The 2026 Bahrain tests have concluded, leaving behind more than just lap times: driver dissatisfaction is casting a shadow over the start of the season. While the driver returns to the spotlight, it may not be in the traditional sense.
Yesterday marked the end of the second test session of the 2026 Formula 1 season, the first at the Sakhir circuit in Bahrain. These three days proved to be highly significant. There were only a few hours to observe what was happening on track, yet these hours were crucial.
Not so much to gauge the actual performance of the cars—which remains a marginal point since the true picture will only emerge from Melbourne onwards—but to detect other signals. In fact, it became clear that, compared to Barcelona, there was a noticeable shift: we were able to analyze drivers’ feedback and immediate impressions more deeply after driving these new cars.
It’s worth noting that Williams hit the track for the first time, Aston Martin continues to face serious difficulties, and Ferrari has confirmed—hoping not to lose momentum—their solid performance alongside Mercedes and the Red Bull power unit. McLaren, at least according to the papaya team’s statements, still appears slightly behind, while the rest of the grid remains a large question mark.
Beyond lap times: driver feedback as the only truth from the tests
This point has already been emphasized: the statements and feelings of the drivers are the only real tool to capture meaningful signals during these test sessions. And now, “important” statements have started emerging—remarks that carry weight within Formula 1, leave a mark, and are likely to echo over time unless unforeseen car upgrades change the landscape.
Setting aside—if we can call them that—the early mind games among drivers (see Max Verstappen and Lando Norris, joined by George Russell), the statements made at the end of the session on the grid reveal one clear thought: the new F1 cars are not popular. Beyond driving complexity, beyond the new rules that may complicate things for both drivers and fans, the sensations these cars provide simply do not convince.
Charles Leclerc says it, Fernando Alonso says it, Sergio Pérez says it, and Max Verstappen says it too. And when the former #1 voice expresses an opinion, it is never trivial, often carrying significant influence within the F1 paddock. But what is this singular thought? The new cars resemble Formula E vehicles more than traditional Formula 1 cars. The main reason lies in energy management.
Energy management over raw racing
Formula 1 has always been synonymous with speed, pure racing, pushing limits, and innovation. Here, however, drivers are forced into management mode—not only in races but probably also during qualifying while pursuing pole position. The risk is seeing drivers using lift and coast—a term further popularized by Ferrari last year—even while seeking maximum performance.
The misconception of driver centrality: managing vs dominating
So, what remains of all this? A valid question, and one we try to answer. The new Formula 1 cars were intended to place the driver at the center once more. In a way, this is true, because those who adapt first, those who learn how to manage the car first, are likely to have a competitive edge. Yet, after the Bahrain tests, the conception of the driver as a key figure has shifted.
The central role of the driver has always been understood in terms of managing race phases: how they behave in overtakes, close duels, pushing the car to the limit, securing pole position, or setting a track record. Here, the driver is central, but primarily in management rather than domination—a significant difference. The common thought is that the driver who makes the difference is the one who can impose their driving style on the car, not be dominated by it.
From these first three days, the emerging impression is that the driver may face the reverse process: called to manage all these new elements. So is the driver central? Yes—but not in the traditional sense.
The spectacle dilemma: could regulations undermine F1 excitement?
Modern Formula 1 has increasingly favored fast circuits with long straights benefiting DRS, often at the expense of more traditional tracks. This choice has faced repeated criticism, as the spectacle offered by historic layouts—shorter circuits with slow or medium-speed corners—contradicts this trend. Examples include the Brazilian GP, Imola, and the Austrian track.
Another question arises: could this new generation of cars become a double-edged sword for Formula 1? Could the regulations force the sport to reconsider its direction and return to more “classic” circuits capable of delivering real spectacle?
It’s true that there are new elements of front and rear aerodynamics, new terminology to learn (like the active mode), but driver feedback highlights a counter-trend to what F1 values most: entertainment. The risk appears to be that these new regulations could compromise the show.
Of course, these are only the initial impressions from Bahrain. The season may prove otherwise, and car development could completely change the picture, rendering these comments insignificant. For now, however, the mood is far from positive.
The frustration voiced by the 2026 grid suggests that Formula 1 is walking a fine line between technical innovation and the soul of motor racing. If champions like Max Verstappen and Fernando Alonso are comparing the pinnacle of motorsport to Formula E due to excessive energy management, the FIA may need to reconsider if the “spectacle” has been sacrificed for the sake of hybrid sustainability. As we head toward Melbourne, the real test won’t just be who is the fastest, but whether the new rules allow the drivers to be the “dominators” they were born to be, rather than mere accountants of battery power.
Leave a Reply