Temporada F1 2026 🏎

[llumia]

[llumia]

[llumia]

[llumia]

[llumia]

What we know about Ferrari's radical 'upside-down' wing



Ferrari literally flipped Formula 1's active aero concept upside down in Bahrain on Thursday as it revealed a radical new rear wing solution.

Among the test items being evaluated by the Italian squad, Lewis Hamilton appeared on track for some early running with a new rear wing design.



While the wing did not appear radically different when in normal state, except for the absence of the previously-present actuator in the middle, its revolutionary idea became obvious when Hamilton switched to straight mode to reduce drag.

Rather than the upper rear wing element moving like most other teams – in going flat to reduce drag down the straights – it rotated further before ending in a position where it had flipped completely upside down.

In the handful of laps that Hamilton completed, the wing was seen flipping to an upside down position on the straights.

When Hamilton hit the brakes for a corner, the wing flipped forward again to return to a normal position.

The idea behind rotating the wing upside down is simple. This way, it should turn from a state when the upper element produces some downforce and drag to one where drag should be minimised and it may even produce lift.

Reducing drag not also has aero benefits but it could bring gains in terms of reducing rolling resistance for the tyres, too.

Add both of these elements together and the hope is that the rear wing solution delivers a good top speed boost.

The design is allowed in the regulations because there is no limit on how far the rear wing active aero can rotate back when straight mode is activated.

The only stipulation about the differences between corner mode and straight mode is that the "maximum transition time between the two fixed positions does not exceed 400ms [milliseconds]."

Straight mode is clarified simply as a "decrease in incidence" of the rear wing flap, with no maximum angle mentioned – and the change must be identical each time it is used.

It is understood that the Ferrari design is a test item and is being run in Bahrain as part of an evaluation study – so it is something that may or may not be carried into the season.

The push to shed extra drag with the rear wing could be fuelled by a potential compromise that Ferrari has made with an innovative exhaust wing that appeared on its SF-26 on Wednesday.

The extra flap, which extends the diffuser area and appears to help use exhaust gases to blow the rear wing area of the car, serves to increase downforce but could also cost it some drag.

Teams are working hard to reduce drag as much as possible this year because of the need to preserve battery energy and not waste any unnecessary deployment.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/ferrari-f1-radical-wing-active-aero-bahrain-test/

[llumia]

'F***, what happened?' - Rivals and FIA on Ferrari's upside down rear wing



Ferrari appears to have caught many by surprise with the most visually standout technical innovation of Formula 1's 2026 pre-season so far - its 'upside down' rear wing.

The roughly 225 degrees clockwise rotation of the rear wing elements while in straight mode stole the headlines on Thursday morning in Bahrain.

Even though it only ran briefly with Ferrari soon returning to the track on its previous-spec rear wing, it didn't escape the attention of the FIA or rival teams.

The Race asked the FIA's technical director, Nikolas Tombazis, whether it was legal.

He replied: "We have, generally speaking, encouraged solutions that reduce drag.

"That's why the DRS regulations of last year, which were limiting the amount of opening, those have not been maintained this year in order to give more freedom.

"And the Ferrari solution, we believe, is OK."

So it has FIA approval, but what do rivals make of it?

Ollie Bearman got quite the shock when he saw it open in that unusual way when he was following Lewis Hamilton out on track.

"I was behind Lewis, and I saw it and I was like, f***, what happened? I thought it was broken, but honestly, it's super innovative," Bearman said.

"It looks pretty slick as well, so if it works on track, then they've done something right, that's for sure."

Bearman believes other teams have considered it too but have come up against a key obstacle.

"It looks cool but it's heavy as well," Haas's Bearman said.

"Everyone, I think, has considered it, including ourselves. But, there's always a compromise to be made on those things."

That's particularly pertinent given many teams are fighting to get close to the reduced minimum weight limit for 2026.

Teams like Williams, for whom the upside down Ferrari rear wing has come as a surprise.

"In terms of packaging, inside the endplates, there were pros and cons to it overall," Vowels said.

"It's worth saying, and this is not just Williams but teams up and down the grid, whenever you see something interesting, either it goes into the bracket of 'we've already thought about it, here's the results and why we didn't do it' or it goes into the bracket of 'we did not think of that'.

"And [then] near enough overnight, within 24 hours, I would expect results to, effectively indicate to us whether it's good or bad, so we can modify our direction of travel.

"The rear wing from Ferrari, it's an interesting direction of travel."

