An Imola Formula 1 season finale would provide a fascinating test for the radically different 2026 cars. Our simulation projects a qualifying lap of 1:16.929 around the Autodromo Enzo e Dino Ferrari, 2.259 seconds slower than Oscar Piastri’s 2025 pole time, despite the new-generation car reaching a substantially higher maximum speed of 336.1 km/h.
The possibility of Formula 1 returning to Imola has gained relevance because the conflict in the Middle East does not appear likely to be resolved in the short term, creating serious uncertainty around the Qatar and Abu Dhabi Grands Prix. Before the summer break, Stefano Domenicali indicated that the 2026 Formula 1 season could finish in Europe if the final Middle Eastern rounds cannot take place, with persistent speculation surrounding a potential finale at Imola.
It would be a particularly fitting setting given how the championship has developed, with Kimi Antonelli leading the drivers’ standings and Ferrari having rediscovered greater competitiveness. The obvious risk concerns the weather, although in absolute terms the ambient temperatures experienced during the Las Vegas Grand Prix weekend are not drastically different from those typically seen around late November and early December at the historic circuit named after Enzo and Dino Ferrari. The viability of a cold-weather event has already become part of the debate surrounding a possible December Formula 1 race at Imola.
Another interesting factor is that Red Bull Powertrains Ford already has data relating to power-unit use at Imola following the filming day completed there on 21 January with the VCARB03, in extremely cold conditions. That could potentially provide useful information for Red Bull and its Faenza-based sister team should Formula 1 ultimately return to the circuit.
Using Eloy Aparacio’s detailed analysis, we attempted to simulate a lap of the Santerno circuit under the new regulatory framework. Because the energy limits established by the FIA for each individual race weekend are not available for a hypothetical Imola round, the simulation assumes a maximum recharge per lap of 7.5 MJ in qualifying.
Imola 2026 F1 simulation: Comparing the 2025 and 2026 cars
According to the simulation, a 2026 Formula 1 car would complete a qualifying lap at Imola in 1:16.929. That is 2.259 seconds slower than Oscar Piastri’s 1:14.670 from 2025, representing a difference of 3.03%.
That gap is close to the average observed across the first 11 races of the 2026 season, where lap times have been between 1.6% and 4.6% slower relative to the equivalent 2025 events. What makes Imola unusual is therefore not the overall size of the deficit, but where around the circuit that time is lost.
The virtual model indicates that the 2026 car would actually achieve a higher straight-line speed than the 2025 pole-sitting machine. Maximum speed rises from 324.6 km/h to 336.1 km/h, an increase of 11.5 km/h.
The most unusual behaviour occurs on the run towards Tamburello. The 2026 car reaches its maximum speed after just 486 metres, but then loses 36 km/h over the following 282 metres despite the accelerator remaining fully open. The reason is simple: the battery has been depleted, leaving the internal combustion engine alone to propel the car.
This type of behaviour has already become one of the defining features of the new technical formula. Similar extreme speed losses when electrical assistance disappears have been observed elsewhere, including the phenomenon examined in our analysis of why 2026 F1 cars can lose up to 40 km/h at Spa when battery energy runs out.
Where the 2.26-second lap-time deficit develops
The lap-time loss compared with 2025 is not distributed evenly because each sector has a very different composition. Sector one consists largely of the long acceleration section leading towards Tamburello, and it is precisely on these full-throttle sections that the 2026 car performs at its best.
As a result, the simulated car loses only 0.81% in the opening sector. Sectors two and three, however, consist primarily of interconnected medium-speed corners. That is where the majority of the deficit appears, with losses of 4.2% and 3.9% respectively. Together, those two sectors account for approximately 2.08 seconds of the total 2.26-second loss.
There is another way to understand the difference. Over the course of the lap, the 2026 car spends 2.8 seconds longer below 150 km/h and only 0.2 seconds longer above 300 km/h. It is faster at the upper end of the speed range and slower at the lower end, but the lap contains more time in the lower-speed range than at extreme velocity.
When the two cars are compared at exactly the same position around the circuit, the largest instantaneous speed difference reaches 96 km/h at the 4,254-metre point. That does not mean the 2026 car negotiates a corner 96 km/h slower.
