The fire-fighting exercise for Formula One continues as the all-new 2026 engines are proving to be a disaster. Whilst heralded as ‘loved’ by the fans by Liberty Media, who own the commercial rights to the sport and have a vested interest in a positive spin on its popularity, their latest efforts to claim the new V6 hybrids are a success are based on strictly limited polling and amongst a group of devotees who sign up to f1.com to receive the majority of their F1 fix.
Even the official F1 media have been coerced by F1 into persistently praising the radical changes in the sport, whilst refusing to call out the shocking decision to implement power units which attempt to have a 50% electrical contribution to their total output.
The Cockpit Backlash: Hating ‘Mario Kart’ Racing
The bellwether test of the new F1 is to be found amongst the drivers, who almost unanimously hate the new form of driving—the ‘Mario Kart’ style racing which has evolved. And whilst the sport agreed to “tweaks” to reduce yo-yo overtaking and dramatic closing speeds, even in energy-rich Miami there was little from the drivers to persuade us the changes made much of a difference.
Max Verstappen spoke out against the new specification of the 2026 engines some three years ago, following some detailed simulations Red Bull Racing had performed. He said the early data looked “terrible” and predicted the internal combustion engine (ICE) would at times become merely a generator of electrical power—rather than driving the cars forward.
“I’ve been talking about it as well with the team, and I’ve seen the data already on the simulator as well. To me, it looks pretty terrible. If you go flat-out on the straight at Monza, and you have to downshift flat-out because you’re running out of [electrical] energy, I think that’s not the way forward,” reported the world champion.
‘Super Clipping’ and the Reality of ‘Eco-Mode’
In fact, the powers that be in F1 did listen to Verstappen, and to prevent the drivers from having to take the active action he predicted, they invented ‘super clipping.’ This is where the driver has his foot pinned to the floor along a straight, his battery runs dry, and so the ICE cuts some power to the rear axle in order to charge the battery. So the drivers don’t change down—but the phenomenon occurs as predicted.
Of course, Max has been scathing over the new rules, describing them as “anti-racing,” but he is not alone in terms of his outspoken response. Carlos Sainz too has lambasted the new F1 era, stating: “If a car goes down the straight and at some point it feels like it is on ‘eco-mode’ or running out of battery, it is far from F1. We want cars that are fast on the straights and fast in the corners, not cars that lose speed on a straight line just to save energy.”
When asked for his view of the Japanese Grand Prix, world champion Lando Norris was lost for words soon after in the paddock. He sniggered before finally gathering himself to give his opinion. “Honestly, some of the racing…,” Norris paused to consider his next words. “I didn’t even want to overtake Lewis [Hamilton], there’s nothing I can do about it. There’s just not enough control for a driver, and that’s why you’re just too much at the mercy of what’s behind you. You are just a complete passenger.”
This was the moment when the F1 farce became a brutal reality for many. A subtle adjustment to the accelerator followed by an algorithm intervention saw Norris’s McLaren decide to overtake Lewis Hamilton when the driver did not intend to do so.
The Fight for a Stakeholder Vote
Hamilton himself, after the race, urged the FIA and Formula 1 to grant drivers a formal “seat at the table” when steering the sport’s future regulations. However, now the Ferrari and Williams team principals agree the drivers should not become formal stakeholders in Formula One.
Both suggest there is currently significant input from the drivers. However, unlike Audi and Honda, who threatened to walk away from F1 unless the new power units were ‘just so,’ they believe the drivers should be more of an ‘influence’ than be recognized as stakeholders.
The stakeholder status gives rights of voting to the FIA, FOM, the partners, and the race promoters, yet Fred Vasseur and James Vowles believe it would be wrong to confer that status upon the drivers. Vasseur, who manages Hamilton as one of the Ferrari drivers, attempts to argue the drivers already have significant input which is recognized.
“I think a good example was that drivers were part of the discussion on the modification of the engine in the last few weeks, and it went well,” observed the Ferrari chief. “For sure, they have a different point of view, and it’s not always easy to find a compromise. But they are part of the discussion, and they will continue to be, as we are listening to them, discussing with them, and bringing their feedback to the FIA when we debate the regulations. They are not excluded from the system at all,” said the Scuderia boss.
