2026 Chinese Grand Prix - Shanghai, March 13-15

[NoDivergence]

These new regulations are leading to much closer and more exciting racing than in the ground effect era.

Au contraire; there was some intra-team yoyo passing, combined with energy starved cars that took corners on a 75% power output.
The end result at least wasn't "much closer" either compared to last year.

China 2026:
1. K. Antonelli – 1:33:15.607
2. G. Russell – +5.515s
3. L. Hamilton – +25.267s
4. C. Leclerc – +28.894s
5. O. Bearman – +57.268s
6. P. Gasly – +59.647s
7. L. Lawson – +80.588s
8. I. Hadjar – +87.247s
9. C. Sainz – +1 lap
10. F. Colapinto – +1 lap

China 2025:
1. O. Piastri – 1:30:55.026
2. L. Norris – +9.748s
3. G. Russell – +11.097s
4. M. Verstappen – +16.656s
5. E. Ocon – +49.969s
6. K. Antonelli – +53.748s
7. A. Albon – +56.321s
8. O. Bearman – +61.303s
9. L. Stroll – +70.204s
10. C. Sainz – +76.387

Wheel to wheel racing. Yes, racing

[venkyhere]

If we had smaller gaps the racing would be really great. Even right now the racing is pretty good, especially in earlier parts of the races. I'm hoping that the teams close the gap before the aero development makes following close too hard.

Totally disagree.

Racing today is far worst than when DRS was at its worst. Formula One should be about skill, no state of charge

I just don't understand why state of charge and skill are mutually exclusive in your view. I race in a power to weight class and I run low power, low weight, wide tire, big aero. I am up against cars weighing 600lbs more than me and 80hp more with a flat power curve (big v8 vs. my small straight 6). If I am fighting a driver/car that does the same lap time as me he can fly by me for free on the straights and I have to catch up and pass/gap in the corners. I guess I could say his driving doesn't take skill but I know that's not the case. We are making lap time in different ways and are racing each other.

I think these cars are very lively and quick. The lighter weight, smaller platform, instant punch of electric power makes them look quick and loose. These drivers are pushing as hard as they can (tire limited!!!!) to beat the other driver. They get a free over take via battery but they know they have to try to see if they can hold that spot on the next lap when the other driver will have more power. That actually makes for more racing. It's not perfect but I have surprisingly enjoyed it so far. I hope they improve the tires and performance converges.

That said I do not love the deceleration on straights, it is definitely a little lame, particularly in qualy.

Only one Q :
Does your lightweight car decide for itself where it wants to be fast and where it wants to be slow ?
Ie, is the pedal map dynamically changing depending on where you are on the track ?
Or is your cars pedal faithful to your foot ?
That's all you need to think, to understand what the criticism is

[Waz]

Totally disagree.

Racing today is far worst than when DRS was at its worst. Formula One should be about skill, no state of charge

I just don't understand why state of charge and skill are mutually exclusive in your view. I race in a power to weight class and I run low power, low weight, wide tire, big aero. I am up against cars weighing 600lbs more than me and 80hp more with a flat power curve (big v8 vs. my small straight 6). If I am fighting a driver/car that does the same lap time as me he can fly by me for free on the straights and I have to catch up and pass/gap in the corners. I guess I could say his driving doesn't take skill but I know that's not the case. We are making lap time in different ways and are racing each other.

I think these cars are very lively and quick. The lighter weight, smaller platform, instant punch of electric power makes them look quick and loose. These drivers are pushing as hard as they can (tire limited!!!!) to beat the other driver. They get a free over take via battery but they know they have to try to see if they can hold that spot on the next lap when the other driver will have more power. That actually makes for more racing. It's not perfect but I have surprisingly enjoyed it so far. I hope they improve the tires and performance converges.

That said I do not love the deceleration on straights, it is definitely a little lame, particularly in qualy.