Asked if Williams had thought of it, Vowles replied: "That one hasn't come across our radar. Not sure it's good yet either, but let's find out."

Indeed, even Ferrari isn't sure whether it will use the innovative design going forward.

"I think everybody is doing innovation, sometimes it's visible, sometimes it's not, but I'm sure that our competitors and everybody on the grid is doing exactly the same," Vasseur said.

"It's true the last two things we brought on track were visible from outside, but it's not a big difference with the others.

"I don't know if it will be for Melbourne or the next one."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f-what-happened-rivals-and-fia-on-ferraris-upside-down-rear-wing/

[llumia]

Gary Anderson's verdict on Ferrari's astonishing upside-down wing



After 50-plus years involved in F1, I thought I had just seen about everything. The last time I saw an F1 rear wing upside down, so was the rest of the car connected to it.

Ferrari, with its new active rear wing concept, has changed my outlook on life.

The rear wing now consists of three elements (used to be two) - a mainplane and two flaps. Most of the teams are opening their two rear wing flaps in a similar way to what we have seen during the DRS days, creating a bigger slot gap. Alpine has gone the other way in that it drops its rear two flaps downwards, reducing the overall frontal area.

Audi is in between pivoting its rear flap assembly in the middle, so a smaller slot gap and a height reduction.

However, Ferrari has gone in a completely different direction with this new wing, in that it opens it up as with the DRS, but then it keeps going.

The flaps actually rotate about 225 degrees clockwise, looking from the left-hand side of the car, so that the flap assembly actually ends up completely upside down and further rearward when it is in its straight mode. Then, when closing, it rotates in the opposite direction to get back to corner mode.

So what are the pros and cons of all three of these solutions?

Pros

The eight teams that followed along the previous opening route can lean on their wing design knowledge from the DRS period to make sure that the assembly reduces the drag when open and the airflow reattaches quickly when closed.

For Alpine, which drops the flaps downwards in straight mode, it reduces the frontal area but it also means that the airflow will stay attached at a reduced degree to all three elements when open, so full reattachment when changed to corner mode will be instantaneous.



Audi has gone for an in-between solution. I suppose you could say it will get a bit of both, but not as much of either.

With Ferrari's new concept, it will mean that when in straight mode, the two rear flaps will actually generate some lift. Then that airflow wake coming off the trailing edge of those flaps could counter the direction of the airflow wake coming off the mainplane element, so potentially reducing the drag even more than either of the other concepts.

One other thing that it could also do is while closing, when the driver hits the brake pedal and wants to slow down, it will spend a very small amount of time generating quite a lot of frontal area.

By regulation the assembly has to complete its operation of opening or closing within 400 milliseconds - but at the end of a decent straight these cars are traveling at 80/90 meters per second. So with a typical braking distance of about 100 meters and a braking time of one second, the car can travel a long way in 400 milliseconds.

During that period it will actually act like a bit of a parachute, increasing drag considerably, helping to reduce that speed aerodynamically. This means there is less work for the brakes to do.

Cons

Those seven teams which followed the DRS route may have missed a trick, and you could probably add Alpine and Audi into that, none of which have which gone as dramatic as Ferrari.

There will be lots of teams frantically doing CFD simulations of what Ferrari has come up with.



From my own very quick little simulation doing what Ferrari has done with the rear wing - in corner mode, depending on the wing level, it is generating X downforce and a downforce-to-drag ratio of 4 to 1. In the straight mode it has a downforce-to-drag ratio of roughly 1 to 1, with a 75% drop in rear wing downforce.

Actually, and somewhat surprisingly, using the same simulation and the same wing design in the corner mode, the Alpine concept comes out with the most efficient balance of downforce and drag but at the expense of a higher percentage of downforce loss.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/gary-andersons-verdict-on-ferraris-astonishing-upside-down-wing/

[llumia]

Long-run analysis: Verstappen vs Piastri on day two

Many Formula 1 teams dove head-first into race simulations on the penultimate day of 2026 pre-season testing, headlined by a head-to-head between the McLaren of Oscar Piastri and the Red Bull of Max Verstappen.

While assumed favourite Mercedes continued with its more general long-running (its runs usually starting with a push lap before pivoting to a lap sequence), and Ferrari ran off-sequence after issues denied Lewis Hamilton virtually the entire morning session, Piastri and Verstappen 'squared off' in the final two hours.

Here's the raw data from those runs and other runs that appeared race sim-relevant, with major outlier laps (which were rare) discounted along with inlaps, outlaps and exact time spent in pits.

