbourne, a track with not enough slow corners to charge the battery. And a lot of fast corners to drain the battery.

[airshifter]

I'm not at all surprised that some drivers will dislike the new formula. For the most part good drivers want cars that are faster in all places, and this car won't be that. One of the reasons the formula gets changed is to slow the cars down again after the teams make them faster for years of a mostly stable formula.

I think both lift and coast and potentially slower end of straight speeds on long straights was to be expected. Time is saved when the acceleration happens as early as possible, even if the cars slow some before the "real" braking zone.

Just as always, both the teams and drivers will adapt. We will see some struggle, some figure it out quickly, and some just slowly change both in design and driver approach. Though often nobody likes the regs changes much, if things never got reshuffled to start from a new point the series would likely get boring over time. I do think the new CFD and wind tunnel regs are keeping things more in line since they have been adopted, but even with that some large deltas between the teams formed with time.

[Nitrodaze]

Let's summarize the issues with the 2026 Regulation:-

1. Battery capacity may not sustain electrical power supply over a full lap at most circuits
2. Driver operations in the cockpit are said to be too complex
3. Race start may be tricky at most circuits, even with an extended starting time sequence
4. Front wing replacement may add a few more seconds to the typical pitstop
5. Safety threshold may have dropped due to points 1 to 3 above

All of these are typical of the inception period of any new regulations. The development war would certainly bring about better batteries with longer charge retention and lighter composition. Drivers would build muscle memory that would make those cockpit operations second nature before mid-season. However, the learning curve for new drivers entering the formula would be considerably steeper than at any other time in F1 history. As far as race start goes, every team would strip out their big turbo and put in Ferrari type turbos in a few races.

Therefore, what we are seeing are merely teething problems one would expect. But is the racing as dire as Verstappen is making out? I don't think so. Racing everywhere is changing due to the advancement of technology. The natural adoption of these technologies to enhance the tools of racing is essentially organic. Racing cars simply reflect the time it is in. And this regulation has done its job of sensibly adopting the technologies of this day and age.

The use of sustainable fuel is inevitable. F1 must demonstrate its awareness of global warming. The enjoyment of motor racing should not be at the expense of the well-being of our planet. ICE to EP parity is also inevitable, as this is the trend of current high-performance road cars. There would be challenges, but they would be easily overcome, as these are also real-world issues.

We like the lighter, more nimble cars. We like the improved sound of the cars. I think by the last quarter of this season, the teams will produce cars with speed comparable to last season. The gap from the fastest time at testing seems to be about 3 seconds off the fastest qualifying times of last season.

My personal verdict is that F1 and the FIA have got this regulation reasonably right.

[Steve Boyd]

The development war would certainly bring about better batteries with longer charge retention and lighter composition.The battery capacity is limited to 9 MJ. Development might make them smaller and/or lighter but it won't make them last longer unless the energy limit is increased.

[Nitrodaze]

The battery capacity is limited to 9 MJ. Development might make them smaller and/or lighter but it won't make them last longer unless the energy limit is increased.

I think inherently, they are trying to reduce bulk by that limit. If the same battery dimensions can hold twice as much at the same weight, the FIA may allow an increase in the power limit. Currently, an increase in MegaJoules translates to an increase in size and weight.

Besides, a smaller, lighter battery producing 9MJ would decrease car weight and thus increase energy deployment range as a consequence. Probably not enough to solve the current problem.

[airshifter]

Battery weight, harvesting allowed per lap, and deployment per lap are all controlled by the regs. They aren't likely to just allow more energy stores when the regs intended to cause a reset in performance, along with reducing the chances of all out development wars on the battery front.


Going back to your points.

1. Battery stores were never intended to allow all out speeds at all circuits. It was known early in the reg changes that drivers would have to manage energy stores.

2. Placing more on a driver is a good thing in my opinion. The best will overcome it.

3. Agreed, but if it becomes an issue I suspect the FIA will allow changes.

4. Most teams have found solutions that make it just another front wing change, maybe very slightly different but no major hassle.

5. I see this mostly due to starts at this point, and as stated above I suspect the FIA will allow changes if it becomes a safety issue.


