Beta F1-Gears

Muchas gracias por toda la info de pretemporada.

Ya queda nada y a ver qué pasa en el Golfo Pérsico si no hay que anular algunos GP´s

En la tercera entrega de artículos de Autosport Plus de este año, nos encontramos análisis de la primera semana de test en Baréin.

• Why both sides have a case in F1's engine row.
• What we learned on day 2 of 2026 F1 testing in Bahrain.
• What Verstappen means by warning of F1 2026 "disaster" to come.
• Why Alpine's WEC exit isn't a body blow but a warning sign.
• What we learned from the first week of F1 Bahrain testing.
• Why F1's golden age isn't what you think it is.
• Why Jaguar's Formula E resurgence ensures Porsche won't have it all its own way.
• The safety warnings that trump driver complaints on F1 2026 cars.
• How Evans is becoming a Rally Sweden master.
• What to look out for in F1's second week of Bahrain testing.
• Just how good is the WRC's King of Consistency?
• Top 10 greatest F1 circuits.
• What we learned from the opening day at Bahrain's second F1 2026 test.

Descarga Autosport Plus - del 12 al 18 de febrero de 2026:    https://mega.nz/file/rkdAACCI#cHQoN2keGrAH2Vi-mxnQrkJfu8bSXRpIsuvlyYw3UAQ

Cadillac names its first F1 car after Andretti

Cadillac's first Formula 1 chassis will be designated MAC-26, as a tribute to its ambassador, Mario Andretti.

The 1978 world champion Andretti was a key driver of Cadillac's long-running bid to join the F1 grid as all 11th team, along with his son Michael, who initially spearheaded the project.

Michael was shuffled out of the entry that F1 eventually approved, as was the Andretti name, but Mario has remained an ambassador for the team.

Now, ahead of Mario's 86th birthday on February 28, Cadillac has revealed its first F1 chassis will pay tribute to him.

The MAC-26 - or Mario Andretti Cadillac 26 - honours "Andretti and his lasting influence on the team's formation and competitive ambition".

Andretti called it the "ultimate compliment that Cadillac sees those years as meaningful and worthy of recording with this honour".

"I cherish the opportunity that it gives me to have a lasting bond with F1 and am genuinely appreciative of everyone who continues to acknowledge my part in racing history."

Cadillac team principal Graeme Lowdon called Andretti "an incredible man with a gentle heart".

Lowdon added: "At the start of my own journey with the team, he asked me not to let him down - I hope that he will be proud to see the Cadillac Formula 1 car bearing his name finally take to the grid."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/cadillac-names-first-f1-car-mac-26-after-mario-andretti/

Monaco two-stop rule dropped after 2025 mess
Formula 1

Formula 1 has dropped its mandatory two-stop format for the Monaco Grand Prix after just one season.

An update to the regulations removes the stipulation for all cars to use three sets of tyres in the race in Monaco rather than two as is the case normally.

The format was tried in 2025 in a bid to spice up a race usually devoid of overtaking, and which has been heavily criticised as a spectacle in recent years.

But the two-stop plan backfired as teams in the midfield in particular took advantage of the impossibility of overtaking on track in Monaco to use one of their cars to back rivals up and create gaps for their team-mates to pit without losing position.

With that creating some farcical scenes lower down the order and the additional stop making little difference to the spectacle at the front, it is little surprise that the two-stop stipulation has turned out to just be a single-year experiment.

What we made of it

Our verdicts on the Monaco two-stop race were generally negative after its first use - with Scott Mitchell-Malm, Ben Anderson and Gary Anderson all particularly unimpressed, but Jon Noble seeing a few positives in it.

Here's what our team said at the time:

Not racing as it's meant to be
Scott Mitchell-Malm

This was a novel Monaco Grand Prix but not an enjoyable one. It certainly wasn't racing as it's meant to be.

So, the two-stop strategy being mandated made it different - also interesting and tense at times - but not drastically better.

It was just an extended version of the usual Monaco nonsense. Any team in position to back up the pack with one car, backed up the pack.

There were flashes of intrigue but nothing more. Maybe that was better than what Monaco usually offered. But this race just fizzled about a bit without turning into much at all - apart from questionable tactics and pointlessly controversial moments.

It was worth trying, because the alternative is just to keep complaining about how dull normal Monaco races are.

But unless there's a way to tighten up silly loopholes then this is not an experiment worth repeating.

Exaggerated the worst Monaco tactics
Ben Anderson

As far as I can tell, all the mandatory two-stop rule did was exaggerated the worst of a strategic tendency we've seen before at Monaco: teams sacrificing one car to help the other.

Racing Bulls used Liam Lawson as a road block to protect a top-six finish for Isack Hadjar, but the natural separation between those two cars meant RB also helped Fernando Alonso (until his engine failure) and Esteban Ocon as an unintended consequence.

Williams then took that strategy to the extreme by using the lack of separation on track between Alex Albon and Carlos Sainz to swap positions and back up the pack to clear the pitstops and ensure a double top-10 finish.

This was so farcical that George Russell basically cut the chicane on purpose to try to break the stalemate.

That at least got the penalty it deserved, but it was still overall an ugly spectacle.

Williams team boss James Vowles was uncomfortable enough with the optics he even admitted live on TV that this "isn't the way I like to go racing".

The only reasonable conclusion is: this didn't work and needs a rethink.
It achieved nothing
Gary Anderson

Basically, it did nothing other than adding confusion. Last year, the top 10 in qualifying finished the race in exactly the same places. This year, the only reason the top 10 in qualifying didn't finish the race in exactly the same places was because Lewis Hamilton had a three-place grid penalty so started seventh not fourth then finished fifth, and Fernando Alonso didn't finish.

So I don't really see the point.

