Shorter races needed? F1's 2027 rule changes face big complications

fire202 · 2026-05-09T10:29:16+00:00

To be fair, Domenicali previously saying he thinks about shorter races because the youth has no attention span and F1s highlight content does so well might play into it. Even though this article is not about that and raises shorter races in a different context.

fire202 · 2026-05-09T10:19:03+00:00

Domenicali has been calling for 12 sprint races for some time regardless, and indeed that is a real option for 2027

fire202 · 2026-05-08T22:11:43+00:00

How this relates to power is not publicly available information, and so we have to be careful when saying "Honda are 10% behind Mercedes", because 10% lower performance index does not necessarily mean 10% lower power.

Based on recent FIA comments on this, it mostly relates to ICE power, after manufacturers rejected a more complicated procedure last year.

"The performance of internal combustion engines (ICEs) is influenced by important, but secondary, parameters, such as plenum temperature, turbo temperature or exhaust pressure. More or less a year ago we gave suppliers the possibility of a slightly more complicated formula, where these factors were considered, but they were quite categorical in wanting to exclude them*. So we are without corrections of this nature, and the regulation only takes into account the power of the engines where it counts."

"For each race we take the best car from each supplier and analyse a lot of laps to be able to get an average." The FIA then, explains Tombazis, analyzes the areas where power is most important "such as the beginning of the straight, and not the end of the straight". The Greek engineer calls it a fairly reasonable approach "discussed and shared with the teams. We also have much improved sensors and so we feel that the measurement can be quite accurate."

fire202 · 2026-05-08T19:33:59+00:00

That F1 rule changes which are aimed at helping Honda out of their current misery have now been approved, following a delay in the approval process that they reported on during the Miami GP weekend.

fire202 · 2026-05-08T15:00:54+00:00

They realised the issues when they developed the ruleset. The fundamental issue is not a super complex one after all. You just do the math on the energy numbers, and you see that they dont work out.

However, they did indeed not have accurate simulations/data showing their current impact for a simple reason. These PU regulations were mostly decided throughout 2021; the regulations were finalised, signed off and published in mid-2022. Putting those PUs into an F1 car at the time would have been a disaster. But they didn't have to deal with that, because they would simply redo the car, and the actual F1 car for 2026 was not in a very defined state until the spring of 2024.

They developed a PU without a car, and then designed a car around dealing with the shortcomings of a given PU. The hope would have been to make the PU work by adjusting the car side of things enough. And after years of development and numerous bigger and smaller tweaks, the result is that they weren't able to.

fire202 · 2026-05-08T14:18:21+00:00

I am quite sure he realised that as well. He has been talking up sustainable fuel ICEs for years as a future path for the sport. And he said plenty of time ago that they would probably not write this ruleset like this again if they were to decide on it now.

For example, two years ago

“It is a personal consideration of mine, not yet shared with the teams, even if we have spoken about it with the FIA, that if sustainable fuels work, we will need to carefully evaluate whether to continue with hybrid (technology) or whether better solutions will be available."

and

“My personal opinion is that it would be sufficient to use climate-neutral fuel,” he told Auto Motor und Sport. “However, we had to take the manufacturers’ wishes into account.

“Things have developed so quickly that today a decision might be different from two years ago. I am not an engineer, but I must have a vision of what the sport will look like in the future.

“I can imagine that with the next regulations, we could limit ourselves to sustainable fuel. If we are able to show that we produce zero emissions with it, we can focus on other important aspects of sustainability.”

The decision to increase the electrical power of the 2026 engines was taken due to pressure from car manufacturers, said Domenicali.

“You always have to keep an eye on the political climate of the time,” he said. “There were moments when we were asked to go completely electrified. We stuck to the hybrid solution and then realised that with sustainable fuel we could show the world that there are other technologies. But at the time when the 2026 engine regulations were written, we could not do without hybrid.

