Are 2026 F1 regulations broken? How to fix them?

[FW17]

Hmmm. Would a rule like
“no deployment above 225 km/h”
solve 80% of the critique while preserving 80% of the lap time gains from deployment and still making the electric part crucial?

And would a rule like
“no harvesting over 20% throttle”
or
“no harvesting over 250 km/h”
take care of the other 20% of complaints?

Most of the gains are made in the initial acceleration phase anyways, and this could be implemented with no hardware changes.

I’ve been giving this some thought and gone back to look at the numbers.
Top speeds of 90’s/00’s 3.0L V10 cars at the old hockenheim were in the region of 350-360km/h (this with around 900bhp), achieved through having the cars trimmed out, making the corners a real challenge both in terms of braking and cornering speed. Monza was similar. At the other end of the scale Monaco was about 280km/h, again with about 900bhp but with ‘kitchen sink’ aero.
What we seem to be seeing currently is that the cars either have roughly 615bhp (ICE only) or an additional 475bhp (from the MGU-K) at maximum delivery, which makes running out of deployable energy a very bad thing!
Each track has been given a regen limit that is specific to the braking demands of the track, but this seems to me to only tackle one side of the problem, there needs to be a similar deployment limit related to maximum full-throttle time for each track - the higher the time the lower the cap on maximum deployment. Obviously(???) the use of the boost button shouldn’t be factored into this (creating an element of driver controlled strategy). I don’t think that there will be any tracks that are viable for the higher limit to be 350kW deployment, without super-clipping - the most dangerous scenario on track, but if it worked out that the range of outputs available were between 150kW - 250kW that would still create powerful (and quick/fast) race cars with between 815-950bhp (600-700kW).

In 1994 the ford engine which had about 750hp was able to do 320kph with a medium downforce wing. With the current low downforce wing setup 750hp should be able to do 340kph.

4-5MJ battery a lap 150kw should be good for 26-33 sec a lap, more than adequate for every straight bit on the track.

4-5 MJ is also possible in all tracks with braking only regen at 350kw

The corners could be bit slow with about 550-600hp, but with the limited rear wing aoa and size, it may challenge the limits of cars grip

F1 has gone the wrong way with the regen being allowed by using the ICE as a generator and the high deployment rate of 350kw.

The speeds with 150kw deploy will take longer to come up but will be sustained till the end of the straights, which is a lot better than dropping 60kph we currently have and not attacking the corners.

[JordanMugen]

If we reduce electric output in any way, the drivers will say it drives like a Formula 2 and it still doesn’t prevent the cornering looking like a GT3, as it does at the moment. Drivers still need to brake early to recover energy.

The only proper way, would be increasing the fuel flow. But would manufacturers be ready to change the ICE for this and loose millions of investments.

I say you are strongly overrating how much the drivers care about going fast in a straight line!

https://preview.redd.it/evolution-of-f1 ... 7ccafb6649

Need to get rid of all the gizmos.

To be fair, the dials for engine modes were on the bulkhead then:

[bananapeel23]

I haven’t thought of this earlier, but is there scope to simply make the MGU-K bigger (While maintaining 350kW deployment). What weight and packaging implications would, for example, a 550 kW MGU-K have? Would it be possible to harvest that much from the rear axle alone? What is preventing such a solution? Would the rear brakes struggle too much to maintain temps?

Would it instead be possible place a weight cap on the MGU-K and then remove the 350kw harvesting cap? Pair that with restrictions on which materials can be used, and the teams would have a clear development pathway in the form of MGU-K power/weight optimization.

Obviously this should be coupled with a ban on harvesting without X amount of brake pressure applied and a ban on full throttle harvesting apart from a tiny bit for gear switch rev matching.

[basti313]

I haven’t thought of this earlier, but is there scope to simply make the MGU-K bigger (While maintaining 350kW deployment). What weight and packaging implications would, for example, a 550 kW MGU-K have?

Well, going from 350kW to 550kW means you need to change all electronics including battery. You need to push this energy through the CE into the ES...that is most likely a not trivial issue.

