Question of the week: Are rule tweaks enough to fix F1 2026?

Q: What specific changes were made to F1 regulations for 2026?

The FIA introduced tweaks focused on improving qualifying and addressing safety concerns, including adjustments to start procedures.

Q: Why were changes to F1 qualifying necessary for 2026?

Changes were necessary due to heavy energy management issues that prevented drivers from pushing their limits during qualifying.

Q: How do the new F1 regulations address safety concerns?

The new regulations aim to minimize risks associated with large speed differentials and improve start procedures to enhance safety.

Q: What has been the reaction from drivers and fans regarding the 2026 F1 changes?

While the sport's chiefs are satisfied with the racing quality, several drivers and fans have expressed concerns on social media.

Motorsport photo

Ahead of the Miami Grand Prix, the FIA has introduced targeted tweaks to the 2026 regulations, focused primarily on improving qualifying, where heavy energy management had prevented drivers from pushing flat-out. The governing body has also addressed safety concerns raised after the opening races, particularly around large speed differentials, and introduced adjustments to start procedures to minimise the risk of incident.

As expected, no major tweaks have been made, as the sport’s chiefs are satisfied with the quality of racing delivered in the first grands prix of the season – despite some concerns raised by several drivers and fans on social media.

Formula 1 is treating symptoms rather than the disease

Jules de Graaf - Motorsport.com Netherlands:

If Formula 1’s 2026 regulations are already being “fixed” before they’ve properly settled in, that in itself tells a story – but not necessarily the one it might seem at first glance. The FIA’s latest round of adjustments is, on paper, exactly how the championship should function: identify early weaknesses, respond quickly, and refine rather than panic. In that sense, it is a system working as intended.

And yet, there is an uncomfortable tension beneath that logic. Because while these tweaks may reduce the most visible problems – excessive lift-and-coast, extreme closing speeds, and drivers forced into energy saving rather than flat-out racing – they do little to address the deeper philosophical question at the heart of the 2026 concept. If the cars are fundamentally designed around energy management, then the racing will inevitably orbit around that constraint. You can recalibrate the numbers, but you cannot entirely recalibrate the behaviour they incentivise.

That is why it increasingly feels as though Formula 1 is treating symptoms rather than the disease. The direction – electrification, efficiency, manufacturer relevance – was always going to come with trade-offs, much like the hybrid transition of 2014, the turbo-engine transition of the early 1980s, or even the engine formula modifications in 1961. A messy early phase is not unprecedented. But acknowledging that does not automatically make the outcome satisfactory from a sporting perspective.

Max Verstappen has been a vocal critic of the 2026 rules

There is also the matter of perception. When drivers, teams and fans openly describe the cars in such negative terms so early in a regulation cycle, the narrative hardens quickly – and narratives are far harder to rewrite than rulebooks.

Ultimately, the real verdict will not come from data traces or revised kilowatt figures, but from the cockpit. If drivers still feel they are managing systems more than racing each other, then no amount of fine-tuning will convincingly argue that 2026 has been “fixed” – for now.

Enough for whom?

Federico Faturos, Motorsport.com Latin America:

From Stefano Domenicali’s perspective, judging by the comments he made in his exclusive interview with Motorsport.com last week, the changes announced by the FIA on Monday will probably be enough. In fact, I’d go as far as to say he will be hoping they help draw a line under the negative narrative surrounding the problems caused by Formula 1’s new rules, regardless of his insistence that the data gathered by the championship so far this season has been more positive than negative.

Oliver Bearman, Haas F1 Team car after his crash

Safety comes first – but at what cost?

Ken Tanaka, Motorsport.com Japan:

Safety is, of course, of paramount importance. Even in a category as fast as Formula 1, there is no doubt that it must always come first. Therefore, any regulation changes made in the interest of safety are entirely justified.

However, there is one aspect that raises questions. It concerns the adjustments aimed at ensuring cars can run at full throttle in qualifying. Under the latest changes, the per-lap energy harvesting limit will be reduced from 8MJ to 7MJ. This effectively means that the amount of electrical energy available per lap is reduced – and that, in turn, means slower lap times. Is that really what we want?