Race runs (or similar)
Oscar Piastri, McLaren

Start: 5.18pm

Stint 1: C3, 12 laps (1m39.874s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 18 laps (1m38.445s avg)
Stint 3: C1, 20 laps (1m37.697s avg)

Max Verstappen, Red Bull

Start: 5.04pm

Stint 1: C3, 14 laps (1m39.629s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 17 laps (1m38.745s avg)
Stint 3: C2, 21 laps (1m37.942s avg)

Nico Hulkenberg, Audi

Start: 5.06pm

Stint 1: C2 or C1, 20 laps (1m40.917s avg)
Stint 2: C2 or C1, 17 laps (1m39.492s avg)
Stint 3: C3, aborted? (Hulkenberg did two 1m39s laps, then returned to pits)

Lewis Hamilton, Ferrari

Start: 3.20pm

Stint 1: C3, 10 laps (1m39.489s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 8 laps (1m38.735s avg)
Stint 3: C1, 10 laps (1m38.087s avg)
Stint 3b? C1, 4 laps (1m38.763s avg)
Stint 4: C1, 12 laps (1m37.243s avg)

Liam Lawson, Racing Bulls

Start: 3.15pm

Stint 1: C3, 13 laps (1m41.176s)
Stint 2: C2 or C1, 8 laps (1m39.985s avg)
Stint 2b: C2 or C1, 8 laps (1m40.562s avg)
Stint 3: C2 or C1, 7 laps (1m39.525s avg)
Stint 3b: C2 or C1, 12 laps (1m40.625s avg)

Fernando Alonso, Aston Martin

Start: 3.10 pm

Stint 1: C2, 15 laps (1m43.404s)
Stint 2: C2, 9 laps (1m41.492s, caused red flag)

Valtteri Bottas, Cadillac

Start: 10.25am

Stint 1: C3, 14 laps (1m43.123s avg)
Stint 2: C2, 16 laps (1m42.449s avg)
Stint 3: C1, 16 laps (1m41.554s avg)

Some of these are only potentially race runs - maybe Nico Hulkenberg's Audi ran deliberately underfuelled and never planned for a full third stint, and for several others the picture is skewed by Fernando Alonso's Aston Martin giving up on its first attempt at a race simulation.

That red flag also impacted Liam Lawson in the Racing Bulls car and Hamilton in the Ferrari. Upon returning to the track, Lawson continued with the same set of tyres, then appeared to continue on the same fuel load on a final set (albeit with a mid-stint break).

Hamilton, meanwhile, swapped tyres during the Alonso red flag, so if there was fuel load continuity here, it was over four separate tyre sets.

But let's turn to the headline item. Here's how the Verstappen versus Piastri race would've played out over the 50 relevant flying laps (Piastri having done two fewer than Verstappen).

50 laps

1 Piastri 1h22m04.432s
2 Verstappen +7.116s

Verstappen is stronger at the outset, but consistently weaker through the final stint and not aided by a very substantial late-stint drop-off on the C2 tyre versus Piastri's C1s.

Hamilton's first stint average earlier in the day is better than both, but he also doesn't take the stint nearly as far, so there's no like-for-like comparison.

Meanwhile, an exceptionally unscientific comparison of all the available runs at the 23-lap mark - i.e. where Alonso's Aston stopped working - is as follows.

23 laps

1 Hamilton 38m54.542s (extra tyre set)
2 Piastri +4.188s
3 Verstappen +7.759s
4 Lawson +41.016s
5 Hulkenberg +41.858s
6 Alonso +1m26.537s

But that's just a bit of fun across difficult-to-compare run plans and track conditions.

The final day of running should clear up the picture further, and hopefully bring Mercedes data into the mix.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/how-red-bull-and-mclaren-compared-on-race-simulations-at-f1-test/

[llumia]

Seven things we learned from day two of F1 2026's final pre-season test

The penultimate day of Formula 1 2026 pre-season testing included an eye-catching technical innovation, some revealing race start practice and more struggles for 2026's most troubled team.

This is everything we learned from day two of the final pre-season Bahrain test.

Ferrari's taken everyone by surprise

Ferrari appears to be leading the way in terms of eye-catching technical innovations right now, as for the second day in a row, it debuted a new part that was a hot topic on social media shortly after its debut.

On Wednesday, it was the unique exhaust wing, but on Thursday, it took things a step further with the debut of a radical 'upside down' rear wing.