Would it be possible to harvest that much from the rear axle alone? What is preventing such a solution? Would the rear brakes struggle too much to maintain temps?

Temps are just a question of management and the energy is possible (just look at traction figures).
But I fail to see the benefit:
- Cars would be heavier, something no one wants and does not help in any way.
- Late braking would be even more compromised by increasing the harvesting under braking, basically rendering "racing" even more a farce.

No, I still thing they need to reduce the deployment allowance over one lap in the race and the harvesting allowance in Q. Does not need hardware changes, both solutions work in opposite directions to make it interesting to keep a bigger usable battery.
They showed in Japan, that this is at least for Q one of the solutions they have on the radar. Just needs the political will in FOM to pull it off.

[SB15]

Formula 1 has prepared 6 measures for the meeting that will take place next week, in order to solve the issues saw in the first 3 race

- Increse the power of super clipping (frmo 250kW to 350kW)
- Reduce energy consumption so that it does not run out so quickly
- Reduce the maximum recharge per lap to 6MJ
- Unrestricted use of active aerodynamics, meaning it can be activated at any point on the circuit
- Increase the ICE/MGU-K ratio (at the earliest from 2027 onwards)
- Simplify the rules to give the drivers more control

[bananapeel23]

I haven’t thought of this earlier, but is there scope to simply make the MGU-K bigger (While maintaining 350kW deployment). What weight and packaging implications would, for example, a 550 kW MGU-K have?

Well, going from 350kW to 550kW means you need to change all electronics including battery. You need to push this energy through the CE into the ES...that is most likely a not trivial issue.

Would it be possible to harvest that much from the rear axle alone? What is preventing such a solution? Would the rear brakes struggle too much to maintain temps?

Temps are just a question of management and the energy is possible (just look at traction figures).
But I fail to see the benefit:
- Cars would be heavier, something no one wants and does not help in any way.
- Late braking would be even more compromised by increasing the harvesting under braking, basically rendering "racing" even more a farce.

No, I still thing they need to reduce the deployment allowance over one lap in the race and the harvesting allowance in Q. Does not need hardware changes, both solutions work in opposite directions to make it interesting to keep a bigger usable battery.
They showed in Japan, that this is at least for Q one of the solutions they have on the radar. Just needs the political will in FOM to pull it off.

I’m of the opinion that 10kg or so of additional weight would be worth it in exchange for not losing 2 seconds of laptime.

Although it should be said that I’m definitely not in the ”weight is everything” camp. I’m definitely more in the camp that wants low dirty air and that doesn’t care tooo much about weight as long as the cars aren’t breaking 800kg. This is obviously entirely subjective.

[carisi2k]

Only way they are going to fix the current issues is to allow a 6MJ battery and the return of the ers-h or a generator on the front wheels and allow the teams to choose which one they want to use. Audi would go for the front wheel generator while Mercedes and Ferrari would probably go with the ers-h route. Red Bull and Honda would probably go with the front wheel generator as well.

All that other stuff mentioned in that above post is not going to do anything.

[Wouter]

From Toni Cuquerella, Motorsport Engineer, TV Commentator F1 for DAZN.

See also the comments on his IG and X accounts:

https://x.com/tonicuque/status/2039283363899387991

[DDopey]

Some are going to hate me from posting this AI stuff. But I was a little surprised at the analysis and dont feel knowledgeable enough to judge it. As I heard they changed the 50/50 split I wanted to check previous article if the 50/50 is still viable. So I asked the following question to Gemini 3 (Thinking mode).

"What is the real energy distribution at this moment in F1, they said it would be 50/50, but I also heard it has been different in reality currently ?"

It came with the following conclusion (for me surprising).

AI generated stuff:
-------------------------------
It is currently April 2026, and we are seeing the first real-world results of the massive engine regulation shift. You’re spot on—the "50/50" split was the big marketing promise, but the reality on track is a bit more complicated. While the peak power capability is now roughly 50/50, the actual energy used over a full lap is still heavily dominated by the Internal Combustion Engine (ICE).