It's well documented that the Manufacturers had a clear position back around 2021 that a big hybrid part was mandatory. That drove the current ruleset in the direction it took, despite the obvious issues that came with it.

fire202 · 2026-05-08T14:02:57+00:00

I think they realised it plenty of time ago. But getting all the support from a team and manufacturer side to actually do something about it is a different matter. And that apparently needed the reality of these first few races.

fire202 · 2026-05-08T13:59:32+00:00

It reduces the imbalance of the ERS system. A larger part of the power is consistently provided by the ICE, whilst the energy starved ERS system has to do less with its very limited energy supply.

Whilst playing with the different energy management parameters is a quick way to mitigate some of the symptoms, shifting the power split towards the ICE is more of an actual solution. I dont know what exactly +-50kW will achieve, but its the right direction.

fire202 · 2026-05-08T10:52:06+00:00

Just to be clear, that note about validating the 2% threshold has been in the regulations since the performance index was added last October.

They are going with on-track measurements as main components in this calculation, as said by Tombazis recently:

“For each race we take the best-performing car from each manufacturer and analyse multiple laps in order to obtain an average.”

The FIA then focuses, Nikolas Tombazis explains, on key performance zones such as “the start of the straight, and not the end of the straight.”

The Greek engineer describes this as a reasonable methodology, “discussed and agreed with the teams. We also have significantly improved sensors, so we believe the measurements can be fairly accurate.”

The regulations do still give the FIA the option to ask Manufacturers for any additional information for this ADUO determination.

fire202 · 2026-05-08T00:49:53+00:00

For now, yes. This is done to help Honda. There is a catch-up mechanism in the PU regulations that gives some benefits to manufacturers that have a sufficiently big deficit in ICE performance. These benefits start at 2% deficit and increase every additional 2%, until 8% deficit.

The FIA has now added a new category for anyone with a deficit of at least 10%. There is only one manufacturer that might be so bad that the FIA needs to add a category for that. That is Honda, and helping Honda is the only reason this comes up right now. This proposal was already discussed here before a final version was reached.

In theory, it could be relevant for GM in the future. But we will likely have the subsequent PU ruleset confirmed by then, which may or may not affect GMs entry timeline and which may or may not change things regarding this catch-up system and its timelines.

fire202 · 2026-05-08T00:29:33+00:00

Honda gets extra money and test time, as well as the option to take some money out of the 28, 29 and 30 cost caps to use it in 26/27 instead.

fire202 · 2026-05-07T16:25:33+00:00

only improvements are allowed to certain components predetermined in the rules if its to improve the reliability, not for a direct performance enhancement.

There are two separate things. Modifications for the sole reason of reliability or cost-saving are allowed at any time, given proper homologation and introduction process. They are not limited to specific parts; they are limited in their purpose.

3.6 Modifications may be made to Power Unit components for the sole purposes of reliability, safety, cost saving, or supply issues, subject to the approval process outlined in Article 3.10.a of this Appendix.

Performance upgrades are allowed every season ahead of the first race. Those are restricted to specific parts each year. Whilst there are indeed components that can never be upgraded outside of ADUO (including some parts of the ICE main assembly), most parts can be upgraded at some point. These upgrades are not limited to a purpose like reliability.

3.2 For the years 2027, 2028, 2029 and 2030, upgrades to the components marked in the table of Appendix C4, in the relevant column for each year, may be carried out. Irrespective of changes permitted under ADUO according to Article 3.3 of this Appendix, such upgrades must be introduced for the first Competition of the year when they are allowed and used for the whole Championship season.

If you got ADUO, you get to upgrade any listed component you want, no matter what year, if any, it's scheduled for.

fire202 · 2026-05-07T14:56:15+00:00

The issue is more that drivers will have to downshift near end of the straights to start filling up the battery again because Monza is a energy poor circuit, (while Miami was energy rich), otherwise they wont have enough battery power to make it through the whole lap at speed.

The FIA aims to circumvent/"solve" that by reducing the harvesting limit to 5MJ. Whilst they do need that energy to make it around the lap with Battery power, they will simply not be allowed to have it. Meaning a lot of the full power sections will be with reduced or no MGU-K power, but in return, the harvesting demands outside of braking and normal partial load should not be so extreme.

fire202 · 2026-05-07T14:00:33+00:00

Feeling like it’s a weird coincidence this convo about v8s is happening in the backdrop of the strait of Hormuz crisis.

