©Formula1
Formula 1 is bracing itself for one of the most dramatic rule changes in its history, but not everyone is convinced the sport is heading in the right direction.
As the current ground-effect era signed off in Abu Dhabi, attention has already shifted to 2026 – a season that will usher in sweeping changes to both car design and power units. On paper, it’s a bold reset. In practice, former Jordan and Jaguar technical director Gary Anderson fears it may open a Pandora’s box.
Visually, the next generation of F1 cars won’t look revolutionary. Under the skin, though, Anderson believes they will be vastly more complex, more temperamental, and far harder to master. For a sport that ended 2025 with one of the closest fields in modern history, that prospect alone is troubling.
The British engineer's concern isn’t rooted in nostalgia or resistance to change. It’s grounded in decades of experience designing and running cars under multiple regulation eras — and a belief that F1 may have over-engineered its own future.
The 2026 regulations tear up much of what teams have learned since 2022. Ground-effect downforce will be heavily reduced, pushing cars back toward flatter floors.
Front wings become narrower and simpler, rear wings slightly smaller. But the headline change is active aerodynamics, replacing DRS with two modes: one for corners, one for straights.
On the straights, both wings will shed drag aggressively. In theory, that means easier overtaking and eye-watering top speeds. In reality, Anderson sees trouble brewing – especially when this is paired with radically altered power units.
“I am not optimistic that these regulations will work as intended or at all,” he warned in a column published in The Telegraph. “In fact, the teams could be faced with a series of difficult problems to solve throughout the season.”
His biggest fear is the competitive spread. The tightly packed grid F1 just enjoyed may be a distant memory.
“I would not be surprised to see some teams at least three or four seconds off the pace at the first Grand Prix next year because the new regulations are so complicated and overly technical.”
That kind of gap would be a seismic step backwards for a sport that finished 2025 with just 1.6 seconds separating the slowest car in Q1 from the fastest in Q3.
While the aerodynamic changes are significant, Anderson believes the real danger sits within the power units. From 2026, cars will run on 100 per cent sustainable fuel, lose the MGU-H, and – most dramatically – rely on electrical energy for roughly half of their total power output.
That shift, in his view, risks fundamentally undermining drivability.
“Even now we see cars ‘clipping’ at the end of the straight,” Anderson explained. “That means there is not enough power in the battery to deploy extra grunt at high speed – and that is with only 20 per cent electrical power. What will it be like with 50 per cent?”
For drivers, this could be deeply frustrating.
“It is always crucial to give the driver the power when he needs it,” he added.
“When he puts his foot down to the floor he wants full power, on average this is between 60 per cent and 70 per cent of the lap. I think this has the potential to be the biggest issue in 2026.”
Instead of drivers attacking corners and exits instinctively, Anderson fears they may be forced into energy-management compromises that dilute the racing spectacle.
Perhaps Anderson’s sharpest criticism is aimed at how success may be decided.
“The biggest and most worrying effect of this all is that it will be the backroom staff, the engineers, that will make the difference. It will not be the drivers,” he said.
“The FIA and F1 have massively complicated things and by doing that they are just multiplying the problems for everybody.”
In other words, the sport risks shifting further away from driver influence and toward technical lottery. Mistakes made early in the regulation cycle could haunt teams for years.
“We will no doubt see mistakes from teams that could take years to fully solve,” Anderson cautioned. “It will surely be quite some time where the field is as competitive as it was towards the end of the 2025 season.”
Anderson isn’t arguing for stagnation. His frustration lies in the scale of change.
“What should have happened was a fairly simple ‘up-speccing’ the current regulations,” he argued.
Smaller, lighter cars. Greater performance gaps between tyre compounds to encourage strategy. Subtle aerodynamic tweaks to reduce ride-height sensitivity. In his view, these were achievable goals without detonating the rulebook.
He is particularly sceptical about F1’s long-running crusade against dirty air.
“Aerodynamic projectiles, as these cars are, create turbulence,” he says bluntly.
“There is no changing that… within a couple of years you are back to where you were. In essence, it has been proven to be a waste of time and money. The finest engineers always find a way around the regulations.”
Whispers already suggest certain manufacturers may be ahead – Mercedes among them, at least on the power unit front – but Anderson urges caution.
“It is too early to say whether one team or another will be ahead and who that might be,” he concluded. “What is certain is that it could be a long time before we see a grid as competitive as last weekend [in Abu Dhabi].”
For a sport that finally found parity, that may be the most worrying prospect of all.
Max Verstappen has spent much of his Formula 1 career being admired, feared, and –…
Mike Spence was born on this day in 1936, in Croyden, Surrey. "Mike was almost…
The dawn of Formula 1’s new technical era in 2026 is already casting a long…
In a move aimed at streamlining race-weekend operations and curbing "disruption tactics," the FIA has…
Racing Bulls team principal Alan Permane doesn’t hesitate when asked about Liam Lawson’s ceiling. He…
In the world of Formula 1, the official trophy cabinet tells one story, but the…