Instead, the measurement occurs in a braking zone. The 2026 car simply begins braking earlier, meaning that for a few metres one car is already decelerating heavily while the other remains at full throttle. The instantaneous difference therefore becomes enormous even though their actual corner speeds differ by only a few kilometres per hour.
2026 F1 cars accelerate harder before suffering a major straight-line drop
Out of slow corners, the 2026 car is clearly faster. This characteristic is based on measured data rather than an assumption. Taking every full-throttle acceleration section longer than 400 metres from the first 11 races of 2026, dividing each straight into five equal sections and comparing them with the same stretches of asphalt from the previous year reveals a consistent pattern.
During the first fifth of the straight, the 2026 car accelerates 29% more strongly. By the midpoint, the two generations are effectively level. During the final fifth, however, the 2026 car is actually decelerating while the 2025 car continues gaining speed.
The Imola simulation reproduces precisely that behaviour. Maximum speed of 336.1 km/h is reached after 486 metres. The car then loses 36 km/h over the following 282 metres and arrives at the braking point travelling at approximately 300 km/h.
Across the complete lap, the car spends 5.3% of the time relying solely on the petrol engine with the battery depleted. The longest continuous section in that state measures approximately 250 metres.
The pattern is also reflected in throttle usage. The 2026 cars spend 67.2% of a lap at full throttle compared with 71.4% for their 2025 predecessors. Once the car has stopped accelerating because electrical assistance is no longer available, keeping the accelerator completely depressed no longer provides the same benefit. The interaction between deployment, harvesting and so-called super-clipping has consequently become central to the new regulations, as explored in our analysis of how 2026 energy management changes full-throttle driving.
How active aerodynamics would work around Imola
The 2026 Formula 1 cars use active aerodynamics to reduce drag, replacing the previous DRS concept. The lower-drag configuration can only be used in specific sections of each circuit.
The Imola simulation contains three genuine straight-line sections where the system would be available. The first extends across the start-finish area, which means it appears as two separate entries when the lap is represented from timing line to timing line.
Everywhere else, the car operates in its maximum-downforce configuration, commonly described as cornering mode. Even within an active-aero section, the wings return to the higher-downforce setting when the car actually encounters a corner.
The presence of three substantial straights helps explain why a 2026 car can achieve such a high maximum speed at Imola despite its overall lap time being slower. Active aerodynamics and energy deployment have become closely connected under the new rules, and the relationship has already prompted discussion over whether greater freedom in active-aero use could reduce Formula 1’s energy-management problems.
How much speed do 2026 F1 cars lose in Imola’s corners?
The 2026 car produces less downforce and therefore cannot consistently maintain the same cornering speeds as its predecessor. Comparing the minimum speed through every corner with Oscar Piastri’s 2025 pole lap produces an average deficit of 5.3%.
The worst individual corner shows a 6.7% loss, equivalent to approximately 13 km/h at the point of maximum difference. Those figures are relatively modest, which is consistent with measurements taken at circuits where the 2025 and 2026 cars have actually completed comparable laps.
The same overall pattern appears when examining the three 2026 races held at circuits most similar to Imola: the new formula generally gives away some performance through the corners and attempts to recover it on the straights. Whether that trade-off ultimately produces a faster or slower lap depends heavily on the characteristics of the circuit.
It is not an absolute rule. At Suzuka, the real 2026 cars were actually faster through some corners than their 2025 counterparts. The simulated cornering losses at Imola sit towards the lower end of the measured range, which is consistent with an overall lap-time deficit that itself sits close to the 2026 seasonal average.
Imola’s biggest 2026 challenge: Managing electrical energy
The energy picture provides perhaps the most revealing part of the simulation. The car starts the lap with its battery completely charged at 4.0 MJ. During the lap it consumes 8.76 MJ and recovers 5.03 MJ, reaching the finish line with 0.27 MJ remaining.
The figures balance correctly. The car consumes 3.73 MJ more than it recovers, exactly matching the difference between the initial 4.0 MJ of stored energy and the 0.27 MJ remaining at the end of the lap.