Minor Tweaks and the Risk of Bureaucratic Gridlock
Yet in reality, the drivers are not being listened to, given the tweaks in the regulations announced before the Miami Grand Prix they believe are simply not enough. Max Verstappen described them as “a tickle” and Lando Norris was candid to the point of being blunt.
“You still can’t be flat-out everywhere… You should never get penalised for that kind of thing, and you still do. So honestly, I don’t really think you can fix that. You just have to get rid of the battery,” the world champion concluded. Most of the rest of the drivers had similar thoughts, although Williams boss James Vowles believes their input should remain as it is.
He attempted to argue that the Grand Prix Drivers’ Association (GPDA) already bridges the gap between the track and the boardroom. The Williams team principal highlighted how Ferrari’s Carlos Sainz, in his capacity as a GPDA director, was directly brought into the loop by Nikolas Tombazis, the FIA’s single-seater technical chief, ahead of recent regulatory shifts.
“I know Carlos was, for example, consulted,” Vowles said. “Nikolas did a good job by bringing him on board, asking the questions before we went through this regulation change to make sure he and others were part of that process.”
However, Vowles was candid about the logistical nightmare of adding twenty highly opinionated, elite athletes to an official voting committee, warning that formal inclusion could easily paralyze progress.
“We’re probably already too many around the table to discuss because you just end up going in circles. Adding more voices isn’t going to help,” Vowles added. “But what is taking place in the background now, for example, is a formalized system making sure the drivers can submit their views on certain aspects of the sport.”
A Lone Defender in the Mercedes Garage
He went on to suggest that having one driver representative “either in a pre-meeting with the FIA or directly in the meeting, is somewhat sensible.” Yet this is merely a sop to the drivers, and the problem is that one of the GPDA directors, George Russell, is driving a Mercedes which is dominating the proceedings in 2026. His views have been that there is not much wrong with the current regulations, which is surely influenced by the fact that either he or teammate Kimi Antonelli are overwhelming favorites to claim the drivers’ title this season.
“The truth is F1 and the FIA, they aren’t idiots, they know what they’re doing. The fans are loving the racing at the moment—rightly or wrongly, the racing has been exciting. We just need to make sure that we’re not driving toward the direction of one power unit manufacturer or using bias—that we really do hear the objective opinion of what’s required from the drivers,” said Russell ahead of the Miami Grand Prix.
Conclusion: Losing the Essence of Racing
Ultimately, the divide between Hamilton and paddock leadership isn’t about whether driver opinions matter, but how they should be delivered. Whilst the manufacturers and the teams each get a vote, the drivers, who know best how racing should be, are merely some kind of sounding board—whilst the men in grey suits get to make the final decisions.
By relegating the grid’s elite athletes to a secondary consulting role rather than offering them a formal seat at the voting table, F1 risks steering its regulations into an over-engineered, artificial landscape. In a sport where multi-million dollar simulation data increasingly supersedes raw instinct, the frustration echoing from the paddock serves as a stark warning: if the gladiators behind the wheel feel reduced to mere passengers controlled by background algorithms Formula One is in danger of losing its very essence of racing.
Would you like to see more TJ13 Formula 1 coverage? Add us to your favourites list on Google to receive trusted F1 news.
A.J. Hunt is Senior Editor at TJ13, where Andrew oversees editorial standards and contributes to the site’s Formula 1 coverage. A career journalist with experience in both print and digital sports media, Andrew trained in investigative journalism and has written for a range of European sports outlets.
At TJ13, Andrew plays a central role in shaping the site’s output, working across breaking news, analysis, and long-form features. Andrew’s responsibilities include fact-checking, refining editorial structure, and ensuring consistency in reporting across a fast-moving news cycle.
Andrew’s work focuses particularly on the intersection of Formula 1 politics, regulation, and team strategy. Andrew closely follows developments involving the FIA, team leadership, and driver market dynamics, helping to provide context behind the sport’s biggest stories.
With experience covering multiple seasons of Formula 1’s modern hybrid era, Andrew has developed a detailed understanding of how regulatory changes and competitive shifts influence the grid. Andrew’s editorial approach prioritises clarity and context, aiming to help readers navigate complex developments within the sport.
In addition to editorial duties, Andrew is particularly interested in how media narratives shape fan perception of Formula 1, and how reporting can balance speed with accuracy in an increasingly digital news environment.