The rear wing elements rotate about 225 degrees, giving the unique 'upside down' effect. It appears legal too with the FIA's technical director Nikolas Tombazis giving it a tentative green light: "The Ferrari solution, we believe, is OK."

It's certainly taken everyone by surprise. "I saw it, and I was like, f***, what happened?" was Haas driver Ollie Bearman's reaction when he saw the rear wing open on Lewis Hamilton's Ferrari ahead of him on track.

Our ex-F1 technical director Gary Anderson, was astonished by it while Williams team boss James Vowles said: "That one hasn't come across our radar".

That's the case for many teams that will be doing rapid calculations right now, back at their factories, to decide whether it's a development direction they need to follow.

Of course, it only appeared briefly, so there's no guarantee Ferrari will even run it come Melbourne as team boss Fred Vasseur confirmed.

And as Vasseur noted, often it's the innovations you can't see that make the real difference. This won't be a huge performance differentiator, but it's certainly the most unique technical innovation we've seen so far in 2026. Bravo Ferrari. - Josh Suttill

Two lessons from race start practice

The series of tests that the FIA has been conducting with new start procedures to help cars get off the line has taught us two big things.

First, that the extra five-seconds being slotted in between the cars forming up on the grid and the lights coming on has alleviated the safety fears that dominated the first Bahrain test.

The second is that it has confirmed a theory that Ferrari's engine concept – which is believed to revolve around a smaller turbo – has potentially created a rocket ship for the start.

In both the morning and evening practice starts, Lewis Hamilton made blinding getaways – and from ninth on the grid at the end of the day he managed to lead into the first corner.

With the Haas drivers also making speedy getaways, it looks like Ferrari's deliberate choice on engine configuration may have given it an edge.

Of course, there is a caveat that others may simply not be taking the starts as seriously, but Ferrari's rivals may well be a bit more nervous now about whether or not they will be able to hold back the Maranello cars when the proper racing comes about. - Jon Noble

Aston Martin is only fighting Cadillac right now

Exactly what's gone so wrong for Aston Martin in 2026 remains unclear, but it's clear it's lacking both pace and reliability right now, with Fernando Alonso losing three hours after stopping on track in the afternoon.

Alonso's stoppage interrupted his race simulation, but he was hardly setting a blistering pace. In fact Liam Lawson's Racing Bulls, running on track at the same time, was well over a second a lap faster.

The only close comparison was Valtteri Bottas for newcomer Cadillac. Not the benchmark that Aston Martin, with all its investment and technical might, should be aiming to surpass.

But right now, Cadillac is Aston Martin's only rival (other than itself). Aston Martin is the slowest team in testing over a single lap and has logged the fewest laps of any team in Bahrain.

Hence Alonso's succinct end-of-day admission: "There are many things we need to fix." - JS

Mercedes angry but still ominous

All of the needling and accusations have clearly taken their toll on Toto Wolff, who fired back angrily at those who have accused his team of not satisfying the rules, first with its engine compression ratio and also with supposedly "illegal" fuel.

But with every passing day of off-track storylines, the team seems to just get stronger and stronger at the track. It set another test benchmark time with Kimi Antonelli, and while Oscar Piastri and Max Verstappen toiled through long runs, Mercedes seemed more bothered with testing its pitstop skills and, according to Bernie Collins, even simulated a five-second penalty stop!

Hardly the work of a team feeling the pressure to find pace on track...

But there's no doubt the constant barrage of 'noise' is seriously irritating Wolff. Whether it's performative or genuine is a different question, but it's not impacting the team's performance in Bahrain. - Jack Benyon

F1's 'big four' have a big margin

Barcelona and the first Bahrain test helped establish that there certainly wouldn't be any Brawn GP-style fairytale, nor even a midfield team leaping to the front.

But it now looks increasingly likely that there will be a sizeable gap between the top four teams - or the 'big four' as McLaren's Zak Brown called it - and the midfield in 2026.

That's on the evidence of the long runs in particular, as Bearman points out, it's trickier to hide your pace there because everyone needs to carry similar amounts of fuel to do a race run.

"It's quite impressive how fast those top teams are. I don't know the order of them, but there is a big delta between those four and the other seven that there is now," Bearman said.

"I was not expecting that honestly. But I heard that some of the other people were so I guess...That's where the experience plays in."

Among those 'other people' is Racing Bulls team boss Alan Permane, who last Friday said: "Whenever you have a big regulation change, you're going to get the top teams move away, and the smaller teams fall back, I don't think anyone should be surprised by that." - JS

Trials for energy management fixes

F1 teams have been invited to trial reduced MGU-K power deployment during the final two days of this test as the FIA evaluates a contingency plan to address concerns over 2026 engines.