As for just swapping to different turbos, it can't happen without FIA approval due to the homologation process. The same for energy stores.



I think they have already shown to be meeting their desired goals. The fastest lap in testing was only a couple tenths slower than the fastest test lap in 2022, which was the last major changes. The cars are lighter and more nimble even with the smaller tires, and more importance has been placed on drivers being able to manage the energy stores better.

[Matthew]

I am most curious about how the energy deployment rules will affect racing. Smarter battery use sounds great but if drivers have to lift and coast a lot to stay within limits, it could hurt the close racing the rules are trying to create. The movable aero balance could also lead to big performance differences early on while teams figure it out, which might mix up the order at first.

[Nitrodaze]

Battery weight, harvesting allowed per lap, and deployment per lap are all controlled by the regs. They aren't likely to just allow more energy stores when the regs intended to cause a reset in performance, along with reducing the chances of all out development wars on the battery front.


Going back to your points.

1. Battery stores were never intended to allow all out speeds at all circuits. It was known early in the reg changes that drivers would have to manage energy stores.


Sorry buddy, l kinda disagree. The max horsepower of F1 cars in recent times has been 1000HP. This new regulation has split that to 500HP on ICE and 500HP on EP. On tracks where energy harvesting is difficult, most cars, if not all cars would effectively see their powertrain output drop to 500HP until they are able to charge it back up somehow.

The battery allows the car to operate at 1000HP on the straights, where maximum power is required. Therefore, the battery power only brings the power output to normal and historical power output. What it is not doing is boosting the power output above 1000HP to provide even higher speed.

All the teams are asking for is for FOM and FIA to ensure that the full power of 1000HP is available over the length of the straights on every track. Which is not unreasonable.

[Nitrodaze]

I am most curious about how the energy deployment rules will affect racing. Smarter battery use sounds great but if drivers have to lift and coast a lot to stay within limits, it could hurt the close racing the rules are trying to create. The movable aero balance could also lead to big performance differences early on while teams figure it out, which might mix up the order at first.

On tracks where harvesting is poor, the racing shall be done mostly at 500HP. Tracks like Melbourne, Monza, Jedha, Montreal and even Silverstone, most cars on the grid would run out of battery juice before the end of the first lap. They would be unable recharge the battery due to fewer slow-speed corners on these tracks. The entire race would be at F2 speeds.

From this perspective, Verstappen is right to say it is not exciting. It is like giving MotoGP racers scooters to race.

[Steve Boyd]

decrease car weight and thus increase energy deployment range as a consequence.No it wouldn't. A 9MJ battery will run a 350kW motor for 25.7 seconds. The only choice is where to use that 25.7 seconds worth of charge.

[Nitrodaze]

No it wouldn't. A 9MJ battery will run a 350kW motor for 25.7 seconds. The only choice is where to use that 25.7 seconds worth of charge.

Agreed, but the discussion point is that 25.7 seconds is not long enough for some circuits. I suspect cars that have a reasonable gap to the car behind would sacrifice speed to charge the battery while driving on the straight.

[Steve Boyd]

25.7 seconds isn't long enough for most circuits - it's less than half a lap. They're all going to be trying to work out how long and where to deploy and where they can re-charge at multiple places around most circuits. I just hope that there's some sort of telemetry available to the viewer so we can see who's using what and where.

[airshifter]

Sorry buddy, l kinda disagree. The max horsepower of F1 cars in recent times has been 1000HP. This new regulation has split that to 500HP on ICE and 500HP on EP. On tracks where energy harvesting is difficult, most cars, if not all cars would effectively see their powertrain output drop to 500HP until they are able to charge it back up somehow.

The battery allows the car to operate at 1000HP on the straights, where maximum power is required. Therefore, the battery power only brings the power output to normal and historical power output. What it is not doing is boosting the power output above 1000HP to provide even higher speed.

All the teams are asking for is for FOM and FIA to ensure that the full power of 1000HP is available over the length of the straights on every track. Which is not unreasonable.

