As the 2026 regulation shift approaches, the FIA faces mounting scrutiny over its direction for the sport. Designed to usher in a sustainable, electrified future, the upcoming rules have instead sparked backlash from fans, analysts, and even senior figures within the paddock. What was once framed as a bold step forward now feels increasingly like a course correction in real time.
Regulations Rethought: The ‘Ideal’ That’s Already Crumbling
The FIA’s original vision for 2026 centered around a radical hybrid architecture: 50% electric power and significantly reduced downforce. But recent reports and internal discussions suggest the FIA is already reconsidering core elements of this framework.
What’s becoming clear is that the compromises made to meet environmental and road relevance goals, gutting aerodynamic grip and slashing engine output, have created more problems than they’ve solved. The planned 2026 cars appear underpowered, unstable, and too reliant on gimmicks like active aero and overtake boosts.
From our analysis, this feels like a case of engineering driven more by marketing than motorsport. F1 essentially dismantled the competitive integrity of the current car design for a technical ideal that may now be walked back, an admission that, at least in part, the new direction may not work.
F1 Doubles Down on Hybrids, But Fans Are Losing Faith
Alongside the rule shake-up, F1 has definitively ruled out a return to the beloved V10 era, even as a limited feature. While this isn’t surprising given modern sustainability pressures, it nonetheless marks a symbolic turning point for the sport. In pursuit of innovation, it seems the FIA is willing to abandon the visceral elements, sound, rawness, unpredictability, that made F1 iconic in the first place.
And yet, there’s a growing disconnect between what the FIA is building and what fans actually want. It’s hard not to feel like we’re watching the sport slowly morph into “Formula E with better PR.”
The new regulations risk creating cars that are light on spectacle, limited in pace, and overly sterilized by regulatory compromise. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to reconcile the sport’s soul with the sanitized future being shaped by the rulemakers.
Domenicali Longs for the Drama He Helped Eliminate
In a moment of unintended irony, Stefano Domenicali, F1’s CEO, recently stated that he misses the “broader technical controversies” that once fueled drama and innovation in the sport. But here’s the contradiction: this is the same leadership that has methodically tightened the regulatory noose around technical creativity in recent years.
We can’t mourn the loss of innovation while building a sandbox too small for anyone to play in. F1’s golden eras were marked by risk, loopholes, and grey areas, whether it was double diffusers, blown exhausts, or DAS steering. That spirit has been legislated out of existence.
If Domenicali wants spice, the solution isn’t nostalgia, it’s restoring freedom to push the edges of performance again.
Malcolm Wilson Enters: A Potential Catalyst for Change?
In a notable leadership development, the FIA has nominated Malcolm Wilson OBE, a respected figure in the world of rallying, as candidate for Deputy President for Sport. His motorsport pedigree is unquestioned, but what remains to be seen is whether a rally veteran can help steer F1 back toward competitive and technical credibility.
It could go one of two ways. Either Wilson brings an outsider’s clarity and decisiveness to a struggling system, or he becomes another well-meaning name lost in bureaucracy. Still, fresh blood might be what the FIA needs more than anything: someone unafraid to challenge the echo chamber.
GM’s Power Play: FIA Approves New Engine Supplier
Amid the chaos, there’s at least one forward-looking development that’s hard not to be optimistic about: the FIA has officially approved GM’s performance division as a Formula 1 power unit supplier, clearing a major hurdle for Cadillac’s long-anticipated entry.
This isn’t just good for Andretti’s chances of joining the grid, it’s a necessary shakeup for an engine supplier pool that has grown stagnant. The sport has long needed greater manufacturer diversity, especially from outside the traditional European sphere.
That said, the path for new entrants remains treacherous. The risk is that GM builds a solid, if not world-beating, engine, and is immediately uncompetitive due to limited development time and unforgiving rules. If the FIA wants to open the doors to new suppliers, it has to do more than unlock the door. It needs to welcome them in.
Conclusion: Formula 1’s Identity Is at a Crossroads
The FIA’s current path is one of contradiction. It champions sustainability while alienating long-time fans. It pines for past drama while enforcing regulatory monotony. It courts new manufacturers while risking technical irrelevance.
The 2026 regulations were supposed to represent F1’s boldest reinvention in a generation. Instead, they’ve exposed the limits of idealism without execution, and raised a fundamental question:
Is F1 being engineered for the sport, or engineered for the brand?
If the FIA wants to preserve Formula 1’s place at the pinnacle of motorsport, it will need to do more than pivot. It must remember why people fell in love with the sport in the first place, and have the courage to bring that feeling into the future.