Well done to McLaren, Ferrari, Red Bull and Racing Bulls. As for Mercedes, I would love to be a fly on the wall in Brackley on Monday morning. Actually, I'm about 10 miles away so if the wind is in the right direction I might just hear its Monaco debrief from here...

Anyway, onwards and upwards. Barcelona next, flexing front wings will be the talk of the town when we get there.

Good for the show, not good for the sport
Edd Straw

The rule mandating three sets of tyres be used worked as anticipated. It certainly made the race more interesting and inevitably led to some rolling roadblocks splitting up the race, so it's fair to say there was greater jeopardy.

Whether or not that's a good thing entirely depends on your perspective. There was never any chance that it would lead to the pure manifestation of grand prix racing at its flat-out, tactical best and it's always troubling to see drivers deliberately lapping well off the pace to ruin the races of others and benefit their own team. But it was also inevitable.

This is the question F1 must ask itself. Ultimately, yes it was good for 'the show' but it wasn't so good for 'the sport' - and that's a balance that must always be grappled with.

Thought needs to be put into whether this is really the way to make race day in Monaco more exciting and the negatives are worth accepting, or whether it's just a step too far in terms of turning the race into a game of strategy where backing up rivals massively is acceptable. That's a more difficult question than it might seem because it's also pot luck whether teams are in a position to do that because the opportunity is created by the track position of both cars.

It's also a difficult decision to make, for while this mostly affected the lower order you can imagine the uproar if the front of the race turned into so extreme a manifestation of strategic play.

Or perhaps that's exactly the kind of story-laden Monaco Grand Prix F1 wants?
Dull and contrived
Josh Suttill

I appreciate the attempt to try to liven up the Monaco Grand Prix off the back of a dull 2024 race, but this was never the way to do it.

The problem last year was that everybody had a free tyre change under the red flag. The way you solve that is for Monaco-only, mandating a physical pitstop taking place rather than just a tyre change that can be done under the red flag.

This was just silly. Nauseating to keep up with, even if you had a timing screen open on a second device, and very vulnerable to being silly, even if it does work in spicing up the race.

Imagine if someone outside the top 10 (like Yuki Tsunoda) had crashed in the closing laps, caused a red flag and handed victory to Max Verstappen on a plate?

Gambling is an important part of any Monaco race, but this takes it a step too far and F1's lucky it's still got a proper result today.
It was worth a try
Jon Noble

Was it perfect? No. But did F1's two-stop plan for the Monaco Grand Prix add a level of uncertainty and potential jeopardy compared to races in the past? Absolutely.

I have sat through some pretty boring Monaco GPs in the past and this one was definitely an improvement on that.

It was always going to be hard to best judge whether the two-stop plan was a success or failure but the fact that the top four contenders remained so close to the end - with varied strategies - has to be be deemed a better outcome than a random winner lucking into an undeserved success.

Yes F1 needs to think how best to avoid the team-mate shenanigans that clouded the battle outside the top ten, and more effort needs to go into trying to open up more overtaking opportunities - but I would much rather watch what we had this year than the borefest of 12 months ago.
 
Maybe just leave Monaco alone
Matt Beer

F1 teams are too good at finding ways to squash attempts to shake races up (though the vagaries of Pirelli's C5 and C6 tyres lately have come close to flummoxing them in some interesting ways at least).

A circuit this narrow and with so few straights means whatever you try, in cars this size the race is likely to be a load of queues and people having the option to manipulate the pace. Enforcing two stops just doubled their chances to do so.

Find a way to get the 'free tyre change under red flag' quirk out of the rules to prevent a repeat of 2024, and then maybe just accept that in a 30-race (including sprints) season it's OK to have one where the drama and spectacle is all about Saturday.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/monaco-two-stop-rule-dropped-after-2025-mess/

F1 moves to ban engine tricks and brings new test forward



Formula 1's manufacturers have agreed to revised compression ratio rules in a move that could help Mercedes' rivals make up lost ground next year.

The new test for hot conditions will now come into force much sooner than expected, and there is new tighter wording in the regulations designed to prevent tricks that could get around the test.

Mercedes has been at the centre of a controversy over the winter after it emerged that it had found a way to exploit a new 16:1 compression ratio limit that had been imposed for 2026.

With the rules stating checks would take place in ambient conditions, it had found a way to increase its compression ratio – which delivers more performance – when the engine was up at hot operating temperatures.

Rivals had pushed for a change to the procedures to stamp out its advantage, and an original suggestion had been for a new hot test to be added alongside the cold test to be introduced from August 1.

But with such a route not being ideal for manufacturers to work out how best to exploit the situation for themselves, further discussions took place about an alternative solution.

Now, following a vote of F1's Power Unit Advisory Committee (PUAC), it has been agreed that the new hot test – which will take place when components have been warmed to 130C – will come into force six races earlier than originally planned.

A statement from the FIA said that a lot of work had gone into reaching an agreement on the compression ratio issue – which it said had been backed unanimously.

"A significant effort has been invested in finding a solution to the topic of the compression ratio," the FIA said.

"This parameter, which was one of the key fundamental targets of these regulations in order to attract newcomers to the sport, is limited in the regulations to 16:1, measured in cold conditions.

"The FIA has worked to find a compromise solution which determines that the compression ratio will be controlled in both hot and cold conditions from 1 June 2026, and subsequently only in the operating conditions (130deg C) from 2027 onwards."

The June 1 date falls between the Canadian and Monaco GPs, rounds seven and eight, meaning any competitive form reset triggered by the change – if Mercedes has to make any alterations to its design – will happen two months earlier than was originally suggested.

However, Mercedes has been adamant it will have no problem passing the additional test and that it will make no difference to its form. This may well explain why it did not vote against the change of regulation.

The FIA's new rules from June 1 also rule out any trick designs that aim to exploit the compression ratio situation.

Updated regulations state: "Any component, assembly, mechanism, or integrated arrangement of components that is designed or functions to increase the compression ratio in operating conditions beyond 16.0 is prohibited."