The only thing you argue that you disagree with is something I never stated. It was well accepted early in the regulation set that overall power output would not increase, as well as energy stores being limited enough to not make it at full power through many of the demanding tracks.

As for cars often driving around with only 500 horsepower available, you are obviously not seeing the aspect of strategic energy deployment. Being these are lighter cars with greatly reduced aerodynamic drag, and equal if not slightly more power available, they will accelerate much more quickly when using full power. That means even if a driver reduces electrical power before the end of the straight, they can still see the same or higher top speeds. With both wings trimmed for speed, the ICE alone could sustain these cars upwards of 220 MPH estimated. And with wings trimmed, they can harvest easily at the end of the straights with some lift and coast, then the wings switch when mechanical braking is needed.

You obviously are also not considering that with less downforce due to loss of ground effect aero, along with smaller tires, cornering speeds will be reduced regardless of power available. This means for lower speed corners the off throttle and braking (thus possibly harvesting) time has increased. So the time considered "full throttle" for any given track will decrease due to less grip. Less overall power demand will exist due to the regs changes.



The times will be longer on most tracks, that was intended. But testing has already shown that the times in Bahrain are only very slightly off the 2022 times. Drivers and teams that manage energy properly will probably find similar results on many tracks. There will likely be a few tracks where the times increase more than expected with the old regs, but there may even be tracks that times are lower than 2022. It's just a matter of where they are fast, and the new regs will shave time on straight line performance.

[airshifter]

I am most curious about how the energy deployment rules will affect racing. Smarter battery use sounds great but if drivers have to lift and coast a lot to stay within limits, it could hurt the close racing the rules are trying to create. The movable aero balance could also lead to big performance differences early on while teams figure it out, which might mix up the order at first.


25.7 seconds isn't long enough for most circuits - it's less than half a lap. They're all going to be trying to work out how long and where to deploy and where they can re-charge at multiple places around most circuits. I just hope that there's some sort of telemetry available to the viewer so we can see who's using what and where.


I don't think it's going to be nearly as bad as some predict. Simulations will show the teams fairly quickly where and when to deploy energy, and in any race the quicker lap time is desired. For that reason, all of them will look at where the deployment trims time the most, and many teams will end up with fairly similar strategies.

We also have to consider that even with the old regs, cars were only at full power 70-80% of the time and that was with greater downforce and cornering speeds. When you look at it track by track, you see the overall picture better. The 2022 pole in Australia was right about 1 min 18 seconds. If you factor full power time at 75% that is 58.5 seconds. That 25.7 seconds available energy store takes care of over half of that if they were pushing the cars with the same weight and aerodynamic drag,but they won't be. That power will be pushing cars with half the aero drag, along with lower weight, so the acceleration curves will eat up some time delta.

As for close racing, I'm also somewhat expecting that the boost mode will rarely be used. It would be next to impossible to factor into simulations, and might leave the car vulnerable to a quick attack to retake the position gained. What I do expect to see at some tracks is slower times in tighter sections with short straights and no real passing opportunities. Teams might decide it's not worth saving a tenth or two in a section of track where it isn't likely they could be overtaken even if slow. Think of Ricciardo with no MGU at Monaco, and still won the race. But if they can use that same percentage of energy stores and gain more on another section of the track, that's where they will use it.

[Nitrodaze]

25.7 seconds isn't long enough for most circuits - it's less than half a lap. They're all going to be trying to work out how long and where to deploy and where they can re-charge at multiple places around most circuits. I just hope that there's some sort of telemetry available to the viewer so we can see who's using what and where.

We are saying the same thing. You can see how this is going to be frustrating for the drivers. After the first three laps at Melbourne, l think they all would find it difficult to charge the battery up to a reasonable amount to elevate their speed.

I think from three laps onwards, they would be racing at around 550HP to 600HP at best.

[Steve Boyd]

You can see how this is going to be frustrating for the drivers.Particularly in the cars that can only regenerate at 250 kW instead of 350 kW, like the Astons.

