Five uncertainties regarding F1’s new regulations prior to the China event

Regardless of personal opinions, the unique aspects of Formula 1’s inaugural race in its new era were undeniable.

Some spectators found the sight of cars navigating high-speed corners to regain energy while engine revs decreased on straights due to power shortages to be quite unappealing. Conversely, others were captivated by the unpredictability of the race start and an impressive seven lead changes within the first nine laps, making the Australian Grand Prix a must-watch event.

However, despite the varied experiences during the race weekend in Melbourne, it is improbable that this will accurately reflect the upcoming season or the overall impact of the 2026 regulations. The configuration of Albert Park significantly influenced the energy depletion observed, contributing to the unusual dynamics of the opening round.

This weekend’s race in China is anticipated to showcase the new formula in a different context, as the cars will compete on a circuit where energy recovery via the hybrid system is more feasible. F1 and the FIA have expressed a desire to observe how the new formula performs on a more conventional circuit before considering any temporary fixes within the regulations.

As the second round of the 2026 season approaches, what are the primary concerns and points of interest surrounding Formula 1’s new generation of vehicles?

1. Will qualifying laps disappoint again?

One of the most frustrating sights during the Australian Grand Prix weekend was cars depleting their electrical energy during qualifying laps. This issue is directly associated with the new power unit regulations, which aim for a balanced 50/50 distribution between power from the internal combustion engine and that from the hybrid system’s motor generator unit (MGU-K).

In simple terms, the MGU-K is unable to recover sufficient energy throughout the lap to ensure the maximum 350kW of electrical power is available each time the driver accelerates fully. Consequently, a complex algorithm operates behind the scenes to manage electrical power deployment strategically, maximizing its effect on reducing overall lap time while ensuring the battery is recharged when regeneration has minimal impact on lap time.

This was particularly noticeable on the approach to Turn 9 in Australia, where some cars slowed by over 50 km/h on the straight despite drivers requesting full throttle. The sound of declining revs from onboard footage also suggested the use of an energy recovery mode termed “super clipping,” which enables the MGU-K to function like a dynamo on a bicycle wheel, drawing energy from the V6 turbo to recharge the battery.

Even during his pole position lap, George Russell lost considerable momentum due to super clipping before Turn 9, necessitating an early downshift — effectively transforming his Mercedes engine into a high-revving generator for the battery. As the cars appeared to glide through the high-speed sections of the circuit during their flying laps in Q3, F1 fans, accustomed to witnessing drivers at their limits in qualifying, were left unimpressed.

“A cooldown lap is officially the pole lap,” was one of the most popular comments on F1’s YouTube video of Russell’s lap. Another user remarked, “Imagine telling someone years ago that drivers wouldn’t be able to go flat out in a straight line.”

Beyond the unappealing visuals (and engine sounds), determining how to manage and replenish electrical power was crucial to qualifying outcomes. Despite having the same power unit hardware, Mercedes’ engine customers McLaren and Williams indicated that their grasp of optimal energy harvesting and deployment strategies was significantly lagging behind Mercedes, costing them several tenths of a second.

Based on Australia’s qualifying session, it is not unreasonable to propose that the deployment strategies of software engineers and their intricate algorithms had a more substantial effect on the grid order than driver skill. If this trend persists throughout the season, the fundamental allure of the qualifying hour — which has traditionally been to observe drivers pushing their cars to the absolute limit — may be entirely diminished.

There is hope that qualifying at the Shanghai International Circuit will not appear as extreme, although some degree of energy management will still be unavoidable. The different circuit layout, featuring more significant braking zones and medium-speed corners, means drivers will spend less time at full throttle in China, with historical data indicating that 55% of the overall lap time is spent at full throttle compared to 71% at Albert Park.

Additionally, unlike Melbourne, where energy recovery during qualifying was limited to 7 megajoules per lap to mitigate some of the more extreme battery replenishment methods, this will be increased to 9 megajoules per lap at the Shanghai International Circuit, with the FIA confident that most recovery will occur during braking and cornering rather than on straights.

Nevertheless, the back straight in Shanghai is among the longest on the calendar, making some level of energy depletion likely before the heavy braking zone at Turn 14. It will also be essential to have as much charge in the battery as possible before entering the sweeping Turn 13 that leads onto the 1.2-kilometer straight.

Another unique aspect of the Chinese Grand Prix weekend is an additional sprint qualifying session, providing teams with a chance to learn deployment strategies from their competitors ahead of the grand prix qualifying.

2. Will overtaking remain artificial?

Despite the excitement surrounding the lead battle in the early laps of the Australian Grand Prix, there have been claims that the racing felt somewhat “artificial.” After being instructed by his engineer to utilize overtake mode on one lap, Charles Leclerc remarked that it resembled using a mushroom in Mario Kart to enhance performance and overtake his rival.

Moreover, there is concern that the skill of late-braking overtakes may be diminished now that drivers can access a significant power boost at the push of a button.

“I believe it will certainly alter our approach to racing and overtaking,” Leclerc stated. “Previously, it was more about who could brake the latest; now there seems to be a more strategic element to every maneuver.”

The new racing style has been likened to high-speed chess, as drivers who expend all their electrical energy on one move become easy targets for competitors later in the lap.

“Every activation of the boost button means you will face significant consequences afterward,” Leclerc added. “So, you always try to think several steps ahead to ultimately finish first, but it is undoubtedly a different approach to racing.”

However, similar to chess, there is also the potential for some encounters to result in a stalemate, as neither party is willing to take a risk and initiate a decisive move.