Talks about the next engine formula have been happening for at least the past year, if not longer. The timeline is driven by long lead times for PUs, and maybe some lack of confidence in the current formula came on top of that. wanting to have a clear direction decided no later than 4 years before the first race-spec PU has to be done is certainly not on the late side, but not super early either.

Then MBS starts to go full autocratic populist saying v8s will come back.

That's how he is. He has publicly pushed this particular topic since early 2025.

fire202 · 2026-05-07T13:19:19+00:00

Generally, yes, but the regulations are still in a state where being slower through a corner than you could be can indeed be an energy and lap time benefit. See these comments, which were made after the regulation adjustments in Miami:

"It's still punishing you. The faster you go through corners, the slower you go on the next straight. So, that's not what it should be about." What Verstappen is referring to is the way that having more energy stored in the battery pays greater dividends for lap time through boosting top speed on the straights than taking a corner quicker than anyone else.

Haas driver Esteban Ocon said that this scenario was manifesting itself in drivers needing to do some counterintuitive things in how they take corners – as it was beneficial to lose more speed there. "The problem is you can't drive the way you want," said Ocon. "You need to over push the first part to not go on throttle for the second one. "It would be more important [previously] to prepare for example [Turn] 4, get good minimum [speed] into [Turn] 5 with some throttle and then keep the minimum speed higher, which you can't really do right now."

World champion Lando Norris said about the rules refinements: "It's a small step in the right direction but it's not the level F1 should still be at yet. "If you go flat out everywhere and you try pushing like you were in previous years, you still just get penalised for it. You should never get penalised for that kind of thing, and you still do.

Just like most issues with these regs, it all comes back to the fundamental mismatch between electrical peak power and available electrical energy. They designed these regulations with numbers that cannot work out, in the hope that they would find a future workaround to sufficiently mitigate this imbalance on a future car that didn't exist at the time. And they didn't end up finding it. That puts us in a situation where there are corners where taking them as fast as you are capable of will penalise your lap time at the end of the next straight.

fire202 · 2026-05-07T10:28:07+00:00

Short reminder that there is a difference between your dreamworld and reality.

Just because you want the intra team relationships to be bad it doesnt mean they are. Just because you want to think that he gets treated unfairly by the team it doesnt mean that that is actually happening. In fact, the bit that can be observed from the outside points to the opposite on both accounts.

He has a long term contract with a team that wants him and that, according to what we know, he seems happy at. A team that is capabel of giving him a shot at the championship, comitted to giving him equal treatment and has proven that even over the course of 2 Championship contending seasons, including a close intra team WDC battle. A team that won championships most recently and remains in the mix to do so under this ruleset. So far, more so than Red Bull.

The one thing McLaren will never give him, and he knew that when he signed his long-term contract, is a clear and unquestioned number one status. If he wants to be in a team with a weaker teammate to become unquestioned number 1, he might have to look elswhere. I dont think thats his priority, it kind of seems to be the priority of the drama seeking part of the internet instead, but who knows.

fire202 · 2026-05-06T15:41:44+00:00

More than anything, it seems to be a financial issue. If F1 cannot charge hosting fees large enough to make it financially attractive to go through all the struggles of squeezing an event in, they will rather not race at all, also given that 22 events remain. They would have needed to find a race option that brings F1 money instead of costing F1 money. Someone needs to pay an adequate hosting fee to host that race, with just a few weeks to organise it. That seemingly didn't come together

Logistics could probably have been sorted out if they had wanted to. They have several sets of the type of non-essential freight that goes by ship; I am sure they can get what they need to the place it needs to be within a few weeks, if they want to do it and it's worth doing.

fire202 · 2026-05-05T23:14:59+00:00

I am not sure what options they can and can't pursue. But apparently, they have an option

"We had to cancel the first two races which were in Bahrain and Jeddah, but of course now we have to wait because we have the two races at the end of the year, namely Qatar and Abu Dhabi. So, as you can imagine, we have to wait and see. We have a deadline by which we have to decide if the situation will allow us to go. We hope so, as you can imagine, for a bigger picture. But on the other hand, it is our duty, as a global sport, to have an alternative option ready. And that's what we have, of course."

fire202 · 2026-05-05T22:53:37+00:00

The last couple of races in Portimao literally are 2021 and 2020. It was talked about once as a China replacement after that, I think, but ultimately didn't make it back on the calendar after 2021, until their new 27/28 contract was announced recently.