Of more importance to Mercedes' rivals is the removal of the cold test for 2027 – which means that compression ratios will only be checked when hot.

With power units typically reducing their compression ratio when they get hotter, it means that only needing to pass the hot test will be a boost to Mercedes' competitors when it comes to designing a power unit that exploits this area of performance.

They have been scratching their heads about how Mercedes has managed to design internal components that increase, rather than decrease, the compression ratio when the power unit gets hot.

With both a cold test and a hot test in place to check on the 16:1 limit, that made it much harder for Mercedes' rivals to design engines that could get close to a higher limit as they would already be losing ground when things moved from cold to hot.

Now, with just a hot test, it means they have more leeway to target a higher compression ratio overall.

While Mercedes' rivals have been adamant that the potential gain on offer from the compression ratio trick is as much as 13bhp - which can be worth 0.3–0.4 seconds per lap – Mercedes disagrees.

Team boss Toto Wolff said the gains had been blown out of proportion as he reckoned it was only worth a couple of horsepower at best.

In another smaller regulation update, the eight minute gap between Q2 and Q3 has been reduced to seven but Q3 itself has been extended from 12 minutes to 13.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/f1-2026-engine-rule-tightening-to-happen-six-races-earlier/

Pirelli cancels Bahrain F1 test due to safety concerns

Pirelli has cancelled its two-day Formula 1 tyre test amid the escalating international situation between the United States, Israel and Iran, with further potential disruption to the start of F1's 2026 season to come.

Pirelli had an unusual wet tyre test planned for February 28-March 1 in Bahrain (using sprinklers) before F1's Melbourne opener with Mercedes and McLaren, but that's now been cancelled for security reasons. On Saturday, Iranian forces said they had struck a US naval base in Bahrain.

"The two days of development tests for wet-weather compounds, scheduled for today and tomorrow at the Bahrain International Circuit, have been cancelled for security reasons following the evolving international situation," a spokesperson from Pirelli told The Race.

"All Pirelli personnel currently in Manama are safe in their hotels.

"The company is working to ensure their safety and arrange their return to Italy and the UK as soon as possible."

It's also impacting some teams' travel plans for F1's season-opening Australian Grand Prix, as the Middle East is often used as a layover from the UK before onward travel to Australia.
 
The Race says
Scott Mitchell-Malm

This kind of worrying development in the Middle East triggers two reactions for people in F1.

The first is a human one, especially when you can see that part of the F1 community is there in some way, the Pirelli, Mercedes and McLaren personnel and anybody associated with the tyre test that was due to take place this weekend.

They join the people who live in these affected countries who are right there, while this is happening, which is always alarming.

It can't help but make it more real for those of us who are otherwise kept at a safe distance from these harsh realities, and brings those people to the forefront of our thoughts, whether they are part of the F1 community or not.

Bahrain has just hosted two weeks of F1 testing. I and others from The Race, our colleagues, our friends in the F1 paddock, basically lived in Bahrain for two weeks.

We stayed in the Juffair area that has just been subject to an attack. It brings it closer to home and it makes for a much more sobering experience simply because you can place where it is happening.

The second reaction will be a logistic one, plain and simple. F1 has a long history of having to operate around geopolitical tensions and events outside of its control.

The show almost always goes on. So attention has to turn, in a lot of places, where are the problem areas from an F1 perspective for this and how can they be resolved?

First and foremost, this disrupts a lot of people's plans logistically to get out to Australia for the season opener. The Middle East is a very popular transit hub for this journey.

Lots of people will be travelling through Abu Dhabi and Qatar, including myself early next week, where the airspace is currently closed.

There's enough time for this to be resolved or for alternative arrangements to be made, for people to get to Australia without it being a problem. But if it continues, and people start getting into early next week and not being able to travel, that is when they will struggle to get there for when they need to be.

Beyond that, there's the prospect of races in that region that you cannot currently travel to and are being subject to military strikes. It's impossible to know how long that will continue.

F1 is due to race in Bahrain and then Saudi Arabia in April, and both places have closed airspace right now. It will at least be on the radar at a very high level that this needs to be monitored.

Right now, it would be hyperbolic to say those races are a risk. It might sound cruel to even care or consider it, because F1 should obviously come a distant second to the priorities of the people in those areas, but these things do get thought about well in advance.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/pirelli-cancels-bahrain-f1-test-due-to-safety-concerns/

Five ways F1 qualifying will change for teams in 2026



Formula 1 is heading into a 2026 season where energy management is going to be critical to laptime.

But while the primary headache for this will be in races - because pace needs to be maintained over consecutive laps - it is going to be just as important in the shootout for grid positions.

In fact, as drivers and teams have discovered during pre-season testing, the new cars' lack of energy means any hope of at least their qualifying efforts being free of worries about battery deployment has vanished.

Drivers will need to think carefully about harvesting energy and how they use it, which in turn has consequences in terms of traffic and tyre management as well.

It all looks set to make each of the three qualifying segments potentially even more fraught than they have been previously.

Here are some of the implications that the new cars have on how drivers will attack qualifying.
Easing out of the final corner

In the past, it was obvious to drivers that the key to starting a qualifying lap in the best way was to make sure they were going as quickly as possible when they crossed the start/finish line.

This normally meant ensuring that the exit from the final corner was perfect, and that drivers were flat on the throttle as early as they could be to maximise top speed.

Such an approach is off the table now because any early use of full throttle prior to the start/finish line will result in the battery getting drained.

And that will cost time later in the lap when the missing power could have been put to use somewhere more suitable.

This is why one of the quirks of the quick laps in the Bahrain test was that drivers were no longer coming out of the final corner flat-out before a push lap.

They were being cautious with the throttle, to ensure no battery power was being used, before committing at a predetermined point before the start/finish line to putting their foot down fully.

