Are 2026 F1 regulations broken? How to fix them?

[hollus]

A sector is not a lap.
If a mistake makes you faster over a lap, then it is obvious that the supposedly ideal line was not ideal, as another line reduced lap time. It would then be the “mistake” line that should have been the ideal line all along, and it was the team that got it wrong in the first place.
There is no “better than ideal”.

It is a new cycle with radically new regs, the teams and drivers will take a while to optimize it.

All if this has happened before and all of this will happen again…

[Badger]

A sector is not a lap.
If a mistake makes you faster over a lap, then it is obvious that the supposedly ideal line was not ideal, as another line reduced lap time. It would then be the “mistake” line that should have been the ideal line all along, and it was the team that got it wrong in the first place.
There is no “better than ideal”.

It is a new cycle with radically new regs, the teams and drivers will take a while to optimize it.

All if this has happened before and all of this will happen again…

You’re missing Stella’s point. There will always be an optimal way to drive a car in any regulation, that’s stating the obvious. The question is do we want that ‘optimum’ to require driver skill or do we want it to be a software problem? Should it be about driving on the limit of grip or should it be about driving within the energy management algorithm?

Stella is questioning the philosophy of the regulations.

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?”

[hollus]

I got that point, but Stella is missing his own job description. He said: the driver made an error and got faster as a consequence. Well, Stella, you had one job.

He is clearly playing with details and pushing an agenda, truth be damned.

New targets, new skills.
Soccer goalkeepers had to learn to play with their feet one day 20 years ago. It did not make them less important, skilled or goal-keepish. But it did make many of them loom clumsy and uncomfortable for a while.

[De Wet]

https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1-20 ... ans-wanted


More BS by the press.

[Badger]

I got that point, but Stella is missing his own job description. He said: the driver made an error and got faster as a consequence. Well, Stella, you had one job.

He is clearly playing with details and pushing an agenda, truth be damned.

New targets, new skills.
Soccer goalkeepers had to learn to play with their feet one day 20 years ago. It did not make them less important, skilled or goal-keepish. But it did make many of them loom clumsy and uncomfortable for a while.

TPs can comment on the general direction of the sport, they're not exclusively concerned with the performance of their own car but also the performance of the product.

Pushing an agenda, truth be damned. Are we talking about Stella now or the actors who lobbied for this power split?

New targets, less skills. Driving slower in the corners isn't really a driver skill, it's a forced trade-off that reduces the roll of the driver because the PU demands it.

[AR3-GP]

A sector is not a lap.
If a mistake makes you faster over a lap, then it is obvious that the supposedly ideal line was not ideal, as another line reduced lap time. It would then be the “mistake” line that should have been the ideal line all along, and it was the team that got it wrong in the first place.
There is no “better than ideal”.

It is a new cycle with radically new regs, the teams and drivers will take a while to optimize it.

All if this has happened before and all of this will happen again…

I got that point, but Stella is missing his own job description. He said: the driver made an error and got faster as a consequence. Well, Stella, you had one job.

He is clearly playing with details and pushing an agenda, truth be damned.

New targets, new skills.
Soccer goalkeepers had to learn to play with their feet one day 20 years ago. It did not make them less important, skilled or goal-keepish. But it did make many of them loom clumsy and uncomfortable for a while.

Andrea Stella is the team principal of a leading Formula One team. His team also makes use of the fabled Mercedes power unit. Changes to the rules could hurt one of their strengths, and that's all the more reason to take his criticisms with great concern. It's more telling that there are those keen to dismiss the message with nothing of substance.

[vorticism]

Shoehorning is the bane of current civilization. "We're gonna make these batteries work, dangit! Damn the costs! It's the moral thing to do! Batteries are our greatest strength!" Why? Who cares? What is the point of this? If you omit the low energy density component of these power units, much is solved, complexity is reduced, and it could become a top-level motorsport again where the driver decides if the car's cornering limits can be found. Instead of shaping the entire sport around getting a 3 MJ/l energy store to work.

It's odd to consider that the cars are now easier to drive. It's more now that the car delivers the driver, and less so the inverse. It's a bit like if traction control or ABS had been added. Those control systems, their engineers, their software, would have become emphasized while the driver's skill is less needed. We got something like stability control through the back door, lol.

