Are 2026 F1 regulations broken? How to fix them?

[FrukostScones]

Just let them burn more fuel and load the battery with it.

The problem is just Hypocrisy.

The acceleration of these things fully juiced up the whole race might make it enjoyable for VES too.

[motobaleno]

After watching first race we, the situation is really bad.
a radical and maybe shocking but quite logical solution would be raw mobile chicanes interrupting long flat-out parts forcing battery recharge. Awful but simple, lowcost and much better than what I witnessed yesterday

[Holm86]

Currently the state of charge can only ever be 4MJ, that means a maximum of 11.5 seconds of full throttle with 350kw.
Personally I think they should just lower it to 200kw, and have 20 seconds of full throttle instead, and then only allow the 350kw on overtake mode.
And then for next year they should increase the fuel flow to compensate for the lost 150kw.
Increasing the battery is the wrong way to go, it would only increase weight again

[Rikhart]

Currently the state of charge can only ever be 4MJ, that means a maximum of 11.5 seconds of full throttle with 350kw.
Personally I think they should just lower it to 200kw, and have 20 seconds of full throttle instead, and then only allow the 350kw on overtake mode.
And then for next year they should increase the fuel flow to compensate for the lost 150kw.
Increasing the battery is the wrong way to go, it would only increase weight again

Agree, we need LESS battery, battery is the source of all problems atm. If we have sustainable fuels, I don't even get what batteries are doing in these cars.

[FrukostScones]

I will not agree with any rule change that will make the lap times even more slow.
The "turbo boost" and high top speeds are for me big plus of these overcomplicated and not thought through rules.

[bananapeel23]

After watching first race we, the situation is really bad.
a radical and maybe shocking but quite logical solution would be raw mobile chicanes interrupting long flat-out parts forcing battery recharge. Awful but simple, lowcost and much better than what I witnessed yesterday

You mean 1994 style chicanes?

Agree, we need LESS battery, battery is the source of all problems atm. If we have sustainable fuels, I don't even get what batteries are doing in these cars.

Battery is not the issue. The issue is too few means of filling the battery, which was significantly worsened by them cutting fuel flow by 30%.

With an MGU-H and front axle regen, 3000 MJ/h would be more than enough to harvest 9 MJ per lap everywhere with no lift and coast or super clipping. The cars could be harvesting some 700 kW under braking, while the MGU-H would be providing some 3 MJ per lap on average tracks, more on power tracks like Monza. (I suspect that this is a conservative estimate, solid numbers on MGU-H harvesting rates are hard to find)

You could likely have bumped energy limits to 12 MJ without having to super clip anywhere. 15 MJ would likely have been viable on energy rich tracks like Bahrain without having to resort to super clipping. They also wouldn't suffer from turbo lag, which would increase thermal efficiency under acceleration and would make them even quicker in traction zones than they are now.

The cars would also be burning a fair bit less fuel than they are now, since they wouldn't be super clipping.

Assuming a 15 MJ ERS allowance, the cars would have about 570-600 kW average power over a 90 second lap, 590-620 kW over an 80 second lap and 615-645 kW over a 70 second lap. That places them right around 750-865 hp sustained over a lap, depending on the track. Combined with no turbo lag and the current aero regs, the cars would be absolute monsters due to extreme acceleration and low drag.

Ultimately Audi demanding the removal of the MGU-H and Mercedes demanding no front axle regen out of fear of Audi turned what would've been an amazing engine into a mess. Politics and fear, not the battery, ruined this engine formula.

[FW17]

None of the tracks on the calendar allow for generation of 8MJ (or 2x battery capacity) without lift and coast and engine generation. Embarrassing how manufacturers pushed for these regulations.

[FittingMechanics]

Currently the state of charge can only ever be 4MJ, that means a maximum of 11.5 seconds of full throttle with 350kw.
Personally I think they should just lower it to 200kw, and have 20 seconds of full throttle instead, and then only allow the 350kw on overtake mode.
And then for next year they should increase the fuel flow to compensate for the lost 150kw.
Increasing the battery is the wrong way to go, it would only increase weight again

Lowering to 200 kW - would fix nothing. They would still have to recharge (probably just as much) and would lift and coast or super clip.

