F1 2026 cars under fire: what can be done to fix the energy management problem. Several Formula 1 drivers have criticised the new 2026 cars for excessive energy management.

Criticism has not been lacking for a more energy-focused Formula 1, but there are still margins to intervene and improve the situation.

“It feels like a Formula E on steroids.” “Even our chef could drive them.” The comments, from Max Verstappen and Fernando Alonso respectively, are just two of the reactions aimed at the new generation of Formula 1 cars, heavily influenced by energy management.

In reality, the picture is less dramatic than initially feared. However, that does not mean that certain targeted changes could not soften some of the driving anomalies, without necessarily starting again from scratch or waiting for an entirely new regulatory cycle. Here is where action could be taken.

Driving in 2026

The new cars have the merit of placing greater emphasis on the driver’s role, even if not exactly in the way many had hoped. Those behind the wheel are even more involved than before, with a greater capacity to influence performance through energy management. The issue is that this rewards qualities that are somewhat at odds with the traditional DNA of Formula 1.

To be clear, in any era of motorsport drivers have never been able to push without limits. They have always had to preserve the car, the tyres or the engine. However, the current level of energy management brings Formula 1 closer to Formula E or endurance racing before Le Mans evolved into a 24-hour sprint. These are fascinating disciplines in their own right, but profoundly different from Grand Prix racing.

That said, managing energy does not mean no longer driving at the limit of grip. At the end of the straights there is now a lift phase off the throttle, but it is still followed by heavy braking. In the corners, the objective remains to carry as much speed as possible, especially because doing so allows drivers to spend less energy accelerating down the following straight. The real anomaly lies in the use of lower gears to maximise battery recharge, a technique towards which George Russell has not hidden his frustration.

The core problem

There is another scenario that has frustrated drivers. In Bahrain, Alonso complained about abrupt power cuts through the fast Turn 12, effectively making it no longer grip-limited. Hence his provocation that even Aston Martin’s chef could drive the AMR26.

However, this is a specific case. That corner is immediately followed by the heavy braking zone of Turn 13, leading onto the back straight. The control electronics simply do what they already do on straights before braking zones: cut power to save energy. If it had been a corner like Chapel at Silverstone, Ascari at Monza or the 9-10 chicane in Melbourne — all followed by long straights — the approach might have been different, and the corner likely taken flat-out at the limit of adhesion.

Still, it is undeniable that the heavy emphasis on energy management in 2026 risks altering the natural driving style of Formula 1. Are teams and drivers therefore condemned to three or four years in this situation until the end of the current technical cycle? Not necessarily. It would not require rewriting the regulations entirely; targeted adjustments could already ease the problem. While the issue has not yet been officially addressed, it is possible to identify areas for intervention.

The opportunities

The main limitation is the lack of sufficient energy to feed the powerful hybrid system. Introducing an additional energy source for the battery does not seem realistic. The old MGU-H was extremely valuable, using exhaust heat to recharge the battery. However, reintroducing it would disadvantage newcomers such as Audi, Red Bull and the upcoming Cadillac, compared to manufacturers like Ferrari, Mercedes and Honda, who possess years of experience with such complex and costly technology.

During the drafting of the 2026 regulations, a second generator on the front axle was also proposed to recover additional braking energy. Yet this would increase weight and costs, significantly altering car architecture.

It increasingly appears that the original sin may have been the deliberate reduction of the internal combustion engine’s output in pursuit of the target of electric power accounting for 50% of total output. Having a few more horsepower from the V6 today would provide useful surplus power to recharge the battery without excessively compromising acceleration.

Therefore, restrictions imposed on the combustion engine could be reconsidered, such as the compression ratio reduced from 18 to 16, the limits on spark ignition events and the reduction in turbo pressure. Increasing fuel flow could also help, though that would require accepting a larger fuel tank. These are changes that would significantly impact combustion and would require at least a year’s notice to give engine manufacturers time for development.

The positive aspects

Beyond the energy debate, the new cars still display interesting strengths that deserve to be preserved. Formula 1 is a compromise between sport, spectacle and technology, and the current machines represent a formidable engineering challenge, worthy of the technological cutting edge the sport prides itself on.

Despite the difficulties, race pace is already close to 2025 levels. The driving experience, aside from energy management, has been invigorated in several aspects. Reduced aerodynamic load, combined with the immediate availability of electric torque on corner exit, makes controlling the car even more demanding. Drivers can also play more with the rear end thanks to the lower weight.

The real question remains the impact on the show. Overtaking is still an unknown factor: some fear easier moves due to energy strategies, while others argue that attacking will be extremely costly in terms of energy expenditure. Finally, there are safety concerns, especially at race starts and regarding the risk of rear-end collisions caused by lift-and-coast phases.

Intervening is both possible and necessary if required, but condemning the new regulations at this stage would be premature.

The current friction between drivers and the 2026 regulations highlights a growing pains phase for Formula 1’s most ambitious technical reset. While the “Formula E on steroids” label sting, the path to a more traditional F1 feel lies in fine-tuning the balance between the V6 combustion engine and the 350kW electrical system. By potentially relaxing fuel flow or compression restrictions, the FIA can reduce the reliance on extreme “lift and coast” without abandoning the sport’s sustainable goals. As the 2026 season progresses, the real test will be whether the “agile car” concept delivers the wheel-to-wheel racing fans crave, or if the technical boardroom will need to step in to restore the sport’s raw, high-octane soul.