The Theoretical Split vs. The Reality

The 2026 regulations were designed to balance the power output like this:
ICE (V6 Turbo): Dropped from ~560kW to roughly 400kW (approx. 540 hp).
ERS (Electric): Increased from 120kW to 350kW (approx. 470 hp).

On paper, that looks like a 53/47 split—practically 50/50. However, in reality, a driver cannot use that 350kW of electric power for the entire lap.

Feature Pre-2026 (2025) Current (2026)
Electric Power 120kW (160 hp) 350kW (470 hp)
ICE Power ~560kW (750+ hp) ~400kW (540 hp)

The "Catch" MGU-H provided "infinite" energy MGU-H is gone; only MGU-K (braking) remains
Lap Reality ~80% ICE / 20% Electric ~85% ICE / 15% Electric (Average)

Why it’s "Different" in Reality
The reason you've heard it’s different is due to energy management. Since the MGU-H (which recovered heat from the turbo) was removed to simplify the engines, teams now rely entirely on the MGU-K (kinetic recovery from braking) to charge the battery.

The Battery Wall: The battery can only store and deploy so much. In a typical lap, a car might only be able to use that full 350kW burst for a few seconds. Once the battery is depleted, the car is left with only the 400kW from the ICE.
+1

"Clipping" on Straights: This is the "reality" drivers like Max Verstappen warned about. On long straights (like Baku or Monza), cars are running out of electrical juice before the end of the straight. This causes a "clipping" effect where the car suddenly loses nearly 500 horsepower and slows down while still at full throttle.

Super Clipping & Harvesting: To compensate, cars are now "super clipping"—using the electric motor as a generator while still on the throttle at the end of straights—to ensure they have enough charge for the next acceleration phase.

The Bottom Line
The "50/50" figure describes the maximum potential of the hardware, but if you look at the total Joules of energy spent pushing the car around a lap, the ICE is still doing about 80-85% of the work. F1 hasn't become a 50/50 "electric series" yet; it’s more of an ICE car with a massive, high-power "push-to-pass" battery system that requires constant babysitting.

--------------

So dont know if this is true, but if so, it only makes it a bigger farce.

[hollus]

AI.
It might have processed the information right (or not), but there is no knowing how good (as opposed to frequent) the input text it chose to use was.
I caught 3 glaring errors in a first skim through the text. It already feels outdated to boot. Can people find more?

Not to be a jerk, though: That the energy split over a lap is overwhelmingly ICE with a spice of electricity is totally correct, should be obvious, and is as planned. Not as marketinged.

[DDopey]

Ok, thanks. If you know the mistakes, I could let it re-reason over it.

[gearboxtrouble]

https://i.postimg.cc/RCWhv7XX/Schermafb ... 093712.png

From Toni Cuquerella, Motorsport Engineer, TV Commentator F1 for DAZN.

See also the comments on his IG and X accounts:

https://x.com/tonicuque/status/2039283363899387991

Obvious solution for the rest of this season but these parameters would be different at every track. At races like Monza and Vegas you would need to drop the MGU-K power even more dramatically to 150KW or even lower because of a lack of harvestable braking and those laptimes will probably approach F2. At races like Hungary and Singapore you could run something closer to the current split because of how much braking is available. Ultimately the problem is simple - the ICE is too weak for a viable formula that uses rear wheel brake harvesting only. The solution is simple - It needs to be boosted up to something approaching 75% of the 1000hp to eliminate most non brake harvesting which is the main driver of the sporting failure of these regs. That will require some significant changes to the ICE as well as the cars themselves to accommodate the extra fuel but they have no other choice and continuing to delay making this hard but necessary decision through trying to save the current engines with minor electrical parameter tweaks will just make those changes for 27 much harder.

Only way they are going to fix the current issues is to allow a 6MJ battery and the return of the ers-h or a generator on the front wheels and allow the teams to choose which one they want to use. Audi would go for the front wheel generator while Mercedes and Ferrari would probably go with the ers-h route. Red Bull and Honda would probably go with the front wheel generator as well.

All that other stuff mentioned in that above post is not going to do anything.

