The recent changes introduced by the FIA into the 2026 Formula 1 regulations are not as attractive or straightforward as they may appear at first glance. The deeper one goes into the rulebook and its modifications, the more it becomes clear that the situation may have reached a point of no return.
First and foremost, for fans, it has now become extremely difficult to immediately understand all the technical specifics of the new Formula 1 era, with concepts such as superclipping, energy harvesting, and continuously increasing complexity. However, the difficulty in understanding the regulations is not actually the biggest issue. The real concern lies in the reasoning behind these latest changes that will be introduced from Miami onwards, with the official justification being “safety.”
In particular, when it comes to race starts, this supposed motivation is seen by many as a mask or even an excuse. Decisions that may appear reasonable on the surface, once analysed in detail, become far more questionable. While unanimity among teams is achieved, it is often driven by individual advantage rather than the good of the sport as a whole. This, critics argue, is not how a Formula 1 regulation should be revised.
F1 safety should be the real focus
At both Miami and Canada, tests will be carried out on new systems that could assist cars during race starts. In the event of a stall or an especially poor launch, the electric motor would intervene to provide enough initial torque to avoid situations similar to those seen in previous races. A perfect example often cited is the start of the Australian Grand Prix.
In principle, the update is aligned with safety objectives. However, historically there have always been drivers who suffer poor starts or even stall completely, requiring those behind to react quickly to avoid contact. In those cases, safety was never formally questioned. This is because the issue was not the regulation itself, but rather driver execution and mechanical differences between cars.
Today, new procedures such as the five-second pre-start light sequence have been introduced, alongside further testing of anti-stall systems “for safety reasons,” even though many argue that the very rules governing the start procedure are what create these situations in the first place.
If safety were truly the priority, some suggest that cars struggling with starts should simply begin races from the pit lane. While this would be a simple and effective solution, it is considered unworkable as it would severely damage the spectacle of Formula 1. As a result, regulations are being adjusted instead, rather than addressing whether all teams should be building cars that are safe and reliable at race starts—something Ferrari, for example, has demonstrated successfully.
F1 politics remains dominant behind the scenes
The FIA’s intention to improve safety is, in principle, legitimate and even noble. However, critics argue that these problems have emerged precisely because the governing body has created a complex regulatory framework that now requires constant correction.
Simple solutions, like requiring certain cars to start from the pit lane, are dismissed because they would negatively impact the show, something Formula 1 management clearly wants to avoid for commercial and entertainment reasons.
Furthermore, while the changes are not designed to favour specific teams, they may still end up doing so in practice. Prioritising spectacle over the stated goal of safety inevitably creates grey areas where some teams benefit while others are disadvantaged, even if this is not the official intention.
Instead of focusing more closely on preventing more serious incidents—like large speed differentials, like the example seen in Japan involving Franco Colapinto and Oliver Bearman—the decision has been made to further modify race start procedures under the banner of “safety.”
In conclusion, these new updates may appear to be a positive step forward on the surface. However, in reality, they are seen by critics as a form of cover, masking deeper structural issues within the 2026 Formula 1 regulations, both in terms of safety philosophy and sporting purity.
Leave a Reply