Only one Q :
Does your lightweight car decide for itself where it wants to be fast and where it wants to be slow ?
Ie, is the pedal map dynamically changing depending on where you are on the track ?
Or is your cars pedal faithful to your foot ?
That's all you need to think, to understand what the criticism is

It's been like this since the start of the hybrid era. You didn't notice because the MGU-H was filling in where they now have super clipping. The MGU-K was also less powerful, so regen was easier.

But the deployment has at least since 2015, been automatic and calibrated to where the car is on track, which determined how much power and for how long to deploy.

[bananapeel23]

These new regulations are leading to much closer and more exciting racing than in the ground effect era.

Au contraire; there was some intra-team yoyo passing, combined with energy starved cars that took corners on a 75% power output.
The end result at least wasn't "much closer" either compared to last year.

China 2026:
1. K. Antonelli – 1:33:15.607
2. G. Russell – +5.515s
3. L. Hamilton – +25.267s
4. C. Leclerc – +28.894s
5. O. Bearman – +57.268s
6. P. Gasly – +59.647s
7. L. Lawson – +80.588s
8. I. Hadjar – +87.247s
9. C. Sainz – +1 lap
10. F. Colapinto – +1 lap

China 2025:
1. O. Piastri – 1:30:55.026
2. L. Norris – +9.748s
3. G. Russell – +11.097s
4. M. Verstappen – +16.656s
5. E. Ocon – +49.969s
6. K. Antonelli – +53.748s
7. A. Albon – +56.321s
8. O. Bearman – +61.303s
9. L. Stroll – +70.204s
10. C. Sainz – +76.387

The relevant point of comparison should be Shanghai 2014, or generously Shanghai 2017 (since 2022 was cancelled).

Gaps will ALWAYS be exaggerated early on in a regulation cycle. I'd argue the field spread is actually surprisingly small given that they implemented new, hard to utilize engines and an entirely new aero package all at once.

Also frankly I don't get the hate towards overtake mode. It's no more powerful than DRS was, but it creates the ability to overtake in more places and in more ways. It was the one part of the regulations pretty much everyone liked when it was first presented, and it feels like people are hating on it just becuase it is associated with the overall 2026 regs.

[AR3-GP]

Also frankly I don't get the hate towards overtake mode. It's no more powerful than DRS was, but it creates the ability to overtake in more places and in more ways. It was the one part of the regulations pretty much everyone liked when it was first presented, and it feels like people are hating on it just becuase it is associated with the overall 2026 regs.

The overtake mode only works above 290km/h whereby the normal mode starts to ramp down the total power, and overtake mode does not. Therefore it hasn't changed the places where overtaking can happen. In China, it would only function on the back straight and the front straight, which are the same places that DRS was used last year. I have made a figure of Hamilton's race lap in China to show you this:



What you are actually commenting on is the fact that the rules have engineered the yo-yo racing which you have falsely attributed to driver intelligence. The overtake function and even the lesser "boost mode" is designed (willful or incompetence) to put you at an energy deficit because overtake mode and boost mode are fundamentally inefficient use of energy. It is the equivalent of forcing a driver to stick a fork into their own arm in order to overtake. This is not drivers being clever. Hamilton was no more clever than Leclerc to get back past him and vice versa. The rules made it so. It would be like if the drivers got a 5 second power cut after they used DRS last year. This would be the same concept, and it's exactly why it isn't racing, no matter how much people like seeing the cars go back and forth. You can say you like it, that's perfectly fine, but let us never ever try and say it has anything to do with formula 1's history. It is simply not the sport that Fangio, Senna, and Schumacher all shared. Many drivers are devastated that the real sport has been taken away from them. It is only those who don't have much going for them otherwise, that are happy to participate.

With that said, it is what it is. The netflix generation won. There are still many interesting things to discuss about how the rules work and how the systems are doing the driving now. People that only care about "overtaking" are not the kind of people that spend time in a technical forum. So the regulation change and the "promise" of fabricated overtaking was never a requirement for posting here.