[Nitrodaze]

The Chinese Grand Prix has shown that Mercedes has a huge advantage over the rest of the field. And that advantage is in pure engine power supremacy. At a depleted battery, the Mercedes has considerably more power relative to the Ferraris in the same conditions. The concerns of the teams in preseason testing are real. But the three options proposed to address it are all unlikely to resolve the issue without a clear indication that the FIA has admitted that there is a fundamental flaw in the 2026 regulation or that Mercedes has cheated in some way. Neither of these outcomes is attractive.

But with the enormous power differential between Mercedes and the rest of the field, the FIA must take action to place a cap on power output from the ICE at 500HP max and the combined peak power of both ICE and Electric power at 1000HP max during qualifying and the race. This would resolve this issue as it leaves it to the teams to configure their cars to not exceed these thresholds but gives them the freedom to extend these max thresholds to achieve an advantage.

This approach would level the playing field somewhat. Races like China would produce a different outcome if Mercedes fumbles their race start, for instance. They would be appropriately punished for it.

The regulation is salvageable l believe.

[airshifter]

I don't think two races into the season tells much of a story, but I think overall the racing has been as good if not better than the last year or two at the same tracks. Being that the teams and drivers are still coming to grips with the best ways to manage these cars, that alone gives me a good impression that the change will end up not being for the negative overall. Sure the cars will often be slower at any given track, but that is also one of the reasons for the regs changes.

I personally don't think Merc have any big ICE advantage. I think they have done a much better job at the simulations and whatever else they use to know how and when to harvest best, as well as when to use the energy to maximum advantage. When comparing harvesting vs deployment they are often doing things much differently than the other teams. And being that the car is well balanced, they can open up opportunities for both harvesting and deployment that the other teams might not be able to exploit as easily.

I would be strongly opposed to any knee jerk "leveling of the playing field" such as suggested above at this early point in the first season of the new regs. Merc did a good job out of the box, but it isn't the first time this has happened. Though they did struggle out of the box with ground effect cars they aced it back in 2014 as well if not better than this year thus far. Short of any evidence of cheating or an advantage so big that the CFD and wind tunnel time won't put teams more in line as the season moves forward, I don't want to see any team suffer a penalty for being best. Ferrari took steps forward as well, and McLaren and Red Bull seem to be more on the back foot. Should we "level" them more in line as well?


Just food for thought on these cars that some wanted to tell us would be so terrible....... Pole for this year at China was over 6 tenths faster than 2024. Granted this is with the resurfacing that took place in late 2024, and last year set a new track record. But being the first year of a new regulations set vs two years into the last regs set is a disadvantage.

[Nitrodaze]

The FIA will meet after this race or the next to decide on the changes to apply to the regulations. The critics of regulations are many, including all the world champions on the grid and some team bosses. Hence, change is inevitable. It is a matter of what and how things would be changed.

Whatever the change, the racing would be better or equal to how it is at the moment. Chances are that Mercedes would still win the championships, but with closer racing l hope.

With the Bahrain and Jeddah races cancelled, chances are they are meeting over that period to work out which of the options suggested best appease all concerned.

[Sulland]

I think the new regs have not slowed the new cars enough.
Whn a new cartype is coming in, they need to cut at least 5 sec a lap on average on all tracks.

The very capable engineers will cut the aprox 2-3 sec a lap we see now will almost be gained in 2026.

The easiest way to easy cut more is to make tyres harder. Not sure how many shore this years C1 and C5 tyre are. But he easiest is to tell Pirelli to make all tyres 3 seconds slower.
Little cost for the teams, and will give the the needed effect.

In addition will harder tyres will give a bonuseffest by showing who are the best drivers, since cars will become harder to drive!

[Steve Boyd]

I think the new regs have not slowed the new cars enough.
Whn a new cartype is coming in, they need to cut at least 5 sec a lap on average on all tracks.

The very capable engineers will cut the aprox 2-3 sec a lap we see now will almost be gained in 2026.

The easiest way to easy cut more is to make tyres harder. Not sure how many shore this years C1 and C5 tyre are. But he easiest is to tell Pirelli to make all tyres 3 seconds slower.
Little cost for the teams, and will give the the needed effect.

