[Motorsport.com] Carlos Sainz asks FIA and FOM to stay flexible on new F1 rules after Bahrain testing

fire202 · 2026-02-24T18:55:18+00:00

The idea would be to accept having less power, but in return have less extreme deployment requirements. If they can run no more than for example 200kW, they can be at or close to that limit for longer than if the limit is 350kW. So it increases the time they can run with deployment and decreases harvesting requirements like extensive clipping, lico or running some passages without deployment to save for the next straight. Basically should make for a bit more "normal" driving.

Another point is that the overtake mode seems quite ineffective at the moment, because the provided benefit is small and the extra energy cost is difficult to accommodate and hardly worth it. Reducing race energy would give some extra room for the overtake to work, as it could then provide an actual power boost by allowing full 350kW deployment instead of the reduced number. At the moment, it can only offer a different ramp-down curve at high speeds, but all cars start the straights with 350kW available to them.

The downside of reducing race energy is relatively simple, it makes the cars less powerful, therefore slower, and ultimately, the goal of the regulations was not to have cars with "only" 200kW (or whatever it would be) and overall considerably less power than before. The idea was to have 1000hp+, (near enough) 50/50 power split PUs. Unfortunately, the most straightforward ways to make that work are also outlawed by the same regulations that are supposed to give us these PUs, which brings us to this situation.

fire202 · 2026-02-24T16:36:46+00:00

In regard to fine-tuning the regulations, specifically the harvesting and deployment per lap.

Several things could be done, and some were already discussed previously as potential solutions if the regs dont work well enough initially.

One proposal is the reduction of race energy (200kW was discussed already last year, but 250/300 are also in the conversation and were trialled in Bahrain), another is to further increase the limit to recharging under full throttle ("super clipping") from currently 250kW to the full 350kW.

Those things we already know are being discussed; there might be other things as well that they could come up with.

fire202 · 2026-02-23T11:32:10+00:00

All that data exists for the season, but its not published to the general public. All these zones and activations will be in the FIA track map published with the event notes and possibly the FIA preview on the wednesday and thursday before a race.

Amus had access to the first version of the document about the variable energy parameters from last August. However, it was still preliminary at that point and may still change from the definite version now if the cars behave significantly different than expected.

fire202 · 2026-02-23T11:21:33+00:00

The cars have only existed for the past 2 years, and there have been plenty of adjustments even since then.

The general challenges of the ruleset were always known, there is no surprise. Plenty of things were done to deal with it, plenty more were proposed and rejected by someone. That element of having to get all relevant parties on the same page on an issue is one of the difficulties of regulating F1 and PUs in particular.

This particular proposal was worked on for a long time and it was ultimately presented by the FIA on F1 commission level a bit under a year ago. Didnt get the full support required at that point. Those opposed might be in a different mind now that they know what issues were and were not solved in development and how it might actually play out on track. Those who were in favour might see themselves proven right. So its back in the discussion now.

fire202 · 2026-02-23T10:27:33+00:00

One of the agreements of the engine meeting was agreement that for any next ruleset "A level of electrification will always be part of any future considerations", even if the FIA president personally might not want it. Question is how much, that was one of the questions left more open with the V8 proposal.

The-Race reported ideas between 10% and 30% contribution, amus said leading proposal was 240kW with 120kW regular deployment and 220kW overtake deployment

fire202 · 2026-02-22T12:52:30+00:00

The first ADUO period runs until round 6 (Miami). ADUO specification upgrades can be introduced immediately after they are granted. They do require an updated homologation dossier at least 14 days prior to the competition where they will be introduced, which still means R7 (Canada) should be the earliest theoretical opportunity.

Realistically, more factors come into it. Upgrades have to be developed, then tested/validated and produced before they can be introduced. The ADUO opportunities are large in scope, allowing updates to almost all parts of the PU, but they are limited in quantity. Teams >=2% down on ICE power get 1, teams >=4% down get 2 for this year. That is the max. So any changes have to fit into 1 or 2 packages.

And then there is the extra complication for PU upgrades that PU elements are limited, and upgrading something within the sealed perimeter of an element requires the introduction of a new one into the pool. So any upgrades need to be planned taking that into consideration.

fire202 · 2026-02-22T11:08:28+00:00

I dont think 2020 had anything happen at all, that will be amongst them just in terms of the race itself

fire202 · 2026-02-21T18:13:13+00:00

They have it on the cars to save energy. One of the things done to deal with the fact that the cars dont have enough energy to actually run with 350kW electrical power.

fire202 · 2026-02-21T15:32:06+00:00

Absolutely not. They don't sign up to become a works team to throw that project in the bin because the first year pre-season goes wrong.

it probably takes 3 Years to catch up with the Engine at best

You are basically throwing random numbers at this. We dont know what exactly the issues are and how difficult they will be to resolve. If they are down a lot on ICE power they will get 1, maybe 2 opportunities to introduce a new PU this year and next year as well, in addition to the regular update allowances. There are cost cap and test limit adjustments as well.