[basti313]

What you are actually commenting on is the fact that the rules have engineered the yo-yo racing which you have falsely attributed to driver intelligence. The overtake function and even the lesser "boost mode" is designed (willful or incompetence) to put you at an energy deficit because overtake mode and boost mode are fundamentally inefficient use of energy.

Very good post, thank you.
I would just add "slipstreaming", which in my point of view is even a stronger source of the yo-yo racing: While in the past you had issues following another car, you needed to be substantially faster to stay within 1sec of the car ahead, it now actually helps in this energy starved formula to stay as close as possible. So actually the car behind is helped and does not need to be faster to overtake....which is not even Netflix but rather Mario Kart racing.

[langedweil]

What you are actually commenting on is the fact that the rules have engineered the yo-yo racing which you have falsely attributed to driver intelligence. The overtake function and even the lesser "boost mode" is designed (willful or incompetence) to put you at an energy deficit because overtake mode and boost mode are fundamentally inefficient use of energy.

Very good post, thank you.
I would just add "slipstreaming", which in my point of view is even a stronger source of the yo-yo racing: While in the past you had issues following another car, you needed to be substantially faster to stay within 1sec of the car ahead, it now actually helps in this energy starved formula to stay as close as possible. So actually the car behind is helped and does not need to be faster to overtake....which is not even Netflix but rather Mario Kart racing.

But didn't the slipstream effect almost got nullified by the active aero ?
There will surely be some left, bit most likely not that much. Then again, I'm far far away grom being an aero guy .. so I might be wrong.

[bananapeel23]

The overtake mode only works above 290km/h whereby the normal mode starts to ramp down the total power, and overtake mode does not. Therefore it hasn't changed the places where overtaking can happen. In China, it would only function on the back straight and the front straight, which are the same places that DRS was used last year. I have made a figure of Hamilton's race lap in China to show you this:

You are still forgetting the 0.5 MJ of extra deployment, which allows the driver to be a bit more flexible in terms of where he chooses to deploy.

Obvioualy tht extra energy needs to be recovered elsewhere, but super clipping/LiCo is (unfortunately) very laptime efficient, so the additional 1.66 seconds of deployment makes a very real difference and allows the driver to, for example, override super clipping and deploy fully to send an overtake attempt where they wouldn’t if they didn’t have the additional MGU-K allowance that overtake mode grants.

Of course it is most prominent on the straights, but there are already many times where clever deployment has enabled overtakes. Not to mentin the fact that the additional deployment allowance allows drivers to compensate for alternate lines through corners.

Overtaking aids are practically mandatpry in F1. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want early 2000s-like inability to overtake again, especially with refueling banned. As far as they go, I’d consider strategic deployment of power better than DRS by a mile.

Remember that I am still negative on these PU regs as whole, but overtake is fun to me, unlike DRS.

[basti313]

What you are actually commenting on is the fact that the rules have engineered the yo-yo racing which you have falsely attributed to driver intelligence. The overtake function and even the lesser "boost mode" is designed (willful or incompetence) to put you at an energy deficit because overtake mode and boost mode are fundamentally inefficient use of energy.

Very good post, thank you.
I would just add "slipstreaming", which in my point of view is even a stronger source of the yo-yo racing: While in the past you had issues following another car, you needed to be substantially faster to stay within 1sec of the car ahead, it now actually helps in this energy starved formula to stay as close as possible. So actually the car behind is helped and does not need to be faster to overtake....which is not even Netflix but rather Mario Kart racing.

But didn't the slipstream effect almost got nullified by the active aero ?
There will surely be some left, bit most likely not that much. Then again, I'm far far away grom being an aero guy .. so I might be wrong.

Do not overrate the active aero. There is still a lot of drag left. This is still a truck travelling at 300km/h. Of course slipstream reduces strongly the amount of energy needed.

