The start to Formula 1’s new rules era always had the potential to divide opinion. Even before the first race, concerns were aired.
Red Bull’s Max Verstappen warned of an “anti-racing” formula, before Aston Martin driver Fernando Alonso made a tongue-in-cheek claim that his team’s chef could drive its new car through certain corners. To have some of F1’s highest-profile drivers hitting out is not a good look for the championship’s decision-makers.
McLaren team principal Andrea Stella also raised several concerns, including potential safety issues with the closing speeds of the new cars. It all came down to how the new engines meant drivers were adapting to an unusual driving style.
The F1 organization’s response, delivered by CEO Stefano Domenicali in an interview with reporters during the final preseason test, was to keep calm and be patient. Wait for the first race, and then cast judgement.
But Domenicali was clear that if addressing the on-track spectacle required changes — such as reducing the reliance on electrical power in the new engines or lowering the amount of ‘super clipping’, where a car harvests energy at a certain point when a driver is still on full throttle, causing speed to drop — they would be made.
Domenicali recognized the scale of the new regulations. If tweaks were needed to a vast new rulebook, they would be made. The 11 teams then met with the F1 organization and motorsport’s governing body, the FIA, before the new season started in Australia on March 8 to consider potential changes.
Subtle ones followed, such as tweaking the start procedure to try to prevent cars from stalling on the grid. But it was agreed not to rush into any knee-jerk changes and give things time. Provisionally, another meeting was planned to review the racing between the season’s second round, in China, and round three, in Japan.
There was broad consensus that aligned with Domenicali’s comments: Watch first, then judge.
Australia hardly cast a positive outlook, despite the race’s entertaining early battle for the lead between eventual race winner George Russell of Mercedes and the fast-starting Ferrari driver, Charles Leclerc.
Verstappen seemed vindicated, as more drivers aired their concerns. Overtakes seemed very easy, and the underwhelming onboard footage of Russell’s pole position lap, which showed a big drop in speed at the fastest point of the Melbourne track, didn’t help the outside perception of what the new cars were requiring drivers to do.
Jumping onboard with our pole-sitter! 🙌
The @pirellisport Pole Position in Australia goes to George Russell 💨#F1 #AusGP pic.twitter.com/w93SyCZ0YG
— Formula 1 (@F1) March 7, 2026
But Australia was an outlier. The track’s layout, with lots of long, flat-out sections and only a few heavy braking points, is one of the most energy-starved of the season for the engines. It provides limited opportunities to recharge the battery via braking.
One race is too small a sample size to make changes and in any case, Melbourne’s unusual layout meant the data would not be representative of the wider calendar.
But a small example of F1’s rule makers acting too hastily on the issue did occur in Australia, when the FIA tried to remove one of the ‘Straight Mode’ zones before final practice. It cited potential safety concerns over the system activating at a narrow point on the Albert Park track, where the cars are easily unsettled, increasing the risk of crashes.
The teams pushed back emphatically, given the impact such a loss would have on their car setups, prompting the FIA to reverse its decision. Further discussion was required.
Ayao Komatsu, the Haas team principal, then told reporters a week later in China that two rounds were still a “small sample” — not enough to make a firm assessment on the new rules.
There is a significant learning curve that all teams are experiencing with the new cars. With every race weekend, their knowledge only deepens. “Everybody is learning quickly,” said Komatsu.
Haas team boss Ayao Komatsu at the 2026 Chinese GP. (Rudy Carezzevoli / Getty Images)
“Let’s not just rush into certain knee-jerk reactions, because that’s the worst thing that can happen. You change something, then the engineers and the drivers need to learn new things (and say), ‘Oh, wow, now there are unintended consequences, we introduced a new problem, we need to change it again.’ Let’s not do that.
“Observe. Let the teams learn, because we are learning fast. Give drivers some stability. Then they have a chance to get used to these new regulations as well.”
And the Chinese GP showed an improved on-track spectacle. The battle at the front, especially the intra-Ferrari fight between Lewis Hamilton and Leclerc, was tense and close.
Hamilton talked it up as being the best racing he has ever experienced in 20 seasons in F1. He felt this was boosted by the improved agility and reduced dimensions of the new cars, compared to the big beasts of the previous generation.
It wasn’t enough to satisfy Verstappen. It was a weekend without points — he qualified eighth for the sprint race and the grand prix, then dropped like a stone off both starts before eventually retiring from the main race.
He took aim at the regulations again, going as far as saying after the main race that fans who enjoyed the new racing “really don’t know what racing is about.”
A scathing take, one that Toto Wolff, the Mercedes team boss, suggested had been intensified because Verstappen’s car looked “horrendous to drive.” Wolff, in charge of the team that had won the first two races, felt that the Shanghai spectacle had been entertaining.
“Sometimes we’re too nostalgic about the ‘good-old years,’” said Wolff. “The product is good in itself.”
The loudest voices in this debate — notably Verstappen and Alonso, who called F1 a “battery world championship” post-main race in China — are also in difficult competitive positions. Verstappen, however, claimed he would hold the same stance even if he were winning.
But the sport’s leadership has always wanted to work with Verstappen and be constructive on the topic. His input is valued, as demonstrated by Domenicali seeking out Verstappen for talks after the Dutchman’s preseason comments.
“We are talking about it,” Verstappen told reporters in China. “They understand where we are coming from as the drivers. I think I speak for most of the drivers. Some will say it’s great because they are winning races, which is fair enough.”
Through the debrief of the first two races, there will be plenty of feedback for F1 and the FIA to consider. And, between the teams, there is some common ground.
The qualifying product can be improved, even if the super-clipping issue in China was not as pronounced as in Australia.
Subtle tweaks to the engine software to adjust the reliance on the battery power to produce speed could be a short-term solution in this regard. But no hardware changes would be possible until 2027, as the engine designs are already locked in for the season.
The five-week gap after Suzuka, following the cancellation of the two rounds in Bahrain and Saudi Arabia, provides F1 and the teams more chances to evaluate what, if anything, may need to be altered before the Miami Grand Prix, now round four of 22 this year.
A report from The Race website also suggests F1’s stakeholders have already decided it is best to maintain the status quo until that point. They could then let more races play out beyond this, or decide there is a need for further subtle changes.
The benefit of waiting until after Miami is that there will be four rounds of data, plus feedback from the drivers on what these new cars were like to drive at a range of circuits, including one of the sport’s ultimate drivers’ circuits, Suzuka.
George Russell (left), Lewis Hamilton and Charles Leclerc in action during the 2026 Chinese GP sprint race. (Alex Bierens de Haan / Getty Images)
Suzuka will also offer an especially interesting comparison for the ‘new’ F1. Last year’s Japanese GP was a nail-biter as Verstappen fended off the faster McLarens of Lando Norris and Oscar Piastri for the entire race — proof that a ‘good’ race needn’t be defined by simply the number of overtakes.
F1 has a tricky balance to strike, satisfying the fans, the teams and their own vested interests, the drivers — both happy and disgruntled — and keeping faith in a set of regulations that has been years in the making.
Among all those factors, drastic changes anytime soon seem unlikely. Through the ongoing dialogue between all the interested parties, the message will be that if tweaks are required, it’s about being considered and subtle — not taking a sledgehammer to F1’s new racing product.