This point where they accelerate will be based on best balancing the compromises between starting the lap slightly slower versus gains to be had later on thanks to having a bit more battery available, and the peak speed profile for the entire straight.

At some tracks where there is not much distance between the exit of the final corner and the timing line, like Melbourne for example, the need to back off coming out of the final corner will not be so great.

But if the straights are longer - such as at Monza or in Baku - then that could prompt some strange antics ahead of the qualifying laps.
Not driving flat-out

The obsession with maximising the use of the limited energy means that drivers are no longer going to be able to attack at every corner.

Depending on the layout of the track, there could be calls for some super clipping - the new 2026 phenomenon where the cars harvest energy while on full throttle - or even lift-and-coast tactics that compromise the entry to one corner, because the power harvested delivers a bigger boost somewhere else than the time lost gathering it.

But how frequently such tactics appear remains unknown for now. Although teams ramped up performance runs at Sakhir, it is a track that is quite easy for harvesting.

As Lewis Hamilton explained: "If you look at Barcelona for example, you're doing 600 metres lift and coast on a qualifying lap. That's not what racing is about.

"Here [Bahrain] we're not having to do that because there's lots of braking zones."

Two of the most difficult tracks for recovering energy - Albert Park and Jeddah - come early in the season, so we may get an early glimpse of how bad things can be.

And it could be that, at those tracks, the fight for pole is decided by who manages to harvest the most energy, rather than who is quicker through the corners.

Adopting more lift and coast, and super clipping excessively in the high-speed sections, could be the way to go if the gains on the straights are worth it.
Battery vs tyre conundrum

The need to make sure the battery is fully charged for the start of the qualifying lap means that it is not just important to be cautious with the throttle out of the final corner; drivers will need to do it over the whole lap.

This means ensuring that harvesting is maximised ahead of the push lap. And then, once the battery has hit its peak potential, all its energy is saved until the point a driver crosses the line.

Achieving this successfully will potentially mean driving in an unusual way in final sectors, which could include some super-cautious driving at minimal throttle.

While this tactic will be great for maximising battery, it is not going to be good for some other elements that are equally important for qualifying.

One of the key considerations for a good qualifying lap is making sure that tyres are in the right window, so they are neither overheated nor too cold at the beginning of a lap.

More often than not the final sector is the best opportunity to get everything fine-tuned in this area.

However, if drivers find themselves having to back off because of battery considerations, then a drop in speed here could trigger a resultant loss in tyre temperatures too.

So, the tenths you gain from the battery could be outweighed by time lost with underprepared tyres.

Going slowly in the final sector will have implications in terms of traffic and managing gaps to the cars ahead, too. There will be an increased risk of drivers getting caught by someone else coming up fast behind.

Drivers will also need to be very mindful about staying above the delta times and being within the maximum laptime laid down by the F1 race director.

So they could be forced to get a hurry on if they find themselves at risk of a penalty.
Double prep laps

The risk of potential tyre trade-offs coming from making sure that the battery is in the best shape possible could mean a complete rethink of how teams approach qualifying.

At some tracks where keeping temperatures down is the primary objective, it may be a bit easier to tick off both the battery and tyre boxes.

But at some low-energy or colder circuits, where tyres at the front and the rear need to be at optimum temperatures, that may prove impossible to do on a single lap if drivers also want to nail the energy management too.

One avenue that teams were exploring during the Bahrain test was to have two preparation laps prior to a qualifying effort.

The first could be used to get the tyres up to the right temperature and ensure the battery was close to where it needed to be.

Then, with a bit of an attack over the first half of the second lap, easing off to preserve energy for the last sector could mean everything was perfectly prepped.

But amid extra complications caused by two extra cars being on track this year, with Cadillac's arrival, completing two preparation laps will not be suitable everywhere.

So this is why teams could have to start looking at different ways to get their tyres in the right window.
Blanket tricks

What teams will quickly need to understand is whether a perfect preparation lap for the battery can be done in conjunction with getting the tyres sorted too.

And if the preference is not to do two preparation laps - because that can compromise run programmes throughout each qualifying segment - then there may be another way.

Pirelli's Mario Isola - who will step back from his head of motorsport role on March 1 - said if the key is balancing the front and rear tyre temperatures perfectly, then teams could start choosing not to heat one axle to help on this front.

"We give them prescriptions on the maximum temperature they can use in the blankets," he said. "So to balance front and rear, someone could try to lower the temperature of the rear blankets to balance the two.

"[In testing] they have done some experiments and tried different solutions. So the outlap plus a preparation lap is an option, but also playing around with the blanket temperature is another option."
The basics still matter

While so much effort is going on right now for teams and drivers to nail the energy management requirements, there is also a reality that this alone will not decide the fight for pole.

Ultimate laptime is still the result of a host of elements coming together, some of which will not be related to good or bad use of the battery.

Ferrari team principal Fred Vasseur said he has been ramming home to his staff that key factors which dictated the success or failure of qualifying efforts in the past still remain in place.

He said examples of last year - such as laptimes swinging by six or seven tenths with identical cars simply because of different outlaps putting tyres in or out of their peak parameters - can be repeated this year too.

"We don't have to forget what we did in the past and to just focus on energy management or whatever," he said. "It's important, it's key for laptime. But all the other old parameters of F1 and motorsport are still there, and still have the same importance.

"I think it would be a mistake, and as I am one of the oldest in the team I'm trying to bring this on the table each week: we don't have to forget the basics."

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/all-the-qualifying-quirks-f1-teams-will-be-grappling-with-in-2026/

A key 2026 battleground teams are scrambling to exploit

'Super clipping' has become one of the key phrases of Formula 1's 2026 season build-up.

Having been off many people's radar prior to the new cars hitting the track, super clipping has become not only paddock parlance but could end up being a defining element in the competitive battle.