[fourmula1]

Totally disagree.

Racing today is far worst than when DRS was at its worst. Formula One should be about skill, no state of charge

I just don't understand why state of charge and skill are mutually exclusive in your view. I race in a power to weight class and I run low power, low weight, wide tire, big aero. I am up against cars weighing 600lbs more than me and 80hp more with a flat power curve (big v8 vs. my small straight 6). If I am fighting a driver/car that does the same lap time as me he can fly by me for free on the straights and I have to catch up and pass/gap in the corners. I guess I could say his driving doesn't take skill but I know that's not the case. We are making lap time in different ways and are racing each other.

I think these cars are very lively and quick. The lighter weight, smaller platform, instant punch of electric power makes them look quick and loose. These drivers are pushing as hard as they can (tire limited!!!!) to beat the other driver. They get a free over take via battery but they know they have to try to see if they can hold that spot on the next lap when the other driver will have more power. That actually makes for more racing. It's not perfect but I have surprisingly enjoyed it so far. I hope they improve the tires and performance converges.

That said I do not love the deceleration on straights, it is definitely a little lame, particularly in qualy.

Only one Q :
Does your lightweight car decide for itself where it wants to be fast and where it wants to be slow ?
Ie, is the pedal map dynamically changing depending on where you are on the track ?
Or is your cars pedal faithful to your foot ?
That's all you need to think, to understand what the criticism is

Yes to your first question. It is de-tuned on a dyno and has servo throttle body so you can see in my data that the throttle % is effectively lifting relative to RPM. So on all straights as speed and RPM increase throttle body slowly closes from 100% to as low as about 68% and my food is to the floor.
Yes to your second question but I know it's not exactly what you mean.
I understand some criticism of the generation and having opinions and a feeling.
But "should be about skill, not state of charge".....state of charge does not remove skill. It may slightly alter skill gaps. For example if they are not having to brake such a large speed differential maybe that benefits some drivers more than others and decreases the skill gap in high to low speed braking, but then it increases the skill gap in the slow and medium speed corners as to where the lap time can be found. More instant tq and smaller tires probably increase the skill gap under acceleration. The adjustment of where and when you have to go full throttle to manage battery adds a whole new mental layer. There is way more moments when cars are side by side (yes as a result of "free" power differential) but when that happens now drivers are off line and have to manage a race car next to them.

There is a lot of give and take. Some areas with less skill perhaps, and some areas requiring more or different skills.

To be clear I am not arguing this formula is "good" or "better" than any other. I am just discussing our shared or different views.

[AR3-GP]

Remember that I am still negative on these PU regs as whole, but overtake is fun to me, unlike DRS.

Yes we are all human and to some extent we are excited by simple things. It was interesting to look at Leclerc and Hamilton going back and forth and to consider the technical reasons behind it.

However, every time I hear how much the corners have been diminished, it just feels wrong. Like the sport has been stolen from drivers like Leclerc and Verstappen. I'm not surprised that Leclerc is "having some fun", because Ferrari has put him in a depression for years, and now he can fight for P3 which is better than what he's had last year, but even he knows it cannot continue like this:

According to GPBlog, McLaren drivers have told the team that mistakes in a corner can sometimes reduce energy use. That saved energy can then be deployed later on the straight.

“Occasionally, there are comments from our drivers that once they make a mistake, it actually saves some energy,” Stella said. “Therefore, you go faster overall in a sector because the energy you saved with the delay in the throttle is going to reward you at the end of the straight.”

The idea runs against the usual values of top-level racing. Drivers train to remove mistakes from every lap. Stella openly acknowledged that tension.

“Obviously, this goes much more as to…do we want to be faithful to the DNA of racing in a traditional sense? Do we accept that this counter-intuitive situation belongs to the business or not?”

He framed the debate as a wider question for the sport. Stella said fans and drivers should also play a role in deciding how Formula 1 responds.

