Where problems started with 2026 rules and calendar congestion - F1 Q&A

Energy recovery from the front axle could have solved this, but this was rejected on the basis that it could give Audi an advantage as it had experience in it from world endurance racing.

The result was a series of sticking-plaster solutions - such as active aerodynamics - that only tickled with the fundamental problem.

It's hard to get a definitive answer as to why someone in authority did not ask everyone to stop, step back for a minute, look at the big picture, and ask whether the 50-50 split was really so important. And whether the sport should change tack. Clearly, that was a failure.

So now the rules have to be amended. And solutions that could have been introduced before 2026 - such as altering the energy split and making it more in favour of the internal combustion engine - are now likely to be introduced for 2027.

Parallel to that, talks are now ongoing on what comes next - from either 2030 or 2031.

The trajectory of road cars has changed. Electrification is still coming, but - it seems - not to the same degree or at the same speed as was thought five or so years ago.

In F1, a reversal away from electrification to some degree is inevitable. But how much remains to be seen.

A naturally aspirated engine - most likely a V8 - with token hybrid is being pushed by FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem.

But for various reasons that exact solution may not be acceptable to all stakeholders, nor the panacea its proponents claim. Negotiations are ongoing.

Now that Alpine are best of the rest, does that show how dominant the Mercedes engine is rather than Alpine's progress? - Emily

The answer is a combination of both.

There is widespread agreement that the Mercedes engine is the best in F1 this year so far - although other power-units have strong points, such as the responsiveness off the line of the Ferrari.

But while Mercedes have won every race, Williams also have a Mercedes engine, and have gone backwards significantly.

So it's clear Alpine have made progress compared with last year - and so they should, as they invested a lot in 2026, to the extent of using a year-old chassis in 2025 and barely developing the car at all.

It's hard to be sure how much of that progress is car and how much engine.

This may become clearer when the FIA publishes its conclusions in terms of relative engine performance, and which manufacturers are allowed additional upgrade allowance, although these only deal with the performance of the internal combustion engine, and not the electrical systems.

But that should take nothing away from the fact that Alpine have made a significant step forward as a team.

Image caption,

Alpine have finished in the points in all four grands prix so far this season, with Franco Colapinto seventh in Miami. They are fifth in the constructors' championship

Putting the potential thunderstorms risk to one side in Miami, is there a genuine increased safety fear of racing these F1 cars in wet weather conditions due to the new regulations? - Nicole

Yes, the vast amounts of electrical power in the new engines - 350kW (470bhp) - have raised concerns about racing in the wet.

That's why one of the changes made to the engine regulations before the Miami Grand Prix was related to wet conditions.

Full "boost" mode will not be allowed and maximum electrical deployment may additionally be limited at the FIA's discretion.

The maximum temperature of tyre blankets has also been increased following interventions from drivers who were concerned about tyres not being up to temperature when they first went out on track.

Figure caption,

F1 world champion Lando Norris gives championship advice to Arsenal's Declan Rice.

As two grand prix races have been lost so far this season, why don't they consider having two races at a grand prix that doesn't have a sprint race, ie a qualifying session on Saturday morning and then a grand prix in the afternoon and the same on Sunday? - Brian

The sport is a business, and if F1 is going to change things, it has to make sense from both a sporting and a financial point of view.

For F1 and the teams, holding two races on a given weekend brings extra cost - more mileage, and the increased risk of crash damage.

The sprints are appealing because they mean more competitive action with no significant increase in time on track.

Would two full-length grands prix on a given weekend work for broadcasters in the same way? Is the appeal really there? What's the point of the extra one? There would unlikely be any further money.

As for the wider situation, F1 will take a financial hit through the loss of the Bahrain and Saudi Arabian Grands Prix, so the idea of finding a way to put at least one of them back on is appealing.

But the first-order issue there is the war between the US/Israel and Iran. While that is ongoing, there can be no question of reinstating either race. The question instead becomes what happens to Qatar and Abu Dhabi at the end of the season, as those also cannot be held if the war has not ended.

If the war does end relatively soon, then, yes, F1 will look at staging at least one of the lost events.

At the moment, the only obvious available slot is the first weekend in October, between Azerbaijan and Singapore.

If a race can be put on then, it will most likely be Bahrain, largely for logistical reasons - it is a permanent circuit whereas Jeddah is a street track.

Moving the end-of-season races around to fit in Saudi Arabia? Not easy.

Abu Dhabi has a contract that guarantees it is the last race. So to fit in Saudi Arabia would likely mean moving Abu Dhabi back a week - which would push it to within two weeks of Christmas.

The teams would not want that, and Abu Dhabi may not be keen either, as the grand prix is currently in the same week as their national day.

The only gap before that is 13-15 November, between Brazil and Las Vegas. But that would not fit with F1's desire to stop zigzagging across the globe, and would also mean five race weekends in a row to end the season. So that's highly unlikely.