The recent Japanese Grand Prix brought to light how the future 2026 Formula 1 rules have the potential to generate thrilling competitions, yet they also present significant problems that require resolution, beginning with an upcoming summit next week involving F1 management, the FIA, and the participating teams.
It was exactly this pattern of successful passes and subsequent re-passes that allowed Suzuka to serve as a venue for examining how specific operational characteristics of the sophisticated new power units influence how competitors are compelled to pilot their vehicles, often in a manner that feels counter-intuitive, making them prioritize energy conservation strategies over their natural driving instincts.
This particular phenomenon likewise impacts qualifying sessions, contributing to why numerous drivers have indicated that maintaining a pace just under the maximum is currently more beneficial than engaging in superfluous risks.
However, this predicament is not solely related to performance over a single lap; it also has repercussions during competitive racing exchanges. A particularly vivid illustration of this in Japan was the contest between Lando Norris and Lewis Hamilton during the closing stages of the race.
Typically, the most advantageous strategy for a driver attempting to overtake involved deploying energy between the Spoon curve and the ultimate chicane. Within this segment, velocities increased considerably, while the competitor in front usually experienced a more pronounced decrease in power as the MGU-K ceased its assistance, subsequently initiating a recharging period marked by aggressive clipping.
This interaction was evident on the 50th lap, as Norris, utilizing an electrical surge upon exiting Spoon, succeeded in substantially reducing the distance to his rival prior to the 130R corner. He approached Hamilton so closely that he was compelled to ease off the accelerator at approximately 330 km/h.
Lewis Hamilton, Ferrari
Photo by: Ferrari
To this juncture, nothing out of the ordinary would have occurred. The difficulty, however, stems from the subsequent events. A certain stretch remains between 130R and the last chicane, and in order to prevent significant loss of position, the trailing driver must re-apply acceleration. In these scenarios, especially given the considerable disparity in speed, the driver in pursuit would ideally want the power unit to lessen its electrical motor assistance.
Such a scenario would still facilitate an attempt to pass, or even the successful execution of an overtake, particularly when the competitor in front, much like Hamilton here, is undergoing a high-clipping recharge cycle. An additional benefit would also be gained: aiding in the preservation of energy for the subsequent long straight, the primary straight, which witnessed numerous instances of drivers re-passing their rivals throughout the event.
This is precisely where the complication surfaces. Should the 130R corner be navigated at maximum speed, the duration of full-throttle application from Spoon onward is extended, ensuring uninterrupted accelerator engagement. Consequently, the engine’s managing control unit adheres to a predetermined pattern for diminishing MGU-K assistance. However, if the driver is actively seeking to pass or engaging a boost, the instant they release the accelerator, that established energy reduction sequence is nullified by the current rules.
Fundamentally, upon re-engaging the throttle after a temporary lift – as observed with Norris – the power unit is mandated by the rules to reinstate electric motor support, supplying a minimum of 200 kW for at least one second prior to resuming the MGU-K power decrease trajectory. This results in the driver having an excess of MGU-K power even when it’s unwelcome, leading to greater energy consumption than planned. While this regulation was implemented for safety reasons and to prevent mimicking traction control during corner exits, it’s evident that the context shifts considerably at the conclusion of a straight section.
Drivers possess no ability to influence this particular aspect. The sole method to circumvent this outcome is to maintain complete throttle application, thereby inhibiting the power unit’s control mechanisms from resetting this internal ‘count’ and permitting the continuous, organic decrease of electric motor output.
An illustration of this occurred, for instance, with Isack Hadjar during the initial stages of the race, when his race engineer communicated via radio that, having engaged boost exiting Spoon, he could not afford to lift off at 130R. Such an act would re-initiate the MGU-K power curtailment sequence and deplete his energy reserves as he accelerated back to full power for the concluding segment preceding the chicane.
Isack Hadjar, Red Bull Racing
Photo by: Lars Baron / LAT Images via Getty Images
The difficulty lies in the fact that this operational principle becomes considerably more challenging to navigate during a direct competition. During his confrontation with Hamilton on lap 50, Norris was likewise compelled to ease off the accelerator to prevent colliding with the Ferrari driver, who was devoid of electrical assistance as he had not engaged his boost. At that juncture, the substantial speed disparity – coupled with the certainty of squandering energy upon re-applying throttle – compels the driver to undertake an almost involuntary overtaking manoeuvre.
Norris attempted an alternative approach to manage the scenario, engaging the throttle partially rather than immediately returning to maximum power. While this technique assists in lessening the impact, it vividly demonstrates the artificiality of witnessing a driver in a direct contest nearly coerced into initiating a pass due to the intricacies of energy deployment. Consequently, he discovered he lacked sufficient battery charge for defensive actions on the subsequent straight section.
“The issue stems from the energy deployment into the 130R,” Norris articulated following Sunday’s race. “I am obliged to ease off, or I will collide with him, and I’m then restricted from re-accelerating. Should I apply throttle, my battery discharges, and I wish for it not to discharge as it should have ceased. However, because one lifts and then must re-engage, it recommences deployment. There is no counter-action I can take.”
The straightforward solution in such circumstances would be to avoid releasing the accelerator pedal. Nevertheless, performing this action when driving in isolation is entirely different from executing it amidst a competitive battle, where circumstances are unforeseeable and it becomes highly counter-intuitive for drivers to modify their actions solely based on maximizing energy utilization.
While this particular difficulty is not entirely novel, the presence of a 350 kW MGU-K system, capable of generating such substantial power, means that these scenarios hold considerably more significance than might initially be apparent.