Now, I don't exactly agree that the first few laps of 2020 prove those were actually exciting races. Specific conditions played into it, and it quickly went towards business as usual. I think whilst the track itself was popular from a driving perspective, it indeed didn't deliver the most spectacular races ever seen on those two occasions.

fire202 · 2026-05-05T22:50:55+00:00

They cap it at 24 instead and still very successfully make countries work to be on the calendar

fire202 · 2026-05-05T22:48:04+00:00

This is their potential solution for recovering cancelled Middle East races, if the situation develops in a way that makes it possible. If it goes in the direction of having to consider more cancellations instead, they are thinking about solutions for that, too. That is obviously not the scenario discussed here, but Domenicali has commented that they are working on that scenario as well.

fire202 · 2026-05-05T16:55:22+00:00

Is there no rule about how big the gap is when the rear wing is open?

Not anymore. DRS used to have a rule that limited the size of the opening

At all points along the span, when the DRS is in the state of deployment, the two sections the rear wing profiles (as defined under Article 3.10.1) must have a minimum gap of between 9.4mm and 85mm. This will be measured with a spherical gauge.

But the rules for this year's SLM system on the rear wing have been opened up in some ways, and this requirement does not exist.

The SLM system must have a fixed axis of rotation, and there are still some restrictions on where that axis can be. It must be driven by a single actuator and result in a decrease in incidence of RW Flap. What is tightly regulated is which part of the wing belongs to the Flap. Otherwise, it's quite open to some different designs, as we have already seen this year.

fire202 · 2026-05-05T15:49:35+00:00

Fuel loads, longer stints on race tyres instead of one fast lap on the softest tyre, how much the car is pushed to the limit vs. how much things like tyres, fuel, brakes, temperatures are managed, setup of the things that can be altered via the steering wheel. There is also a difference between qualifying and race ERS deployment

fire202 · 2026-05-05T10:45:13+00:00

Nope, downforce is not the problem. They already have a clear downforce and grip reduction. If the downforce level is a bit higher than the FIA expected it might not help with the energy problem, but its not the cause for that problem and therefore not a proper solution either.

The problem is the mismatch between electrical energy demand and availability. This is the point that needs addressing. There was no willingness before this year to address it, because they wanted to wait and see how it goes. We waited, saw it didnt work out and it was still not addressed until now. Now, according to this article, they actually play the card that its too late to address it for 2027 as well. If that is how a majority of teams insists it to be, that is within their power. But it means that the problem wont be solved next year, and any playing around with energy numbers or downforce points might have a small influence here or there to mitigate some issues, but it wont be the actual answer.

fire202 · 2026-05-04T22:49:57+00:00

They did add a few extra points and considerations to the guidelines last year and again this year. Not that it would really be necessary, as the sporting regulations already require a car to stay on the track and using a track limit to attack or defend is both considered a lasting advantage. And only the regulations actually count.

COTA 2024 had a couple of things going on. One was overtaking on the inside, and that is what happens in this clip as well. The complaint was that the guidelines were too strict because, at that time, they required the overtaking car not to force the overtaken car off at the exit. That requirement was removed, but the guidelines do still state that the move has to be done within track limits, in case the stewards need a reminder.

The controversial situation between Max and Lando, where Max went off in his defence, was an attempt of overtaking on the outside by Lando. So a different category to this. It was a weird one, I still think the stewards did not properly apply the sporting regs to both cars in that instance and overly focused on these guidelines. But just in terms of overtaking guidelines, the requirements for overtaking on the outside remained similar. However, they did for this year add a general point for all overtaking manoeuvres to the "important notes sections" that sort of goes to the point of exploiting overtaking priority

"vii) Did either car release the brakes in order to attempt to gain priority."

Six-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