[hollus]

Andrea Stella is the team principal of a leading Formula One team. His team also makes use of the fabled Mercedes power unit. Changes to the rules could hurt one of their strengths, and that's all the more reason to take his criticisms with great concern.

I shall bow to this irrefutable messenger analysis...

It's more telling that there are those keen to dismiss the message with nothing of substance.

... and drop my attempt to logically analyze what was said.

[Aesop]

https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1-20 ... ans-wanted


More BS by the press.

It’s almost certain that these rules won’t appeal to everyone, but there is little arguing the fact that they’ve thus far achieved one of F1’s core objectives: to create entertaining and competitive racing.

This article completely misses the point. Mariokart also is entertaining and competitive.. Hell, might as well add powerups.

[De Wet]

https://www.planetf1.com/features/f1-20 ... ans-wanted


More BS by the press.

It’s almost certain that these rules won’t appeal to everyone, but there is little arguing the fact that they’ve thus far achieved one of F1’s core objectives: to create entertaining and competitive racing.

This article completely misses the point. Mariokart also is entertaining and competitive.. Hell, might as well add powerups.

It's not really racing... Drivers are merely managing energy deployments around a track.

[hollus]

A few thoughts on the overtaking situation and its perception:

It is no secret that I find the new 2026 overtaking meta somewhat familiar and not worse than the pre-26 DRS gimmick:

…

But overtaking...
... to overtake you need a long straight then to be 5 or 6 tenths behind at corner exit, and then to have no large speed deficit at corner exit. If you fullfull a+b+c, then in the straight you press a button and from half of the straight, approximately, DRS makes sure that you have a large speed differential and the pass is done and dusted before the braking zone.
See what I did there?

Others seem to find it less acceptable…

It was artificial, but nowhere near the current state of affairs. In fact, I'd argue it was partly simulating (and perhaps overdoing it a bit) the old slipstream idea, because you first had to come close (<1s) and then you had to close in more with overspeed so a pass could be made. Oftentimes the drs zone was too long resulting in (too) easy passes. Then again, if cars would be rougly the same, the passed one could get drs in the next zone.

No. In previous regs, it required a certain amount of skill to follow in the dirty air to be within the 1s window, to use DRS on the straight. It required a certain amount of skill to 'deny' the 1s window to stay in the lead, even if the chasing car gets closer in the slipstream in the straight.
With current regs, only 'overtake mode' requires the above skillset to use/deny the advantage in the straight. However, superior/inferior charging/discharging via better S/W or illegal ICE , doesn't require 'driver skill' in the rest of the track until reaching the straight. There is even 'boost mode' that's a 'DRS whenever I want' in any part of the track.
They are chalk and cheese.

… but I’d argue that the characteristics of those acceptable DRS passes lead to a successful pass, with no yo-yo re-pass, also in 2026.


A thought on what might be driving such optics:

In 2025 with DRS, the following car would get a temporary increase in performance, sometimes used to stay close or to chase, but mostly to overtake.

In 2026, the defending car often sees its performance decrease and then a pass happens.


God, put like that 2026 sounds like a puking bad idea!


Now let’s re-word that.
In 2025, the cars were kept on a handicapped stated, with less performance than they were capable of, for 99% of the race. Crucially not for Q. And then, in arbitrary circumstances, in selected parts of the track, the chasing car was allowed to unleash its real potential by using DRS. For that straight, the passing car was in Q mode, while the passed car was in race mode.
Press a button, easy blow by pass, no defence possible.

In 2026, most cars are running at 100% of their capability for most of the race, often with higher performance than even in Q. Then, in selected parts of the track, but pretty much at any moment, the chased car might find itself past its energy or deployment limit, and suffer degraded performance. The passing car is hopefully still running at its maximum performance level, what it was designed to do most of the race, and hence pressing the usual button longer than usual finds itself with an easy blow-by pass, almost impossible to defend.

Hmmm, in 2025 we had a constant arbitrary limit, a handicap, really, removed to pass. The leading car has no say on the maneuver.
In 2026 we have cars both running at the max performance of their design, the speed differential (except those 0.5 MJ) was under the influence of both cars and the leading driver has a say on the maneuver (by keeping enough energy to defend).

