Kimi Antonelli displayed dominant pace in today's Japanese Grand Prix once he recovered from a poor start to comfortably win the race at Suzuka. Oscar Piastri led the first part of the race and still secured second for McLaren followed by Leclerc who ensured a shade of red on the podium as well.
Not even close.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑30 Mar 2026, 08:50
From what I can understand, the reason they slow down on the end of straights is not because they spent their energy and are on ICE alone (the ICE is powerful enough to run these cars in SLM at over 330 kph).
At least I am speaking about deployment reduction in terms of energy, not power. Let them have the peak power, all fine. Only question is if this hampers overtaking due to traction limitation in dirty air....looked like in Japan.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑01 Apr 2026, 09:24I just don't get this. 50:50 split is not a problem. That is peak power. If they reduced the recharge limit to a level that can be achieved with braking you would get cars that don't slow down on straights or in the corners but that have high peak power (when MGU-K has energy).gearboxtrouble wrote: ↑01 Apr 2026, 04:58No amount of minor tinkering will fix anything as long as this obsession with 50/50 (or thereabouts) stays. The fundamental issue with these regs is there just isn't enough energy input over a lap from braking alone to make a 50% battery rational. Yeah lico was there last season but that only dropped power from ~1000 hp to ~930 hp because the ICE was 850hp and the MGUH provided a constant 80hp on top at full boost. In 26 you can only access 1000hp for at best 11s a lap. The rest of time you're either at 550hp when on ICE only or 250 hp when superclipping. The driver will ask for full throttle and see a 750hp wide range in what's actually delivered to the wheels depending on what the car decides is optimal. That's insanity in any rational sense. The ICE needs to be a minimum of 75% of the 1000hp to make the math at all feasible for most tracks and the dropoff less problematic. There should be ECU level blocks on superclipping and lico - only allow harvesting from braking. You can have a (questionably successful) marketing exercise that makes the on track product a farce or you can have a motorsport that's able to hold on to all the hard won viewers over the last 5 years. You can not have both. I'd suggest the whole marketing aspect could actually become negative marketing once people see these cars choose to take Copse and Eau Rogue at 200kph because the algo decided it was optimal - 130R is a pretty clear pointer.
This obsession with reducing peak power is hard to understand. Reducing peak power will not solve any of the issues because these cars are power limited for a way longer time than 20 seconds. So if you reduced MGU-K power to 175 kW, you would still get these cars using energy and rechargeing as much as possible (by superclip/lico). To reach a level where they wouldn't do that you need to get to a level where the MGU-K can run for longer than power limited time on track and that is going to be hard to reach.
Even if you could reach that, all you achieved is
1) much weaker MGU-K, cars much easier to drive as they are low on power
2) no variation between possible power of cars, removing chance of tactical energy fights (yoyo)
3) you could have achieved this by reducing the recharge limit.
50:50 split (or any other split) is perfectly fine, it is just peak power. To avoid most of these "ugly" parts they need to increase the recharge potential (maybe higher power MGU-K for braking) or reduce recharge amount (easy to do).
You are right. As mentioned above, let them have their peak power 50%.PlatinumZealot wrote: ↑01 Apr 2026, 02:22The 50% electrification was a HUUUGE selling point for this formula. Very political to drop down...
Well Ocon reported top speed in Barcelona higher than the MGU-K at 0 kW. So he had to be on ICE power alone.Juzh wrote: ↑01 Apr 2026, 09:33Not even close.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑30 Mar 2026, 08:50
From what I can understand, the reason they slow down on the end of straights is not because they spent their energy and are on ICE alone (the ICE is powerful enough to run these cars in SLM at over 330 kph).
I would say that the imposition of the 1.5 litre rules was a bigger jump (imagine the outpouring of driver/fan bile in that circumstance!). I agree on the super-clipping (it is the very opposite of ‘super’), but I get the feeling that too much faith was placed in the sticking plaster of ‘active aero’ rather than seeking a realistic solution that doesn’t create dangerous scenarios such as we saw at the weekend.BMMR61 wrote: ↑31 Mar 2026, 07:45I personally think we need to engage our minds more than is usual with a radical rule change, the likes of which has NEVER been seen in the 76 years of F1. By this I mean, shouting and berating is not going to move things, and multiple, complex issues are still being discovered. Like, how can the current version (2.0?) of 2026 work if Spa or Canada (for example) produces drizzly weather and the demon "superclipping" isn't drastically reduced or eliminated. Anyone here remember the giant rear end smash of Schumacher on Coulthard at Spa? Personally I think this whole rule set is an abomination but I'm prepared to accept that with some much bigger changes to v2.0 we could see some meaningful and safer racing this year.
they may not get to that speed without electric support, but more or less keeping it would need far less power. Those cars have almost no drag.Juzh wrote: ↑01 Apr 2026, 09:33Not even close.FittingMechanics wrote: ↑30 Mar 2026, 08:50
From what I can understand, the reason they slow down on the end of straights is not because they spent their energy and are on ICE alone (the ICE is powerful enough to run these cars in SLM at over 330 kph).
He was recharging for sure. ICE power alone would not cause such a pace differential. We've seen cars lyco before (Ferrari last year) and the cars just coast. This was probably lyco harvest which is negative 250 kW (IIRC).
No, it just needs correct judging/ruling. Russel had power failure at the same spot, even worse and managed not to crash his opponent. The only problem was, that Col moved to the left.
Actually it is, yes. In a manner he was doing it it is wrong. Basically flicked to the left at the very last moment and there it is.De Wet wrote: ↑02 Apr 2026, 15:24
Nothing wrong with Colapinto protecting his position.
If he was recharging there would have been flashing. His car briefly flashed twice, leading up the turn where the incident happenedFittingMechanics wrote: ↑02 Apr 2026, 13:09He was recharging for sure. ICE power alone would not cause such a pace differential. We've seen cars lyco before (Ferrari last year) and the cars just coast. This was probably lyco harvest which is negative 250 kW (IIRC).
I don't think so, and neither did the FIA. From his point of view he was still far away. Judging such speed difference is difficult from a mirror.
