It seems like Formula E with one foot left in internal combustion engines. I was alright with a mild electrical boost that could be turned on for a while when you needed to put in fast laps, but with 50% being electric, you just have too much nonsense of managing batteries and charge while drivers at different stages leap frog each other for essentially fabricated racing excitement. Having watched the recap of the first race, it all seemed rather boring with even more coasting. Since I don’t have Apple TV and wouldn’t pay for the overpriced Formula 1 streaming package, I’ll probably just follow the YouTube recaps, but I might just read the results and loosely follow the season. I may not even bother in coming years, so way to trash what was an interesting sport for your extreme greed F1. It will be fun if ticket sales drop off at the events as the season progresses, and I always wondered who paid for those expensive tickets anyway.
By Ben Hunt
While sitting at McLaren’s MTC on Wednesday, listening to Team Principal Andrea Stella, Chief Designer Rob Marshall, and Technical Director of Performance Mark Temple discuss this season’s new cars, I found myself worrying about Formula 1’s new era.
Not because the cars won’t look good – smaller is definitely better. And not because one team might dominate by exploiting a grey area in the regulations. My concern is far more fundamental: I’m not sure the racing will be any good, or whether fans will even be able to understand it.
I’ve said this for a long time, but my biggest issue with Formula 1 is that its rules are designed by engineers rather than sports fans. The rulebook is indecipherable. The terminology is baffling. The regulatory process is slow and confusing. And we have the remarkable situation of a tyre supplier being required to produce tyres that are not intended to last a full race distance.
Yet even these issues pale in comparison to my concerns about 2026 and beyond.
As Stella, Marshall and Temple spoke about McLaren’s car, the conversation quickly turned to battery deployment. We were told cars using ‘straight mode’ would be easily passed by those deploying energy, while ‘corner modes’ would need to be tailored to individual circuits.
We are, of course, used to hybrid engines. But with the new 50:50 split between engine and battery power, energy management becomes far more significant. Drivers who deploy their battery will gain a performance boost – but once that energy is depleted, they will suffer a drop-off while they recharge.
My fear is this: does it all become too artificial?
I recently worked in the World Supercross Championship – dirt bikes racing in stadiums. The rules are simple. Petrol-powered bikes race directly against all-electric machines. The racing is exciting, raw, and refreshingly easy to follow.
In this new era of Formula 1, drivers may overtake using battery boosts, only to be re-passed moments later while they regenerate energy through corners. It risks becoming overly complicated.
Temple may be right when he says we can expect “more variation and perhaps some unexpected overtaking manoeuvres,” with drivers overcommitting early and compromising themselves later. Maybe that will be a good thing.
But my concern is that fans will be left in the dark – unable to read races or understand what is unfolding in front of them. Engineers and hardcore fans may grasp it easily, but the casual audience Formula 1 is so keen to attract could instead be alienated by increasingly complex cars, rules, and driving styles.
I am all for technological progress. But I am also a believer in good, straightforward racing that fans can understand. My fear is that this new era may be a step too far – and that the sport so many people love risks becoming overly artificial and unnecessarily difficult to follow, catering only for the engineers who write the rules.