Due to safety worries, modifications have been implemented in Formula 1’s launch protocols for the 2026 championship, alongside a reduced limit on the power that can be recovered during straight-line driving.
However, concerns are also surfacing regarding the performance of these new vehicles in rainy weather, given that minimal teams have conducted significant trials in slippery environments.
The two three-day testing sessions in Bahrain occurred under typically warm and bright, sometimes breezy, conditions, whereas the Barcelona ‘initial run period’ was primarily chilly instead of rainy. Competitors were able to operate on three of the five scheduled days, with only Red Bull and Ferrari choosing to utilize one of those days for running on Tuesday, when rain was predicted and subsequently arrived.
Over recent seasons, poor visibility has posed the primary challenge in damp environments. An unforeseen consequence of adopting underbody aerodynamics from 2022 was the significant volume of water directed through the ground-effect tunnels and expelled into the wake of each vehicle, in addition to the water dispersed by the tires from the track surface.
Currently, the main points of apprehension revolve around the vehicles’ handling during acceleration and deceleration – or, more precisely, the act of slowing down. With the revised power unit rules dictating that almost half of the total power originates from electric motors, a substantial portion of the stopping power will be generated by these motors instead of traditional brakes.
Lewis Hamilton, Ferrari
Photo by: Ferrari
Haas competitor Oliver Bearman remarked during the initial Bahrain assessment, “Frankly, I operated it [the 2026 vehicle] for the first time in moist conditions at Fiorano.”
“Naturally, I was just driving leisurely. Yet, indeed, it presents an uncertainty, without a doubt. Considering the velocities we can achieve and the substantial power at our disposal, particularly at the outset of a straight, it represents a factor requiring caution for everyone involved.
“It’s regrettable that we’re almost unable to conduct a test in wet conditions.”
A similar trial was indeed under consideration, slated for the weekend before the Australian Grand Prix. However, this event will employ ‘prototype vehicles’ supplied by McLaren and Mercedes instead of genuine racing machines, and will be conducted in Bahrain on a track surface made wet artificially, thus limiting its full representativeness.
In fact, the primary goal of this assessment is to assist Pirelli in enhancing the efficacy of its rainy-weather tires – as the current lap time disparity between full wet and intermediate compounds is excessively large – rather than to familiarize drivers with how electric power deployment and energy recovery behave on slippery surfaces.
Racing Bulls team head Alan Permane stated during the Bahrain trial, “It’s an immense undertaking, evaluation and comprehension, truly enormous.”
“We possess the capability to simulate actions for reduced-grip scenarios. The reality is, there’s significant recuperation from the back wheels – and in current [dry] circumstances, we hardly engage the rear braking system.
Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing
Photo by: Formula 1
“The sheer potency… One is decelerating the vehicle from 330 km/h to 60, 70, or 50 km/h [at Bahrain’s first corner] without engaging the rear braking system. Such is the immense strength of the MGU-K.
“Therefore, in rainy conditions, regardless of the reduction in traction, it will undeniably present… It will certainly be a demanding situation.”
During damp weather, the ‘straight-line mode’ employing active aerodynamic elements will be either completely or partially deactivated – in the latter scenario, merely the front wing components will engage. The issues arising are interconnected; if the electric motor is configured to an overly ‘aggressive’ setting for peak energy recovery, its actions will be harsher and compromise vehicle stability. Conversely, if it recuperates less energy, there’s a danger that pilots might expend more electrical power than they can replenish.
In either situation, the consequences could be costly.
Permane commented, “We did evaluate whether we ought to have driven on the subsequent day in Barcelona.”
“We simply perceived it as excessively hazardous, having only one vehicle present and absolutely no replacement parts. I’m fairly confident that many others face similar circumstances, but it simply… It wasn’t justifiable.
“Once more, one is continuously assessing. There are always advantages and disadvantages, a favorable aspect to proceed and an unfavorable one to do so. And we determined the risk was too great, though it undoubtedly would have been beneficial.”
We want to hear from you!
Let us know what you would like to see from us in the future.
Take our survey
– The Autosport.com Team
