Was the first race of F1’s new rules really that bad? Our verdict

After months of anticipation, speculation and a feeling of heading into the unknown, we finally got our first taste of Formula 1’s new era of regulations. 

Questions about how overtaking would work and whether the racing would be any good amid an increased emphasis on battery management were partly answered at the season-opening Australian Grand Prix. 

Australia has left the drivers and fans with mixed feelings about what F1 has become, but against the backdrop of nerves and fears of a potential disaster, was the opening race of 2026 really that bad?

Our writers have had their say…

Give the new rules a chance

Lewis Larkam

That wasn’t so bad, was it? 

Sunday’s opener in Melbourne provided an action-packed start to F1 2026. If, like me, you were a bit bleary eyed and struggling to wake up after setting an early alarm for the 4am start time in the UK, the opening 10 laps were the perfect cure. 

I can’t remember the last time there was so much action and changes of the lead at the start of a grand prix. In the opening nine laps, George Russell and Charles Leclerc traded the lead seven times in a pulsating, high-speed game of chess. Things calmed down after a spectacular start following a pair of virtual safety car periods but I enjoyed that as a starting point. 

Critics were quick to say the racing felt too artificial, with comparisons drawn to ‘Mario Kart’ and Formula E, but the wheel-to-wheel dicing we saw between Russell and Leclerc was far better than the slam-dunk and predictable DRS-assisted overtakes of old. 

Admittedly, qualifying wasn’t a great watch, especially the onboard laps. This is where I think F1 might have lost something, which is a great shame. Drivers are clearly not happy with the extreme management and battery harvesting which is leading to super clipping, lift and coasting and even downshifting at full throttle. 

That doesn’t exactly scream peak F1 when qualifying should be a demonstration of cars at their absolute limit and peak of their potential. However, any negative feelings I had towards qualifying were quickly overtaken when the race burst into life. 

Speaking of overtaking, F1’s own statistics claim there were 120 passes in Melbourne compared to the 45 at last year’s Australian Grand Prix. There is the argument of quality over quantity and that more overtaking is not necessarily a good thing. 

But, in my opinion, what we got in the first 10 laps on Sunday was better than most of last season, where races quickly descended into a snooze-fest dictated by DRS trains and dirty air with the result effectively determined in qualifying. 

While there are some genuine safety concerns that need to be taken seriously and addressed, would the likes of Max Verstappen and Lando Norris be so critical of the new rules if they were winning, rather than finishing nearly a minute adrift? 

It is easy to look back through rose tinted glasses but the reality is sport changes and moves with the times. This was a promising start and there is always room for improvement and refinement over time. 

Just because this is a different F1 to what we had grown used to doesn’t automatically make it worse. 

Much of criticism done through rose-tinted glasses  

Lewis Duncan

For all of the prophesying that the Australian Grand Prix weekend would be total, unending mayhem and destruction, it passed by largely as F1 rounds have for the past few years: light on impact. 

Qualifying and the role energy harvesting is playing in flying laps drew most of the ire. And a lot of the criticism is warranted. Cars shouldn’t be losing power because battery charge has been depleted. 

But all winter, the warning was Australia will likely be one of - if not the - hardest circuit for deployment. As Alpine’s Steve Nielsen told the media on Sunday in Melbourne, this will become less of a hot-button issue as the season goes on. 

The racing itself was surprisingly fun for the opening laps, as Russell and Leclerc battled. Many have called it artificial, driving skill not needed: I’m sure Russell, after saving a huge lock-up into Turn 1, probably disagrees.

It wasn’t perfect, but it really wasn’t that bad either, especially given how boring the second half of the race turned out to be. Much of F1’s previous rule cycles have contained some kind of element to artificially boost overtaking. The lack of it was a major point of contention with fans in the late 2000s and into 2010, which led to the introduction of DRS. This then led to criticism that overtaking was now too easy, with many rejoicing in its removal from the 2026 rules.

Most of your favourite eras of F1 contained some kind of flaw that ruined the spectacle. Across the Australian GP weekend, clips of Sebastian Vettel’s pole lap from 2010 were shared on social media in a display that became increasingly misty-eyed.

Conveniently, it’s forgotten that the first round of F1 2010 was so boring it led to an outcry from fans. Then the season actually turned out to be quite interesting, apart from its title-decider in Abu Dhabi, where overtaking was so difficult that Fernando Alonso got stuck behind Vitaly Petrov in a Renault and had no chance to fight for a third crown. 

F1 2014 was lambasted in its first race due to the change in sound from the engines, while the performance gap between Mercedes and the rest was huge. Then, a few weeks later, the Bahrain GP delivered one of the best head-to-head duels we’ve seen in the 21st Century between Lewis Hamilton and Nico Rosberg.

The ground effect era of 2022-2025 wasn’t very good, but now we’re pining for it again. Change is a permanent fact of life and of F1. These 2026 rules are flawed, yes, but they are literally in their genesis. 

In time, the kinks will get ironed out and there will inevitably be great moments. You don’t have to like change, but it’s here to stay. And it certainly deserves more of a grace period than one weekend that, let’s face it, everyone who has been critical came into knowing that would be their response anyway.

F1 2026 goes Jekyll and Hyde

Sam Hall

At its best, the Australian Grand Prix saw F1 enter its new regulatory era with some of the most enthralling action we have seen in years. At its worst, things proved dull and distasteful.

Starting with the positive, group chats on my phone, including our Crash.net one, were abuzz as the race got underway. There were overtakes all over the shop and the action was plentiful. Ferrari halting the early feared Mercedes dominance, Arvid Lindblad up to third, chaos everywhere you looked - sign me up!

Here, however, is where my positivity stops. From about Lap 30 onwards, the overtaking simply seemed to stop. This wasn’t just at the front, but all through the field. Seemingly, drivers had worked out the best deployment strategy, and this resulted in a stalemate. I fear constant repeats of this latter phase going forward.

Much like how the chaos of high degradation tyres at the 2010 Canadian Grand Prix produced a blinding show, it didn’t work in the long term, as teams quickly realised how to succeed when short-life tyres became commonplace.

Then there was qualifying. Cars slowing on and downshifting on straights when they should be screaming at full chat into heavy braking zones. It simply did not do it for me.

However, I will end by saying that these regulations cannot be fully judged by this race, nor the upcoming Chinese Grand Prix weekend. We need to give it until the summer break, or possibly a full season to discover all of the nuances. As I say, the good moments were great, but personally, the negative outweighed them on this occasion. Let’s see if China can flip the script!