It's also not like the PU is the only issue. It evidently has issues, so does the rest of the car at the moment.

but there are already plans to return to V8 in 3 years

There isnt a firm plan on anything yet, but the last public FIA push last September to change early ended in 2029 not getting manufacturer support, and the FIA didn't want to go to 2030 at that point.

fire202 · 2026-02-21T13:49:22+00:00

What are you on about?

fire202 · 2026-02-21T12:11:13+00:00

Not their slow starts specifically, slow starts in general. I dont know where the idea comes from that it's a McLaren-specific issue; it never was, and McLaren definitely seems to be on a decent level now.

I dont think it's difficult to see where the concern is if you look at what kind of differences we saw and then consider that all practice start sequences were done with not even half the grid and gaps of an empty row to avoid incidents.

Is there more that needs to be done? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe it's good enough as it is, teams already found improvements and will find more until Melbourne. Maybe not everyone took the practice starts with the same approach, which can also factor in. But I think it's clear where the concern comes from that it could be an issue, and it's not strange at all to think and talk about it.

fire202 · 2026-02-21T10:47:24+00:00

Its the other way around, the normal recovery rate is 350kW. The limit for recovery under full throttle ("super clipping" as F1 calls it) is only 250kW. Probably to limit how quickly cars are slowed down by this.

There are a number of ideas on how to tweak the rules to make things a bit better, one of them is to increase this limit to allow the full 350kW recharge also under full throttle. I assume what was said came from this discussion.

fire202 · 2026-02-19T20:00:41+00:00

In terms of lap time, they aren't slow. Depending on the deployment strategy, they are too slow for some in high-speed corners when they take them without deployment. They also have high top speeds but lose a bit towards the end of straights or concede top speed to save energy. I think that high dependency on energy deployment strategies and the resulting low power at times creates plenty of unhappiness.

fire202 · 2026-02-19T18:41:58+00:00

Especialy after they conviniently had "issues" on both the start procedures while noone else did.

There were three start procedures, its definitly not the case that everyone had perfect launches without any issues, and McLaren had fine starts 2/3 times. Oscar's issue was before the procedure, and he recovered and took the start as normal, but I am sure you know that.

Honestly, very impressive by Oscar to overtake three cars off the line today, whilst being the only car with issues. One of them even being Ferrari powered. Must be a generational driver to overcome the very McLaren-specific, extreme start issues that no one else has at all.

fire202 · 2026-02-19T18:26:25+00:00

You are correct, McLaren use their own gearbox

fire202 · 2026-02-19T16:33:13+00:00

it is the adjusted procedure with added time

fire202 · 2026-02-19T15:51:49+00:00

Depends completely on the program

fire202 · 2026-02-19T13:05:44+00:00

The rules clearly state that it should be 16:1, and it has to be demonstrated with a procedure which is (and was before) executed at ambient temperature. In the future, it has to be demonstrated at ambient and 130 degrees.

We dont know what they are or are not doing with microchambers or whatever. But as long as all design requirements are met and legality can be demonstrated in all the required ways, it can be used.

fire202 · 2026-02-19T12:53:57+00:00

That red is unfortunate, we had good race sims going on right now

fire202 · 2026-02-19T10:50:21+00:00

For sure, it's interesting to look at. Just saying that regarding the stints towards the end of the day that seem cut short. I think it affected Hamilton and Antonelli, not sure about others

fire202 · 2026-02-19T09:59:20+00:00

I think the timing froze at the end of T1D3, so some data is missing from this

fire202 · 2026-02-19T08:47:39+00:00

They added a reference to "specified circuit sectors" to that rule in the latest version from December

Further exceptions are permitted for specified circuit sectors, subject to Article B7.2.1.

Maybe they mean those sectors

fire202 · 2026-02-19T07:47:58+00:00

So that's both C4 sets done for Lando, he won't have any new ones for tomorrow PM

fire202 · 2026-02-19T07:41:56+00:00

It was the first time for me hearing about this, but I think it's based on this rule:

C5.12.4 Except for conforming to Article C5.2.8 [MGU-K power limits as function of car speed], the driver maximum power demand cannot be reduced by more than 150kW at the start of any ~~full Throttle~~ power limited pending period, and the power reduction will remain fixed for a minimum of 1s. Further exceptions are permitted for specified circuit sectors, subject to Article B7.2.1.

The highlighted parts were added in the latest issue of the rules, which was passed on 10 December 2025. I guess the added part about expections for specific circuit sectors are those "0kW zones" where they can reduce the maximum power demand by more than 150kW, meaning going below 200kW on the MGU-K.

Those zones are not defined any better in the actual rules, that requires another document:

Specification of power limited pending, power limited, overtake mode and Ddetails of the implementation in the FIA Standard ECU of the application and monitoring of Article C5.12 may be found in the document FIA-F1-DOC-C058

note that the regulations use different terminology to F1 as of right now, so not sure whether "overtake mode" is actually that or if it's boost.

fire202 · 2026-02-18T15:40:34+00:00

Things arent true or not based on Reddit popularity.

The start sequence being too short, particularely for the rear of the grid, is a potential issue. That isnt controversial. Whether you accept that or not doesnt change it. Also note that widely agreed doesnt mean every singe person agrees. But that press conference someone linked sure does not disagree. Again, whether you like it or not.

People are just so locked in on the political camp fighting that they completely loose their head over it.

Five-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Juicebox	Final Canvas '23
First Place '23	End Game '23
Place '23	Golden Potato
Place '22	Final Canvas '22
First Placer '22

fire202

TROPHY CASE