In addition will harder tyres will give a bonuseffest by showing who are the best drivers, since cars will become harder to drive!

I'm not sure that will be an "easy sell" to Pirelli, who will have visions of every driver at every race complaining about how bad the tyres are, worst grip I've ever had &c &c. Not what the marketing people want to hear.

[airshifter]

I think the new regs have not slowed the new cars enough.
Whn a new cartype is coming in, they need to cut at least 5 sec a lap on average on all tracks.

The very capable engineers will cut the aprox 2-3 sec a lap we see now will almost be gained in 2026.

The easiest way to easy cut more is to make tyres harder. Not sure how many shore this years C1 and C5 tyre are. But he easiest is to tell Pirelli to make all tyres 3 seconds slower.
Little cost for the teams, and will give the the needed effect.

In addition will harder tyres will give a bonuseffest by showing who are the best drivers, since cars will become harder to drive!

I agree that maybe they have not slowed them down as much as some expected, but think part of it is a byproduct of the regs and the aero improvements. They can now trim the cars to the fastest possible laps and fight the downforce shortcomings if they have to. So they now have that option to run higher than usual downforce for a given track, knowing they can make some of that time back in the straights with both wings flattened. Cornering speeds still seem fairly solid considering the smaller tires.

I haven't seen much about tire compounds for the year either. So I'm not sure if they carried over the same compounds to the new sizes or not. But it would be an easy way to slow then down more, but as Steve says above, Pirelli wouldn't want everyone moaning about the crap tires, so they would push back.

[Nitrodaze]

I think the new regs have not slowed the new cars enough.
Whn a new cartype is coming in, they need to cut at least 5 sec a lap on average on all tracks.

The very capable engineers will cut the aprox 2-3 sec a lap we see now will almost be gained in 2026.

The easiest way to easy cut more is to make tyres harder. Not sure how many shore this years C1 and C5 tyre are. But he easiest is to tell Pirelli to make all tyres 3 seconds slower.
Little cost for the teams, and will give the the needed effect.

In addition will harder tyres will give a bonuseffest by showing who are the best drivers, since cars will become harder to drive!

At preseason testing, the best time was 3 seconds from the 2025 quali time. That was surprising, knowing the top teams were sandbagging. In the last three races, some people have found evidence that Mercedes is sandbagging. Hence, they may be capable of 2025 times already.

Is hard tyres the best way to slow them down? I don't think so. Even with hard tyres, Mercedes would still be within 3 seconds of 2025 times. And it is possible now for the FIA to implement, as Pirrelli tested harder tyres for 2026 but chose not to use them for the races we have seen so far. Introducing harder tyres than was agreed with the teams at this point would not go down well with the teams. It will only increase criticism of the regulations, which are taking a battering at the moment.

The funny thing is that the cars are not actually that fast. It is the battery deployment that gives the impression that they fast relative to other cars without battery. Compared to the 2025 cars, the 2026 car drive power fluctuates from 500HP to close to 1000HP. On average, they probably top out at around 800HP on the straight due to battery levels and tyre wear. In reality, they are slower than the 1000HP 2025 car on the straight but faster at the corners.

[airshifter]

The funny thing is that the cars are not actually that fast. It is the battery deployment that gives the impression that they fast relative to other cars without battery. Compared to the 2025 cars, the 2026 car drive power fluctuates from 500HP to close to 1000HP. On average, they probably top out at around 800HP on the straight due to battery levels and tyre wear. In reality, they are slower than the 1000HP 2025 car on the straight but faster at the corners.


This is a gross twisting of reality. On very long straights, the cars from last year might go slightly faster, but the acceleration curve of the new cars and initial speed advantage gets them down the straight in less time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1rar9hq/2025_vs_2026_preseason_telemetry_traces/#lightbox

You can clearly see where the new vs last era cars have advantages. The new cars accelerate hard, but might lose out at the end of the straight. There is not a single corner trace that shows the new car quicker in a corner. The same was true in China and Albert Park. On the tracks that don't allow much harvesting, the older car might make it down a straight slightly quicker, but those tracks are fairly rare.


