Mercedes successfully claimed pole position in Melbourne as anticipated, yet discussions with racers in the media zone primarily revolved around a completely different subject: their initial, genuine reactions to the upcoming regulations. These responses are, broadly speaking, far from enthusiastic.
During the pre-season tests in Bahrain, considerable criticism had already surfaced, notably from Max Verstappen, who likened the new guidelines to “Formula E on steroids”. The Red Bull competitor further stated during his Dutch media engagements that he had no desire to operate the 2026 car in the simulator, a sentiment he confirmed in Australia.
“It felt truly awful in the simulator already, to the degree that I didn’t even want to drive it. I’ve already explained that, and it’s simply the same now,” Verstappen remarked following qualification in Melbourne.
“I am not deriving any pleasure from it whatsoever. As I mentioned, it also holds no significance to me where I qualify. Whether it had been at the front or my current position, emotionally and sensation-wise, it feels entirely hollow.”
Is the discussion about straight mode areas politically motivated?
The public condemnation is not an isolated incident. Autosport understands that the drivers’ briefing in Melbourne was intense, extending significantly beyond its usual duration.
The initial segment of the gathering concentrated on the circuit itself and the straight mode zones, which sparked a political debate on Saturday morning. The FIA initially sought to eliminate the fourth zone, located between Turns 8 and 9, but this suggestion was not well-received by the majority of teams.
Whispers in the paddock quickly suggested that Audi had particularly advocated for the removal of the straight mode in that specific track section. Gabriel Bortoleto was the most vocal on this during the briefing, although the Brazilian driver denied this to the media once details of the meeting were disclosed.
Gabriel Bortoleto, Audi F1 Team
Photo by: Jayce Illman / Getty Images
“I did not utter that statement. Everyone is discussing it. There are individuals who spoke five times more than me,” Bortoleto remarked. “The sole thing I mentioned was that with SM [straight mode] engaged, I experienced some understeer and nearly collided with one of the Ferraris due to very close racing, and if you lose a slight amount of load, you can crash. I believe people are attributing comments about SM to me, but there were others, whose names I won’t disclose, who were pushing much more vigorously than I was.”
However, those privy to internal information suggest that Audi indeed pressed for an alteration. According to Nikolas Tombazis, FIA’s single-seater director, seven teams potentially encountered downforce issues with straight mode activated, a group that did not include the four leading teams. For this reason, it was hardly shocking that these teams vehemently opposed the intervention on Saturday morning – particularly because such a change would have had significant repercussions for vehicle setup and energy deployment.
Strong objections raised during a heated drivers’ meeting
Following that discussion, the 2026 regulations were addressed in broader terms. Just as in public, two of the more experienced drivers – Lewis Hamilton and Verstappen – vocalized their concerns privately, although the latter remarked after qualifying that the content of drivers’ briefings should remain confidential.
“I mean, it’s a bit odd that you know. Drivers shouldn’t be speaking [about these meetings to the press] or other people,” Verstappen commented. “That’s not very professional, I find, from the individuals involved. But regardless, yes, I conveyed my thoughts on it. I am absolutely not enjoying these cars at all. You can form your own opinion, but I think if you observe the onboards, you see enough, correct?”
The Dutchman once again emphasized that problems with the energy-constrained vehicles are not a new development, and that the rulemakers could have foreseen them. He issued a caution about this after his initial simulator runs in 2023, but according to Verstappen, the drivers’ input was not sufficiently heeded.
Now that various proposals are being considered to ameliorate the situation – more details below – Verstappen stated: “Well, it’s a bit late for that now, isn’t it?”
Max Verstappen, Red Bull Racing
Photo by: Marcel van Dorst / EYE4images / NurPhoto via Getty Images
Alongside Verstappen and Hamilton, Lance Stroll also voiced his opinions internally. The Canadian holds the view that F1 cars are steadily deteriorating each year and considers 2026 another regression, a sentiment he publicly echoed after qualifying.