The main issue is whether cars can harvest enough energy, and deploy full power consistently over a qualifying lap. To recharge, teams are relying on aggressive downshifts and 'super clipping' – running the MGU-K against the engine at full throttle – alongside braking and lift-and-coast.

One option is lowering peak MGU-K output from 350kW to 300kW or even as low as 200kW to allow more consistent deployment, though this would alter the near-50/50 ICE-electric power split.

Another proposal is raising the super clipping to the MGU-K's full 350kW capacity as it's currently limited to just 250kW for reasons that have never been clearly explained but seem to be to avoid teams slowing down too much to recharge.

As that might be what's needed to reduce lift-and-coast, especially in qualifying, it's something the FIA wants to gather data on before considering regulatory changes early in the season. - Scott Mitchell-Malm

Overtake mode isn't worth much

Early feedback about the prospect of overtaking in these cars has not been great.

They are slightly smaller, slightly lighter, and follow better than their predecessors although an overall reduction in grip does mean sliding around on the tyre is easier - which isn't great.

Of bigger concern though is that the cars are so energy-poor that deploying the battery more to overtake is a high-risk thing to do.

Esteban Ocon even revealed on Thursday that the new overtake mode, which allows the driver to charge their battery a bit more and then use full electric power for longer at high speed, is actually only worth about two tenths of a second.

This is likely way less than what will be lost when a driver has to charge the battery to be able to use that overtake mode – so there's a high probability at the moment that it's not going to be worth it. - SMM

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/seven-things-we-learned-from-day-two-of-f1-2026s-final-pre-season-test/

[llumia]

What explains 'rocket' Ferrari 2026 race starts

Ferrari-engined cars have turned heads at Formula 1 testing after taking off "like rockets" in the end-of-season collective practice race starts.

Lewis Hamilton in the works car and Esteban Ocon in the Ferrari-powered Haas comfortably made the best getaways on Thursday evening in Bahrain, where these dress rehearsals are inconclusive but still indicative.

In the evening, Hamilton moved from the ninth row to the lead at the first corner, and although he 'only' overtook four cars in that time due to some grid spaces being empty, two of those had started on the front row: Kimi Antonelli's Mercedes and Max Verstappen's Red Bull.

Ocon would probably have gone to the front himself had his engine not stopped deploying electric power due to Haas opting for a conservative mode before Turn 1.

"I think everyone is taking it seriously, it looks like, because they were doing pre-start revs etc," said Ocon when asked by The Race about how much could be read into the starts.

"And yes, me and Lewis we rocket past everybody, pretty much.

"On my side they've put some safety before Turn 1 so I clipped after 200 metres! I was a bit frustrated, let's say, that I had to reach the boost button to go faster.

"But it's only testing and the important was the first 200 metres."

Earlier in the day, at the end of the first test session, Hamilton had made another excellent start - much better than George Russell's Mercedes - along with Ollie Bearman, who drove the Haas in the morning. Lando Norris had a very delayed start in the McLaren.

Though there is obviously a need for some caution in reading into these practice situations, mainly due to the potential for drivers to be using different settings, much less it not being the real thing, they are taken seriously as they are a rare opportunity to test a critical procedure.

That is especially so with the new 2026 engines and an experimental start process to help with the difficulty so many are having in preparing the engine's turbo for the launch – which is where a key Ferrari advantage lies.

The Ferrari engine is understood to have a smaller turbo, a conscious choice with its 2026 design to deal with certain challenges around the new rules.

With no MGU-H anymore, just an uprated MGU-K to deliver the electric portion of the near 50/50 power split with the V6, there is no way to electronically spin the turbo to make sure the boost pressure is high enough to deliver power when the driver demands it through the throttle.

The way around this is for teams to pre-spin the turbo, which is why most cars are using lower gears in corners than before and are revving the engines while stationary prior to a race start - this has gone for practice starts in the pitlane and those on the grid.

Ferrari, which took its decision on engine architecture having raised the likelihood of tricky starts without the MGU-H one year ago, does not have to worry about this so much. A smaller turbo spins faster, which makes it easier to get the boost pressure required, as it takes less energy to spin it.

This is why the Ferrari-engined cars are using second gear in corners where others are now downshifting to first, but it also seems to come with an advantage in other areas.