That is because it has fast become a favoured tool for teams in their fight to harvest power for the energy-starved 2026 cars.

Amid talks of tweaks to the F1 rules to try to smooth out some early headaches, there is a chance that super clipping could become even more attractive to do.

Essentially, super clipping is when the cars harvest energy while on full throttle, usually at the end of straights or through high-speed corners. It takes the energy that would go to the rear wheels and the MGU-K instead harvests it, for deployment later in the lap.

Here we take a look a detailed look at what super clipping is and why it is set to become such a big battleground.

Flat-out energy recovery

It has long been known that F1's shift to cars with a roughly 50/50 power split between the internal combustion engine and the battery would result in them becoming energy-starved.

This meant a big performance push in trying to harvest as much as possible with the MGU-K over each lap.

Recovering energy in F1 is nothing new, and the tactics that were used during the previous rules era are still in play now.

The now larger MGU-K can harvest a maximum of 350kW that is allowed under the regulations from braking, and from the rear axle when the car is in lift and coast mode.

But other options have also proved to be attractive, based on the MGU-K harvesting energy when the car is accelerating too.

This can happen in corners, when drivers will be on partial throttle and the car settings will allow the MGU-K to harvest some of the energy that is being produced by the engine rather than let it be used to power the rear wheels.

But this tactic has been taken a step further with super clipping, which is when the MGU-K is put into harvest mode when the driver is on full throttle.

The rules allow harvesting at 250kW in this way, with the tactic being deployed at the end of straights and even in high-speed corners.

While good for recovering energy, it does mean that some of the power that would normally go to the rear wheels is instead harvested by the MGU-K, which means a reduction in top speed.

It was the use of super clipping in Bahrain's highest-speed corner, Turn 12, which dropped top speeds by around 30km/h (21mph) - from 267km/h (166mph) to 233km/h (145mph) - in early running, that prompted Fernando Alonso's quip about the Aston Martin team chef now being able to drive F1 cars.

While super clipping only allows a maximum of 250kW of recovery, it has proved so attractive for teams at the end of straights because of how it interacts with active aero.

With drivers being on full throttle when super clipping kicks in, it means the front and rear wings stay in straight mode - so there is minimal drag, which is good for top speed.

If drivers switch to lift and coast, it may harvest at 350kW for the period they are doing it, but it means their wings go to high-drag corner mode - and that can prove costly for straightline speed and ultimately laptime.

A push for change

The debate that teams have between going for super clipping or lift and coast at the end of straights has become one that is not just about performance, but that revolves around safety, too.

McLaren team principal Andrea Stella has been quite animated about the risks that can be posed by drivers suddenly coming off the throttle to lift and coast towards the end of straights, potentially catching out anyone running very close behind them.

From his perspective, efforts should be made to deter teams from being tempted to chase the 350kW on offer from lift and coast.

He thinks the best way to do this is to increase what can be on offer from super clipping, which reduces speed in a much more progressive way without any unexpected deceleration.

Stella thinks it would make sense to lift the limit on recovery during super clipping from 250kW to the maximum 350kW.

As part of ongoing discussions with the FIA about potential solutions to early-season problems, McLaren trialled some super clipping at the 350kW limit during last week's second Bahrain test.

The data from that running will now be analysed by the FIA to see if it brings benefits that justify a change to the rules.

Stella said: "It will ultimately be up to the FIA to decide whether they introduce it or not. We successfully tested it and we are happy."

But any call from the FIA on altering the super clipping gains would likely have implications on the competitive picture - because it will help any manufacturer that has been struggling to harvest as much energy.

The FIA is already weighing up whether to reduce the maximum deployment from its current 350kW limit.

Offering less power to be deployed, to either 250kW or even 200kW, would mean the batteries would last longer over a lap - so already reducing the risks of big energy starvation.

If such a move comes at the same time as a shift to allow 350kW from super clipping, then the whole equation of energy management could be dramatically shifted.

Suddenly, teams that were marginal in terms of how much energy they could harvest against their need for deployment would find themselves in a better situation where things are tipped more in their favour.

This could prove costly for any manufacturer that had done a better job in terms of its energy management.

The consequences of a change to make super clipping more powerful are therefore bigger than they initially appear - and this is why the FIA wants to wait before rushing into a change of direction.

And that may require analysis over a run of early-season races before deciding what, if anything, needs change.

As the FIA's single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis explained: "We will see where we are.

"We will calibrate our systems and there are ways to react for the racing side.

"If necessary, we will present the proposals to the teams and to the PU [power unit] manufacturers and we will take the decision for the best of the sport. This is a marathon, not a sprint."

The outcome of that decision will dictate which route teams prefer to take to charge their batteries.

But one thing is for certain: super clipping is here to stay.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/super-clipping-how-it-works-why-controversial-key-f1-2026/

Ferrari's outwitted its rivals with key F1 2026 engine choice

Ferrari's blinding race starts during Bahrain testing have highlighted how it's gone in a very different direction from its Formula 1 power unit manufacturer rivals when making a key 2026 design decision.

Since the introduction of the hybrid F1 regulations in 2014, the engine manufacturers have had to balance the output of the turbocharged internal combustion engine (ICE) and the electrical output. On top of that, they had to balance the electrical output against the electrical harvesting (input).

This is the basic turbo layout F1's been using. Up until the end of last season, there was an electrical motor on the turbo shaft (the Motor Generator Unit-Heat or MGU-H). This could be used to spin the turbo up to speed, or hold it back, which would generate electrical power. This was dropped for the 2026 regulations.


Before we actually get to the overall turbo sizing, there is a balance between the turbine volume and the compressor volume, which is also very important, as there are some decisions to make with it:

1) You need to find the optimum ICE rpm window for power output relative to gearing for an average circuit, less any losses. That then gives you the exhaust gas flow volume you have to work with.