“It would be pleasant, I believe, to have some vehicles that sound impressive, are slightly less complicated, and simply offer more normal, engaging racing,” he commented. “We now have eco-friendly fuel; we can compete with sustainable fuel, and we could have engines that truly sound remarkable in lightweight cars. I think it’s a pity that, as a sport, we are not pursuing that.”
Norris labels 2026 F1 vehicles “the poorest yet” – is this a just assessment?
Lando Norris was among the drivers who initially spoke positively about the new regulations at the commencement of winter testing in Bahrain. However, the reigning world champion clarified during the second week in the Middle East that his comments were primarily intended to provoke Verstappen and observe the reactions.
His authentic perspective is much more aligned with that of the Red Bull driver – specifically, that these regulations do not appeal to him either. Norris had already expressed this opinion at the conclusion of winter testing and went even further after qualifying in Australia.
“We’ve transitioned from the finest cars ever produced in Formula 1, and the most enjoyable to drive, to arguably the worst. It’s frustrating, but one must cope with it,” he stated. When asked if he could find any pleasure in the new cars whatsoever, Norris remained silent for seven seconds before responding: “Not really, no.”
It should be noted, however, that most drivers were not particularly enthusiastic about the ground-effect cars either – and their physical repercussions – which means not everyone would deem those the greatest F1 cars ever made.
Regarding the grievances expressed by drivers during Friday’s meeting, Norris asserted that they ultimately have the best interests of F1 in mind.
Lando Norris, McLaren
Photo by: Alastair Staley / LAT Images via Getty Images
“I believe we prioritize the sport’s welfare more effectively than others,” Norris clarified. “We also desire what’s best for the sport; we aren’t attempting to make things more enjoyable for ourselves. We are striving to ensure there are cooler cars, better viewing, more excitement, all these diverse elements.”
“The regulations have been altered because that is what the manufacturers desire. But if you have approximately 18 drivers voicing complaints, or actually 20 drivers complaining, I am uncertain what truly benefits the sport.”
Can a quick remedy be found?
The ultimate question is what can realistically be undertaken to enhance the current situation. Tombazis has indicated that the FIA has scheduled an assessment following the Chinese Grand Prix, although it remains to be seen whether the propositions currently under consideration will prove adequate.
Regarding energy management, the FIA possesses the ability to modify two variables: energy recovery and deployment. The governing body can restrict the quantity of energy drivers are permitted to regain per track, thereby reducing the necessity for them to lift and coast or downshift. Furthermore, the proportion of electrical power used during race conditions could be reduced.
Verstappen, however, noted that the latter suggestion would entail a certain trade-off: slower lap times – and it remains uncertain how amenable the FIA would be to accepting such a consequence.
On the energy harvesting aspect, McLaren trialed super clipping up to the maximum of 350 kilowatts in Bahrain, but according to Oscar Piastri, this is not a universal solution either: “Currently, if you lift, you can recuperate 350 kilowatts, so a super clip at 350 is equivalent to a lift. The sole distinction is that in one instance, you are actually off the throttle and in command of it, whereas in the other, you are at full throttle. I’m not convinced it offers any greater utility.”
Charles Leclerc, Ferrari, Oscar Piastri, McLaren
Photo by: Joe Portlock / Getty Images
This implies that most drivers concur on one point: for the time being, the new cars offer a far from enjoyable driving experience. However, devising an effective remedy appears considerably more intricate. According to Piastri, this is because it is inherently tied to the fundamental design of the new regulations.
“I think everyone can discern the current situation,” he commented. “I anticipate it will likely improve somewhat, but there are clearly some fundamental aspects that will not be very straightforward to rectify. Indeed, I truly don’t know what course of action we should take regarding that.”
The inaugural competitive session of the 2026 season has unveiled the primary deficiencies of the new regulations – at least from the drivers’ perspective – although the inquiry of ‘what comes next?’ remains far more challenging to answer.