Rival drivers have noted how strong the Ferrari cars are on corner exit, for example, again a result of having better responsiveness on throttle. And the starts are another area the Ferrari engine seems to be strong.

Its starts have been predictable and repeatable across multiple cars now, which cannot be said for all teams as trying to get the revs in the right range for the turbo and then also for the launch itself has not been easy.

One driver said "everything seems to be fighting everything else" – which is not looking at all the case for the Ferrari cars. 

Ocon is pleased with how repeatable the Ferrari starts are, as while it is "not quite yet the same as last year" it is already "nowhere near how it was in the beginning of the test and when we tried these cars for the first time".

"That was pretty strong the last two days, the way we started," he said.

"We're happy with it. We need to see when we go into tracks where there is much more grip on the line."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/ferraris-rocket-starts-in-f1-testing-explained/

[llumia]

Mercedes' angry response to fuel legality rumours

Mercedes boss Toto Wolff has angrily hit back at suggestions his team risks running its engines with non-homologated fuel at the start of the season.

As Mercedes' fuel supplier Petronas continues its process of getting official sign off of its 2026 products from the FIA, rumours surfaced of it not getting approval in time and being forced to run something different from the Australian Grand Prix.

But Wolff has rubbished such talk, as he expressed annoyance at the latest speculation surrounding his team so soon after the controversy surrounding compression ratios.

"We were told compression ratio is something where we were illegal, which is total bullshit, utter bullshit," said Wolff, when asked by The Race about the situation surrounding fuel.

"Now the next story comes up that our fuel is illegal. I don't know where that comes from, and it starts spinning again.

"Maybe tomorrow, we're inventing something else that I don't know - I've been on the Epstein files. God knows what?

"So another nonsense. You know, this is a complicated topic with the process and all of this, but I can't even comment."

The Race understands that Mercedes' fuel is on course to be approved – with the certification procedure set to be signed off soon.

The products that Mercedes and its customers have used in testing so far are believed to be identical in terms of their chemical composition to its planned race fuel.

However, they are permitted for testing to contain components that are not sourced from the supply chain being certified that must be used for racing.

Compression ratio 'fair game'
Mercedes has been under the spotlight of its rivals all winter after it emerged it had found a way to exploit F1's compression ratio rules.

But the ongoing controversy on that topic seems to be nearing a conclusion, with an e-vote due to take place next week regarding an additional way of testing for compliance.

While Mercedes has long maintained that what it is doing with its engine is fully legal, and has had approval from the FIA, Wolff has said it will not challenge new procedures if they are agreed.

"We said it all along that this looks like a storm in a teacup, the whole thing, and the numbers that were coming up, if these numbers would have been true I absolutely understand why somebody would fight it," he said.

"But eventually it's not worth the fight. It doesn't change anything for us, whether we stay like this or whether we change the new regulations."

Wolff suggested last week that any gain from its compression ratio trick is only worth a few horsepower.

And while Mercedes' rivals pushed for new testing procedures, Wolff believes that the move to have both a hot and a cold test is something that may not actually hurt his team.

"I think the way it's been done now, that it needs to be compliant to the regulations when it's cold and when it's hot, doesn't give anybody an advantage," he said.

"I think the attempt was from the other guys to have it only measured hot so they could actually have it cold outside of the regulation. So now it's a fair game for everyone."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/mercedes-angry-response-to-fuel-legality-rumours/

[llumia]

Why F1 teams have been asked to test reduced battery power

Formula 1 teams have been invited to run with reduced electric power deployment at times during the final Bahrain test to help evaluate a backup plan to resolve the main complaints with the 2026 engines, The Race can reveal.

The main concerns with the new power units relate to the techniques required to charge the battery and whether full power can be deployed enough across a qualifying lap in particular.

Teams are using more aggressive downshifts and 'super clipping' – stopping electric power deployment to run the MGU-K against the engine while the driver stays on full throttle to charge the battery – alongside conventional recharging methods like braking and, to a lesser extent, lifting and coasting.

Optimisation of the engines has improved significantly over the three weeks of testing from Barcelona and the two Bahrain events, but drivers have complained about the compromises required to maximise charging and deployment across a lap.

Suggestions have been raised for how this could be improved for the start of the season, but stakeholders are wary of making regulatory changes before races have even taken place.

The FIA said on Wednesday that, after a discussion at that day's F1 Commission, evaluation and technical checks on energy management would be carried out over the remainder of this week's Bahrain test – which The Race understands relates to teams being invited to run with reduced MGU-K power output.

