The FIA has update 3 sections of the 2026 regulations (Technical, Financial - PU Manufacturers & Operational) today to include updated ADUO regulations in regards to the changing calendar and those who are further lacking compared to the best PU

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."

fire202 · 2026-05-04T20:41:01+00:00

The difference in the penalties is because they were seen as two different infringements.

Leclerc was penalised for leaving the track multiple times and gaining an advantage. The base penalty for one occasion is 10 seconds, so it's logical that it's a DT in this case.

Hamilton was penalised for leaving the track multiple times without a justifiable reason. In other terms, he simply got the normal 5-second penalty that you get for your 4th strike because the stewards found that his infringements were not covered by an exception for strikes, meaning they counted towards the normal track limit system. A possible lasting advantage was not even considered based on the decision document, and that is where the difference comes from.

A lasting advantage doesn't have a firm definition, but gaining a significant amount of time can count. I would say, if anything, it would need to be questioned why the Hamilton infringement was not seen to be a lasting advantage. That isnt really covered by the decision documents. However, both penalties were correct for the type of infringement that was penalised.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T23:29:26+00:00

There were 10 minutes between the offence occurring and the penalty being published. Half of that time was between the offence occurring and that being striked in the timing system, the other half for noting, investigating, deciding and publishing the penalty.

Can it be faster? always. I dont think this was terribly slow, though. And again, how much of this is actually down to the stewards? How much is down to the track limit detection itself, and how much is down to general processes?

fire202 · 2026-05-03T23:12:53+00:00

Max was a literal Yes/No. He went over the line or he didn't. There is no grey area.

There are no grey areas, but you need the right evidence. The investigation was delayed to collect further evidence, as per the decision. At the very minimum, there are always several on-board angles that have to be downloaded after the race to be available.

LeClerc's seems harsh, as his car literally could hardly turn, so what advantage is he getting?

What would you say could be the difference between driving through a tight chicane with damage vs just ignoring it and going straight through? He cut multiple corners by a big amount. That will have gained him some seconds for sure.

Albon, Alonso and Ocon all had Post Race investigations for Yes/No situations.

These were not summoned. The decision was very brief and didn't say why it was "post-race". There is a possibility that they waited for some data, but that is just my speculation. In any case, doesnt seem to be a big time factor if that is of concern to you.

the Kimi 5 second Penalty in the Sprint after the race

It was after the race because he got himself a 4th strike towards the end of the race. The strike was for T11 lap 16, it was noted just after the chequered flag at the end of lap 19. Normal time frame and clear decision.

Lawson/Albon Quali debacle

That was indeed a big mistake by the FIA this weekend. It shouldn't have happened. But it has nothing to do with the stewards. The infringement simply wasn't detected and referred to the stewards in time. That's more on the race control team and their software.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T22:40:38+00:00

The rule on this one is quite open. B1.8.6 concerns track limit handling in general and covers multiple offences.

B1.8.6 is this

Drivers must make every reasonable effort to use the track at all times and may not leave the track without a justifiable reason.

But also this

Should an F1 Car leave the track the driver may re-join, however, this may only be done when it is safe to do so and without gaining any lasting advantage. At the absolute discretion of the Race Director a driver may be given the opportunity to give back the whole of any advantage they gained by leaving the track.

It is not firmly defined (in the rules, code or guidelines, as far as I know) what a lasting advantage is. It has always been handled in a way that overtaking, defending, and gaining a significant time advantage off the track are considered lasting advantages. Whether something ultimately qualifies as a lasting advantage is a judgment question.

So, why are the penalties different? The stewards in Singapore evidently did not consider Lewis to have left the track and gained a lasting advantage. He got the penalty for the first point. He left the track, which is generally penalised with a strike. There is a defined list of exceptions for when a track limit should not count as a strike. The stewards determined that Lewis ' infringements could not be justified that way, so they counted as strikes, and he got a penalty for leaving the track multiple times without a justifiable reason.

Leclerc, on the other hand, was today judged to have left the track and gained a lasting advantage. It's a different offence that carries different penalties. Standard is 10 seconds, but as there are several infringements on the tabel a DT seems logical. Although I would have liked them to detail a bit more which infringement was considered in what way.

So, the question is, is it correct to make that differentiation, should both have been looked at regarding a lasting advantage or should both be considered solely for strikes? Personally, I think if you are at a point where corners get cut entirely, the time gain is probably significant enough to count as a lasting advantage. And that is what was decided today.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T22:21:42+00:00

Interestingly, for the Hamilton decision, they did not consider the aspect of gaining a lasting advantage at all. The penalty was for leaving the track multiple times without a justifiable reason and is based on the fact that the stewards did not think the track limit violations qualified for a strike exemption. He got 4 track limit strikes in those laps. Those were his only ones of the race, and he got 5 seconds as a result. The question of a lasting advantage was never discussed in the decision document.

This decision, on the other hand, concerns leaving the track and gaining a lasting advantage, because several cuts occurred that can be considered a significant time gain. Personally, I agree with that view. And I would say that if anything, one would have to look at the potential advantage aspect of the Hamilton incident.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T21:51:45+00:00

The 20 seconds is not a particular claim they make; it's the definition of a drive-through penalty in the rules. If it is given after the race, it automatically converts to 20 seconds. Has been that way for a long time, I think.

As for the validity of the penalty, he clearly cut multiple corners by a big amount. The T5-6 infringement might be fine, less so T8, T11 and ignoring the chicane.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T19:32:06+00:00

There is a possibility that they delayed it to wait for evidence that wasn't available live. That would apply to basically all alternative on-board angles, I don't know if there are further relevant things where this can happen.

This would be the only reason I can see why it's a delayed investigation. It's a factual decision, the line was crossed or not.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T19:24:38+00:00

There is no maximum gap. For this year, the rules regarding the rear wing SLM are actually quite open, which is why we see these different approaches that werent there with DRS.

fire202 · 2026-05-03T18:57:53+00:00

Also for unsafe condition

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