Where problems started with 2026 rules & calendar congestion - F1 Q&A
There is an acceptance in F1 that qualifying has been significantly negatively affected, in terms of the driving experience of being on the limit. Efforts have already been made to address that up to a point this year, and larger steps are in the making for next year. At the same time, most senior figures in F1 - including some of the drivers - agree that there has been a positive effect on the racing, even if some of the increased number of overtakes that have been seen can be argued to be artificial and down to offsets between states of charge.
TV figures over the first three races were up by more than 20% - all three of Australia, China and Japan had significant increases. Miami's are not available yet. Now, as for the genesis of the new regulations, the target when talks started five or so years ago was to attract more manufacturers.
At the time, the direction of road-car technology was firmly electric, so it was decided in concert with the manufacturers to increase the amount of electrification. A nominal 50-50 split between internal combustion and electric was agreed. Fully sustainable, carbon-neutral fuels were added for further environmental credibility.
The MGU-H, a part of the hybrid system that recovered energy from the turbo, was removed. The reasoning being it was complex and expensive - and therefore hard for new manufacturers to compete with existing ones - and not road relevant. Following the announcement of those rules, first Audi committed to F1.
Soon afterwards, Ford and General Motors did the same, and Honda reversed its decision to quit. Had the rules not changed, F1 now would have a maximum of three manufacturers or possibly only two, Mercedes and Ferrari, if Renault had gone ahead with its withdrawal. The problems started when the teams started to look at what a near 50-50 energy split with an engine devoid of an MGU-H meant in terms of operating the cars.