If they do, it will be useful data to understand how much of a difference reducing the peak MGU-K power makes to the recharging requirement around the lap.

Effectively, the question is would it be better to run with a lower peak power in racing conditions but be able to use that power more often. It is a back-up plan the FIA has had in mind for a long time and was even discussed early last year, although different figures have been suggested in the paddock for what it should be reduced to – 350kW down to 300kW, for example, or as low as 200kW.

But it would mean changing a core aspect of the cars – that the electric element contributes almost 50% of the total power output – in race trim, so is not a preferred route. Neither is another mooted option of just allowing the teams to use and burn more fuel to work the internal combustion engine harder.

Another change that has been proposed, though, is to increase how much the battery can be recovered with a super clip. Presently, the rules do not allow the MGU-K to run as a generator beyond 250kW, as this prevents reducing the overall engine power output and speed too much. But McLaren suggested that allowing the MGU-K to work at full capacity in reverse – so 350kW – would eliminate the need for lifting and coasting, for example. Teams have been invited to test super clipping at 350kW.

What is unclear, and why experimenting with different methods in testing has been discussed before the season begins, is how much of a benefit any such changes would actually yield, hence the desire to test ideas in Bahrain and then also get information from race weekends as well.

Stakeholders seem to agree it is prudent to wait until there is a decent sample set of races to fully understand the situation, especially as the season begins in Australia where the track is not going to afford many recharging opportunities.

That means many are braced for Melbourne featuring aggressive harvesting tactics, even in qualifying. And there are other difficult tracks in the opening run of races including Suzuka and especially Jeddah that will be challenging too.

And there is general agreement that it is wise to be proactive in assessing the options that would be the lightest-touch fixes in case something does need to be done early in the season.

Grand Prix Drivers' Association director Carlos Sainz called for FOM and the FIA to "stay a bit open-minded, in case the regulations that we've come up with are maybe a bit exaggerated on the amount of harvesting or deployment we have to do through a lap".

He said "we might need to adjust a bit the regulations" and added "we should stay flexible, rather than committed to a certain level of energy management".

Senior figures in F1 also have optimism that the progress being made with the new engines means these are short-term issues rather than something that could dog the entire rules cycle.

One example given is how unprepared teams were for race starts or in understanding energy deployment when the first test took place at Barcelona compared to now, with teams finding several tenths of a second in laptime just by refining deployment tactics and the cars become a lot less alien for the drivers in how they behave.

That means wholesale changes could be avoided even if there is quickly consensus that refinements are needed, and if that requires tweaks to the regulations.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-teams-told-to-test-reduced-battery-power/

[llumia]

F1 considering weekend format shake-up

Formula 1 is evaluating a shake-up of the format of non-sprint race weekends in a bid to spice up the action on Fridays.

Amid ongoing discussions about increasing the number of sprint races in the future, with an upper limit of 12 on the table, F1 has revealed plans to try and add more excitement to every race weekend.

Speaking at the Bahrain pre-season test, F1 CEO Stefano Domenicali said F1 is considering moving away from just having two straight one-hour practice sessions on a regular Friday.

Options could include a competitive element, extended practice or even exclusive young driver running.

Domenicali explained that the push was a result of feedback from fans at events and promoters that they want to see "real action" on each day of a grand prix weekend.

"We are thinking to keep relevant every day that we are on track and, of course, to protect the time needed for the rookies to have the time to run," he said.

"That is either having a longer time for free practice when we do it, or having a session for them to be allowed to get in this ecosystem, because it is clear that on a sprint weekend, if you are a rookie, you don't have a lot of time.

"That's a point that we are addressing, and we will present shortly something real in this respect."

While discussions about expanding the number of sprint weekends up to 12 did not reach a conclusion in a meeting of the F1 Commission earlier this week, Domenicali said that a decision on how many there will be in 2027 is expected "in the next months".

"Everyone wants to have it [a sprint], but we want to wait to see the effect on the track," he said.

"It's also a commercial opportunity that we want to discuss."

F1 season launch

Looking towards 2027 plans, Domenicali has also revealed that F1 is considering staging another global launch event - similar to the F1 75 spectacular at the O2 that took place in early 2025.

"Next year, we will go back to one single test before the season," he said.

"And we are also thinking about, as we did [last year] a potential global launch, with all the teams together.

"It was a big effect, a sort of a 25th race in terms of impact of communication around the world. But it's still work in progress on that."

Turkey to return?