Bringing back the MGUH even if it was technically feasible would do too little to fix these engines. It would help energy recovery and provide more input into the system but you'd still be energy starved because of the much bigger MGUK. Once the battery depletion occurs you would still drop from 1000hp at full throttle to 550+80 = 630hp - still highly dangerous. In the old regs clipping at full throttle would only drop you from 1000hp to 850+80 = 930hp - much more manageable.

[hollus]

Ok, thanks. If you know the mistakes, I could let it re-reason over it.

I am not feeding a statistical parrot so that it can say dubious things with even more coincidence.
You started the post with I don’t know, then showed an annoyingly long, detailed text of dubious reliability, then instead of leaving it at I don’t know, you proceeded to follow with a conclusion as if the parroting from that oracle was the truth.

The cars might get starved in a few straights of a few selected circuits. Sure, and march 2026 clearly did not happen.

[BorisTheBlade]

While I generally like the aspect of energy management and would not like to take it out of the equation entirely, I can also see an urgent need to tackle the main points of concern: To reduce the closing speeds, to enable them going full out in Qualifying and to give the driver back more control.

I would take these regulatory steps, as these could be employed immediately without the need to alter the Hardware in any way:

1. Maximum driver torque demand must equal the maximum possible power-unit torque supply, except for:

2. If otherwise the demanded max. MGU-K reduction of 50 KW/s can not be met, then it can be reduced to as much as the ICE alone is able to supply.

3. Get rid of the fuel energy limit during part-throttle, as specified in 5.2.5.

The reasoning behind 1. being, that drivers can rely on the same behavior everywhere on the track staying in full control. With throttle demand alone they can decide, when to deploy how much MGU-K power. This would also rule out any kind of super-clipping.
It also means, that whenever the SoC is greater than 613 KWs (nearly every braking event is more than enough for this), they had the full 750 KW for at least one second (directly out of corners) at their disposal - no AI algorithms.

2. Two is already part of the rules, but I would restrict it to 50 for every track. It is to keep closing speeds in check - even the reduced difference between 750 KW and 400 KW because of 1. can only be reached after 7,6 s on a straight.

3. allows more recovery in grip limited situations, where there is no effect on lap time and cornering speed. The goal should be that whenever the driver demands less than 400 KW and more than -350 KW (slight braking), the ICE can be worked against the MGU-K at up to full power. This helps compensate for the lack of super-clipping at least to some part.

This might cost a second or two, but I would be willing to take that.
As said before, I like parts of the EM. With these modifications it would still decide, who comes out of corners better. But I have never heard complaints about cars having different degrees of traction out of the corners - just to name an analogy.

[venkyhere]

at the most basic, 'utter simple for dummies' level , what is the root cause of all the 'ills' (alleged, might I add, since some are of the opinion that yo-yo overtakes have made it the best racing ever) with this regulation set, like anaesthetic qualifying, dangerous closing speeds, unreliable AI-managed PU behavior if the pedals inputs are even a little different from previous lap ?

Throttle v/s wheel torque is non-monotonic non-linear* with step changes, even within a gear.
- in the era of NA V10s the 'agents of non-linearity' were 'step changes' from gear shifts
- with the introduction of KERS (father of MGU-K) , there was an extra 'agent of non-linearity' in the form of a battery discharge/charge
- with the 2014 'hybrid PU' regs, the non-linearity from KERS was bridged with the intro of MGU-H to fill up the gaps, by opening power-flow paths like MGU-H <--> MGU-K which didn't involve the battery as part of the ckt.
- wiht the 2026 'friend of greta gang' regs, they went back to KERS era, just with far worse scale of the problem, by making the share of electrical assist/load torque far larger than in KERS era.
- from this 30,000 ft perspective, the 'fix' translates to 'fix the non linearity' and that can happen only when the proportion of electrical torque is reduced, either by crippling the MGU-K (will make the laptimes slower, but make the cornering better and at-the-limit driving more accessible to drivers) or by enhancing the ICE torque (might need big changes, the least of which is a bigger fuel tank) or by doing both.

(* let's discount the inherent non linearity from fuel/pedal vs torque of the ICE)