The downforce reduction alone will make these cars slower in corners until they manage to claw it back. But the aero drag reduction makes them accelerate much quicker than before.


Another trace on China qually laps. Notice where each car has an advantage. In particular notice the final straight starting at about the one minute and five seconds mark. Kimi and Oscar are at the same speed, and you can advance and see how quickly Kimi accelerates vs Oscar until it reaches about a 15 kph advantage. At the end of the straight Kimi is out of energy and Oscar takes a lead of a similar advantage, but it's much more brief. Overall Kimi makes up time on the straight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN2gnrHaLSs


Australia should be one of the worst tracks for harvesting, and quite a few are significantly better. China should be at or near the top 3-4 as well. So the season opening races already gave a fairly solid look at worst and best case scenarios for harvesting and energy deployment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1rar9hq/2025_vs_2026_preseason_telemetry_traces/#lightbox

[Nitrodaze]

This is a gross twisting of reality. On very long straights, the cars from last year might go slightly faster, but the acceleration curve of the new cars and initial speed advantage gets them down the straight in less time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1rar9hq/2025_vs_2026_preseason_telemetry_traces/#lightbox

You can clearly see where the new vs last era cars have advantages. The new cars accelerate hard, but might lose out at the end of the straight. There is not a single corner trace that shows the new car quicker in a corner. The same was true in China and Albert Park. On the tracks that don't allow much harvesting, the older car might make it down a straight slightly quicker, but those tracks are fairly rare.


The downforce reduction alone will make these cars slower in corners until they manage to claw it back. But the aero drag reduction makes them accelerate much quicker than before.


Another trace on China qually laps. Notice where each car has an advantage. In particular notice the final straight starting at about the one minute and five seconds mark. Kimi and Oscar are at the same speed, and you can advance and see how quickly Kimi accelerates vs Oscar until it reaches about a 15 kph advantage. At the end of the straight Kimi is out of energy and Oscar takes a lead of a similar advantage, but it's much more brief. Overall Kimi makes up time on the straight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN2gnrHaLSs


Australia should be one of the worst tracks for harvesting, and quite a few are significantly better. China should be at or near the top 3-4 as well. So the season opening races already gave a fairly solid look at worst and best case scenarios for harvesting and energy deployment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1rar9hq/2025_vs_2026_preseason_telemetry_traces/#lightbox

I agree with your assessment. Due to the power boost from the electric motor, the 2026 cars accelerate from a standstill faster than the 2025 cars. Over a straight, the 2025 cars would catch and pass the 2026 cars before arriving at the corners. At the corners, the 2026 cars are considerably faster through the corners. But over a full lap. The 2025 cars would be ahead by a sizeable margin at this stage of development. I fully expect this to change as we go deeper into the season and the regulation era.

[Nitrodaze]

This is a gross twisting of reality. On very long straights, the cars from last year might go slightly faster, but the acceleration curve of the new cars and initial speed advantage gets them down the straight in less time.

https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1rar9hq/2025_vs_2026_preseason_telemetry_traces/#lightbox

You can clearly see where the new vs last era cars have advantages. The new cars accelerate hard, but might lose out at the end of the straight. There is not a single corner trace that shows the new car quicker in a corner. The same was true in China and Albert Park. On the tracks that don't allow much harvesting, the older car might make it down a straight slightly quicker, but those tracks are fairly rare.


The downforce reduction alone will make these cars slower in corners until they manage to claw it back. But the aero drag reduction makes them accelerate much quicker than before.