He did not call for immediate rule changes. Instead, he said the responsibility now sits with the sport’s leadership.

“It’s for F1 and the FIA now to collect the feedback, create a picture,” Stella said. “The tools to respond now exist.”

https://readmotorsport.com/2026/03/16/a ... 6-f1-rules

I never thought I would say this but it feels like Lando Norris won the lottery. He gets to be the last F1 world champion. What we have now is an arcade game. It can be fun to watch, but it isn't F1.

[venkyhere]

I just don't understand why state of charge and skill are mutually exclusive in your view. I race in a power to weight class and I run low power, low weight, wide tire, big aero. I am up against cars weighing 600lbs more than me and 80hp more with a flat power curve (big v8 vs. my small straight 6). If I am fighting a driver/car that does the same lap time as me he can fly by me for free on the straights and I have to catch up and pass/gap in the corners. I guess I could say his driving doesn't take skill but I know that's not the case. We are making lap time in different ways and are racing each other.

I think these cars are very lively and quick. The lighter weight, smaller platform, instant punch of electric power makes them look quick and loose. These drivers are pushing as hard as they can (tire limited!!!!) to beat the other driver. They get a free over take via battery but they know they have to try to see if they can hold that spot on the next lap when the other driver will have more power. That actually makes for more racing. It's not perfect but I have surprisingly enjoyed it so far. I hope they improve the tires and performance converges.

That said I do not love the deceleration on straights, it is definitely a little lame, particularly in qualy.

Only one Q :
Does your lightweight car decide for itself where it wants to be fast and where it wants to be slow ?
Ie, is the pedal map dynamically changing depending on where you are on the track ?
Or is your cars pedal faithful to your foot ?
That's all you need to think, to understand what the criticism is

It's been like this since the start of the hybrid era. You didn't notice because the MGU-H was filling in where they now have super clipping. The MGU-K was also less powerful, so regen was easier.

But the deployment has at least since 2015, been automatic and calibrated to where the car is on track, which determined how much power and for how long to deploy.

Yes, I know. The 80:20 peak split, and the presence of MGU-H, the 'bypass paths' MGU-H <-> MGU-K without the latency from battery etc, 'filled the gaps' as you rightly say. (still people complained once in a while, about 'clipping'). That was 'on the edge' of 'natural racing' - how the car felt to the drivers and how the racing 'looked' on TV.

[AR3-GP]

Overtaking aids are practically mandatpry in F1. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want early 2000s-like inability to overtake again, especially with refueling banned. As far as they go, I’d consider strategic deployment of power better than DRS by a mile.

Remember that I am still negative on these PU regs as whole, but overtake is fun to me, unlike DRS.

I've also said elsewhere that in principle, what should stop us now from installing sprinklers on every circuit to wet the track surface during the GP? It would be exciting.

There is what I would call a "Machiavellian" phenomena that is overtaking Formula 1.

[venkyhere]

I just don't understand why state of charge and skill are mutually exclusive in your view. I race in a power to weight class and I run low power, low weight, wide tire, big aero. I am up against cars weighing 600lbs more than me and 80hp more with a flat power curve (big v8 vs. my small straight 6). If I am fighting a driver/car that does the same lap time as me he can fly by me for free on the straights and I have to catch up and pass/gap in the corners. I guess I could say his driving doesn't take skill but I know that's not the case. We are making lap time in different ways and are racing each other.

I think these cars are very lively and quick. The lighter weight, smaller platform, instant punch of electric power makes them look quick and loose. These drivers are pushing as hard as they can (tire limited!!!!) to beat the other driver. They get a free over take via battery but they know they have to try to see if they can hold that spot on the next lap when the other driver will have more power. That actually makes for more racing. It's not perfect but I have surprisingly enjoyed it so far. I hope they improve the tires and performance converges.

That said I do not love the deceleration on straights, it is definitely a little lame, particularly in qualy.

