Last Updated on April 1 2026, 9:22 am
Formula 1’s 2026 regulations are facing intensifying scrutiny, and now a former driver has added his voice to the growing chorus of concern. Following Ollie Bearman’s crash in Japan, Patrick Friesacher delivered a blunt assessment: if changes are not made quickly, the sport is heading towards a far more serious incident.
Speaking on Austria’s the live TV program “Sport and Talk from Hangar 7” in Salzburg on Servus TV Monday evening, the former driver analysed the race at Suzuka, and the Austrian did not sugarcoat the severity of what unfolded. In fact, his warning only reinforces what current drivers have been saying for weeks.
Stark warning: “It could have been much worse…”
Friesacher’s reaction to Bearman’s accident was immediate and sobering.
“He was really lucky! Hitting the car at 50 g is no joke! He was going 50 km/h faster than that, it could have been much worse.” indicating that Formula 1 had a lucky escape.
The incident itself was a perfect storm of the issues plaguing modern Formula 1. Bearman suddenly encountered a significantly slower car driven by Franco Colapinto ahead of him and had little time to react.
“Colapinto was driving on the right, opened the steering and pulled slightly to the left, and then the accident happened,” explained Friesacher.
While Bearman escaped with only a knee injury, the underlying problem remains. As Friesacher put it: “Hopefully, something will be done about this in the future.”
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
The 50 km/h problem is one that cannot be ignored
At the heart of the issue is the controversial 50/50 power split between internal combustion and electrical energy, which is enforced by the FIA.
Friesacher explained the mechanics behind the crash in simple but alarming terms.
“Colapinto had already received information from his race engineer that he had completely depleted his battery pack. Then he accelerated out of the hairpin and had no battery pack left.”
Bearman was right behind Colapinto, who still had the boost button. Once the electric power is depleted, you struggle and suddenly find yourself 50 km/h slower.
This kind of sudden speed differential is exactly what drivers have been warning about. It creates scenarios where one car is effectively a sitting duck while another approaches at full speed.
“This will happen more often,” added Friesacher, perhaps the most worrying statement of all.
WATCH BEARMANS CRASH AT SUZUKA 2026
Sainz and Alonso’s warnings have been backed up
Friesacher’s analysis directly supports the earlier concerns raised by current drivers, including Carlos Sainz.
Sainz had already warned that these unpredictable closing speeds could ‘lead to accidents’, a prediction that now looks alarmingly accurate.
Meanwhile, Fernando Alonso has criticised the nature of racing under the new regulations, arguing that overtaking is no longer determined by skill, but by energy availability.
As Alonso put it, overtaking is happening ‘without even wanting to’, turning wheel-to-wheel racing into something artificial and reactive.
Together, these perspectives paint a clear picture: drivers are no longer fully in control, and this loss of control is creating dangerous situations. Further, sources working for several F1 teams close to this website confirm that it isn’t just drivers who are worried about the possibility of a huge accident just around the corner.
The FIA is under pressure to act
Friesacher did not stop at analysis; he called for immediate action.
“The FIA needs to intervene and listen to the drivers more. They need to listen to the drivers more than the teams because the drivers are the ones inside the car who know what is going on.”
This is a significant point. While teams remain divided due to competitive interests, drivers are united in their concerns about safety.
“If you’re approaching a car at 50 km/h and you’re not expecting it, you can easily find yourself in a tight spot,” Friesacher warned.
This unpredictability is what makes the current regulations so problematic. In traditional racing, drivers can anticipate relative speeds. Under the current system, however, those speeds can change dramatically within seconds.
MORE NEWS – Lewis Hamilton not pleased with Ferrari at Suzuka: “It was pretty bad…”
A system that drivers cannot control
The deeper issue lies in how much control has been taken away from the drivers themselves.
Friesacher highlighted how energy depletion can fundamentally change car performance: “If you only have the combustion engine available and you suddenly lose 470 hp from the electric motor, it’s as if you were standing still.”
Drivers are effectively managing battery systems rather than racing instinctively. As Friesacher put it: “At the moment, every driver is a kind of battery manager.”
This aligns with previous TJ13 reporting on the urgent need for the FIA to address the farcical 2026 F1 regulations, which outlined how outcomes are being dictated more by algorithms and energy deployment than driver input.
Hangar-7 spotlight: the Red Bull question
Patrick Friesacher’s analysis was featured on Sport und Talk aus dem Hangar-7, a weekly ServusTV programme filmed inside Red Bull’s iconic Hangar-7 in Austria. The show regularly features high-profile guests discussing major sporting events in a studio surrounded by Red Bull’s collection of aircraft and Formula 1 machinery.
However, it is impossible to ignore the wider context. ServusTV is owned by Red Bull, which operates one of Formula 1’s leading teams and has deep ties across the sport.
This does not invalidate the analysis, but it does raise an obvious question. When discussions around controversial F1 regulations take place on a platform owned by one of the sport’s key stakeholders, the potential for conflicts of interest is always present.
