According to veteran journalist Mark Hughes, the recent regulatory adjustments could favour the German team while placing the Japanese power unit at a further disadvantage.
The regulation changes agreed for the Miami Grand Prix stem from the need to address issues that emerged during the opening races, particularly those related to super-clipping and energy recovery. These modifications are designed to reduce the time lost during energy harvesting phases, limit dangerous speed differentials between cars, and prevent incidents like the one involving Oliver Bearman and Franco Colapinto at Suzuka.
After gathering feedback from drivers, teams and other stakeholders, the FIA identified targeted interventions aimed at improving the racing spectacle without fundamentally altering the overall framework of the 2026 regulations.
The main changes introduced and their effects
Among the key adjustments is the reduction of maximum super-clipping duration to approximately 2–4 seconds per lap, compared to the 6–10 seconds observed at Suzuka even after an initial temporary fix. In addition, the peak energy recovery rate has been increased from 250 kW to 350 kW, while the battery capacity limit has been lowered from 8 MJ to 7 MJ.
Energy deployment outside designated zones has been reduced to 250 kW, and a boost cap of 150 kW has been introduced to control speed differences when one car has full power available and another does not. These measures are expected to reduce the frequency of lift-and-coast behaviour regardless of the manufacturer, representing a tangible improvement in both safety and drivability.
Raising the recovery rate to 350 kW assumes that all power units are capable of generating the required reverse torque at the rear axle to drive the MGU-K at that level. With the removal of the MGU-H in the 2026 regulations, responsibility for managing turbo lag and torque delivery shifts entirely to the MGU-K, making the differences between manufacturers even more critical.
The new limit requires internal combustion engines to perform significant mechanical work to rapidly recharge the battery, with consequences that vary depending on the available power output.
Mark Hughes’ perspective
Mark Hughes, a long-time Formula 1 journalist, explained in the Motor Sport Show podcast: “It’s all about reducing reverse torque at the rear axle, which determines how quickly recovery happens. So yes, it could disadvantage Honda even further.”
In a related analysis, Hughes also pointed out that these smaller interventions do not resolve the deeper structural issues within the regulations, and that pretending otherwise does not benefit anyone.
Honda currently finds itself in a delicate position. Its internal combustion engine is widely regarded as the weakest on the grid, clearly trailing behind Mercedes, which leaves less available power to dedicate to energy recovery.
With a less powerful ICE, it becomes more difficult—or slower—to recharge the battery at the new 350 kW rate, potentially extending periods of super-clipping rather than reducing them.
Since Aston Martin uses Honda power units, its cars could also suffer from this disadvantage, potentially affecting race results and amplifying the difficulties already experienced during a challenging debut season under the new regulations.
Potential advantages for Mercedes and uncertainties for rivals
In contrast, Mercedes appears to be in a favourable position on paper. Equipped with the strongest internal combustion engine and a clear margin over its competitors, it can manage the 350 kW recovery rate more efficiently and consistently.
This torque advantage allows Mercedes to fully exploit the higher recovery rate without significant drawbacks, supporting the new system more effectively than its rivals.
However, the impact on other manufacturers like Audi or Red Bull remains uncertain. Their power units may not deliver the same peak torque required to recharge the battery as quickly under the new specifications.
While the changes themselves are not considered inherently flawed and do address real issues like safety concerns, they risk distributing benefits unevenly across the grid. Some teams may gain in relative performance, while others could see their existing technical weaknesses become even more pronounced.
The technical, aerodynamic and regulatory implications highlight how measures designed to “fine-tune” critical aspects of the sport can prove far from neutral, ultimately favouring those already equipped with a superior internal combustion engine while penalising those starting from a weaker baseline. This could have significant consequences for the competitive balance across the Formula 1 grid.
Leave a Reply