Is the 2026 Regulation going to achieve it goal?

[Nitrodaze]

In a few days, 2026 cars are going to start official shakedown runs and public reveal. Some of us have pored through the regulations governing the design of the car over Christmas. And there may be some concerns, as well as potentially exciting things. The most exciting things I noticed are summarised here:-

1. The transition from outwash designs of the previous cars to an inwash philosophy means less instability for chasing cars behind

2. The underfloor design and the air channels at the rear of the floor mean the air flow out of the rear of the car is lifted higher than in previous regulation cars via a much narrower flow band. Which means that the following cars can be closer and tucked under the wake of the car in front without disruption to the flow dynamics of their front wing. Hurray! Closer racing seems very possible for a change.

3. The car is more driver-oriented than car-oriented. What I mean here is that the driver makes more of a difference to success than car speed and aerodynamics for a change.

4. This is because the most successful drivers are going to be the smartest and most talented drivers who can most intelligently deploy the battery usage to achieve the fastest lap relative to the competition. This could mean that midfield teams may shine more often this season by winning the odd races.

5. Aerodynamic stability seems to be a big target in this regulation. Balancing the downforce from the rearwings to the front wings is one of the new concepts on the car. This is achieved by both the movable front and rear wings. Downforce is removed from the front wing by deflecting the front movable elements when downforce at the rear has dropped. Front overloading while cornering, which was a typical problem with the 2025 cars, for instance, is greatly reduced by this gizmo. But this potentially has the side effect of a lesser grip due to reduced downforce. We may see cars sliding at or through the corners this season. I think the drivers would need to learn afresh how to get fast around corners with less downforce without sliding. Sliding eats up lap times

6. Boost button, the new DRS of sorts. Cars attacking would now have the advantage of being able to use the power boost to overtake the car in front. Boost, of course, means deploying both the ICE and Electric power combined to achieve maximum horsepower. Unlike the old DRS boost, there is a price to pay for using the boost button. One could run out of battery charge and become vulnerable to the cars behind.

7. The speed on the straights may be faster than we have seen in recent times.

While there are lots of other interesting things to talk about, this new regulation is, by far, the most promising regulation for some time. It addresses the carbon footprint of F1 and the environmental negatives typically associated with motor racing, with the new bio-fuels powering the cars this season. My main concerns are the following:-

1. It is still a fat boy; the 2026 cars, at some 770kg, they are still very heavy.
2. While it is narrower, it is still too long relative to the pre-hybrid regulation cars.
3. The consequential narrower tyres mean less of the engine power can be deployed to traction. Traction control would work harder this season to avoid wheelspin from a standstill.
4. Any damage to the aero-fixtures would have a dramatic (probably steeper) drop in performance

I am sure you have noticed a few things as well. Please share your thoughts.

 

[Used to be Starter]

In a few days, 2026 cars are going to start official shakedown runs and public reveal. Some of us have pored through the regulations governing the design of the car over Christmas. And there may be some concerns, as well as also seen potentially exciting things. The most exciting things I noticed are summarised here:-

7. The speed on the straights may be faster than we have seen in recent times.

This. The result will be longer braking areas, that means the drivers will have more opportunity to contest overtaking into corners and should result in more wheel to wheel driving. (Which may also result in more contact.)

 

[Nitrodaze]

This. The result will be longer braking areas, that means the drivers will have more opportunity to contest overtaking into corners and should result in more wheel to wheel driving. (Which may also result in more contact.)

Yeah, faster with smaller tyres, means braking would be tricky on approach to corners. Wet races may be just as interesting this season.

 

[airshifter]

Keep in mind that electrical energy deployment will start tapering off at about 180 mph, and be down to zero at 220 or so IIRC. And that is only IF a driver has enough energy to keep deployment up. Even with the last regs we had cars clipping at the end of the longer straights at times.

I don't really expect the top speeds to change much. They will get there quicker possibly, but now with a longer time to expend energy they might have to do some lift and coast to keep energy stores up.


But IRT 1 and 2, hopefully both are evident at the start of the reg, but I think similar to the last reg that ability to follow closely and having less dirty air will be developed away slowly as they learn the cars.

As for 3 and 4, I think it will reward drivers who are savvy in the use of energy deployment, but the overall car will still be a huge factor and likely dictate the orders of the race most of the time. Without a solid handling and predictable car underneath them, crafty use of energy deployment won't save the driver from faster machinery.


