Formula 1 has finally outlined the new set of regulations that will come in for the 2026 season. We already knew big changes were afoot to aerodynamics and the engine formula, but the racing authorities have seen fit to grant us a treat especialle. The fake boost of the Drag Reduction System will be killed off. But don’t get too excited—the new rules will still leave a sour taste in the mouths of the sporting purist.
The truth is, Formula 1 has had a serious problem for a long time. Overtakes rarely happen, and much of the blame is put on the design of the cars. The turbulent aerodynamic wake of an F1 car tends to disturb the ability of a following car to generate downforce. Thus, when a car gets in range to make a pass, the following driver finds themselves losing grip, and thus losing time. A faster car can sometimes hang on and make a pass work, but the aerodynamic disturbance still makes passing difficult, and it also accelerates tire wear.
The solution to this was the Drag Reduction System. F1 allowed a driver to activate a movable flap on the rear wing when they closed within a second of the car in front. Drivers were allowed to activate this in certain “DRS Zones.” The movable flap cut downforce on the straights where it’s not needed, which cut drag in turn. This gave a following driver a speed boost which would, ideally, help them to pass. Great, right? Problem solved! Well, not really.
Drag Reduction Silliness
First, we must understand DRS, so let’s go back to the start. Many fans immediately decried the DRS upon its introduction in 2011. The measure was seen as unsporting, giving the following car an artificial advantage over the one in front to try and generate more passing. Still, the technology was introduced, and to a degree, it appeared to work. 2011 had an average of 43.2 overtakes per race. This was over double the average in 2010, which stood at just 23.8 overtakes per race in comparison.
While DRS could help shake up track position, the overtakes were hardly anything to write home about. Watch the first DRS overtake, and tell me that isn’t the most boring pass you’ve seen in contemporary motorsport.
DRS simply allowed the car behind to breeze past the one in front thanks to its top speed advantage. It wasn’t much fun to watch. Still, fans eventually grew used to the system. It did at least allow faster runners to filter through the pack more quickly if they found themselves out of position.
It became routine for F1 to tweak the length and position of DRS engagement zones at various tracks to try and make the boost just right—enough to allow some passing, but not so much that it would be too easy. It was all fake, concocted nonsense, and you had to pretend you couldn’t see behind the curtain.
In the years since, farcical scenes have often erupted thanks to the false boost DRS provides. “DRS Trains” began to form at some tracks, typically amongst the midfield. This would occur when a driver closed to within 1 second of a slow car, but failed to pass them. More drivers would tend to close up, each of whom would receive DRS from being within a second of the car ahead. You’d end up with a big train of cars, none of which could pass—since all but the lead cars were receiving an equal speed boost. In a shocking example, Kevin Magnussen was able to hold up following drivers by over 2 seconds a lap in Saudi Arabia this year, with DRS failing to help anyone get by him.
Future Moves
The FIA has now announced the 2026 rules for Formula 1. The DRS concept as we know it will go away. However, movable aerodynamic devices will still be a thing. Instead of a single rear flap, both front and rear wings will have movable elements. This will allow an F1 car to switch between two modes—high downforce (Z-mode) and low-drag (X-mode). One suspects these may be named for the vector which is being optimized–the Z-axis typically referring to the vertical direction.
Under the new regulations, drivers will be able to switch to the low-drag mode in certain designated areas. However, there will be no requirement that they be close to the car in front. Instead, they’ll be able to activate X-mode at will in these zones to enable a higher top speed.
This eliminates the boost given to trailing drivers under the current regime. For sporting enthusiasts, this is a good thing. It brings an end to the contrived DRS sham that made for so many cheap and meaningless overtakes.
But don’t worry! The FIA has found a new way to keep F1 artificially entertaining. Drivers will instead be given access to something called the Manual Override Mode. It’s basically a push-to-pass button that is enabled for a driver when they close within a certain range of the car in front. When enabled, it allows their car’s electric motor to deliver a set amount of more energy to help them accelerate past the car in front. Instead of less drag, you get more power than the car in front.
The specific implementation is moderately interesting. Effectively, it will only really come into play on straights, with the MGU-K—the hybrid engine’s electric motor—continuing to output power at higher speeds when in Manual Override Mode. As per the FIA:
A Manual Override mode has been included to create improved overtaking opportunities. While the deployment of a leading car will taper off after 290kph, reaching zero at 355kph, the following car will benefit from MGUK Override providing 350kW up to 337kph and +0.5MJ of extra energy.
