Why Max Verstappen thinks new rules can destroy Formula 1

This weekend’s Japanese Grand Prix will take place under the same rules as races in Australia and China after the FIA and the teams backed away from making sudden changes to the sport’s divisive 2026 regulations.

This year’s new engine formula has heavily polarised the paddock. The heavily hybridised turbocharged V6 motor is among the most powerful ever developed but relies on the electric motor for almost half its power output.

The need to keep the battery topped up for deployment down the straights has led to some highly unusual driving practices and car behaviour, including effectively half-throttle performance through the corners and significant lifting and coasting at the end of the straights.

Fox Sports, available on Kayo Sports, is the only place to watch every practice, qualifying session and race in the 2026 FIA Formula One World Championship™ LIVE in 4K. New to Kayo? Join now and get your first month for just $1.

The year-on-year differences were particularly and painfully obvious in Melbourne, where the Albert Park circuit was declared ‘harvest poor’ — that is, a track where recharging the battery is difficult owing to the lack of big braking zones and slow corners.

However, an improved spectacle in Shanghai, where the circuit is ‘harvest rich’ — a layout that makes charging the battery relatively easy — has prompted the sport to delay a crunch meeting that had been scheduled for the fortnight between the Chinese and Japanese grands prix.

Stakeholders will instead use the four-weekend break created by the cancellation of the Bahrain and Saudi Arabian grands prix to consider changes to the regulations before the sport resumes with the Miami Grand Prix on 3 May.

It means F1 will have an expanded sample of races to weigh up.

Suzuka is the most iconic of the opening three venues, and though it’s ranked among the most harvest-rich tracks on the calendar, some of its best corners — although almost all its bends are legendary — are exactly of the sort where the 2026 cars have looked least impressive so far.

The stakes, therefore, are high, and conclusions made this weekend will carry real weight.

But even then, there’ll be no convincing some who have already made up their mind — and you certainly get the sense Max Verstappen, the four-time world champion, is one of those.

PIT TALK PODCAST: Audi team principal Jonathan Wheatley leaves his job less than a year after moving to Hinwil. Is a switch to Aston Martin now on the cards? And we look ahead to this weekend’s Japanese Grand Prix.

VERSTAPPEN AGAINST THE WORLD

Verstappen’s position on the 2026 rules was fixed even before he first drove the car, having recognised in the simulator many of the ills he now lives with race by race.

But after a dire weekend in China, where he failed to finish and was never in the mix at the front, he unloaded not just on the regulations but on those attempting to defend them.

“If someone likes this, then they really don’t know what racing is about,” he said, per ESPN.

“It’s not fun at all. It’s playing Mario Kart. This is not racing.

“You are boosting past, then you run out of battery the next straight. They boost past you again.

“For me, it’s just a joke.”

It was a forceful intervention from a driver who really just craves simplicity in the car. His position effectively is that there is too much regulation between his right foot and his lap time.

It’s not hard to find drivers who fundamentally agree with him when it comes to qualifying, when the challenge is no longer how brave you are but how patient you are with the power unit. It’s deeply counterintuitive — sacrificing 0.1 seconds in a high-speed corner can be worth 0.2 seconds or more of electrical deployment down the straights, for example.

There’s also a randomness to that phenomenon in that a mistake at one corner can sometimes lead to a faster lap due to battery charge.

Regardless of what happens this weekend, the qualifying spectacle will need to be addressed before Miami.

Many drivers were also on Verstappen’s side after the Australian Grand Prix. Not only was it the first race under these rules and therefore an alien experience to them, but the Albert Park track still required heavy compromises from the driver during race conditions. Few walked away feeling satisfied.

But the story was different in China, where a less energy-demanding circuit combined with all the lessons from Melbourne to create a different racing spectacle.

‘BEST RACING THERE I’VE EVER EXPERIENCED’

China’s Sunday spectacle was replete with wheel-to-wheel highlights. The Ferrari drivers engaged in a particularly memorable duel in Shanghai, and there were big battles for the points-paying places behind them.

The sport got its biggest boost yet after Lewis Hamilton gushed about the 2026 cars in the post-race press conference after scoring his first Ferrari podium.

“I think it’s the best racing that I’ve ever experienced in Formula 1,” he said.

“It felt like go-karting — back and forth, back and forth — and you could really position your car in a nice way where there was a thin piece of paper between us sometimes, but we didn’t exchange any paint. I think that’s down to great drivers and respect.”

Charles Leclerc even commented during the race that he was enjoying the fight.

“This is actually quite a fun battle,” he radioed.

That back-and-forth racing was facilitated by the electrical motor and the boost button, which gives drivers access to full power from the engine at will, albeit at the cost of draining the battery and being left defenceless later around the lap if done so injudiciously.

It was a different sort of battle to the ones in Australia though, even if subtly.

Whereas charge levels were on such a knife edge in Melbourne, in Shanghai the drivers had more to play with, and it was clear they were all using it in a similar way — not similar enough to prevent racing, but similar enough that passes weren’t always simple drive-bys.

Decisive moves tended to still be in the braking zones, but we also got the bonus of some passes in non-typical areas that kept the excitement high.