For 5, it's essentially still just a double ended DRS for designated areas. Similar to DRS and aero surfaces that don't move, teams and drivers will have to find the setup and overall balance that works best for them. I see this as an area where certain teams might find critical designs that make the car more aero efficient in one vs the other mode, and somewhat expect some strange wing shapes, along with some crazy actuator designs and locations on the wing areas.

Depending on car design, I also wouldn't be shocked to find even some of the best drivers in the best cars taking some time as the season progresses to find out how to set up for their preferences on different tracks. As in the past they have to exploit the car the best they can while also figuring out where driver differences might help them overcome a weakness in the setup balance.



As for "Net Zero" goals... I think they already failed. Using synthetic fuels that require great energy to produce while loudly proclaiming "no emissions!" is to not look at the big picture. I would think on the overall scope of F1 it's a mere drop in a bucket. Better than nothing, but not really setting a great example above anything else.

 

[Nitrodaze]

Keep in mind that electrical energy deployment will start tapering off at about 180 mph, and be down to zero at 220 or so IIRC. And that is only IF a driver has enough energy to keep deployment up. Even with the last regs we had cars clipping at the end of the longer straights at times.

I don't really expect the top speeds to change much. They will get there quicker possibly, but now with a longer time to expend energy they might have to do some lift and coast to keep energy stores up.


But IRT 1 and 2, hopefully both are evident at the start of the reg, but I think similar to the last reg that ability to follow closely and having less dirty air will be developed away slowly as they learn the cars.

As for 3 and 4, I think it will reward drivers who are savvy in the use of energy deployment, but the overall car will still be a huge factor and likely dictate the orders of the race most of the time. Without a solid handling and predictable car underneath them, crafty use of energy deployment won't save the driver from faster machinery.


For 5, it's essentially still just a double ended DRS for designated areas. Similar to DRS and aero surfaces that don't move, teams and drivers will have to find the setup and overall balance that works best for them. I see this as an area where certain teams might find critical designs that make the car more aero efficient in one vs the other mode, and somewhat expect some strange wing shapes, along with some crazy actuator designs and locations on the wing areas.

Depending on car design, I also wouldn't be shocked to find even some of the best drivers in the best cars taking some time as the season progresses to find out how to set up for their preferences on different tracks. As in the past they have to exploit the car the best they can while also figuring out where driver differences might help them overcome a weakness in the setup balance.



As for "Net Zero" goals... I think they already failed. Using synthetic fuels that require great energy to produce while loudly proclaiming "no emissions!" is to not look at the big picture. I would think on the overall scope of F1 it's a mere drop in a bucket. Better than nothing, but not really setting a great example above anything else.

I commend you for a truly great write-up. The regulation boxes on the chassis is very stringent at achieving in-wash; it would be interesting to see how the engineers find their way around it. The regulation would effectively fail the moment teams find ways to out-wash within the regulation.

I fully expect the teams to really play with the moving rear and front wings. At the moment, it is expected to flap fully open and flap fully closed. I am sure someone is thinking about graduated closing of the flap. Partially closed rear with fully open front wing and vice versa. Or even dynamic alteration of position according to wind profile. The possibilities are plentiful. Hence, this regulation era may be full of surprises l expect.

We would expect a few crashes as drivers go through the process of understanding the cars. There is a good chance that the reliability of the new power unit may drop lower than recent few seasons, especially over the first half of the season.

Any evidence of lift and coast would not be good for the regulation either. Besides, lifting and coasting in the midfield is bad news for any driver doing it. They would be vulnerable to the BOOST button. They would be boosted backwards.

On BIO FUELS, F1 is abit late to the game. Indycar, even F2 has been using biofuels for some time now. This will introduce a new kind of competition into the mix. Which of the Fuel Suppliers would produce the best biofuel this season? A team may have a great engine and a powerful MGU-K, but without fuel with the best level of octane characteristics, they may fall short of the competition.

Perfection needs to come from all aspects of the car: Aerodynamics, ICE, fuel and Electrical systems.

 

[Nitrodaze]

This. The result will be longer braking areas, that means the drivers will have more opportunity to contest overtaking into corners and should result in more wheel to wheel driving. (Which may also result in more contact.)

Yes, those late dives into the corner manoeuvres may not work this season. The narrower tyres mean such dives may lead to running off track or unavoidable crashes. How Verstappen adapts to these tyres would be interesting to watch. I am sure he would come up with different tactics.

 

[Used to be Starter]

Yes, those late dives into the corner manoeuvres may not work this season. The narrower tyres mean such dives may lead to running off track or unavoidable crashes. How Verstappen adapts to these tyres would be interesting to watch. I am sure he would come up with different tactics.