Basically, if you’re in front, your electric motor will only output 469 hp (350 kW) up to 180 mph. If you’re behind, you’ll get the full juice up to 209 mph.
To an extent, I get it. People want to see F1 cars pass. You want to make that happen. Great. A push-to-pass button can help do that, albeit in an artificial way. But it remains to be seen what benefits the Manual Override Mode has over the existing DRS system. It seems to be just as fake and contrived.
The only reason one can imagine it might be more interesting is if power differential proves more effective at generating overtakes on a straight than drag differentials do. Given the way the FIA has set it up, that may be the intention. Currently, some teams have naturally higher top speeds than their rivals thanks to their cars being more aerodynamically efficient, or simply by running lower-drag configurations. This can dull the benefit of DRS for other cars. The new system creates a window where a following driver has an advantage of hundreds of horsepower, albeit in a small window. This could be very difficult to mitigate or defend against.
Really, though, it would be great if the FIA could find a way to allow cars to follow more closely in the corners. Then there would be no need for these contrived measures to let cars pass each other on the straights. We could get back to the ol’ slice-and-dice duels that make motorsport so compelling to watch.
The Rest Of The Updates
The new engine regulations aim to cut fuel use and massively increase the electric power available to F1 cars. The current cars have around 740 horsepower from their ICE engines, and a further 160 hp from their electric motor. The new rules will see the combustion engines outputting around 540 hp, while the electric motors will be able to deliver around 469 hp (350 kW). Cars will be able to capture up to 8.5 megajoules of electrical energy under braking per lap.
The heat recovery generator, known as the MGU-H, will be dropped for 2026. It was used to recover electrical energy from the engine’s exhaust via the turbocharger, but was considered expensive, complex, and unappealing for future use. For increased road relevance and sustainability, the series will switch to running on sustainable fuel that will be “drop-in” compatible with traditional ICE vehicles.
The current cars have been derided as excessively heavy and large, which has hurt overtaking—particularly at street circuits like Monaco. To that end, the new cars will be 30 kg lighter, almost 3.9 inches (10 cm) narrower, and with a 7.9 inch (20 cm) shorter wheelbase. As previously discussed, movable aerodynamic elements will be available on both the front and rear wings. That should keep the aerodynamicists busy.
The hope from many fans is that the new regulations can shake things up. F1 has been derided as a walk-over for many years in the past decade. Mercedes-Benz was able to dominate much of the turbo-hybrid era, with Red Bull steaming away to dominant victories under the current ground-effect rules. Ideally, the new rules will not only break any established advantage but lead to a mix of teams being able to fight at the front. We should all be so lucky!
As much as F1 promises a lot for the future, it’s always difficult to predict what will happen at the first race. So many of us believed that ground-effect aerodynamics would solve all F1’s problems, and that turned out to be a total bust. We’ve seen two years of the dullest racing dominated by a single team, and this year is only just showing some flickers of real competition.
Ultimately, as a Formula 1 fan, I’m waiting with bated breath. It was so happy to read that DRS was over, and so frustrated to hear that push-to-pass was being implemented. There’s not a lot in the new regulations that I believe will improve the on-track spectacle, but I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. Let’s wait and see.
Image credits: FIA, FIA via Youtube Screenshot
I think about overtakes like goals in soccer, a few good ones are better than 50 breeze past DRS moves. I like it when a driver has to work for it and finds a weakness in the driver in front or takes advantage of a mistake, likewise a good defense can keep a faster car behind and I find that quite tense and fun to watch.
To me, the biggest problem is the physical size and weight of the cars. Smaller cars would open up more opportunities especially at tighter tracks.
I think about overtakes like goals in soccer, a few good ones are better than 50 breeze past DRS moves. I like it when a driver has to work for it and finds a weakness in the driver in front or takes advantage of a mistake, likewise a good defense can keep a faster car behind and I find that quite tense and fun to watch.
To me, the biggest problem is the physical size and weight of the cars. Smaller cars would open up more opportunities especially at tighter tracks.
One solution is to watch WRC instead.
I’ve always watched formula one,but the last years I haven’t bothered because of a combination of the subscription being way too expensive because of fucking DTS and the racing being shit. I got my hopes up reading the headline but then reading the article just getting annoyed all over again.
Formula one cars are supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports, and with the popularity it’s currently experiencing it should not be necessary to invent new ways of making the racing bearable to watch.
