Why former Ferrari driver’s F1 criticism misses the real point of change. Nigel Mansell criticises the 2026 F1 regulations.

Nigel Mansell, the 1992 Formula 1 World Champion, has openly expressed his concerns about the 2026 regulations. In recent interviews, he described some overtakes as “completely fake”—moments that look spectacular in corners but are quickly undone because an electronic system delivers extra power at the wrong moment, pushing one car forward while another drops back.

According to Nigel Mansell, the driver often becomes more of a passenger, while the computer decides when and how energy is deployed. The “Lion” also said he shares the frustration of many fans and called for a return to “normality”, with more decision-making power in the hands of the drivers rather than the algorithms.

These words from a legendary driver, known for his aggressive and uncompromising style, have certainly made noise. However, regardless of how understandable the criticism may be, one fundamental question remains: is this really the most effective way to change Formula 1?

Criticising is easy, changing is something else

Talking to journalists is an exercise many can do well. Former drivers, pundits, team principals and even passionate fans can easily list what they believe is wrong: artificial overtakes, energy management that distorts wheel-to-wheel battles, cars too dependent on software, and a performance balance between human skill and technology that feels increasingly skewed.

Such statements generate headlines, fuel social media debate and provide a temporary outlet for frustration. However, motorsport history shows that real revolutions are rarely born from fiery interviews.

They are built inside garages, technical meetings, FIA councils and direct discussions between teams, engineers and regulators. The major regulatory changes of recent decades—from the return of hybrid turbo engines, to the aerodynamic revolution of 2022, and up to the 2026 rules—have all been the result of long processes, compromises and internal pressure, not public outbursts.

Those who only criticise from the outside provide a useful service: they keep attention high and reflect public sentiment. But they rarely move the needle on actual decision-making.

The real power is inside the system

Revolutions in Formula 1 have always been made from within. Think of how teams have influenced regulations through the FOTA association, or how brilliant engineers have pushed technical boundaries so far that the FIA had to intervene. Or consider how current drivers can shape development through constant feedback during race weekends, simulator work and direct communication with engineers.

A former champion like Nigel Mansell certainly has voice and respect. But his influence is indirect: he can spark debate, not write the rules. Real change requires presence at the decision-making tables, concrete data, realistic technical proposals and alliances between teams that are normally rivals.

It requires people willing to get involved in long meetings, technical compromises and exhausting development work—not just those who deliver strong statements to the media.

Fans rightly demand authentic racing, where driver talent matters more than battery deployment timing. But expecting that to happen solely through strong public statements means delegating the real work to others.

Formula 1 is not a talk show: it is a complex technical, political and economic ecosystem. Those who want to change it must be inside it, not just commenting from the outside.

Building instead of complaining

Criticism is legitimate and often necessary. The former Ferrari driver has every right—and arguably the duty—to express his opinion, especially when it reflects the feelings of many fans. But the risk is that words remain just words.

History shows that those who truly transformed Formula 1 did so by working from within: proposing solutions, not only highlighting problems.

What is needed are courageous engineers designing cars less dependent on computers, teams pushing for driver-focused regulations, and executives willing to rethink decisions made in good faith but proven counterproductive.

It also requires current drivers who, beyond managing energy systems, demand the ability to truly control them. And it requires governance that is open to serious technical dialogue, not just emotional reactions.

Formula 1 remains the pinnacle of motorsport, but to keep it that way, it is not enough to criticise what feels artificial. The balance must be rebuilt from within, so that the driver returns to the centre, the battle is genuine, and technology serves the sport—not the other way around.

Those who speak to journalists perform a useful role. Those who work inside the paddock, in engineering rooms and regulatory meetings, are the ones who make the difference.

Real revolutions—in Formula 1 as in any other field—are always made by those willing to get their hands dirty, not just by those who shout from the sidelines. Everything else is just background noise.