He's been able to do well with a car which no one else has been really able to master so I'm guessing he will be OK. If not, he may be spending a lot of time in the middle of the pack.

 

[Nitrodaze]

He's been able to do well with a car which no one else has been really able to master so I'm guessing he will be OK. If not, he may be spending a lot of time in the middle of the pack.

I agree he would find ways to adapt. He would only be in the midfield if the engine and/or chassis are not competitive. The real concern is with the engine. This is Rdbull's first serious attempt at building its own engine. The pioneer of this bold concept is not there to see it through. Add to the fact that they also have to ensure they are supplied with the optimum biofuel, there are some concerns for Redbull. They could just as easily disappear into the midfields as they could similarly launch into the sharp end of the grid. They are very hard to read at the moment.

 

[Nitrodaze]

Early cracks are beginning to show in the 2026 regulation. Verstappen hates it, Hamilton thinks its speed is GP2 level. Race start is looking very dicey. The energy deployment at various tracks seems to indicate that the average maximum horsepower per lap may top out at around 800HP actual output. Yes, these 2026 cars are three to four seconds slower than the 2025 cars.

I think the scariest revelation is that when a car runs out of battery juice, its power output drops to below F2 car's max power, at about 500HP. Therefore, the speed delta between cars with enough battery power that attain max HP of 800HP to 1000HP to those that have run out would be quite dramatic. Slow drivers zigging into the path of the faster driver would certainly cause a very bad accident.

All signs seem to suggest that the racing would show a lot of lifting and coasting, which would reduce the type of racing we are hoping for. This is early days. We have to see what the racing is like at Melbourne, a track with not enough slow corners to charge the battery. And a lot of fast corners to drain the battery.

 

[airshifter]

I'm not at all surprised that some drivers will dislike the new formula. For the most part good drivers want cars that are faster in all places, and this car won't be that. One of the reasons the formula gets changed is to slow the cars down again after the teams make them faster for years of a mostly stable formula.

I think both lift and coast and potentially slower end of straight speeds on long straights was to be expected. Time is saved when the acceleration happens as early as possible, even if the cars slow some before the "real" braking zone.

Just as always, both the teams and drivers will adapt. We will see some struggle, some figure it out quickly, and some just slowly change both in design and driver approach. Though often nobody likes the regs changes much, if things never got reshuffled to start from a new point the series would likely get boring over time. I do think the new CFD and wind tunnel regs are keeping things more in line since they have been adopted, but even with that some large deltas between the teams formed with time.

 

[Nitrodaze]

Let's summarize the issues with the 2026 Regulation:-

1. Battery capacity may not sustain electrical power supply over a full lap at most circuits
2. Driver operations in the cockpit are said to be too complex
3. Race start may be tricky at most circuits, even with an extended starting time sequence
4. Front wing replacement may add a few more seconds to the typical pitstop
5. Safety threshold may have dropped due to points 1 to 3 above

All of these are typical of the inception period of any new regulations. The development war would certainly bring about better batteries with longer charge retention and lighter composition. Drivers would build muscle memory that would make those cockpit operations second nature before mid-season. However, the learning curve for new drivers entering the formula would be considerably steeper than at any other time in F1 history. As far as race start goes, every team would strip out their big turbo and put in Ferrari type turbos in a few races.

Therefore, what we are seeing are merely teething problems one would expect. But is the racing as dire as Verstappen is making out? I don't think so. Racing everywhere is changing due to the advancement of technology. The natural adoption of these technologies to enhance the tools of racing is essentially organic. Racing cars simply reflect the time it is in. And this regulation has done its job of sensibly adopting the technologies of this day and age.

The use of sustainable fuel is inevitable. F1 must demonstrate its awareness of global warming. The enjoyment of motor racing should not be at the expense of the well-being of our planet. ICE to EP parity is also inevitable, as this is the trend of current high-performance road cars. There would be challenges, but they would be easily overcome, as these are also real-world issues.

We like the lighter, more nimble cars. We like the improved sound of the cars. I think by the last quarter of this season, the teams will produce cars with speed comparable to last season. The gap from the fastest time at testing seems to be about 3 seconds off the fastest qualifying times of last season.

My personal verdict is that F1 and the FIA have got this regulation reasonably right.

 

[Steve Boyd]

The development war would certainly bring about better batteries with longer charge retention and lighter composition.

The battery capacity is limited to 9 MJ. Development might make them smaller and/or lighter but it won't make them last longer unless the energy limit is increased.