With Red Bull having warned about these ‘Frankenstein’ cars as early as 2023, the platform and the message are now closely aligned.”
How the FIA created this mess
The current crisis did not appear overnight. As outlined in the TJ13 analysis by A. J. Hunt (READ THE ARTICLE HERE, the roots of the problem stretch back years and are deeply political. A ‘political decision’ driven by manufacturers
According to Stefano Domenicali, the 2026 regulations were shaped not purely by sporting ambition, but by necessity. Formula 1 was desperate to attract and retain engine manufacturers after previous tensions left the grid at risk of losing key suppliers.
This sense of urgency handed significant influence to manufacturers such as Audi and Mercedes, as well as prospective entrants like Porsche, all of whom pushed for a heavy hybrid focus in order to align with road car relevance.
The result? A set of regulations designed more to satisfy corporate interests than to improve racing.
Even Domenicali later admitted that the rules were essentially a ‘political decision’, one that, with hindsight, could have been very different.
MORE F1 NEWS – Red Bull’s response to growing pressure, but is Verstappen already losing faith?
Warnings were ignored and history repeated
Crucially, the warnings were there from the beginning.
As early as 2023, Christian Horner predicted that a 50% electrical split would create ‘Frankenstein’ cars that would be forced to use their combustion engines simply to recharge batteries at times. This exact scenario, now widely known as ‘super clipping’, is playing out in real time.
Attempts to fix the issue are now fraught with difficulty. Increasing fuel flow mid-season is impractical, while allowing greater energy harvesting could actually worsen the dangerous closing speeds already witnessed.
The simplest solution, reducing electrical deployment, would slightly slow lap times, but would restore predictability and safety. However, this would be an admission by the manufacturers and the FIA that they got it wrong.
This is the real dilemma facing Formula 1.
There is a growing sense of backpedalling inside F1
Behind the scenes, there are already signs that the sport is beginning to acknowledge the problem.
According to Thomas Maher on this website, there is a ‘growing awareness within the FIA that the 50/50 split has taken the sport in the wrong direction’, with both short-term fixes and long-term changes under discussion. This represents a significant shift in stance.
What was once defended as the future of Formula 1 is now being quietly reconsidered, a potential ‘huge backpedal’ with major implications for teams, manufacturers and the sport’s credibility.
MORE NEWS – Red Bull boss under pressure from Austria as chassis to blame, not the engine
The risk F1 cannot afford to take
The concern now is timing. Friesacher noted that officials have a limited window to respond: “They’ll look into it now, they have five weeks until the next race.”
But will that be enough?
Formula 1 has spent decades improving safety standards and reducing risk. Introducing a system that creates unpredictable speed differences would be a step backwards, which many believe the sport cannot afford.
The warnings are no longer hypothetical. They are coming from drivers and former drivers, as well as from incidents on the track.
As Friesacher made clear, the outcome may not be so fortunate next time.
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
NEXT ARTICLE – How the FIA got into this F1 mess and what not to do to get out of it
Having watched Formula One for over 40 years, I don’t remember the sport getting itself into such a mess as it has with the all new 2026 regulations. Of course there were the tragedies which saw the death of Ayrton Senna and Jules Bianchi together with other one off farcical situations like the 2005 US Grand Prix where just six cars started the race.
Other silly ideas included aggregate qualifying back in 2005 where drivers ran one lap on Saturday afternoon and another on Sunday and the grid was set by their total of the two runs. In 2016, elimination qualifying was tried, where the cars went out all together and every 90 seconds the slowest was eliminated.
Both formats lasted a handful of race weekends before being dropped. There are a number of other ‘unusual’ efforts made by the FIA which led to driver boycott in Imola in 1982 together with the two lap race in Belgium in 2021 which saw George Russell claim his first podium in a Williams F1 car.
FIA desperate to engage manufacturers
Yet never has the FIA conspired to create a set of technical and sporting regulations which are so widely hated by drivers and fans alike. As much as various broadcasters have made light of the matter, comparing the 2026 F1 racing to Mario Kart, the current F1 spectacle is currently a debacle with drivers having to go slower to ultimately set a faster lap time and with terrifying closing speeds as the mega boost from the electrical power source runs dry.
Lessons must be learned and as early as 2024, F1 supremo Stefano Domenicali was talking down the all new 2026 era of F1 racing. In an interview with motorsport.com he hinted the reason the new regulations had been framed as they were was due to F1’s desperation to engage with more engine manufacturers.
Having fallen out with Renault at the last big regulation cycle in 2014, Red Bull faced the possibility of having no power unit supplier. Mercedes and…CONTINUE TO READ THIS ARTICLE
A senior writer at TJ13, C.J. Alderson serves as Senior Editor and newsroom coordinator, with a background in online sports reporting and motorsport magazine editing. Alderson’s professional training in media studies and experience managing content teams ensures TJ13 maintains consistency of voice and credibility. During race weekends, Alderson acts as desk lead, directing contributors and smoothing breaking stories for publication.