It is worth asking what kind of Formula 1 we want to see. Opinions may differ.

Do we want to see F1 cars running at full throttle all the time? Or do we want to see faster F1 cars? Personally, I want to see faster F1. I want to see cars breaking lap records – provided, of course, that safety is not compromised.

During the Japanese Grand Prix at Suzuka, Kimi Antonelli set the fastest Q3 lap with a time of 1:28.778. That was still 1.8 seconds off the Suzuka Circuit lap record of 1:26.983. The pole position time in China showed a similar picture. And this is only the second or third race under the new regulations – an extraordinary situation.

From that perspective, it is fair to say that the new-generation F1 cars have the potential to become extremely fast.

The changes will come into force in Miami

Given more time, it also seemed likely that qualifying would eventually return to full-throttle running even under the original regulations.

In that sense, while the agreement between the FIA, Formula 1, and the teams to adjust the regulations should be respected, questions still remain – particularly when it comes to qualifying.

F1 must define what it wants to be

Michael Banovsky, Motorsport.com Global edition:

F1 has created its own problems by insisting through successive formulae and rules tweaks that it must be seen as the pinnacle of motorsport – but what does that now mean?

It’s not about car parity: boring races and streaks still happen in IndyCar and NASCAR. It’s not about eschewing hybridisation for "better racing": I grew up in an era when it was strange if a handful of F1 cars didn’t retire in a cloud of metallic anguish.

The rules are probably, mostly, fine. I think F1 must be much more transparent in explaining the type of racing it's bringing fans, and what a grand prix is now meant to be. Is it wheel-to-wheel “Mario Kart”, or watching some teams dominate? Are races meant to be won by one second or 20? F1 can't, and will never, have it all. It must lean into the kind of racing it wants to deliver.

Until that's settled, we will have the world's best drivers, teams, and cars chasing an F1 ruleset incapable of catching up with our increasingly unrealistic expectations of what grands prix should be.

Charles Leclerc, Ferrari, George Russell, Mercedes, Oscar Piastri, McLaren

A rapid change of direction can be destructive

Khaldoun Younes, Motorsport.com Middle East:

It is no secret that, no matter how well-crafted the theoretical studies of the regulations may be, the true judgement of their success is what we see on track.

The 2026 season has brought the biggest radical change in the sport in a long time, and as expected, the controversy has been as significant as the change itself: artificial overtakes, “yo-yo” racing, and a reduction in driver control of the car amid an increase in multiple additional influencing elements.

After fingers were pointed at the growing role of electrical energy, a series of consecutive meetings has indeed been held between the teams, the championship, and the FIA, resulting in adjustments to the current package being brought to light.

As expected, work has focused on the two most important issues: safety and performance during qualifying, but despite everything, it seems that a solution to the “fundamental” problem, as described by Max Verstappen, will not be found.

There is a growing sense that the championship is losing its value amid an increase in “artificial” overtakes, and that the “computer” dictates to the car and the driver how the competition should unfold – this is the point that Nigel Mansell recently referred to.

The viewpoint that can now be seen in the eyes of many points to concern over the risk of making the competition “superficial”. Such criticism does not come from people who criticise for the sake of criticism, as Domenicali recently pointed out.

Watch: Autosport's Exclusive Interview with F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali

Nor does much of this criticism come only from people who do not know how a car is driven, but from experienced individuals who fully understand what it means to wear the helmet and sit behind the wheel.

Nevertheless, nothing in this life is entirely black or white; on the contrary, there are many shades to every issue.

The positive aspect of the matter is that everyone is open to working toward finding a formula that meets the expectations of all within the pinnacle of motorsport: drivers, teams, and fans.

We must not forget that the championship is like an extremely large ship, and changing its direction is not something that happens at the speed many expect; on the contrary, a rapid change of direction can be destructive.

Therefore, what is happening now can be read as a step in the right direction, and as always, the judgment of the validity of the changes can only be made on the track itself.

Are these changes fully sufficient? Most likely not… Are they the best that can be done at the moment? Most likely yes…

The first three rounds were merely a "soft" opening, but the real evaluation of the season starts from Miami!