Almost all of the harvested energy — 94% — comes from braking. Only 0.31 MJ is recovered through lifting off the accelerator and the subsequent deceleration phase. That is because only two corners provide a situation in which the car stops accelerating sufficiently early for an anticipatory lift to be worthwhile. Everywhere else, speed continues increasing until the braking phase begins.
In this simulated lap there is no energy recovery while the accelerator remains applied.
Why the 350 kW recovery limit matters at Imola
One of the most revealing measurements concerns how much of each braking zone is spent with the motor operating at its maximum 350 kW recovery power. Across the eight significant braking events on the lap, the figure ranges between 21% and 51%.
During the heaviest braking event, around half of the braking phase is spent at the maximum recovery limit. The two zones showing zero per cent represent only very light braking inputs and together account for just 0.10 MJ.
This helps identify what is actually restricting energy recovery. There is no shortage of braking energy available. A substantial amount of kinetic energy is still being converted into heat by the friction brakes. The limitation is how much of that energy the system is capable of harvesting electrically.
Braking harder or earlier therefore does not automatically put additional energy into the battery.
Across one complete lap, the car sheds 13.24 MJ of kinetic energy during deceleration. Of the energy that actually reaches the brakes, the electric motor recovers approximately 62%.
That is significantly below the 85–96% measured at circuits such as Zandvoort and the Hungaroring. The reason is the extremely high speeds from which several of Imola’s braking events begin.
Approaching Tamburello, for example, the car dissipates approximately 2.5 MJ in around 1.5 seconds. Handling that amount of energy would require braking power considerably greater than the 350 kW electrical recovery ceiling, meaning the conventional friction brakes must absorb the remainder and dissipate it as heat.
Why simply recovering more energy would not make the car faster
It is reasonable to ask why the car could not simply harvest more electrical energy. In principle, four separate limitations could restrict recovery, so establishing which one matters is essential.
In this simulation, however, the assumed 7.5 MJ maximum recharge limit per lap is nowhere near being reached, and the power unit has sufficient opportunities to harvest energy.
The genuine restriction is instead how much energy the car can actually use. There is little benefit in storing electrical charge that cannot be deployed before the lap ends. Attempting to increase recovery at Imola would therefore simply result in the car crossing the finish line with a more heavily charged battery — and a slower lap time.
This balance between harvesting enough energy and actually having somewhere useful to deploy it is one of the central strategic challenges of the 2026 formula. It also explains why the debate surrounding energy deployment and active aerodynamics has divided opinion within Formula 1.
What the simulation would mean for drivers on track
Deploying electrical power early becomes crucial. With more than half of the car’s available power potentially coming from the electrical system when accelerating out of a slow corner, the driver who can apply the throttle first is rewarded. Imola’s second and third sectors contain a succession of precisely these corner exits.
Slipstreaming and overtaking would also take on a different shape. The attacking car receives substantial assistance early in the acceleration phase but runs out of battery at broadly the same point as the car ahead. The performance gain is therefore concentrated in the first half of the straight rather than at its end. Overtaking moves would be expected to develop earlier before being completed under braking.
The way each driver uses the battery becomes visibly important. Because the electrical energy can be depleted before the end of the longest full-throttle sections, with 5.3% of the simulated lap completed using only the combustion engine, choosing where to deploy energy changes which areas of the circuit appear fastest. Two drivers could therefore achieve similar overall lap times while distributing their performance very differently around the track.
Braking distances become longer. Reduced aerodynamic load means less grip is available under braking, moving the braking point earlier. Combined with lower cornering speeds, those braking phases account for a large part of the approximately two-and-a-quarter seconds separating the simulated 2026 lap from Oscar Piastri’s 2025 pole.
If Imola ultimately returns as part of Formula 1’s revised 2026 season finale, the circuit could therefore provide an unusually revealing demonstration of the new regulations. The cars would be spectacularly fast during the first part of their acceleration phases, capable of reaching higher peak speeds than in 2025, yet simultaneously vulnerable to battery depletion, earlier braking and reduced performance through medium-speed corners.
The simulation encapsulates the central trade-off of the 2026 formula: surrender some cornering performance, gain dramatically during the initial phase of acceleration and then depend on the circuit layout — and the available electrical energy — to determine whether that exchange ultimately pays off.
Leave a Reply