Overtake of 350 kW would then make the whole thing completely gimmicky. Instead of two cars fighting tactically over how to use up their energy, you'd get one car with much more power just cruise by at the start of the straight, by the end of the straight they'd be far ahead and probably uncatchable (especially if the car is faster in general).

[FittingMechanics]

To answer the question. Depends on what you see as a problem with these regulations.

If you don't want "yoyoing" then you want the tactical nature of energy use removed. This means reduction in either allowed recharge amount, deployable power and or methods to use the energy. They could make it tied to SLM or proscribe zones where you have to "use all the battery". Many ways to effectively remove the tactics from this. I'd be against it.

If you don't want cars slowing down to harvest at end of straights, you can either ban that type of recharging (no super clip, no lift and harvest, just tie the harvestable amount to brake pedal pressure), or you can reduce the amount they can harvest per lap to a lower value that will be achievable by braking. This is what I would support, having cars slow down through harvesting to go through fast corners looks bad.

Maybe you want both, then you probably just can remove the battery and increase size of the ICE engine. Long term I'd probably go for this using sustainable fuels but it's not going to happen soon.

[AR3-GP]

The yo-yo racing might be the only thing that's going to stop Merc from having it too easy. So it might not be a bad thing to leave it alone, this year.

[Holm86]

Currently the state of charge can only ever be 4MJ, that means a maximum of 11.5 seconds of full throttle with 350kw.
Personally I think they should just lower it to 200kw, and have 20 seconds of full throttle instead, and then only allow the 350kw on overtake mode.
And then for next year they should increase the fuel flow to compensate for the lost 150kw.
Increasing the battery is the wrong way to go, it would only increase weight again

Lowering to 200 kW - would fix nothing. They would still have to recharge (probably just as much) and would lift and coast or super clip.

Overtake of 350 kW would then make the whole thing completely gimmicky. Instead of two cars fighting tactically over how to use up their energy, you'd get one car with much more power just cruise by at the start of the straight, by the end of the straight they'd be far ahead and probably uncatchable (especially if the car is faster in general).

Ofc they would not have to recharge as much, when they deplete the battery way less with 200kw

[FittingMechanics]

Currently the state of charge can only ever be 4MJ, that means a maximum of 11.5 seconds of full throttle with 350kw.
Personally I think they should just lower it to 200kw, and have 20 seconds of full throttle instead, and then only allow the 350kw on overtake mode.
And then for next year they should increase the fuel flow to compensate for the lost 150kw.
Increasing the battery is the wrong way to go, it would only increase weight again

Lowering to 200 kW - would fix nothing. They would still have to recharge (probably just as much) and would lift and coast or super clip.

Overtake of 350 kW would then make the whole thing completely gimmicky. Instead of two cars fighting tactically over how to use up their energy, you'd get one car with much more power just cruise by at the start of the straight, by the end of the straight they'd be far ahead and probably uncatchable (especially if the car is faster in general).

Ofc they would not have to recharge as much, when they deplete the battery way less with 200kw

8 MJ that they can recharge/use is 40 seconds of 200 kW power. At most of the races they are under full throttle for longer than that.

[bananapeel23]

Lowering to 200 kW - would fix nothing. They would still have to recharge (probably just as much) and would lift and coast or super clip.

Overtake of 350 kW would then make the whole thing completely gimmicky. Instead of two cars fighting tactically over how to use up their energy, you'd get one car with much more power just cruise by at the start of the straight, by the end of the straight they'd be far ahead and probably uncatchable (especially if the car is faster in general).

Ofc they would not have to recharge as much, when they deplete the battery way less with 200kw

8 MJ that they can recharge/use is 40 seconds of 200 kW power. At most of the races they are under full throttle for longer than that.