It felt like the formula had matured, at least a little bit, into something far less artificial — different, to be sure, but genuine.

Verstappen, though, wasn’t sold.

“It’s just Kimi [Antonelli] or George [Russell] that is winning, right?” he continued. “It’s not really back and forth. They’re miles ahead of the field.

“It’s just that Ferrari sometimes has these good starts that they push themselves in front, and then it takes a few laps to sort it all out.

“Like I said, this has nothing to do with racing.

CAN YOU HAVE TOO MUCH OF A GOOD THING?

Verstappen’s problem is that not everyone feels as strongly about the purity of the racing product — subjective though it is — as he does.

“What we’ve seen is good racing, with many overtakes” Mercedes boss Toto Wolff said, per The Race. “We were all part of F1 where there was no overtake, literally.

“Sometimes we are too nostalgic about the old years, but I think the product is good.”

Wolff suggested that Verstappen’s increasingly vociferous commentary was down to Red Bull Racing’s poor form, with the Dutchman well off the pace in China and failing to finish thanks to a power unit cooling problem.

“Max is really, I think, in a horror show,“ he said, per ESPN. ”When you look at the on-board that he has in qualifying yesterday, this is just horrendous to drive.

“But it’s not the same with many other teams.

“If you sit in front of a TV or in front of a screen, even Max would say that was interesting racing in the front.”

Verstappen, of course, denied his criticisms were born of self-interest.

“I would say the same if I would be winning races, because I care about the racing product,” he said. “It’s not about being upset of where I am.

“I think I speak for most of the drivers. Some of course will say it’s great because they are winning races, which is fair enough. When you have an advantage, why would you give that up? Because you never know if you’re going to have a good car again.

“But if you just speak to most of the drivers, it’s not what we like. I don’t think it’s what the real F1 fans like.

“Maybe some fans like it, but they don’t understand racing.

“You can help it a little bit, but it’s fundamentally flawed.

Hopefully we can get rid of this as soon as possible.”

NEW RULES, NEW FANS

But delineating between new and old fans is dangerous. A new fan isn’t necessarily any less knowledgeable or invested than someone who’s been watching for the sport for decades.

“When you look at the fans and the excitement that is there live, the cheering when there are overtakes, and also on social media, the younger fans, the vast majority through all the demographics likes the sport at the moment,” Wolff said.

“So, yes, we can always look at how we’re improving it, but at the moment all the indicators say and all the data say that people love it.

“That’s why I spoke with Stefano [Domenicali, F1 CEO]; he says that too.”

Of course there are some immutable truths that come with Formula 1 being a sport: that it should be a fair contest of skill between team-driver combinations. If the drivers feel that deal isn’t being upheld, they should be listened to.

Verstappen argues that F1 must not chase new fans at the expense of those who have followed Formula 1 for years — or at the expense of driver satisfaction.

“I hope they don’t think like that, because it will eventually ruin the sport,” he said. “It will come and bite them back in the arse.

“If you look at it for the sport, it’s just not good.”

But it’s also true that if you were to give a driver everything they wanted in the regulations, you’d end up with cars with infinite grip and power that would be impossible to race against each other — the opposite problem.

It’s important, in other words, not to mistake tradition for stagnation.

Different is different; different doesn’t have to be bad.

THE PHILOSOPHICAL QUESTION AT THE HEART OF THE RULES

So how does Formula 1 strike the middle ground between its new all-action formula and the purer form of racing from yesteryear? And is it motivated to do so in the first place?

There are some important big-picture considerations that will need to be taken into account when changing the rules.

The first is that these regulations were designed to be more attractive to auto manufacturers — in particular Audi — to draw them to the sport. Given Audi did join, Honda was tempted back and Ford is involved with Red Bull Powertrains after a deal with Porsche collapsed at the 11th hour, the primary objective has been emphatically met.

It’s also why there was such strong resistance among the manufacturers to the prospect of a sudden diversion to naturally aspirated V10 motors around this time last year — that and the massive amount of money already spent on development.

It’s why these rules, at least fundamentally, are desperately unlikely to change before their planned expiry at the end of 2030.

But a further question is more pertinent.

How fast should Formula 1 be?

Though the drivers are divided on the Sunday spectacle, Formula 1 believes — not without reason — that the new style of racing can be a winner. Expect that ideological battle to drag on for as long as these rules last — at least half a decade.

However, there is practically universal consensus that the qualifying spectacle has been damaged. What once used to be about ultimate performance — about drivers pushing to the limit of their machines — is now about precision management of energy levels for deployment down the straights.

Worse is that some of the sport’s most iconic corners are being neutered — Albert Park’s back chicane, for example, and likely the legendary 130R and even the esses this weekend.

The equation is deceptively complicated, but on paper you could reduce the need to charge the battery by reducing total power output — effectively draining the battery less quickly — but that obviously comes with the drawback of the cars being slower.

So here’s the question: would you accept a Formula 1 car being three seconds slower if it improved the qualifying spectacle? What about five seconds?

At Albert Park, pole position for Formula 2 was 10 seconds slower than for Formula 1. What if the required cut in lap time was seven seconds?

And would you accept it if it harmed the racing spectacle?

This is the challenging question the sport will face after Japan. There are no easy answers.