Only one Q :
Does your lightweight car decide for itself where it wants to be fast and where it wants to be slow ?
Ie, is the pedal map dynamically changing depending on where you are on the track ?
Or is your cars pedal faithful to your foot ?
That's all you need to think, to understand what the criticism is

Yes to your first question. It is de-tuned on a dyno and has servo throttle body so you can see in my data that the throttle % is effectively lifting relative to RPM. So on all straights as speed and RPM increase throttle body slowly closes from 100% to as low as about 68% and my food is to the floor.
Yes to your second question but I know it's not exactly what you mean.
I understand some criticism of the generation and having opinions and a feeling.
But "should be about skill, not state of charge".....state of charge does not remove skill. It may slightly alter skill gaps. For example if they are not having to brake such a large speed differential maybe that benefits some drivers more than others and decreases the skill gap in high to low speed braking, but then it increases the skill gap in the slow and medium speed corners as to where the lap time can be found. More instant tq and smaller tires probably increase the skill gap under acceleration. The adjustment of where and when you have to go full throttle to manage battery adds a whole new mental layer. There is way more moments when cars are side by side (yes as a result of "free" power differential) but when that happens now drivers are off line and have to manage a race car next to them.

There is a lot of give and take. Some areas with less skill perhaps, and some areas requiring more or different skills.

To be clear I am not arguing this formula is "good" or "better" than any other. I am just discussing our shared or different views.

Yes I am in agreement with this, different skillsets called for. Like for example, a samurai swordsman v/s a champion lumberjack. Both require strength, accuracy and muscle control. But of different kinds. Just that some of us 'traditionalist' F1 fans prefer a samurai rather than a lumberjack.

[bananapeel23]

Overtaking aids are practically mandatpry in F1. I don’t know about you, but I wouldn’t want early 2000s-like inability to overtake again, especially with refueling banned. As far as they go, I’d consider strategic deployment of power better than DRS by a mile.

Remember that I am still negative on these PU regs as whole, but overtake is fun to me, unlike DRS.

I've also said elsewhere that in principle, what should stop us now from installing sprinklers on every circuit to wet the track surface during the GP? It would be exciting.

There is what I would call a "Machiavellian" phenomena that is overtaking Formula 1. It is part of a wider cultural decline imo. All around the world, people are eroding their rights, privacy, and standards in the name of the lowest denominator. It's really quite an insidious phenomenon, but I'll leave the rest of this cultural commentary for another forum.

No. Overtaking aids are to enable actual racing in an era where low fuel consumption, lack of refueling, high reliability and monstrously quick cars that produce incredible amounts of dirty air has made racing entirely processional in absence of overtaking aids.

Overtaking aids do not take away from the engineering challenge of F1, nor do they take away from the quality of racing, in fact I believe they improve both, while also increasing viewer enjoyment.

I don’t know about you, but I don’t think Trulli trains display driver skill or the engineering talent behind the cars any better than overtake mode does. But if you believe that no overtaking aids, resulting in Trulli trains is ”pure racing” that displays driver skill better than the alternative, you are entitled to that opinion.

Personally I don’t want all F1 grands prix to be pure quali battles like Monaco, but if you believe anything else is a gamified, false form of racing developed for the lowest common denominator, then sure.

Personally I will still prefer overtake mode to nothing at all, and based on the two races we have seen, I would currently pick it over DRS. Clearly the drivers enjoy the ”yoyo” battles as well, even if they are caused in large part by the new engines being… not the greatest.

Overtake is not the problem imo. I think it’s a pretty cool way of replacing DRS with something more interesting. The issue is that the engines can’t generate enough electrical power without superclipping and LiCo. If harvesting up to the 8.5 MJ limit with only braking/via MGU-H was no problem, then overtake mode would be praised as the clear improvement over DRS that it is. The regulations are flawed, but overtake mode as an overtaking aid is, on the whole, a really good system.