It depends on whether or not you get a net time gain out of LiCo and super clipping or not. Make the aaceleration boost from the MGU-K weak enough and it won’t be a net time save to lose 50 kph on the last 1/3 of the straight in order to rocket out of the following corner.

[ScottB]

Currently the state of charge can only ever be 4MJ, that means a maximum of 11.5 seconds of full throttle with 350kw.
Personally I think they should just lower it to 200kw, and have 20 seconds of full throttle instead, and then only allow the 350kw on overtake mode.
And then for next year they should increase the fuel flow to compensate for the lost 150kw.
Increasing the battery is the wrong way to go, it would only increase weight again

Agree, we need LESS battery, battery is the source of all problems atm. If we have sustainable fuels, I don't even get what batteries are doing in these cars.

The batteries are there because the car industry needs to sell us all hybrids, and convince the population that smaller, turbo hybrids are still a sporty option. What's powering the new F80? a hybrid turbo V6.

So marketing, essentially. But then 'sustainable' fuels are also just marketing, given they aren't a viable mass market solution, or even a good use of energy. It is useful to help with F1's image, along with the batteries, when pitching up in countries, especially the new revenue generating street races, that F1 is green / sustainable / on the road to carbon neutral etc etc.

The problem was chasing a 50/50 split, that, again, is a marketing point rather than any meaningful need, that wouldn't be diminished by being 60/40 or similar. We've moved away from pushing the technology, via the MGU-H, for something easier / less complex, because ultimately the engine makers just want the link to the road cars they need to sell.

It's the same reason I remain to be convinced that F1 would ever return to a pure combustion formula, certainly without risking a lot of manufacturer involvement.

[bananapeel23]

The batteries are there because the car industry needs to sell us all hybrids, and convince the population that smaller, turbo hybrids are still a sporty option. What's powering the new F80? a hybrid turbo V6.

So marketing, essentially. But then 'sustainable' fuels are also just marketing, given they aren't a viable mass market solution, or even a good use of energy. It is useful to help with F1's image, along with the batteries, when pitching up in countries, especially the new revenue generating street races, that F1 is green / sustainable / on the road to carbon neutral etc etc.

The problem was chasing a 50/50 split, that, again, is a marketing point rather than any meaningful need, that wouldn't be diminished by being 60/40 or similar. We've moved away from pushing the technology, via the MGU-H, for something easier / less complex, because ultimately the engine makers just want the link to the road cars they need to sell.

It's the same reason I remain to be convinced that F1 would ever return to a pure combustion formula, certainly without risking a lot of manufacturer involvement.

Realistically modern F1 engine regulations shouldn’t be about using less fuel. They should be about making the most out of the fuel available. Admittedly more power than about 1000 horsepower starts making the cars dangerously quick, so fuel flow should rightly be adjusted down a bit with increased efficiency.

There are three important metrics for a good PU formula. Fuel flow, fuel efficiency and aero efficiency. You can cut one metric and get a good formula by making up for it with the other two. If you for some god forsaken reason decide to cut two metrics, you will either get slow cars or weird compromises. Cut both enormously and it will result in the total mess that we have now.

30% less fuel and reduced efficiency was never going to work if you wanted cars pushing, even if the lack of power was band-aid fixed with aero efficiency in order to retain top speeds. Even if massive torque and active aero manage to keep them fast, the MGU-K and ICE power so grossly out of proportion with each other was always going to result in difficult compromises.

The worst part is that more fuel flow will likely be unable to rectify the situation, since the fundamental issue of being unable to charge the battery suffienctly without slowing down on the straights remains. They really needed 400kW of front regen or an MGU-H (preferably both) for this formula to work without the excessive slowing down on the straights. Now they are locked into this for at least 4 years, even if additional fuel flow and reduced MGU-K output/harvesting might make it workable.

It’s just such a shame what politics did to this formula, since it could have been so good if they chose to increase fuel efficiency and keep active aero. I’m sure many lap records would have fallen by 3+ seconds if the fuel efficiency went up instead of down. Especially since more electrical power from three different sources could enable much more powerful aero packages.