The good, the bad and the ugly of F1 2026

Several technical directors have described the 2026 Formula 1 rule changes as the biggest revolution in half a century, with both engine and chassis requirements undergoing a complete overhaul.

On the power unit side, the MGU-H disappears, while the share of electrical power will increase significantly. With 350kW coming from the electrical components, the balance will be almost 50:50 between combustion and electric – although in reality, the ratio is expected to settle at roughly 55:45 in favour of the combustion engine.

The powerplant rules were signed off first, because the FIA needed to provide certainty to encourage Audi’s long-awaited entry and to keep Honda on board. Only once that was secured did the governing body turn its attention to the chassis side.

To make the new engine formula work, the 2026 cars must generate far less drag than today’s machinery. It has led to the introduction of active aerodynamics, with so-called X-mode and Z-mode and, as a consequence, to the scrapping of DRS as an overtaking tool. With low-drag configurations available to all cars on the straights, the FIA instead introduces a Manual Override Mode to aid overtaking, reminiscent of IndyCar’s push-to-pass.

Combined with slightly smaller and lighter cars – though the minimum weight of 768kg remains highly ambitious – the package is intended to improve close racing and reduce the impact of dirty air.

Powerplant rules signed off first, although they’re not as simple as the FIA would have liked

Photo by: FIA

Avoiding another Mercedes 2014 scenario

While those intentions may sound promising, multiple drivers and key figures in the paddock have raised concerns. The most obvious fear is a repeat of history: one team or manufacturer pulling clear and dominating for years.

Admittedly, McLaren is a step ahead this season, but behind the papaya cars the field is extremely competitive. A regulatory shift brings bigger gaps, with 2014 the clearest example. Back then, Mercedes emerged from the blocks with a superior hybrid engine and went on to win every title until Max Verstappen’s first drivers’ crown in 2021.

A repeat of such long-term dominance and a lack of excitement up front is perhaps the last thing F1 can afford for now. Interest in the series has never been higher – also in the US, fuelled by Drive to Survive – but that growth partly relies on a good product and exciting racing.

FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis insists there will be no repeat of 2014 next year: “I don’t think that we are going to have a situation where a single manufacturer has such a huge advantage as was the case in 2014. The engines are still not as simple as we would have liked.

The removal of the MGU-H is key. Its disappearance should help level the playing field and contain expenses

“We would have liked to go further, but we’ve had a lot of resistance against simplifying the regulations more. However, they are still simpler than the current generation of engines. They don’t have the MGU-H and there are a few things that have tighter limits, so we don’t think the gaps will be as big as in 2014.”

The removal of the MGU-H is key. That component proved a decisive performance differentiator in the early hybrid years, and also a costly one. Its disappearance should help level the playing field and contain expenses.

That said, it cannot be ruled out that one manufacturer gets out of the blocks significantly better than the rest, especially since the FIA acknowledges that not all manufacturers are equally willing to share data about their new engines.

Worries over a possible repeat of Mercedes’ 2014 domination are dismissed

Photo by: Steven Tee / Motorsport Images

“Not all teams and PU manufacturers are as transparent with us in their data,” Tombazis admits. “Some are very secretive about what they’re doing. At the same time, we do have newcomers, and there is always a risk that there will be some divergence at the start of a new cycle. Additionally, we have a cost cap for PU manufacturers now.”

That cost cap means a manufacturer who falls behind cannot simply spend its way back to competitiveness: “When Honda was behind in 2016, 2017, for a certain period they had to spend a lot more money to catch up. With a cost cap the risk is that you would never be able to do that, and that you would be behind eternally. You would just be humiliated for a whole regulation cycle, and clearly we don’t want that.”

To avoid that scenario, the FIA has introduced a safety net: ADUO – Additional Development and Upgrade Opportunities. “Essentially after five races of every season there will be an average performance measured for each PU manufacturer,” explains Tombazis.

“Those who are below a certain level, and depending on how much below they are, will get a benefit that translates into three things: additional development money, some more dyno hours, and the possibility to make a new homologation of the engine.”

In practice, if a manufacturer’s ICE output is more than 3% below the best on the grid, the ADUO status is granted. Appendix 3 of the technical regulations lists which ICE components may still be developed under ADUO, even if they would otherwise be frozen for a specific period of time.

“I want to stress that I completely refute any comment about this being a Balance of Performance,” Tombazis is quick to add. “First of all, the regulations are exactly the same for everyone. It’s not like we are giving them more cubic capacity, more fuel or whatever. Secondly, if there was no cost cap, they would just throw a lot of money at it.”

Notably, ADUO only applies to the combustion engine. The electrical side remains outside the safety net, meaning bigger differences could persist there.

A lot of commentary about the changes is premature, insists Tombazis

Photo by: Andy Hone / Motorsport Images

How to prevent “unnatural things” on track?

Another concern centres on how the increased hybrid power will affect the racing itself; how different will Formula 1 feel in 2026 for drivers and those watching? Verstappen was the first to sound the alarm after his initial simulator runs two years ago, warning of cars running out of energy before the end of a lap, or drivers downshifting on the straights to manage the energy more efficiently.

Since then, the FIA has responded with changes to both harvesting and deployment. It involves a so-called ‘turn-down ramp rate’ and a sliding scale of permitted harvesting depending on the venue, rather than the fixed 8.5MJ per lap.

