The start of the new Formula 1 era has not convinced everyone: the 2026 regulations have significantly altered both qualifying and race dynamics. But is it really the same for everyone?
Both the Sprint Race and the Chinese Grand Prix delivered a more entertaining spectacle compared to the opening round in Australia, especially when viewed from Liberty Media’s perspective. Amid widespread concerns about how the much-criticized 2026 rules would perform, F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali was already on the defensive during pre-season testing in Bahrain, even before the season had officially begun.
It is clear that Melbourne proved to be a harsh test for the new Formula 1, particularly during Saturday qualifying. Even overtakes during the race appeared extremely artificial. There was some excitement thanks to a few battles between George Russell and Charles Leclerc, but Australia truly highlighted the worst aspects of the 2026 F1 regulations, with extreme and disappointing examples of clipping and energy harvesting during qualifying.
Shanghai, on the other hand, adapted better to these new rules, and as a result, some of the races there were genuinely entertaining. Not everything depended on battery management: these lighter, lower-downforce cars offer real potential for close wheel-to-wheel battles, as demonstrated by Charles Leclerc and his Ferrari teammate Lewis Hamilton.
Drivers divided: Hamilton approves, Verstappen disagrees
Even among drivers, opinions are split. Lewis Hamilton himself stated that he had never had so much fun as in that particular race, while Max Verstappen continued to strongly criticize the new regulations, suggesting that anyone who enjoyed what they saw does not truly understand motorsport.
Many have argued that Verstappen’s opinion would be different if he were the one dominating. However, this is far from the truth: the Dutch driver had already criticized the direction of Formula 1 as early as 2023. So, whatever else may be said about Verstappen, hypocrisy is not one of his traits.
There is, however, a common sentiment regarding these new regulations: qualifying and race conditions must be considered separately. Qualifying—traditionally the ultimate test of a car and driver over a single lap—has been heavily compromised. The idea of drivers approaching some of the most challenging corners on the calendar simply to recharge their batteries is deeply frustrating, and it has become a major source of dissatisfaction among drivers.
In races, however, some voices have not entirely condemned the new direction of Formula 1, recognizing that there are still positive aspects even under these conditions. Yet, last Sunday, the best overtake of the day did not happen in Formula 1, but in IndyCar, when Kyle Kirkwood dived down the inside of Alex Palou to take the race lead.
It was a perfect demonstration of skill and bravery, the satisfying climax of an intense cat-and-mouse battle after Kirkwood had gradually closed the gap to the reigning champion. It also highlights how even a championship traditionally seen as secondary to Formula 1, such as IndyCar, can deliver more authentic excitement than the pinnacle of motorsport.
F1: artificial or not?
Others still refuse to use the term “artificial” to describe overtakes in the 2026 season. After all, even DRS was, in many ways, artificial. On most circuits, cars were unable to follow each other closely, leading to long trains of cars stuck within DRS range. At least these new rules have eliminated that issue.
Consistency is key here: both approaches to overtaking could be considered artificial, and arguably neither is clearly better than the other. Looking at the bigger picture, hybrid-era Formula 1 was built around energy management—a compromise that, while not perfect, fans had learned to accept. Importantly, drivers could still make a difference in certain situations.
In this new Formula 1, however, much of that seems to be missing. The driver risks becoming a passenger, and it is increasingly difficult to understand where and how individual skill can make the difference. A possible adjustment to the regulations, with an initial correction potentially arriving as early as the Miami Grand Prix in May, could lead to a gradual softening of positions on both sides.
However, such a move would also represent a significant admission of fault. Watching today’s Formula 1, there is a growing sense of something artificial and disconnected from the audience, who themselves struggle to interpret these new regulations. A step back is still possible—and perhaps desirable—but what we have seen in Australia and China does not feel like true Formula 1, regardless of those who argue otherwise.
The 2026 regulations have created a technical divide that is as much about philosophy as it is about lap times. While Lewis Hamilton finds joy in the new tactical “chess match” of energy deployment, Max Verstappen mourns the loss of pure, unadulterated speed. Based on the content of the upcoming Miami technical briefing, we may soon see if the FIA is willing to prioritize the “show” over the complex energy-recovery targets that currently define the grid.
Leave a Reply