The mgu-h should stay in my opinion and then just make the cars a bit lighter/smaller with less aero to keep the racing closer.
i don’t think it’s possible to avoid that one team is the more dominant within a given set of regulations because that will happen in any race series not having “spec” cars,but making the cars a bit simpler to start with and having cost-caps would probably mitigate this as well.
One solution is to watch WRC instead.
I’ve always watched formula one,but the last years I haven’t bothered because of a combination of the subscription being way too expensive because of fucking DTS and the racing being shit. I got my hopes up reading the headline but then reading the article just getting annoyed all over again.
Formula one cars are supposed to be the pinnacle of motorsports, and with the popularity it’s currently experiencing it should not be necessary to invent new ways of making the racing bearable to watch.
The mgu-h should stay in my opinion and then just make the cars a bit lighter/smaller with less aero to keep the racing closer.
i don’t think it’s possible to avoid that one team is the more dominant within a given set of regulations because that will happen in any race series not having “spec” cars,but making the cars a bit simpler to start with and having cost-caps would probably mitigate this as well.
1.5 Litre Flat Plane Naturally Aspirated V8s revving to 18,000, with flat bottoms, no traction control, and no fucking wings or diffusers whatsoever. Add whatever spec of electric boost/recovery you want. Then you will see some exciting overtakes. The cars will be gorgeous and Eau Rouge will no longer be flat. The slot car scenes will no longer happen, but boy would it fun to see real battles in corners again. Keep the run off areas for fans/safety.
1.5 Litre Flat Plane Naturally Aspirated V8s revving to 18,000, with flat bottoms, no traction control, and no fucking wings or diffusers whatsoever. Add whatever spec of electric boost/recovery you want. Then you will see some exciting overtakes. The cars will be gorgeous and Eau Rouge will no longer be flat. The slot car scenes will no longer happen, but boy would it fun to see real battles in corners again. Keep the run off areas for fans/safety.
F1 should specify a random engine from a wide range of possibilities at the last possible moment for that engine to be integrated into the cars for the season.
Let the teams construct their cars and then it’s like “Honda GC190 187cc 4.6 hp single cylinder. Now GO!” and the teams have to integrate those engines into the cars, and race them.
F1 should specify a random engine from a wide range of possibilities at the last possible moment for that engine to be integrated into the cars for the season.
Let the teams construct their cars and then it’s like “Honda GC190 187cc 4.6 hp single cylinder. Now GO!” and the teams have to integrate those engines into the cars, and race them.
Maybe unpopular, but aero downforce ruins competitive racing. I want to see driving skill, mechanical grip, and who can build the strongest engine. Supercomputers crunching aero numbers to produce micro tunnels fabricated in carbon fiber is uninteresting to this race fan. A car that cannot closely follow another because of a messy aero induced vortex is a mistake, not a feature. The rules should be simplified as much as possible. Here are the maximum dimensions of the car you can build, here is the maximum weight, here are the tire sizes, here are the safety requirements, and by the way, aero downforce is forbidden. No spending cap, go nuts. Build whatever engine you want, stick it in there and let’s race.
Aero downforce is amazing but yeah there’s a reason all the golden ages of motorsports came before it. But it’s also really hard to put it back in the bottle now we know so much about it.
I was in complete agreement with you up to your penultimate sentence. Most professional sports have some form of spending cap or salary cap. The ones that are well implemented (see NFL and to a lesser degree MLB) have generally been credited with making their leagues more competitive. Among the other issues cited in the articles and your comment, I think F1 needs to fix its current spending cap system which showers vast sums on the constructor winners, leading to self-fulfilling cycles of dominance like we’ve seen from Mercedes and now Red Bull.
It takes more than three competitive teams/constructors to have an interesting racing series. The constructor pool should be split more evenly among all the teams, and perhaps there needs to be something akin to the NFL draft system that actually “rewards” the bottom teams in the series by giving them extra resources to become more competitive. This wouldn’t necessarily have to be all money, perhaps the tops teams could be required to share certain proprietary tech/software/knowledge with the bottom teams. Just thinking out loud, but otherwise, I honestly don’t understand how/why teams like Williams and Haas can or should bother continuing to compete in F1.
Okay, I’m convinced on the spending cap!