In 2025 the passed car was left helpless and crying.
In 2026 the passed car has a good chance of fighting back.

It is a bit a matter of choice of point of view, no?
But DRS was really an arbitrary performance handicap released only at selected arbitrary times. To read it as an increase in performance is a choice. It looks like that, but think about it, how come that the increase in performance was within the car’s capabilities in the first place???

[langedweil]

It is a bit a matter of choice of point of view, no?
But DRS was really an arbitrary performance handicap released only at selected arbitrary times. To read it as an increase in performance is a choice. It looks like that, but think about it, how come that the increase in performance was within the car’s capabilities in the first place???

This is some serious form of mental gymnastics Hollus

DRS removed drag on specific locations for a specific amouny of time where downforce wasn't needed. One could always choose to not fit the downforce at all, but that would not work very well in cornering. So stating that DRS was removing temporarily a handicap is a bit farfetched; downforce is needed around the track, and active aero (i.e. turning on/off downforce appliances) wasn't simply allowed.

Look, I don't think most ppl are really against the switch of DRS to OM; both are artificial, and both need to be deserved by the driver in some way. If anything, OM is less predictable in where/when it can be used as long as you're within the boundaries, which makes it more of a driver decision when/where to apply (the button is in fact the same as drs).
I agree the DRS could have been tuned way better (shorter for instance) than it was done over all those years, but OM will turn out the same way I feel. And with all the state-of-the-art aero & outwash configurations nowadays thanks to billions of CFD runs, any assistance is needed to make sure not every race turns into Trulli-trains. Might say that's the shadowside of converging technological progress in computer modelling.

I'd say most ppl argue these regs are a failure is mainly the fact we now have 'racecars' that lose up to 40/50% in power during a lap, and harvesting that lost energy is primairily done by algortims. Not by drivers that push the physical limit of a car in speed/grip/balance/cornering etc.
A car on a straight that loses about 75kph because a part of the PU is depleted exaggerated by superclipping to use the other part of the PU as an electrical generator looks so silly. A car doing LiCo while cornering at least 30/40kph slower shows exactly the same silliness.
It basically results in continous charging with GP3 speeds on the whole lap to be able to dragrace the upcoming straight for about 50/60% .. to again do the same thing in a rinse repeat fashion. The drivers do not even have control over the algoritms.

This to me isn't as much about one manufacturer having done a massively better jobs at creating the PU; well done by them (as long as it's within the rules). That's where PU regs favor PU manufacturers, and aero regs favor aero-gurus. This has been the same for decades. So hats off to MB in that regard.
I just can't understand why the governing body of the pinnacle of motorsport thought it was a good idea to run energy starved machinery in such a way that it takes away the gladiator status of the drivers. Counting success by the amount of artifical overtakes, be it DRS or OM, is telling enough (ostrich-head-in-the-sand).

Then again, I'm just an old fart ...

[hollus]

Obviously I was only addressing the “artificial” and yo-yo passing up there.

I just can't understand why the governing body of the pinnacle of motorsport thought it was a good idea to run energy starved machinery in such a way that it takes away the gladiator status of the drivers.

I think they just did not see it coming? They thought that the cars would only harvest on braking, and that they would brake in the usual places. And by the time they figured out what would actually happen, they had removed the MGU-H, they had removed front harvesting, and there was no way back.

With the H or with front harvesting, the current wording of the regulations would put up a much more “old style” show. Old as in DTS season 1 (/facepalm/).

If the cars were harvest-rich and storage-poor we would not be having this discussion.

[langedweil]

Obviously I was only addressing the “artificial” and yo-yo passing up there.

I just can't understand why the governing body of the pinnacle of motorsport thought it was a good idea to run energy starved machinery in such a way that it takes away the gladiator status of the drivers.

I think they just did not see it coming? They thought that the cars would only harvest on braking, and that they would brake in the usual places. And by the time they figured out what would actually happen, they had removed the MGU-H, they had removed front harvesting, and there was no way back.

That cannot be something to hide behind, as the exact thing was forseen and worded by multiple sources over 3yrs ago.
If one can't comprehend these kind of remarks on merit, you shouldn't be part of the decision making. These remarks by the way weren't only made by Horner/Verstappen, but by a way wider array of people.