 

[Nitrodaze]

The battery capacity is limited to 9 MJ. Development might make them smaller and/or lighter but it won't make them last longer unless the energy limit is increased.

I think inherently, they are trying to reduce bulk by that limit. If the same battery dimensions can hold twice as much at the same weight, the FIA may allow an increase in the power limit. Currently, an increase in MegaJoules translates to an increase in size and weight.

Besides, a smaller, lighter battery producing 9MJ would decrease car weight and thus increase energy deployment range as a consequence. Probably not enough to solve the current problem.

 

[airshifter]

Battery weight, harvesting allowed per lap, and deployment per lap are all controlled by the regs. They aren't likely to just allow more energy stores when the regs intended to cause a reset in performance, along with reducing the chances of all out development wars on the battery front.


Going back to your points.

1. Battery stores were never intended to allow all out speeds at all circuits. It was known early in the reg changes that drivers would have to manage energy stores.

2. Placing more on a driver is a good thing in my opinion. The best will overcome it.

3. Agreed, but if it becomes an issue I suspect the FIA will allow changes.

4. Most teams have found solutions that make it just another front wing change, maybe very slightly different but no major hassle.

5. I see this mostly due to starts at this point, and as stated above I suspect the FIA will allow changes if it becomes a safety issue.


As for just swapping to different turbos, it can't happen without FIA approval due to the homologation process. The same for energy stores.



I think they have already shown to be meeting their desired goals. The fastest lap in testing was only a couple tenths slower than the fastest test lap in 2022, which was the last major changes. The cars are lighter and more nimble even with the smaller tires, and more importance has been placed on drivers being able to manage the energy stores better.

 

[Matthew]

I am most curious about how the energy deployment rules will affect racing. Smarter battery use sounds great but if drivers have to lift and coast a lot to stay within limits, it could hurt the close racing the rules are trying to create. The movable aero balance could also lead to big performance differences early on while teams figure it out, which might mix up the order at first.

 

[Nitrodaze]

Battery weight, harvesting allowed per lap, and deployment per lap are all controlled by the regs. They aren't likely to just allow more energy stores when the regs intended to cause a reset in performance, along with reducing the chances of all out development wars on the battery front.


Going back to your points.

1. Battery stores were never intended to allow all out speeds at all circuits. It was known early in the reg changes that drivers would have to manage energy stores.

Sorry buddy, l kinda disagree. The max horsepower of F1 cars in recent times has been 1000HP. This new regulation has split that to 500HP on ICE and 500HP on EP. On tracks where energy harvesting is difficult, most cars, if not all cars would effectively see their powertrain output drop to 500HP until they are able to charge it back up somehow.

The battery allows the car to operate at 1000HP on the straights, where maximum power is required. Therefore, the battery power only brings the power output to normal and historical power output. What it is not doing is boosting the power output above 1000HP to provide even higher speed.

All the teams are asking for is for FOM and FIA to ensure that the full power of 1000HP is available over the length of the straights on every track. Which is not unreasonable.

 

[Nitrodaze]

I am most curious about how the energy deployment rules will affect racing. Smarter battery use sounds great but if drivers have to lift and coast a lot to stay within limits, it could hurt the close racing the rules are trying to create. The movable aero balance could also lead to big performance differences early on while teams figure it out, which might mix up the order at first.

On tracks where harvesting is poor, the racing shall be done mostly at 500HP. Tracks like Melbourne, Monza, Jedha, Montreal and even Silverstone, most cars on the grid would run out of battery juice before the end of the first lap. They would be unable recharge the battery due to fewer slow-speed corners on these tracks. The entire race would be at F2 speeds.

From this perspective, Verstappen is right to say it is not exciting. It is like giving MotoGP racers scooters to race.

 

[Steve Boyd]

decrease car weight and thus increase energy deployment range as a consequence.

No it wouldn't. A 9MJ battery will run a 350kW motor for 25.7 seconds. The only choice is where to use that 25.7 seconds worth of charge.

 

[Nitrodaze]

No it wouldn't. A 9MJ battery will run a 350kW motor for 25.7 seconds. The only choice is where to use that 25.7 seconds worth of charge.

Agreed, but the discussion point is that 25.7 seconds is not long enough for some circuits. I suspect cars that have a reasonable gap to the car behind would sacrifice speed to charge the battery while driving on the straight.

 

[Steve Boyd]

25.7 seconds isn't long enough for most circuits - it's less than half a lap. They're all going to be trying to work out how long and where to deploy and where they can re-charge at multiple places around most circuits. I just hope that there's some sort of telemetry available to the viewer so we can see who's using what and where.