Formula 1: new sustainability rules are changing the way races are won

The first races under Formula 1’s new regulations delivered exactly what the sport’s rule-makers had hoped for: more overtaking. At the recent Australian Grand Prix in Melbourne, passes on track nearly tripled compared with the previous year. At the Chinese Grand Prix over the weekend the increase was less extreme, but still noticeable. This revealed something unexpected about Formula 1’s new generation of cars. Many of the passes did not come from the classic ingredients of racing – a driver braking later into a corner, carrying more speed through the apex, or finding a daring line. Instead, they often happened when one car temporarily ran out of electrical power. Under one of the most significant rule changes in the sport’s history, roughly half of a Formula 1 car’s output now comes from its electric motor. Drivers must carefully manage when their batteries deploy or regenerate energy. When the battery runs low, the car temporarily becomes vulnerable. Once the battery is recharged by recovering energy from braking, the driver can attack again. These cycles can create sudden swings in performance within a race. This is raising questions about whether Formula 1’s push for sustainability is changing how races are won. A greener engine era Under the new regulations, the cars still look like Formula 1 machines. But the way they generate and deploy power is very different. The familiar turbocharged combustion engine remains, but it now shares power almost equally with the electric system. The combustion engine also now runs on 100% sustainable fuel, designed to be carbon-neutral over its lifecycle. The cars themselves are smaller and lighter, with new active aerodynamic systems aimed at reducing air resistance on straights. Major rule changes often trigger waves of experimentation as teams search for new advantages, and managing energy has suddenly become central to racing strategy. In a study published in Organization Science, my colleagues and I showed that Formula 1 teams face a classic strategic trade-off: incremental improvements are safe but rarely transformative, while radical innovations can produce breakthrough performance – or spectacular failure. A new kind of racing The Australian Grand Prix offered an early glimpse of how racing is being affected. Early in the race, Mercedes driver George Russell and Ferrari’s Charles Leclerc repeatedly overtook each other within a few laps. But the pattern was unusual: neither driver was consistently faster. Instead, their cars were alternating between phases of energy depletion and recharge. The result looked less like traditional racing and more like a strategic ebb and flow of electrical power. In the new hybrid era, drivers may need to adjust braking points or racing lines to regenerate electricity efficiently. They may even need to lift their foot from the throttle when in past seasons the same situation would have called for flat-out acceleration. Some drivers have already expressed concerns that the new cars could feel less instinctive if energy constraints become too restrictive. If success increasingly depends on managing software systems and electrical energy flows, some drivers may feel that the essence of their craft is shifting. After the Chinese Grand Prix, veteran racer Fernando Alonso called this the “battery world championships”, and recent champion Max Verstappen likened it to Mario Kart. The F1 sustainability paradox Formula 1 has long argued that it operates like a moonshot laboratory, where extreme competition accelerates development. Technologies refined in racing have later appeared elsewhere, from advanced braking and handling systems in road cars to sensor technologies now used in hospitals. Even the choreography of Formula 1 pit stops has inspired procedures used by emergency medical teams. The new generation of engines aims to extend that tradition by demonstrating sustainable innovation through advanced hybrid systems and sustainable fuels. But there is a paradox here. Early estimates suggest Formula 1’s new synthetic, net-zero fuel could cost hundreds of dollars per litre, more than ten times the cost of conventional racing fuel – and a hundred or more times the cost of regular petrol. While this shows what is technically possible, unless production costs fall dramatically these fuels may remain confined to racing or high-performance supercars. In other words, the sport may develop impressive sustainable technologies – but ones that remain too expensive for everyday mobility. Racing for the future None of this means the regulations have failed. Formula 1 has a long history of dramatic rule changes producing awkward early seasons before engineers unlock their potential. Previous technological revolutions such as ground-effect aerodynamics in the late 1970s or the hybrid power units introduced in 2009 and then in 2014 required years of refinement before teams fully mastered them. Something similar may happen this year. The first two races of the new season offered a first hint of tension facing the sport, but whether it ultimately produces better racing remains uncertain. At times, the difference between new and old F1 resembles the contrast between choreographed WWE matches and Olympic wrestling: more visually dramatic, yet less about raw athletic contest. What is clear is that the 2026 regulations have already begun to reshape Formula 1 in ways few expected.

Paolo Aversa does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.