If the cars were harvest-rich and storage-poor we would not be having this discussion.

I absolutely agree with that .. that would immediately bring the cars and drivers back on edge.
However, to get to that in a relative short timespan ain't easy. I feel a lot of unnecessary damage is done (and will grow), without a quick and proper way out of it. That is sad.
And while I'm not an electrical enthusiast, I'd say that isn't the problem in itself; it is indeed the energy starvation. Whether the ICE/Electric ratio should be changed, the harvesting increased to circumvent the energy starvation, or decreasing the storagelimit ... whatever suits best. Even combinations could apply.
Just keep them cars on edge so drivers can really make a difference other than significantly slow down in sections; they just should never be energy starved. The driver should be the limit (that's why I would always opt for a 2:1 power to weight ratio).

[LeQuick]

A few thoughts on the overtaking situation and its perception:

It is no secret that I find the new 2026 overtaking meta somewhat familiar and not worse than the pre-26 DRS gimmick:

…

But overtaking...
... to overtake you need a long straight then to be 5 or 6 tenths behind at corner exit, and then to have no large speed deficit at corner exit. If you fullfull a+b+c, then in the straight you press a button and from half of the straight, approximately, DRS makes sure that you have a large speed differential and the pass is done and dusted before the braking zone.
See what I did there?

Others seem to find it less acceptable…

It was artificial, but nowhere near the current state of affairs. In fact, I'd argue it was partly simulating (and perhaps overdoing it a bit) the old slipstream idea, because you first had to come close (<1s) and then you had to close in more with overspeed so a pass could be made. Oftentimes the drs zone was too long resulting in (too) easy passes. Then again, if cars would be rougly the same, the passed one could get drs in the next zone.

No. In previous regs, it required a certain amount of skill to follow in the dirty air to be within the 1s window, to use DRS on the straight. It required a certain amount of skill to 'deny' the 1s window to stay in the lead, even if the chasing car gets closer in the slipstream in the straight.
With current regs, only 'overtake mode' requires the above skillset to use/deny the advantage in the straight. However, superior/inferior charging/discharging via better S/W or illegal ICE , doesn't require 'driver skill' in the rest of the track until reaching the straight. There is even 'boost mode' that's a 'DRS whenever I want' in any part of the track.
They are chalk and cheese.

… but I’d argue that the characteristics of those acceptable DRS passes lead to a successful pass, with no yo-yo re-pass, also in 2026.


A thought on what might be driving such optics:

In 2025 with DRS, the following car would get a temporary increase in performance, sometimes used to stay close or to chase, but mostly to overtake.

In 2026, the defending car often sees its performance decrease and then a pass happens.


God, put like that 2026 sounds like a puking bad idea!


Now let’s re-word that.
In 2025, the cars were kept on a handicapped stated, with less performance than they were capable of, for 99% of the race. Crucially not for Q. And then, in arbitrary circumstances, in selected parts of the track, the chasing car was allowed to unleash its real potential by using DRS. For that straight, the passing car was in Q mode, while the passed car was in race mode.
Press a button, easy blow by pass, no defence possible.

In 2026, most cars are running at 100% of their capability for most of the race, often with higher performance than even in Q. Then, in selected parts of the track, but pretty much at any moment, the chased car might find itself past its energy or deployment limit, and suffer degraded performance. The passing car is hopefully still running at its maximum performance level, what it was designed to do most of the race, and hence pressing the usual button longer than usual finds itself with an easy blow-by pass, almost impossible to defend.

Hmmm, in 2025 we had a constant arbitrary limit, a handicap, really, removed to pass. The leading car has no say on the maneuver.
In 2026 we have cars both running at the max performance of their design, the speed differential (except those 0.5 MJ) was under the influence of both cars and the leading driver has a say on the maneuver (by keeping enough energy to defend).

In 2025 the passed car was left helpless and crying.
In 2026 the passed car has a good chance of fighting back.

It is a bit a matter of choice of point of view, no?
But DRS was really an arbitrary performance handicap released only at selected arbitrary times. To read it as an increase in performance is a choice. It looks like that, but think about it, how come that the increase in performance was within the car’s capabilities in the first place???

But, why should it have that chance of retaking a spot when in reality it doesn't deserve it?