Domenicali is also working on finalising the 24-race schedule for 2027, especially with a slot opening up now that the Circuit de Barcelona-Catalunya is switching to alternate with Spa-Francorchamps.

Speculation in recent days has suggested that Turkey could be set for a return to the calendar alongside Portimao – with Domenicali not ruling it out.

"Turkey is not, let's say, 100% confirmed," he explained. "Stay tuned on Turkey.

"This is also an answer to the people that were saying there were too many street races.

"The new ones that are coming are tracks, not street races. These are tracks with heritage, and with a great racing background."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/more-real-action-on-fridays-f1-plans-weekend-format-changes/

[McHouserphy]

Gráficas del dia 6 de test de pretemporada año 2026 en Bahrein:

[llumia]

 Why F1 teams can run 'illegal' fuels in testing

Formula 1 teams being allowed to run non-homologated fuels in pre-season testing that would be illegal on race weekends has been a subject of intrigue in recent weeks.

The permission to do so originated in an unintended ambiguity in the regulations that was ultimately considered a pragmatic approach, given the complexity of introducing advanced sustainable fuels in 2026.

Reports that the Petronas fuel used by Mercedes and its customers has not yet been certified and the implication it was illegal led to team principal Toto Wolff angrily denouncing such suggestions as "nonsense" when asked by The Race about them during Thursday's press conference.

It's understood that the fuel being used by Mercedes is the advanced sustainable blend that is intended for racing throughout the season, but like most, if not all, fuel suppliers in testing, Petronas is running what is called a 'surrogate' fuel.

In simple terms, this is a fuel that is mixed to the recipe of the race fuel, but with the allowance for components used in it to be sourced outside of the intended sustainable supply chain. This will not be permitted after testing is complete this year, or in the future.

While the FIA does not know what fuels are being run in testing given this freedom, meaning competitors can run any fuel they want, it would be illogical to run an unrepresentative blend. But this measure allows for any problems in producing the prodigious amount of fuel needed for pre-season testing to be worked around, and could perhaps also mean a reduction in costs.

FIA single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis explained that the rules were not originally conceived to allow for the use of surrogate fuels in pre-season testing, and why it was deemed pragmatic not to tighten those rules.

"The regulations, just to be clear, were not completely explicit that during testing fuel had to be certified," said Tombazis when asked by The Race to explain the reasoning. "That was originally an oversight rather than intended.

"As it became quite clear that also the certification was quite time-consuming and complicated, rather than intervening to adjust this not-originally-intended space in the regulations, we felt it was practical and realistic to adjust for this first year to permit the usage of surrogate fuels.

"So it was not an intended hole in the regulations, it had been unintended, but with the benefit of hindsight when we got closer to the date and it became obvious that some people would need a bit of that in order to be able to be comfortable, we felt it was a pragmatic approach."

The FIA's intention is that, as Tombazis says, "we want people to be certified before going racing, and that's the target".

However, some in the F1 paddock have suggested that there could be a lag in this process given its complexity.

Effectively, this could create a situation where the fuel supplier has completed its part of the process, but the final rubber-stamping depends on the completion of auditing by the specialist company, Zemo, that oversees the certification process.

This would mean there's no prospect of any suppliers not having a fuel to race in Australia, but the FIA is anyway adamant its intention is for certification to be complete by the Australian Grand Prix.

"I don't think I should comment on who is fully certified or not, because that is for each fuel supplier," said Tombazis.

"It is fair to say the new process is more complicated than what it has normally been, because not only do we look after the chemistry of the fuels, meaning we don't want to have more than a certain percentage of particular chemicals and certain combustion properties and certain energy content properties, [but] in addition to that, we have all the sustainability requirements for fuel. Each fuel has to be sustainable, and it has to achieve a certain reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. That's a core part of this formula.

"Each fuel contains maybe 100 different components, different elements that go into the final blend of the fuel. In order to be sure that this fuel is sustainable, we need to check every component. That means to check the suppliers of these components, because they are not all necessarily made in a particular single factory. We need to check that each one of these suppliers uses methods that are reducing the carbon footprint and not originating from fossil components.

"All of that process is quite complicated, and we are learning from it. We have of course the support of Zemo, a certifying company for that. As a result, it has been a bit of a challenge."

Five companies will supply fuel to teams in F1 this year - Petronas (Mercedes teams), Shell (Ferrari teams), ExxonMobil (Red Bull teams), Aramco (Aston Martin-Honda) and BP (Audi).

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/why-f1-teams-can-run-illegal-fuels-in-testing/