Last Updated on April 17 2026, 9:24 am

What began as an initial review of concerns around the new era of regulations has quickly turned into an active process aimed at rectifying what several stakeholders have described in private as an underwhelming initial interpretation of the 2026 rulebook.

Liberty Media, in particular, is pursuing two objectives. The first is immediate: to enhance the on-track spectacle, with the qualifying format and competitiveness under scrutiny. The second objective is more long-term: to ensure that the new generation of regulations provides a stable and attractive platform for the coming years, both technically and commercially.

Following an initial exploratory meeting, the FIA confirmed that discussions would continue in a structured sequence.

A first technical-sporting session has already taken place, with additional meetings scheduled between technical representatives and the governing body. Further, a decisive moment is expected on 20 April, when the team principals, the FIA leadership and the Formula 1 executives will be asked to assess and potentially approve a set of proposals that have emerged from these discussions. Despite the urgency, consensus remains far from guaranteed, with significant divergence of opinion across the paddock.

 

Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.

 

 

Electric power at the centre of the debate

At the heart of the regulatory discussion lies the configuration of the new power unit formula, particularly the balance between internal combustion and electric energy deployment. Under the current 2026 plans, the split between combustion and electrical output is roughly 55–45.

This structure has already sparked debate regarding drivability, the complexity of energy management, and the quality of racing.

Revising internal combustion output in-season is not considered feasible, so the electric side is the primary area for adjustment. One of the most widely discussed proposals is to reduce the maximum output of the MGU-K, which is currently set at 350 kW.

Several teams have already carried out simulations in Bahrain and elsewhere, exploring reduced thresholds of 300 kW or lower. The FIA is understood to favour this approach, as it would soften peak energy deployment and extend the usability of electric power over a lap, potentially making power delivery more linear and predictable.

However, the idea of a deeper cut — down to 250 kW or even 200 kW — has met resistance.

Several teams argue that such a reduction would significantly alter the balance of the carefully constructed 2026 regulations. Furthermore, Liberty Media is reluctant to endorse a substantial downgrade of the electric component given the strategic emphasis placed on electrification as part of Formula 1’s technological narrative.

From a commercial standpoint, such a reduction could undermine the sustainability and hybrid innovation messaging that underpins the new regulatory cycle.

 

READ MORE NEWS – Paddock talk of Red Bull implosion now goes public

 

Growing convergence around energy recovery limits

There appears to be considerably more alignment in the area of energy recovery per lap. Under current regulations, the maximum energy that can be harvested and deployed is capped at 9 MJ per lap. One of the most widely supported proposals under discussion is to reduce this to approximately 6 MJ.

Unlike changes to peak electric power, this adjustment is considered less disruptive and more targeted. While it would still result in slower lap times overall, it is considered a more refined tool for addressing the broader issues identified by teams and drivers.

Reducing energy recovery would directly impact driving behaviour. Modern energy management techniques, such as lift-and-coast and extreme energy ‘clipping’ strategies, have become increasingly prevalent in simulation feedback for the 2026 era. A lower recovery ceiling would reduce the need for such extreme conservation tactics.

In practical terms, drivers would be less constrained by energy preservation through corner sequences and have greater freedom to deploy power naturally on exit phases and straights. This is expected to be particularly beneficial in qualifying, where consistent push laps without compromises to save energy are highly valued.

Race conditions could also improve. However, one concern raised in early simulations is the potential for significant speed differences between cars depending on their energy deployment phase. Reducing recovery capacity could mitigate these variations, reducing the likelihood of sudden changes in performance during a lap.

Circuits such as Suzuka, where energy deployment phases can heavily influence closing speeds, are frequently cited as examples of scenarios that could be mitigated under a revised system.

 

MORE NEWS – Audi’s F1 Identity Crisis: A Corporate Giant in a Racing World

 

Qualifying versus race configuration: an idea losing traction

A third concept that has also been discussed is the possibility of setting different energy management limits for qualifying and racing. In theory, this could allow for more aggressive deployment in qualifying while maintaining stricter controls during races.

However, this proposal has so far failed to gain meaningful support. The primary obstacle is the existing parc fermé framework, which restricts setup changes between qualifying and race sessions. Introducing separate energy parameters would significantly complicate operational planning for teams, adding a new layer of strategic and technical complexity to an already intricate regulatory environment.

Teams are also wary of creating additional regulatory divergence between sessions, as this could reduce clarity for engineers and fans alike.

Consequently, unless broader consensus emerges in the coming meetings, this idea is currently considered unlikely to progress beyond early discussion stages.

 

An Apple a Day: The FIA’s Questionable Cure for F1’s 2026 chronic illness

 

A search for balance rather than an overhaul

From the ongoing negotiations, it is becoming increasingly clear that the direction of travel is not towards a wholesale rewrite of the 2026 regulations, but rather a series of targeted adjustments aimed at refining specific weak points.

The discussions reflect a broader attempt to balance three competing priorities: technical innovation, sporting spectacle and commercial messaging. Each stakeholder places different weight on these factors, making alignment inherently complex.

For the FIA, the priority is to ensure that the new power units remain technically coherent and operationally workable. For Liberty Media, the emphasis is on entertainment value and narrative clarity. The teams’ focus is on predictability, performance optimisation and avoiding disruptive mid-cycle changes.

As the 20 April meeting approaches, the expectation is not for a final resolution, but for a clearer definition of what can realistically be achieved. Early indications suggest that incremental changes, particularly around energy recovery, are the most likely to gain traction.

As is often the case in Formula 1, the challenge lies not in identifying possible solutions, but in finding a version that all parties can accept.

Join the discussion below

 

 

NEXT ARTICLE – Fans ditching F1 as viewer numbers collapse

As predicted by the independent F1 press before the season opener, the all-new 2026 era is rapidly descending into farce. A huge plunge in viewer numbers following the Japanese Grand Prix makes plain the fans are voting with their feet.

The fundamental architecture of the 50/50 power units was flawed from its inception. As Stefano Domenicali, F1 supremo, admitted in 2025, the resulting regulations were a “political” decision based on attracting more manufacturers into the sport.

Whilst the FIA working party on the next generation of F1 engines was formed in 2017, it was in 2020 that the first mention of the all-new 50/50 power unit was made. As the name suggests, the power contribution from the internal combustion engine would be 50%, as it would be from the battery.

F1 manufacturers mis-read the future of road cars

A bold new step into greater efficiency and the electrified future was the intention, yet increasing the current electrical output by three times was always going to be ambitious. For many auto manufacturers who did not believe in the coming of the EV revolution, hybrids would be the bulk of the future road cars they produced.

And whilst hybrids have become a transitional technology in the auto industry, they have significant disadvantages compared to either the internal combustion engine or full electric cars. They contain the bulk of both an internal combustion engine along with the weight of a battery and, given the average person is…CONTINUE TO READ THIS STORY