The changes introduced are necessary, but the room for manoeuvre was so limited that each of them inevitably comes with a downward compromise.
An extremely tight margin for error
“A patch worse than the hole”, “Much ado about nothing”. These are some of the comments circulating on social media following the FIA’s publication of the new Formula 1 technical regulation changes, which will soon be approved through an electronic vote of the World Motor Sport Council.
However, it is worth taking a deeper look both at the individual changes and at the broader situation. Starting with the latter, the reality is that the Federation had extremely limited room to make meaningful interventions. Beyond the need to align all stakeholders (already a complex task in itself), the technical situation is fundamentally constrained and no “miracle fixes” were realistically possible.
The main performance bottleneck in this generation of regulations is clearly the energy stored in the battery system. With the removal of the MGU-H and an increase in electric power output, the system is constantly energy-deficient. No matter how the variables are reshuffled, this structural deficit cannot be eliminated under the current architecture.
Since nothing can be done in the short term about the system design itself, the only reasonable attempt is to shift the current imbalance towards a new equilibrium. It will still remain an imbalance, but one that should be perceived as more acceptable and less extreme by both drivers and the public.
However, it is important to underline that, just like in any financial system where liabilities exceed available resources, moving one problem often creates another. In the same way, each regulatory change may solve certain issues while inevitably generating new ones—perhaps smaller, but still relevant. An operating window that is simply too short.
Checks and balances: pros and cons of each change
Let’s break down the reasoning behind each modification, as well as its unavoidable side effects, starting with the changes proposed for qualifying.
Reduction of usable energy from 8 to 7 MJ. The FIA’s intention is clear: by reducing the maximum recoverable energy, it becomes closer to what drivers can actually harvest through braking alone. This should reduce lift and coast and super clipping practices (the latter being the real target of the change).
In particular, for super clipping, the Federation states this should reduce its duration to around 2–4 seconds per lap depending on the circuit. While this is a welcomed adjustment, the most obvious drawback remains: available electrical energy will run out even sooner.
Teams will still prioritise traction phases, which deliver the biggest lap time gains, meaning we will continue to see strong clipping at the end of straights (even if not as extreme as “super” clipping). Cars will still appear to lack top-end power. Driving may become more natural, but overall performance will drop and lap times will increase.
Increase in peak super clipping power from 250 kW to 350 kW. In the problematic super clipping phase, part of the internal combustion engine is used not only to propel the car forward but also to recharge the battery.
By increasing the power used in this process, the super clipping phase will clearly become shorter, but the drop in forward acceleration will be even more noticeable.
In this situation, the internal combustion engine is not significantly more powerful than the electric unit in a roughly 50-50 power split. Therefore, if the electric motor is fully used for charging, almost all combustion engine output is diverted away from propulsion. The remaining forward thrust during those 2–4 seconds is estimated at only 70–130 horsepower.
We would see a Formula 1 car travelling at 300 km/h on a straight, but effectively being pushed forward with the power of a small road car. Again, the change is understandable and aims to make super clipping a short-lived “bandage” rather than a prolonged compromise.
Increase in events with stricter energy limits from 8 to 12. After already being partially exposed in Japan, the FIA now wants to apply these stricter parameters in more than half of the remaining races, in an attempt to combat anti-spectacle strategies like lift and coast and super clipping.
This means that on many circuits we will see both the intended improvements and the side effects more clearly and more frequently.
Race modifications
Here the Federation focuses mainly on safety, aiming to reduce the risk of incidents similar to the Franco Colapinto–Oliver Bearman crash seen in Japan.
Maximum boost power limited to 150 kW. Without entering too deeply into regulatory complexity, this is again a restriction on electrical output that reduces sudden acceleration peaks but also lowers overall performance.
It is difficult to understand the necessity of a “Boost” mode when an “Overtake” mode already exists, making this feel like an unnecessary complication.
MGU-K power delivery adjusted: 350 kW in key acceleration zones, 250 kW elsewhere. This change is intended to reduce power in mid-corner or less critical sections (like Spoon in Japan, where the Haas and Alpine incident occurred).
However, the system appears vaguely defined, and it remains unclear how power will be consistently restricted across different track segments. A major consequence is that drivers will experience cars with around 135 hp more or less depending on the section of track.
Starting procedure changes
This area is still experimental and will not be immediately implemented, but testing will begin in Miami and full adoption will depend on positive results. This is arguably the most controversial part of the proposal.
The idea is to equip cars with a system capable of detecting a “low power start” caused by excessively slow acceleration at clutch release, and automatically inject electrical power to help the car accelerate and avoid dangerously slow launches on the grid.
While the intention is understandable, the proposal raises significant concerns. If a driver has poor start performance due to low battery energy (a situation already seen multiple times in the first three races), it is unclear how additional electrical assistance could help, since no energy is available in the first place.
If instead the poor start is caused by turbo lag or driver error in clutch release, the system would effectively become a launch aid. Since torque delivery would need to be carefully controlled to avoid wheelspin, this would effectively resemble traction control.
Teams could then optimise the system and drivers might even attempt to trigger it deliberately to gain better traction off the line. In short, while the safety concern is valid, this solution raises major technical and sporting questions.
A warning system with lights indicating slow-starting cars approaching behind is also planned, which appears to be a more reasonable and practical solution.
Another positive and necessary update is the introduction of a reset for recovered energy during the formation lap, addressing inconsistencies seen in early races where timing lines used to reset energy were misaligned with the starting grid. This prevented optimal battery usage at the start in some situations.
While this change is clearly needed, it is still difficult to understand why energy recovery and deployment needs to be so tightly regulated even during the formation lap.
Minor updates regarding wet conditions have also been introduced, although they are currently of secondary importance and not worth detailed analysis.
Every action has an equal and opposite reaction
In conclusion, we agree with the intention and rationale behind the proposed regulatory changes. However, it is impossible not to highlight how narrow the technical framework of the current regulations is, leaving extremely limited room for intervention.
As a result, every change introduced may solve one issue, but inevitably creates another side effect—sometimes beneficial, sometimes problematic, but always present.
Leave a Reply