What Red Bull warned about – and whether the 2026 F1 ruleset could have been different

Most Formula 1 drivers had expressed themselves in a fairly cautious way, until Max Verstappen addressed the media on Thursday during the first testing week in Bahrain. In the media centre, his view on the new rules had already been eagerly anticipated.

That is firstly because the Dutchman is an authentic and rather outspoken driver, and secondly because in 2023 – based on the first simulator runs – he had already warned things were heading in the wrong direction.

In 2025, the Dutchman remained mostly silent. At the time, he answered all questions about the new regulations with: “I’m neutral about it, we’ll see next year.” In hindsight, however, more was going on behind the scenes. In Bahrain, Verstappen revealed that last year he had indicated internally that he would rather not test the 2026 car in the simulator. He kept that opinion out of the public domain until the start of winter testing provided the right moment to voice it publicly – and in unmistakable fashion with the phrase “Formula E on steroids.”

While Verstappen has been the most outspoken, he is not alone in his criticism. During the Aston Martin launch in Saudi Arabia, Fernando Alonso had already stated that the current era is no longer ‘peak F1’. In Bahrain the Aston Martin driver went a step further by saying he could pull the team's chef out of the kitchen and let him drive the car through Turn 12. Lewis Hamilton primarily thought of the fans at home and argued no one can truly understand what is happening in terms of energy management.

Three of the biggest champions on the grid have not appeared overly enthusiastic so far, although it should be noted that Lando Norris and George Russell, among others, have spoken much more positively about the new rules. The picture is therefore divided, and partly for that reason the FIA sees no cause for early changes – aside from testing a slightly revised start procedure and an online vote on the compression ratio.

“It was agreed that no immediate major regulatory changes were required given that initial evidence and feedback remains immature and that premature change carried the risk of increased instability ahead of the first race,” the FIA stated. “Further reviews will be carried out once more data becomes available.”

The new F1 ruleset was decided by engine first, then chassis and aerodynamics

Photo by: Liberty Media

Is this the “patch on patch” scenario Red Bull warned about?

However, bearing the initial complaints in mind, the question remains whether the new regulations are too complex – and, linked to that, whether they could have been simpler.

An important part of the answer goes back to the way in which these rules came about. The power unit regulations were finalised first, and only afterwards were the chassis and aerodynamic regulations. The latter has a great deal to do with political reality at the time.

F1 effectively had to finalise the engine side first in order to secure the signatures of new manufacturers, and that had been communicated from the get-go as a key pillar. The Volkswagen Group initially intended to enter with two brands – Porsche ultimately did not join due to the failed negotiations with Red Bull – and to win over the senior executives in Wolfsburg, the pinnacle of motorsport had to demonstrate an engine formula that would align with their ambitions for road cars.

"You cannot put patch on patch on patch to achieve something. You have to look at the problem with a bigger view and say 'how do I sort this out'" Pierre Wache

The importance of this aspect should not be underestimated. Yes, it is indeed crucial for the health of the series to attract and retain new manufacturers. Without manufacturers, F1 is nowhere. From a political reality standpoint, it therefore made sense to finalise the engine regulations first and then – with all these manufacturers on board – to look at the chassis side and aerodynamics.

But in doing so, it has become considerably more complex than some in the paddock would have liked. At the end of 2023, Red Bull's technical director Pierre Wache already told Autosport: “It is just that all these aspects have to be looked at as a global thing. You cannot put patch on patch on patch to achieve something. You have to look at the problem with a bigger view and say ‘how do I sort this out, and how do I solve my problem? What car characteristic do I need to achieve something?’ If you need a patch to solve some things, you can still do that afterwards, but you don’t start with a patch first. Otherwise it never works.”

Wache added that it would also have a major impact on how teams would develop their 2026 cars: “If you put patch on patch on patch, especially with these things, teams will develop their cars in a different way than when you make clear what the characteristics, the level of drag and the capacity of the car have to be. I don’t know if it is clear, but if you have a device that divides the amount of drag by two, then I won’t develop the car in the same way as when they say ‘the rear wing height has to be like this, the floor development has to be like this’.”

Wache pointed out flaws in how the new F1 rules were being decided back in 2023

Photo by: Red Bull Content Pool

Yet according to critics in the paddock, that patch on patch scenario is what has happened in the years since. One aspect has led to another. The engine formula required considerably less drag than before, which in turn made active aerodynamics at the front and rear of the cars necessary. As a result of that, DRS has been abolished as an overtaking aid, meaning that the overtaking assistance had to come from electrical power instead – with what F1 now calls ‘overtake mode’.

One thing led to another: the engine formula required active aerodynamics, which eliminated DRS as an overtaking tool, and that has brought overtake mode into existence. In practice, it does not necessarily have to be a bad thing, but it does seem to resemble the patch on patch approach Wache spoke about three years ago.

And so Verstappen could not resist pointing out during winter testing that he may have had a point after all: “When I said those things in 2023, I immediately got a lot of criticism. They told me, ‘no, that’s not correct and it won’t be like that.’ But now it turns out that for 90% it actually is like that.”

Is there something to be learned for the future?

The most important factor in all of this has not yet been mentioned: the energy management required behind the wheel, potentially even during a qualifying lap. Again, this is not all necessarily bad; it could even make the racing more chaotic and spectacular to watch. But it does mean that the approach chosen in drafting these regulations has made everything more complex than ever before, for both the drivers and the viewers at home.

There are two points to hope for. First and foremost, that the end product – and especially the races themselves – will continue to appeal to fans as before. It should be added that F1 teams learn extremely quickly under new regulations, meaning that some of the initial issues may well be resolved sooner than anticipated, just as happened with porpoising.

Secondly, for true petrolheads, it is to be hoped that the development of sustainable fuels progresses quickly enough for the share of electrical power to perhaps be drastically reduced in the next cycle. FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem already began preparing the ground for that discussion around last year’s Chinese Grand Prix, meaning it will largely come down to political support among manufacturers.

That debate will be conducted extensively in the coming years, and above all it must be hoped that the lessons of these regulations are taken to heart – and that it does not once again become a matter of “patch on patch”.

With the influx of new manufacturers and new rules, can F1 find solutions to its problems?

Photo by: Joe Portlock / LAT Images via Getty Images