The new power units are making Formula 1 race starts significantly more complex. Without the MGU-H, the turbo now requires more time to reach its optimal operating window, placing the burden entirely on the internal combustion engine, which is being pushed to peaks of 13,000 rpm just to prepare for launch. Teams and drivers fear this could be the “recipe for a disaster in the opening races.” Here is why.
The Bahrain test brought to light a topic that is expected to be discussed at the next F1 Commission meeting: race starts. The new power unit regulations have made the launch procedure at lights out far more complicated. To bring the turbo into its optimal window, it is no longer sufficient to simply hold high revs — the engine must now sustain those revs for a longer period than in the past.
This was an issue already anticipated in recent weeks, but running in Sakhir allowed teams to analyze it in depth. It has now become one of the areas where teams are requesting regulatory clarification ahead of the season-opening Australian Grand Prix. What exactly is worrying them?
Without MGU-H, the combustion engine does all the work
In previous seasons, the MGU-H played a crucial role during the start procedure, helping the turbocharger quickly reach the pressure required for a strong getaway. The motor generator had a triple function: it assisted the turbo in reaching its correct operating window, reduced the time needed to do so, and above all achieved this without placing excessive stress on the internal combustion engine.
With the MGU-H removed under the 2026 regulations, there is no longer an external generator capable of supplying energy to accelerate the turbo. That responsibility now falls entirely on the combustion engine, which must run at much higher revs — and for longer — to achieve the parameters needed for a competitive launch.
It is no coincidence that during start practice sessions in Bahrain, some drivers were seen holding revs for up to ten seconds before the actual launch. Part of this behavior reflects the testing environment and experimental procedures, but the trend toward higher revs and longer preparation times is common across the grid.
Engineers are still trying to determine how high to push the revs to assist the turbo while also achieving a clean clutch release with minimal wheelspin. These variables explain the significant differences observed between start simulations, even with the same driver.
Teams are therefore pushing for adjustments to ensure that all drivers — including those lining up at the back of the grid — have sufficient time to complete their procedures properly. Reliability is another major concern: keeping the engine at such high revs for extended periods is far from ideal.
Up to 13,000 rpm to prepare the turbo
Data from Sakhir revealed peaks above 13,000 rpm, such as during Andrea Kimi Antonelli’s final start simulation on the third day. While that was an extreme case, most teams appear to stabilize just above 12,000 rpm during preparation. For comparison, previous power units would only reach those figures at maximum effort, not during starts.
In earlier seasons, thanks to the MGU-H, preparation revs typically ranged between 9,000 and 10,000 rpm, depending on the manufacturer’s engine-turbo management philosophy. Among the ideas being discussed is the introduction of a predefined interval between the moment the last car lines up and the start sequence begins, allowing every driver enough time to prepare.
Under the current regulations, the MGU-K is not permitted to release energy while the car is stationary on the grid, except for specific reliability-related damping strategies. Additionally, the electric motor cannot intervene below 50 km/h, a restriction that complicates both the preparation phase and the launch itself.
A recipe for disaster?
One possible solution would be to allow the MGU-K to assist during the start. However, that could mean using valuable energy to support the turbo, potentially compromising performance later in the lap, especially on circuits with consecutive straights. What helps at launch might penalize overall race pace.
“Last year, the difference between a good and a bad start was a bit of wheelspin or a slightly slow reaction time. This year, it could be like in F2, where you almost risk triggering anti-stall. And in that case you don’t just lose five meters — you could drop six or seven positions if something goes wrong,” explained Oscar Piastri, who described these new procedures as a recipe for disaster, with the added risk of encountering slow-moving cars off the line.
For now, teams are operating within their own predefined windows, but once racing begins, the system must be ready the moment the lights go out. “At the moment we’re simply following our procedure, and I only launch when I’m within a certain window. But we are fully aware that in a race you don’t get to choose when the lights go out based on whether your turbo is in the ideal window,” added George Russell.
Gear ratios and turbo differences
Another key factor is the change in gear ratios. Teams now require shorter gears in corners to recharge the battery and reduce turbo lag, even at the expense of higher fuel consumption. This has led to noticeable differences in approach between manufacturers during the Bahrain test.
Russell suggested that Ferrari might be running a smaller turbo compared to its rivals, which would require less time to enter its operating window at lower revs and could provide an advantage at the start. However, Ferrari also displayed variability in Bahrain, confirming that every team is still searching for its ideal setup.
Gearbox philosophy also differs. Red Bull appears to adopt a more aggressive approach, shifting to lower gears in corners to recharge the battery and maximize energy deployment at the end of straights. Ferrari, on the other hand, seems to follow a less extreme strategy, using first gear more sparingly — although it appeared particularly short in Sakhir.
“I don’t know how the other engine manufacturers are positioned. It seems Ferrari can use higher gears compared to others, which probably suggests they have a smaller turbo. So maybe they are in a slightly easier position for starts. As long as there isn’t a safety issue — and in Barcelona there probably was — I would say we’ve made big steps forward since then,” George Russell concluded.
The shift to the 2026 engine regulations has fundamentally altered the mechanics of the F1 standing start, turning a routine procedure into a high-stakes technical challenge. By requiring engines to reach 13,000 RPM just to prime the turbo without MGU-H support, the new rules have introduced significant risks of anti-stall and mechanical failure. As drivers like Piastri and Russell warn of potential “disaster,” the focus for the upcoming F1 Commission will be on finding a balance between engineering purity and the safety of the 20 drivers hurtling toward Turn 1 in Melbourne.
Leave a Reply