“We haven’t finished the rules yet in that respect,” admits Tombazis. “The rules are evolving and we knew of these issues from day one. The moment you reduce one power, and increase the other one, we knew that there were issues to address.”

“We will categorically make sure that they don’t have to lift off in order to do something with the energy. When they need to go faster, drivers will keep the pedal to the metal, as they say” Nikolas Tombazis 

While the hardware of the new engines is set in stone and work in all factories is well under way, the FIA still has “strong levers” at its disposal: “Those things have to do with the maximum power, how quickly it will reduce on the straights, the energy that you can recover, etc. There are all sorts of levers that we can play on, and that we are playing on.”

The aim is to prevent what the governing body calls “unnatural things” on track – exactly the issues Verstappen warned about. “What we don’t want is a situation where drivers have to lift off on the straights or anything like that,” says Tombazis.

“We will absolutely, categorically make sure that they don’t have to lift off in a particular area in order to do something with the energy. When they need to go faster, drivers will keep the pedal to the metal, as they say.”

Power unit changes have meant introduction of active aerodynamics

Photo by: FIA

A game of chess – will F1 get too complex for drivers and fans?

But racing in 2026 will involve much more than simply keeping the throttle planted. With energy management, active aero, Manual Override Mode and more parameters, the new rules will present drivers with more variables than ever before. Alex Albon has even warned that the workload on drivers could be excessive, with Williams team principal James Vowles echoing that concern.

The FIA is aware of the risk, but insists that the rules remain a work in progress. “We don’t want to overburden the drivers, but at the same time there has to be a degree of freedom, so they can attack, defend and have some of that stuff under their control,” reckons Tombazis.

“I think there’s a balance to strike between driving like a chess game of energy management, which we don’t want, and the other extreme where driving is just a steering wheel, throttle pedal and brake pedal. We need to find a way in the middle.”

Albon also suggested that smart drivers could “abuse” the new regulations, although he later clarified: “The word ‘abuse’ turned out to be the headline everywhere, but I didn’t mean it negatively!” He simply highlighted that drivers who have mental bandwidth beyond just driving could gain a competitive advantage in 2026.

But that, Tombazis argues, is exactly what F1 has always been about. “I think smart drivers already prevail,” he asserts. “The difference in performance that we see nowadays in F1 includes a percentage of that. That’s not only now: the mental bandwidth of drivers has been a factor for the last 20 years already – also in the younger days of my career, when I was working with Michael Schumacher.

“Obviously, he was phenomenally talented, but a big part of what set him apart was that he could also think of all of these other things during a race. You know that among the current drivers there are some who seem to have a bit extra to think about other things as well, while some drivers have to use all their CPU to just drive the car.”

In 2026, that challenge may be greater, but the FIA stresses that it should not become the defining factor. “We think it’s part of what a top driver has to do,” says Tombazis. “However, it’s not – and we will make sure it isn’t – the main skill. The main skill that is required is still to be able to brake at the right point, go fast around the corners, find the limit, select the right lines, etc.

“That will still be the main parameter that controls who’s good and who’s bad. I wouldn’t be able to drive the car!” Tombazis laughs.

Michael Schumacher cited as the kind of high-bandwidth driver who could flourish

Photo by: Rainer W Schlegelmilch / Motorsport Images

Slower cars – but does it matter?

But even with top drivers, there are fears that the 2026 cars will be significantly slower. With reduced downforce, lap times will be achieved differently: quicker on the straights – Toto Wolff even suggesting 400km/h (nearly 250mph) could be reached – but slower in the corners.

Overall, the new generation of F1 cars will be slower, but the FIA doesn’t fear the doomsday scenarios. “I do get a bit surprised by how much emphasis is put on the actual lap times,” says Tombazis.

“I think it’s a comment you make initially when you see the delta, but I really don’t think it will be a factor, nor will it be hugely different from now. In our simulations the new cars will be between one and two and a half seconds slower at the start of the regulations, and clearly there will be evolution that makes them gain speed.”

Ultimately, the FIA feels close racing is what matters most: “I find it surprising why people actually care about lap times. I mean, if we’d make cars as slow as F2, then obviously people will have something to say about it, but that’s definitely not the case.”

“I think it’s a bit premature when people say, the cars will do X or Y or Z. It’s not finished yet, we’re getting the feedback now, and we’re reacting” Nikolas Tombazis

Ultimately, the key question is whether F1’s new rules can deliver the racing that fans expect to see. The complexity remains that the power unit rules were finalised first, with the chassis regulations only following later. It’s the root cause of most concerns in the F1 paddock, but the FIA believes that the end product won’t be as problematic as feared.

“I think it’s a bit premature when people say, the cars will do X or Y or Z,” reckons Tombazis. “It’s not finished yet, we’re getting the feedback now, and we’re reacting.”

It does mean that the upcoming months are crucial in many ways: for teams shaping their 2026 challengers, for drivers adjusting their approach in the simulator, and for the FIA to ensure that F1’s new era is appealing enough to keep the current flow going. The stakes are high, both from a sporting and commercial perspective.

This article is one of many in the monthly Autosport magazine. For more premium content, take a look at the October 2025 issue and subscribe today. 

Concerns that new cars will be slower are countered with the promise of closer racing

Photo by: FIA