Another trace on China qually laps. Notice where each car has an advantage. In particular notice the final straight starting at about the one minute and five seconds mark. Kimi and Oscar are at the same speed, and you can advance and see how quickly Kimi accelerates vs Oscar until it reaches about a 15 kph advantage. At the end of the straight Kimi is out of energy and Oscar takes a lead of a similar advantage, but it's much more brief. Overall Kimi makes up time on the straight.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XN2gnrHaLSs


Australia should be one of the worst tracks for harvesting, and quite a few are significantly better. China should be at or near the top 3-4 as well. So the season opening races already gave a fairly solid look at worst and best case scenarios for harvesting and energy deployment.
https://www.reddit.com/r/formula1/comments/1rar9hq/2025_vs_2026_preseason_telemetry_traces/#lightbox

I agree with your assessment. Due to the power boost from the electric motor, the 2026 cars accelerate from a standstill faster than the 2025 cars. Over a straight, the 2025 cars would catch and pass the 2026 cars before arriving at the corners. At the corners, the 2026 cars are considerably faster through the corners. But over a full lap. The 2025 cars would be ahead by a sizeable margin at this stage of development. I fully expect this to change as we go deeper into the season and the regulation era.

[airshifter]

The 2026 cars are slower in corners. I've yet to see a speed trace of any competitive lap that shows the new cars faster in cornering. In very slow corners they might come fairly close due to the advantage of the cars being smaller and thus having the ability to use different lines.In some cases the new cars do look fast in corners, but I think this is also the size and driver style changes as much as the cars being fairly nimble. Any corner with a straight long enough to deploy on after has many of the cars "squaring off" the racing line more than in the past, so they can get on full power again.

[Nitrodaze]

The 2026 cars are slower in corners. I've yet to see a speed trace of any competitive lap that shows the new cars faster in cornering. In very slow corners they might come fairly close due to the advantage of the cars being smaller and thus having the ability to use different lines.In some cases the new cars do look fast in corners, but I think this is also the size and driver style changes as much as the cars being fairly nimble. Any corner with a straight long enough to deploy on after has many of the cars "squaring off" the racing line more than in the past, so they can get on full power again.

A few websites with the traces for Australia and china show that the 2026 cars drop power on approach to the corners due to clipping, while the 2025 cars can carry speed well up the apex of the corners. The 2026 cars rotate around the corners more efficiently and rocket out of the corner faster than the 2025 cars due to the electric motor boost. I have looked at the traces for Russell and Leclerc for both years at both tracks and they show that the 2026 cars recover lost ground through the corner, but lose out to the 2025 cars on the straight and through fast corners.

[airshifter]

A few websites with the traces for Australia and china show that the 2026 cars drop power on approach to the corners due to clipping, while the 2025 cars can carry speed well up the apex of the corners. The 2026 cars rotate around the corners more efficiently and rocket out of the corner faster than the 2025 cars due to the electric motor boost. I have looked at the traces for Russell and Leclerc for both years at both tracks and they show that the 2026 cars recover lost ground through the corner, but lose out to the 2025 cars on the straight and through fast corners.

Corner entry and corner exit are not cornering speed. If you have any telemetry showing a higher apex speed with the new cars, I'd love to see it. If they exist most likely very low speed where aero isn't in the picture, as I've stated in the previous post. Japan was close at the final chicane and Degners, but 2025 was still quicker.

Almost the entire delta between the 2026 and 2025 cars at Suzuka was through the S's.

[Whyzars]

I saw a post somewhere that has Colapinto doing 170km/h, 10364 RPM in 4th, and Bearman doing 262kn/h, 9843 RPM in 7th. I don't know if this is legit but those speed differences are mad if true.

Was Colapinto clipping or did he have a problem?

If this accident was result of the new regulations then there is a lot to discuss by the teams over the break. It looked bad. Bearman limping away was a credit to the vehicle safety no doubt.


Aside from this, the pole lap was 2 seconds slower than last year and there were no "edge of the seat" corners like we normally see in Japan.

If it isn't faster then its a backward step - to me.

The 2 Degna (sic) corners looked boring to me instead of seeing cars on the fine line of destruction as per usual.

I read a thread, on the F1 site I think, that had Kimi's pole lap cut away from the onboard at Spoon corner. People are saying it is done so as not to show the clipping at 130R. The replies are nuts.

The peasants are grumbling and that is never a good sign...


My personal verdict on the new regulations is that they need work, much work. As much as the commentators try to make it interesting, the racing is not better and looks visually too gentle. I don't want to hear how many megawatts a driver managed to dig up from going slower. That should be the domain of combine harvesters under lights. I was never a fan of KERS or DRS or grooved tyres - I remember them like a toothache. I am slowly getting that same toothache from these latest electric marvels.