To explain those losses: if you were to get an exhaust pipe leak, you get a reduction in exhaust gas flow and, in turn, turbo pumping capacity, so in effect a loss of boost pressure and with that a loss of power. The bigger the leakage, the bigger the losses.

2) You can then decide on what turbo rpm you want to achieve maximum boost pressure at. In the regulations, there is a maximum turbo speed of 150,000 rpm, so you need to stay under that, but other than when the car reaches terminal velocity, the ICE rpm will always be increasing, so the exhaust gas flow will be increasing with ICE rpm.

Before you end up with the correct size balance, you will need to go through these calculations or simulations many times as one affects the other.

MGU-H removal has changed the game

To achieve the above, teams had various options. Having the MGU-H, which, as I said above, was simply an electrical motor on the turbo shaft, can be used in two ways:

1) As an electrical motor to spin up the turbo to achieve the required boost pressure to optimise the power output of the ICE, as the driver requested it.

With this, a big turbo is not such a problem when the ICE rpm is lower than the optimum.

2) As a generator to hold the turbo from overspeeding and/or overboosting and, while doing that, charge up the battery pack.

With this option, a small turbo which spins up faster is not such a problem, as you can generate electrical power to either use as instantaneous power or to charge up your battery pack for later.

So by having that MGU-H, the overall turbo sizing was not as critical as it is going to be for 2026. Now the MGU-H is gone, so the turbo's sole function is to use the exhaust gases to build up plenum boost pressure, which can only be achieved using exhaust gas flow from a 1.6-litre (turbo) engine.

Over the hybrid years, reportedly, Ferrari was the only power unit manufacturer to use what we will call a small-sized turbo; the others used what we will call a large turbo. The actual size is impossible to know, so, in general, I will call them big and small.

Now with the MGU-H gone, all you have at your disposal is exhaust gas flow to create that intake boost pressure.

To control that you can have a pop-off valve. This is a valve on the compressed airflow to or on the plenum (the plenum is a volume of air that is big enough to run the engine efficiently with minimum pressure variation). When the boost pressure gets to or near the allowable maximum it will open and release that extra pressure. This released flow will then go back into the system before the compressor inlet, however when open it will also allow the turbo to increase in speed.

The negative here is that you are wasting the original exhaust gas energy you used to create that boost pressure.

You can also have a wastegate on the exhaust system, to 'waste' excess exhaust gases when or if the turbo is going to overspeed or generate too high a boost pressure.

This would be your main solution to control turbo overspeeding or excess boost pressure. If you were using a big turbo which has a higher pumping capacity then that wastegate would have to react fairly quickly; while with a small turbo, which gets up to that maximum speed and/or boost pressure faster, you should have more control over keeping both turbo speed and boost pressure at a optimum level.

For either turbo sizing, the teams will probably use a combination of both.

However, with any of these systems, waste is a dirty word. When we had the MGU-H, nothing was wasted. You got a more consistent boost pressure and when that or the turbo rpm got too high you could hold it back and create electrical energy.

So, where would suit either of these two solutions the best?

A small turbo would be better when using lower ICE rpm, at circuits with lower speed corners like Monaco, or from a standstill, like off the grid (as you may have seen from some of the practice race starts of the Ferrari-powered cars in testing) or leaving a pitstop.

But a bigger turbo? Well, I'm not sure when that will help with the 2026 regulations. If you can achieve the boost pressure and be within the maximum turbo rpm with the smaller turbo, then the response on and off the throttle will be faster and you will have a lot less pop-off valve and wastegate management needed to control the turbo.

We call the turbo big or small; weight-wise there is a small difference but it's mainly the pumping volume that is big or small, so I'm pretty sure it would be a difference of grams and not kilograms.

If you look at IndyCar, which has been a turbo formula for as long as I can remember, they will use a small turbo on street and road circuits because the engine rpm varies so much. For the big ovals like Indianapolis or Texas, they will use a big turbo because the engine rpm is much more stable.

Has Ferrari outwitted the others here? It might just be so. I'm surprised the other manufacturers with their big turbos didn't look more closely at how much they had to use the MGU-H to optimise the turbo speed.

From that, they should have realised that the removal of the MGU-H might just cause them problems.

https://www.the-race.com/formula-1/ferrari-key-f1-2026-engine-choice-rivals-outwitted/

La hiérarchie complète des 11 équipes avant l'Australie

Les essais de pré-saison 2026 ont déjà bouleversé les hiérarchies et révélé des surprises inattendues dans le peloton.

À l'approche de la saison 2026, tout le monde se demande quelles équipes commenceront la saison sur le bon rythme et lesquelles devront rattraper leur retard.

Après trois semaines d'essais à Barcelone et Bahreïn, un premier classement se dessine. Cette hiérarchie ne prédit ni Melbourne ni l'ensemble de la saison, mais offre une photographie précise de la situation actuelle, basée sur le roulage, la fiabilité et la progression technique observée sur les pistes.

Elle permet également de mettre en évidence les équipes ayant construit une base stable et celles qui partent avec des incertitudes importantes, donnant une lecture stratégique de l'état du plateau avant le premier Grand Prix.

11e – Aston Martin
Dévoilée dans une livrée noire provisoire, l'Aston Martin AMR26 incarnait l'audace promise par l'arrivée d'Adrian Newey comme managing technical partner. Son concept, décrit comme l'une des interprétations les plus extrêmes du nouveau règlement aérodynamique, tranchait visuellement avec la concurrence.

Mais la réalité a frappé dès les premiers tours de roue à Barcelone : seulement quatre tours lors de la première journée avant une panne à l'entrée des stands. Les essais de pré-saison ont confirmé les craintes : kilométrage le plus faible du plateau, fiabilité précaire et performance en retrait. En piste, la voiture s'est montrée lente et délicate à exploiter.