The F1 cost cap is $135,000,000 for 2024 and 2025. They are giving more wind tunnel time to the lower level teams. Does this mean that the playing field is going to be evened out quickly, no. This was seen with Williams trying to play catch up with a new wind tunnel to help with development of their car.
And that sentence is CanAm. I saw bits of the CanAm revival, though I’m told the original series started off pretty fun and then became nothing but a spendathon. The deepest wallets won the races, and the second-deepest wallets didn’t see a return on investment and bailed.
I’m all on board for the rest of it. Change that quoted sentence to, “Here’s your spending cap, go nuts.” And I’m not against a nod towards environmentalism either: “Your engine must be an ICE that burns ethanol or hydrogen.”
Maybe unpopular, but aero downforce ruins competitive racing. I want to see driving skill, mechanical grip, and who can build the strongest engine. Supercomputers crunching aero numbers to produce micro tunnels fabricated in carbon fiber is uninteresting to this race fan. A car that cannot closely follow another because of a messy aero induced vortex is a mistake, not a feature. The rules should be simplified as much as possible. Here are the maximum dimensions of the car you can build, here is the maximum weight, here are the tire sizes, here are the safety requirements, and by the way, aero downforce is forbidden. No spending cap, go nuts. Build whatever engine you want, stick it in there and let’s race.
Aero downforce is amazing but yeah there’s a reason all the golden ages of motorsports came before it. But it’s also really hard to put it back in the bottle now we know so much about it.
I was in complete agreement with you up to your penultimate sentence. Most professional sports have some form of spending cap or salary cap. The ones that are well implemented (see NFL and to a lesser degree MLB) have generally been credited with making their leagues more competitive. Among the other issues cited in the articles and your comment, I think F1 needs to fix its current spending cap system which showers vast sums on the constructor winners, leading to self-fulfilling cycles of dominance like we’ve seen from Mercedes and now Red Bull.
It takes more than three competitive teams/constructors to have an interesting racing series. The constructor pool should be split more evenly among all the teams, and perhaps there needs to be something akin to the NFL draft system that actually “rewards” the bottom teams in the series by giving them extra resources to become more competitive. This wouldn’t necessarily have to be all money, perhaps the tops teams could be required to share certain proprietary tech/software/knowledge with the bottom teams. Just thinking out loud, but otherwise, I honestly don’t understand how/why teams like Williams and Haas can or should bother continuing to compete in F1.
Okay, I’m convinced on the spending cap!
The F1 cost cap is $135,000,000 for 2024 and 2025. They are giving more wind tunnel time to the lower level teams. Does this mean that the playing field is going to be evened out quickly, no. This was seen with Williams trying to play catch up with a new wind tunnel to help with development of their car.
And that sentence is CanAm. I saw bits of the CanAm revival, though I’m told the original series started off pretty fun and then became nothing but a spendathon. The deepest wallets won the races, and the second-deepest wallets didn’t see a return on investment and bailed.
I’m all on board for the rest of it. Change that quoted sentence to, “Here’s your spending cap, go nuts.” And I’m not against a nod towards environmentalism either: “Your engine must be an ICE that burns ethanol or hydrogen.”
F1 is barely car racing. Let’s break down who wins and how. Whoever wins is whoever can furthest bend but not break the human mandated laws of the race. That’s boring. The driver and track barely matter but those are two very important things in the definition of “car racing.” That’s boring. What matters then? How much human work and CPU computation can a constructor cram into a box in a given amount of time. To me that means the real racing is occurring with the CPU and human processing power. Of which there are better ways to participate in watching both of those races play out.
Nothing happens in an F1 race. The place in which things happen to impact the race we don’t get to watch. The development of the cars. That’s where the racing is. Not on the track.
F1 is barely car racing. Let’s break down who wins and how. Whoever wins is whoever can furthest bend but not break the human mandated laws of the race. That’s boring. The driver and track barely matter but those are two very important things in the definition of “car racing.” That’s boring. What matters then? How much human work and CPU computation can a constructor cram into a box in a given amount of time. To me that means the real racing is occurring with the CPU and human processing power. Of which there are better ways to participate in watching both of those races play out.
Nothing happens in an F1 race. The place in which things happen to impact the race we don’t get to watch. The development of the cars. That’s where the racing is. Not on the track.
We could put virtual objects on the track and if you drive over them you gain a boost, or extra downforce or you shoot a homing rocket at the car in front of you.
Maybe the cars can drop banana peels behind them to spin out the cars behind?
Blue shells and only blue shells.