China’s action-packed double-whammy of an eventful sprint followed by an equally interesting grand prix will be like catnip to Formula 1’s chiefs. Following widespread fears of how the much-maligned 2026 regulations would play out, F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali was already on the defensive over Bahrain testing before the season had even begun.
Australia was not a total disaster, but it was unconvincing to say the least. There was some fun to be derived from some of the awkward energy jousting between George Russell and Charles Leclerc, but Melbourne really brought out the worst of the F1 2026 regulations with some of the extreme – and extremely disappointing – clipping and harvesting in qualifying, neutering Albert Park’s best corners.
Shanghai suited these new rules more and, as a result, some of the racing on offer was genuinely entertaining stuff, and not all of it was down to playing games with the battery – these nimbler, lower downforce cars do offer the potential of some interesting wheel-to-wheel battles as demonstrated by Leclerc and his Ferrari team-mate Lewis Hamilton.
That hasn’t made the rules any less divisive, though. Hamilton said it was the most fun he has had in ages, while Max Verstappen suggested anyone who liked what they saw doesn’t understand what racing is about.
So, who is right and wrong?
Let’s first separate two different discussions. Qualifying, a true test of car and driver speed over one lap, has been absolutely ruined. The thought of drivers coasting through some of the most fearsome corners on the calendar just to charge their batteries is simply depressing, and it is the biggest source of frustration among the drivers. You will therefore find few F1 chiefs who dispute this, with even Toto Wolff admitting changes are needed here. Mercedes is currently devouring the competition as if they were bite-sized canapes, so Wolff’s interests are best served by a status quo.
There are also still valid discussions to be had about safety, as my esteemed colleague Stuart Codling wrote about earlier this week, but that debate has inevitably become political already.
Then there’s the racing. The best overtake of the week was found in IndyCar, where Kyle Kirkwood sent a late lunge down the inside of the series’ hegemon Alex Palou to take over the lead of the inaugural Arlington Grand Prix. It was a great bit of skill and bravery, a satisfying climax to an exciting cat-and-mouse game after Kirkwood had been reeling in the reigning champion little by little. It was also one of the few major sources of excitement in the race, but this was an example of quality over quantity.
The best bit of racing last weekend went to IndyCar
Photo by: Penske Entertainment
In contrast, it is fair to say F1 2026 veers more into Formula E territory with more artificial battery-led racing.
But what is artificial? Wasn’t DRS artificial? And look how that panned out. At the majority of circuits, cars were unable to follow each other closely anyway, meaning they would get stuck in DRS trains. At least these regulations have eliminated that. If you are really desperate to get past and make use of fresher tyres or better pace, then you probably can.
It means you’ll have a fight on your hands to then defend your position against the car you just passed, while having less battery charge, but at least the option is there and it rewards drivers who think ahead and carefully plan their next moves. That, too, is part of a driver’s skill set. And that, too, is fun to watch in my humble opinion.
This idea of a clear split between “mere casuals” enjoying F1 2026 and “die-hards” hating it feels wrong. The real picture is a lot more complicated than that
Does that mean watching F1 is a guilty pleasure, and that you should be embarrassed for having the temerity to actually enjoy it?
As much as I believe Verstappen has the best interest of the sport at heart – and unlike others I absolutely defend his right to vent his opinion – it’s also okay to enjoy different things. This idea of a clear split between “mere casuals” enjoying F1 2026 and “die-hards” hating it feels wrong. The real picture is a lot more complicated than that.
F1 is ultimately a commercial product, Liberty Media’s goose with the golden eggs, so it is going to play the numbers game and listen to the majority of fans. Without alienating the drivers too much, if possible, but the priority is clearly the former.
As Wolff said in China: “Qualifying flat-out would be nice. Yes, we can always look at how we’re improving it. But at the moment all the indicators say and all the data say people love it. And that’s why I spoke with Stefano, he says that too.”
Wolff is a supporter of the new regulations – but qualifying must improve
Photo by: Kym Illman / Getty Images
The end result is that F1 2026 is neither a triumph nor a disaster. It’s a fundamentally flawed compromise, a sacrifice made at the altar of major OEMs, patched up with band-aids. And thanks to the behind-the-scenes work of a lot of smart people, it has actually produced a reasonable starting point.
It is now up to F1’s stakeholders to make a few adjustments this season followed by a larger sweep for 2027 and beyond to restore qualifying to its former glory, address safety concerns and provide a better balance between energy saving and flat-out racing at the most difficult circuits for these rules.
This gradual tweaking of the regulations, with a first course correction perhaps arriving as early as May’s Miami Grand Prix, will likely coincide with people’s opinions on both sides of the fence softening over time as we get used to this new reality.
Whether we like it or not, these rules aren’t going anywhere. So in the meantime, we’re stuck with our guilty pleasure. Might as well try to find joy in it rather than burn it all to the ground.
Read Also:
Are you a fan of the new regulations?
Photo by: Dom Gibbons / Formula 1 via Getty Images
We want to hear from you!
Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.
– The Autosport.com Team