En interne, le constat est clair : le projet accuse un retard significatif.

Newey n'a officiellement pris ses fonctions qu'en mars 2025, alors que les grandes lignes du règlement 2026 étaient connues depuis longtemps et que les rivaux travaillaient déjà activement sur leurs concepts. À son arrivée, il aurait ordonné une refonte significative du projet, générant un retard structurel difficile à combler.

Les problèmes liés au moteur Honda, les limitations de la voiture qui n'ont pu être résolues faute de roulage, et un retard important dans l'apprentissage des stratégies de gestion énergétique pour maîtriser les règles 2026, laissent Aston Martin dans une situation très défavorable. Mike Krack, directeur des opérations en piste, a résumé la situation : "Nous n'avons pas été en mesure d'accomplir toutes les tâches habituelles typiques des essais hivernaux."

La situation du motoriste rappelle de mauvais souvenirs. Lors de son retour avec McLaren en 2015, Honda s'était montré sous-préparé, avec des unités de puissance peu fiables et sous-performantes. Malgré une présence continue en F1 jusqu'à fin 2024 via Red Bull, l'argument avancé aujourd'hui repose sur la dissolution temporaire de son département F1 après 2021.

Officiellement, l'absence d'une structure entièrement dédiée aurait retardé la conception du nouveau moteur 2026. Pourtant, Honda participait aux discussions réglementaires et continuait d'exploiter les marges de développement autorisées au nom de la fiabilité, comme le font tous les motoristes. La comparaison avec Red Bull interpelle d'autant plus : l'équipe autrichienne est partie d'une page blanche pour créer son propre département moteur, bâtissant une usine et recrutant l'ensemble de son personnel en un temps comparable. Or, elle est parvenue à structurer son projet avec une efficacité remarquable, ce qui rend le retard actuel de Honda plus difficile à expliquer.

10e – Cadillac
Sans surprise, la nouvelle équipe F1 commence sa carrière en fond de grille, mais sans doute un peu plus près que ce que l'on pensait.

Cadillac a terminé les essais à un peu plus de trois secondes du rythme et avec un kilométrage respectable, même si elle a été limitée par quelques problèmes mineurs (aucun n'inquiète l'équipe pour Melbourne).

La Cadillac CA01 manque d'appui, ce qui se voit surtout sur les relais longs avec l'usure des pneus. Elle reste toutefois relativement équilibrée, sans surprise désagréable à ce stade.

Cadillac se place donc en dernière position, mais devant Aston Martin en raison de sa base plus exploitable et de meilleures chances de finir les courses. Il semble même possible de concurrencer certaines équipes établies plus lentes.

9e – Williams
Williams admet aborder la nouvelle saison de Formule 1 encore en position défavorable, après que les limites de sa FW48 ont été révélées lors des essais à Bahreïn.

L'équipe basée à Grove a pris du retard, ayant manqué le premier shakedown de Barcelone fin janvier. Elle a toutefois rattrapé une partie du kilométrage perdu, se classant troisième en termes de tours parcourus sur six jours à Bahreïn. Mais la réalité est que sa nouvelle monoplace n'est pas encore au niveau souhaité.

Lors du deuxième test, en poussant un peu plus la voiture, les chronos et le rythme sont apparus légèrement en retrait. Carlos Sainz a commenté :
"La voiture est fiable depuis le début. Cela nous permet évidemment d'identifier ses limites et les domaines où nous devons progresser, et malheureusement, ils sont nombreux."

Le poids reste un point clé difficile à évaluer : la FW48 serait 20 à 30 kg au-dessus du minimum en configuration de lancement. Même un gain de quelques kilos pourrait améliorer significativement les performances, et l'équipe prévoit de réduire la masse de la voiture dès Melbourne et sur les premières courses.

James Vowles, directeur d'équipe, reste prudent pour le Grand Prix d'Australie : "Personne ne sait exactement où se situe toute la performance. Ce que je sais avec certitude, c'est que nous avons du travail. Nous nous sommes mis en position défavorable. Mais nous avons un programme agressif pour extraire le maximum de cette voiture dans les mois à venir."

Le bilan est clair : après une saison 2025 étonnamment solide, l'équipe aborde le début 2026 avec des attentes plus modestes, consciente qu'elle démarre légèrement en retard par rapport à ses rivales.

8e – Audi
Si un prix devait être décerné à la plus grande progression durant les essais, il reviendrait à Audi.

La R26 a changé de manière spectaculaire après une évolution majeure lors du premier test à Bahreïn, et sa tenue de route s'est nettement améliorée à la fin des essais.

James Key, directeur technique, l'affirme : "Nous avons réalisé des progrès significatifs. Les pilotes sont à l'aise avec la voiture et c'est une bonne plateforme de travail."

Ces progrès se sont traduits par un rythme impressionnant sur les longs relais du dernier jour, confirmant qu'Audi devance Williams et figure parmi les prétendants au milieu de grille.

Au début du premier test, les rétrogradages déstabilisaient la voiture et le moteur paraissait plus rugueux que celui des rivaux. Cette agressivité a été considérablement adoucie à la fin des essais.

Le dernier jour, quelques signes d'instabilité arrière subsistaient en freinage dans les virages lents, mais la voiture pouvait être conduite avec plus de constance par Nico Hülkenberg et Gabriel Bortoleto

Il subsiste des interrogations sur la puissance réelle du moteur Audi, mais elles reflètent surtout le fait qu'une seule équipe l'utilise.


© xpbimages.com

7e – Racing Bulls
Racing Bulls se situe dans le peloton central mais sa voiture semble plus difficile à exploiter que la Haas ou l'Alpine.

Après un premier test difficile à Bahreïn, limité par l'instabilité au freinage dans les virages lents, la VCARB03 s'est améliorée mais quelques signes subsistent. Arvid Lindblad a connu deux sorties de piste au virage 10 lors de tours rapides.