Again, the situation is expected to be less pronounced in China, and the layout could inadvertently make overtaking strategies overly predictable. While the boost button may create opportunities for passing into Turn 6 and the subsequent corners, Russell believes the necessity to conserve electrical energy for the 1.2-kilometer straight will cause drivers to hesitate before expending too much energy elsewhere.

“We’re heading to Shanghai next, where there’s one long straight, so most drivers will focus their energy on that straight,” said last weekend’s race winner. “You don’t need to distribute it across four [straights] as you do in Melbourne. So, while criticism is quick, we need to give it a chance, you know.”

3. Are the closing speeds hazardous?

While the first two concerns on this list pertain to the spectacle, safety issues have also emerged regarding the new regulations. World champion Lando Norris believes the closing speeds between drivers utilizing boost or overtake mode and those harvesting energy are so significant that they could lead to serious incidents.

“It is chaotic, and we are on the verge of a major accident, which is unfortunate because we are driving and just waiting for something to go wrong, and that is not a pleasant position to be in,” he stated. “Depending on what drivers do, you can experience closing speeds of 30, 40, or 50 km/h, and when one driver collides with another at that speed, it can result in severe consequences, including flying off the track and causing considerable harm to oneself and potentially others, which is a distressing thought.”

Norris’ McLaren team principal, Andrea Stella, echoed his driver’s sentiments, asserting that the issue is “inherent in the regulation rather than in the circuit,” indicating it is not an isolated incident in Australia.

“It’s quite challenging when you have cars in close proximity that may still be deploying energy or not,” Stella added. “This creates a speed differential that becomes unpredictable, and as Lando mentioned in his earlier comments, we should not feel content simply because nothing happened. We must always prioritize safety.”

play2:19Have the new F1 regulations been successful?

ESPN’s Nate Saunders and Laurence Edmondson discuss whether the new Formula One regulations are functioning effectively.

No changes are anticipated before China, but any near misses may elevate this issue to a priority ahead of the third round in Japan.

4. Are starts a potential hazard?

The exchange of positions between Russell and Leclerc at the start of the Australian Grand Prix may not have occurred had the Ferrari driver not surged into the lead at the first corner. Ferrari’s rapid starts were evident throughout preseason testing and could serve as a valuable advantage against any edge Mercedes holds in qualifying.

Variations in start line performance were expected under the new regulations, as the nature of the new engines introduces turbo lag that was absent last year. Under the previous regulations, the Motor Generator Unit-Heat (MGU-H) eliminated turbo lag by spinning the turbo to its optimal rpm in preparation for the start. However, the 2026 regulations have removed MGU-H technology from the power unit, meaning the turbo must now rely on traditional exhaust gas methods to spool, which necessitates maintaining high rpm before the start.

Failure to do so can result in the engine bogging down, as was the case with Liam Lawson’s Racing Bull on Sunday, creating a slow-moving obstacle in the middle of the grid. It was only Franco Colapinto’s quick reflexes in Melbourne that prevented a significant collision in the race’s opening moments, as his Alpine narrowly avoided Lawson’s Racing Bull and then the pit wall.

This highlighted a risk that Stella had already pointed out during preseason testing, and one that may still require attention if significant discrepancies in start line performance lead to serious accidents.

“Today, the start was a bit of a near miss, and there was a considerable speed differential on the grid,” Stella remarked on Sunday evening. “We can hope for the best or take further action to ensure we minimize this speed differential.

“This is a very technical issue. I don’t think we should delve too deeply into what should be done. My appeal, in a way my call, is to say we should do more. Maintain focus on the start because at some point, this will become a problem.”

The Chinese Grand Prix weekend will feature two race starts: one for Saturday’s sprint race and another for Sunday’s grand prix. Although the start-finish straight is slightly wider than that of Australia, it will make little difference if an unsuspecting driver encounters a slow-moving car shortly after the lights go out.

5. Does straight-line mode require adjustments?

One safety concern that led to outright confusion in Australia was the implementation of active aerodynamics. To enhance efficiency and assist the energy-depleted power units under the new regulations, drivers now have two wing settings: one for straights and another for corners.

On the straights, the upper elements of the front and rear wings rotate to a flat position to decrease drag, before snapping back into an upright position to maximize downforce in corners. The straight-line mode (SLM) is only available in FIA-designated zones and is activated by the driver from the cockpit, similar to the drag reduction system used in previous years.

During the drivers’ briefing after Friday practice in Australia, one driver noted that their car felt somewhat unstable when running close to rivals in the slightly curved section of the SLM zone between Turns 8 and 9. Other drivers confirmed this sensation, although several accounts from within the room indicated it was not perceived as a major issue.

The following morning, the FIA addressed the concerns by removing the corresponding SLM zone between Turn 8 and 9 ahead of final practice. This decision surprised the teams, who then had very limited time to adjust their setups and prepare for qualifying. After facing criticism from teams and drivers, the FIA reversed its decision and reinstated the SLM zone, which remained in effect for the remainder of the race weekend.

Nonetheless, the use of SLM, and its effectiveness, is likely to continue being a topic of discussion moving forward.

“Having experienced the race today and the battles, the only request I would make to the FIA is that with the straight mode, the front wing doesn’t drop as abruptly,” Russell stated. “When we activate straight mode, we encounter significant understeer, and when I was behind Charles trying to maneuver out of his slipstream, it felt as though my front wing was ineffective. From a safety perspective, I believe this adjustment would enhance the racing experience. I see no downside to implementing it.”

Similar to Melbourne, there are four SLM zones in China, but only one, located between Turns 4 and 6, features a kink, and it is not as severe as the S bend between Turns 8 and 9 in Australia. Whether drivers still feel a modification is necessary after the race will likely influence whether the FIA takes any further action for Japan.

Source: espn.com