There is an old saying - Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...

[Nitrodaze]

Corner entry and corner exit are not cornering speed. If you have any telemetry showing a higher apex speed with the new cars, I'd love to see it. If they exist most likely very low speed where aero isn't in the picture, as I've stated in the previous post. Japan was close at the final chicane and Degners, but 2025 was still quicker.

Almost the entire delta between the 2026 and 2025 cars at Suzuka was through the S's.

Far a change, we are saying the same thing haha. How weird is that???

[Nitrodaze]

I saw a post somewhere that has Colapinto doing 170km/h, 10364 RPM in 4th, and Bearman doing 262kn/h, 9843 RPM in 7th. I don't know if this is legit but those speed differences are mad if true.

Was Colapinto clipping or did he have a problem?

If this accident was result of the new regulations then there is a lot to discuss by the teams over the break. It looked bad. Bearman limping away was a credit to the vehicle safety no doubt.


Aside from this, the pole lap was 2 seconds slower than last year and there were no "edge of the seat" corners like we normally see in Japan.

If it isn't faster then its a backward step - to me.

The 2 Degna (sic) corners looked boring to me instead of seeing cars on the fine line of destruction as per usual.

I read a thread, on the F1 site I think, that had Kimi's pole lap cut away from the onboard at Spoon corner. People are saying it is done so as not to show the clipping at 130R. The replies are nuts.

The peasants are grumbling and that is never a good sign...


My personal verdict on the new regulations is that they need work, much work. As much as the commentators try to make it interesting, the racing is not better and looks visually too gentle. I don't want to hear how many megawatts a driver managed to dig up from going slower. That should be the domain of combine harvesters under lights. I was never a fan of KERS or DRS or grooved tyres - I remember them like a toothache. I am slowly getting that same toothache from these latest electric marvels.

There is an old saying - Just because you can, doesn't mean you should...

Agreed, the 2026 regulation looks great on paper but not so great in practise. We are set up for some very interesting politics and wrangling over the next few weeks. The FIA and FOM. are on their back foot now. They would not be able to explain away Bearman's accident for sure.

[Steve Boyd]

I think the chassis changes are positive.
Cars seem to be able to follow closely for longer than in the past and being narrower should make it a bit harder to defend. I'm not too bothered if the cars are a bit slower in the corners due to reduced downforce, as it's hard to see the difference on TV.

The power unit regulations still need work though.

[Nitrodaze]

I think the chassis changes are positive.
Cars seem to be able to follow closely for longer than in the past and being narrower should make it a bit harder to defend. I'm not too bothered if the cars are a bit slower in the corners due to reduced downforce, as it's hard to see the difference on TV.

The power unit regulations still need work though.

Quite the pickle, isn't it? 50:50 split with a small battery not able to hold a charge for a full lap, suggests someone got their maths wrong. It would be interesting to see how they resolve this one. I think they would kick their green credentials to the kerb to save face.

[Steve Boyd]

I've been looking at the regulations here:
https://www.fia.com/system/files/documents/fia_2026_f1_regulations_-_section_c_technical_-_iss_16_-_2026-02-27.pdf

The diagram on page C64 shows the limits and, while there is 9MJ recharge available per lap, the battery capacity available is only 4MJ. The actual capacity of the battery will be more than this as they don't last very long if they are cycled from 0 to 100%. If we assume they cycle the battery between 20% & 80% then the actual capacity of the battery will be around 6.7MJ.

They've got 4MJ capacity that they can discharge as much as they like but they can only put 9MJ back in per lap so the temptation is going to be to take 4MJ out and then try to top the battery up wherever they can before taking out what they've just put back until they reach the 9MJ charge limit.

I wonder, somewhat counter intuitively, if the solution is to reduce the 4MJ battery capacity limit. OK - there will be less energy to deploy so the cars will be slower but they'll spend less time recharging so we'll see less of the "clipping" modes that hamper straight line speed. It might make for closer racing without the hazardous speed differentials that are currently possible.