Liam Lawson souligne qu'il n'y a pas de problème majeur identifié. Cependant, il a fallu du temps à Racing Bulls pour réduire l'écart avec Red Bull sur la maximisation de l'énergie via les rétrogradages agressifs. Mais même avec un peu de pratique, la livraison de la puissance restait parfois un peu irrégulière en traction.

Pourtant, Alan Permane, directeur d'équipe, se montre confiant : "Les problèmes mineurs rencontrés durant les essais ne seront pas un problème à Melbourne."

6e – Alpine
Imaginer Alpine débuter 2026 en difficulté est presque impensable : l'équipe avait arrêté le développement de sa monoplace 2025 dès que possible pour se concentrer sur la nouvelle réglementation.

On était donc en droit d'espérer un package compétitif, ce qui le cas. Alpine apparaît en effet comme la troisième meilleure équipe motorisée par Mercedes, devant Williams, et devrait être régulièrement dans le top Q3. Un indéniable bond en avant par rapport à l'an dernier.

Le rythme sur les court et long relais était solide durant les essais, et des gains tangibles ont été réalisés. L'Alpine A526 s'est montrée régulière, sans évolution spectaculaire mais avec un bon kilométrage – la priorité absolue pour les essais.

La traction s'est améliorée entre le premier et le deuxième test, et la voiture est restée cohérente.

Le principal défaut de la monoplace de Pierre Gasly concerne le sous-virage à l'avant, qui gêne les pilotes, mais il devrait être corrigé au fil des premières courses. Bref, Alpine se situe fermement dans le peloton central et en position de viser le leadership de ce groupe.


5e – Haas
Si vous deviez choisir une voiture du milieu de grille à piloter à Bahreïn, ce serait la Haas VF-26.

La monoplace US a roulé de manière très fiable et son comportement était efficace. Esteban Ocon et Ollie Bearman ont apprécié les améliorations apportées la dernière semaine, sur l'instabilité en entrée de virage, la traction arrière et l'équilibre dans les virages.

La VF-26 une voiture de milieu de grille bien équilibrée, et avec certains concurrents en difficulté, c'est une base idéale pour débuter la saison.

Haas peut viser le haut du milieu de grille, mais l'Alpine pourrait la devancer légèrement en cours de saison.


4e – Red Bull
Entre les mains de Max Verstappen, la Red Bull RB22 est aussi compétitive que n'importe quelle équipe de pointe.

Elle a parfois semblé être la référence dès la première semaine à Bahreïn, avec un moteur aux caractéristiques de déploiement fortes, visibles jusqu'à la deuxième semaine, même si certains accusent le Taureau ailé d'avoir volontairement utilisé des cartographies plus conservatrices lors de la dernière semaine.

Toutefois, Mercedes et Ferrari ont pris l'avantage en trouvant rapidement leur rythme, et McLaren a rejoint le niveau de Red Bull. La préparation a été excellente, mais il reste du pain sur la planche pour combler un léger déficit de performance.

3e – McLaren
L'écurie championne du monde en titre ne sera pas la référence au Grand Prix d'Australie, mais elle se situe tout de même au niveau des équipes d'usine.

À la fin de la deuxième semaine, McLaren se sentait compétitive contre Red Bull et peut-être légèrement devant. "McLaren et Red Bull sont probablement très proches, confiait Andrea Stella. Ferrari et Mercedes ont une longueur d'avance."

La McLaren MCL40 s'est améliorée et a montré plus de régularité, même si un déficit subsiste sur la gestion énergétique : McLaren n'a pas encore atteint le niveau de Mercedes.

Et pour cause : Woking a disputé les essais avec une version moins développée du moteur Mercedes. La mise à jour se fera à Melbourne, car le règlement impose la même spécification moteur.

Cette limitation de performance, facilement rectifiable, place McLaren devant Red Bull dans ce classement, alors que les deux équipes semblaient au coude à coude à la fin des essais.

2e – Ferrari
Avec la SF-26, Ferrari a attiré l'attention par ses innovations, notamment son aileron arrière inversé et le petit aileron apparu derrière l'échappement.

Charles Leclerc a réalisé le meilleur tour absolu des essais, mais les longs relais indiquent que la voiture n'est pas encore au niveau de Mercedes. Même si c'était le cas, la base est solide, avec un turbo plus petit permettant un départ fulgurant.

Ce qui frappe le plus chez Ferrari, c'est la progression dynamique : lors du premier test, la voiture était réactive en entrée de virage mais incohérente et manquait d'adhérence arrière. Même en montrant un bon rythme, elle bougeait plus que ses rivales.

Mais au fil des jours, la voiture est devenue plus équilibrée et agile.

1re – Mercedes
"Métronome" est le terme qui vient à l'esprit pour décrire la Flèche d'argent. La Mercedes W17 se distingue par sa stabilité et par le kilométrage le plus élevé de toutes les équipes, malgré quelques incidents ayant coûté du temps, dont un changement de groupe propulseur suite à une perte de pression pneumatique.

Au début du premier test, des problèmes de rétrogradage la pénalisaient en récupération d'énergie face à Red Bull. Ces difficultés ont été rapidement corrigées. Même si Mercedes a continué à souligner l'avantage de déploiement de Red Bull, George Russell a admis que l'écart s'était réduit pour les équipes motorisées par Brixworth.

Même si le meilleur tour est huit dixièmes derrière Ferrari, la Mercedes est vue comme favorite pour le Grand Prix d'Australie par tout le paddock, et le véritable rythme de course n'a été qu'entrevu à Bahreïn. La seule interrogation reste la récupération d'énergie plus exigeante à Albert Park.

https://f1i.autojournal.fr/magazine/magazine-features/analyse/la-hierarchie-complete-des-11-equipes-avant-melbourne/