(Motorsport-Total.com) – The unwanted spring break that Formula 1 was forced into due to the war in the Middle East could have two unexpected positive aspects. Firstly, it prevents Formula 1 from racing on the fast streets of Jeddah, where the speed differences that played a role in Oliver Bearman’s accident would have been even more dangerous, according to drivers.
Read more Data analysis in the livestream: How good is Lewis Hamilton really?
Secondly, it gives the FIA and Formula 1 time to thoroughly scrutinize the regulations. The governing body emphasizes that this is part of an ongoing process, just like the meeting with all teams after the Chinese Grand Prix.
The consensus at the time was that there was no reason for a knee-jerk reaction and that it would be better to use the break between Suzuka and Miami for a more detailed evaluation.
This evaluation will continue on Thursday, April 9, although it should be noted that the meeting is not expected to lead to immediate decisions. Initially, it will be a discussion between technical representatives to explore various areas for improvement and potential solutions.
This will be followed by another technical meeting before a discussion with the team principals takes place later in the break – likely around April 20 – where more concrete decisions can be made.
The most important agenda items
Until Sunday afternoon in Suzuka, there was agreement among both the teams and the FIA that the focus should primarily be on ways to improve qualifying and that the races – at least in terms of entertainment value for the fans – had not been too bad.
After Bearman’s accident, however, the issue of safety has moved to the top of the agenda. The incident between Franco Colapinto and the Haas driver has reignited the discussion about speed differences, with many drivers, including Carlos Sainz, emphasizing that they had been warning of such an accident for some time.
Qualifying remains a second key topic, however, and is the area where there seems to be the most prior agreement – at least regarding the basic principle that it should once again be more about pushing to the limit than what we saw in the first three race weekends.
Even the teams that are currently most competitive seem open to changes to achieve this goal: “If it were up to me – and we definitely have to look at this -: How do we get back to that one fast, brutal qualifying lap?” said Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff.
“And how can we reduce ‘lift and coast’? That is definitely something we need to do.”
Charles Leclerc shares this view. After his initial complaints, he now finds the racing entertaining but still believes that qualifying needs to be addressed – especially since he was penalized several times and actually became slower the more risk he tried to take in Q3.
Finally, there are some aspects that are a bit lower on the priority list but still require attention. The first is that drivers do not always feel they have full control over energy management. Lando Norris said after the Japanese Grand Prix that he had no intention of overtaking Lewis Hamilton at the chicane, but was simply “at the mercy” of the power unit’s power delivery.
This is partly related to the overtake mode, but also to safety mechanisms that allow the MGU-K to briefly deliver 200 kW when a driver gets back on the throttle after lifting. However, this drains the battery even further and leaves the driver completely powerless on the next straight.
Leclerc encountered another problem during sprint qualifying in China when he gave 97 percent instead of 100 percent throttle at one point, which effectively confused the power unit. The energy management was disrupted by his minimal lift, causing Leclerc to suddenly lose half a second on a straight later in the lap.
“I was very, very, very frustrated because the lift, I think, was two or three percent of the pedal travel, which is virtually nothing. That’s in the range of foot vibration,” the Ferrari driver reacted.
Possible solutions: Can slower cars improve things?
Regarding potential solutions, Max Verstappen does not want to get his hopes up and expects any improvements to remain marginal. The four-time world champion, who has been most critical of the new rules, reiterated in Japan that he hoped for major changes for 2027 – something that plays an important role in his “life decisions” about the future.
Nevertheless, there are several parameters the FIA can play with, as described by single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis. For the rest of 2026, there are roughly three main topics that could be addressed – in addition to the quirks Norris and Leclerc encountered in China and Japan.
The first aspect is a proposal that McLaren team principal Andrea Stella already brought forward in Bahrain: increasing “super-clipping” to the full 350 kW. Stella was the first to warn of the enormous speed differences and outlined a scenario in which one driver has to lift while another is deploying energy.
This represents the most extreme example and, in his opinion, could be mitigated by raising super-clipping to 350 kW.
Suzuka: The driver ratings from Marc Surer and the editorial team
The amount of energy drivers are currently allowed to recover under full load is limited to 250 kW, while they can recover the full 350 kW during lift and coast. By raising the super-clipping limit to the same value, Stella and many others in the paddock argue that the speed profile should at least become more natural.
More super-clipping might still not be what all fans want to see (especially in onboard shots), but it is at least considered safer and less extreme than pure lift and coast.
In addition to super-clipping, the FIA could also examine both the recovery and deployment sides of the rules.
Regarding the latter, the governing body has several options. One could lower the maximum output of 350 kW or adjust the so-called “ramp-down” rate, which would ideally result in it taking longer for drivers to run out of MGU-K power.
Read more Formula 1 2026: How Ferrari really wants to crack the Mercedes lead
On the recovery side, the FIA already made a small change before the Japanese Grand Prix. The amount of energy drivers were allowed to recover for a qualifying lap had originally been set at nine megajoules but was reduced to eight megajoules before the start of the race weekend.
The FIA deemed this necessary as simulations showed that more super-clipping would be required than originally expected. According to the association, the change reduced super-clipping from ten seconds per lap to six, while lap times increased by only half a second.
Although these figures vary from track to track, the FIA could theoretically go much further than the example in Suzuka. In the paddock, some teams even suggested six megajoules as a fairly radical – but potentially effective – intervention, or perhaps a compromise value in the middle.
By allowing drivers to recover less energy, they would have to rely less on lift and coast and super-clipping. It would mean that drivers could push more with what they have, but it would come at a price: slower lap times.
According to initial estimates, lowering the limit to six megajoules could increase lap times by more than two seconds on some tracks. However, the question remains how problematic that really is.
Formula 1 Quiz
How many races was Ayrton Senna able to lead in Formula 1?
Test yourself now in the Formula 1 quiz and compare yourself with other users
Yes, it would make Formula 1 slower, but if the drivers can push more (albeit with less electrical power), it could visually look more like a battle at the limit than the current situation.
Apart from the power unit, active aerodynamics is theoretically another element that could be examined. Its introduction was necessary in the first place to drastically reduce drag and thus make the new engine rules functional.
Currently, its use is limited to the zones defined by the FIA in “straight mode,” but theoretically this could be opened up, at least in qualifying.
In addition to a further reduction in drag, this would have another effect: it would make active aero more of a tactical element than it is now.
Some teams could opt for more extreme solutions – low downforce for extra top speed on the straights, which would however require the wing to close at every change of direction – or choose a middle ground where a driver can use active aero on more sections of the track.
The political reality: A safety issue or not?
The final question is how sensitive some of these aspects could be. For the change introduced in Japan, the FIA told the teams that it would only implement such a measure if all teams agreed unanimously.
The FIA wants to keep all parties as aligned as possible throughout the process, although it could theoretically play the “safety card” after Bearman’s accident. In that case, the FIA could introduce some changes unilaterally – exactly what Verstappen called for after the race.
“Well, if it’s just about safety, then things are easy to fix. You can use safety as