F1 F1 2026 Season

[skam85]

I dream of a return to Malaysia. Everything's there just do it F1. It's close to Japan.

 

[StFly]

Who was saying there’s an actual possibility they don’t enter in Australia? I feel like I heard that from Someone.

AM stated here that it might just be a time thing to solve the problems and they might have to force majeure.

This was speculation previously like before testing took place (the above does say decided not deciding).

All I know is, I was the one posting about AM having a shit launch as I was watching it at the time, and since that have had a generally dim view of how they'd go. The time to Melb, if they needed to wholesale change set ups, they do not have enough of it left.

So it has been floating around circles online.

 

[Cromulant]

Theyll be here, and do enough to make the race. Its an enormous fine if you don't rock up at all.

See how far they get.

 

[Vader]

There's an interesting article on AM & Honda's woes here:
https://speedcafe.com/f1-news-2026-...ngine-battery-issues-update-brundle-comments/

There's speculation that they may just go out and do a few laps at the start of the race, before parking the cars.

One of the things they noted was the fact that they have gathered VERY little information about the car & engine, by virtue of having run so few laps. In contrast, Mercedes have had 4x teams providing data, each having run pretty much all of the testing days in Bahrain.

What the article didn't note was that the "data gap" problem would only get worse if AM only do a few laps in Melbourne. There's a strong argument (in my mind) that they should be doing as many race laps as possible, even if they're completely uncompetitive, solely for the purpose of gathering data on the car & engine.

Just as an aside... does F1 still have a rule that cars aren't allowed to race if they fail to qualify within X% (10%?) of the pole winner's time? Would AM be at risk of not even being allowed to start, if their car is so far off the pace that it's actually dangerous to have them on the track?

 

[Cromulant]

There's an interesting article on AM & Honda's woes here:
https://speedcafe.com/f1-news-2026-...ngine-battery-issues-update-brundle-comments/

There's speculation that they may just go out and do a few laps at the start of the race, before parking the cars.

One of the things they noted was the fact that they have gathered VERY little information about the car & engine, by virtue of having run so few laps. In contrast, Mercedes have had 4x teams providing data, each having run pretty much all of the testing days in Bahrain.

What the article didn't note was that the "data gap" problem would only get worse if AM only do a few laps in Melbourne. There's a strong argument (in my mind) that they should be doing as many race laps as possible, even if they're completely uncompetitive, solely for the purpose of gathering data on the car & engine.

Just as an aside... does F1 still have a rule that cars aren't allowed to race if they fail to qualify within X% (10%?) of the pole winner's time? Would AM be at risk of not even being allowed to start, if their car is so far off the pace that it's actually dangerous to have them on the track?

There is still that rule, but theres a few ways around it I think.

They'll make the race then run as many laps as they can before they break, would be my guess.

 

[Vader]

There is still that rule, but theres a few ways around it I think.

They'll make the race then run as many laps as they can before they break, would be my guess.

Do you know what the cutoff % is?

Last year the Pole time was Lando's 75.096 seconds.

At 5%, the cutoff time would be Poll + 3.76 seconds.
At 10% the cutoff time would be Poll + 7.5 seconds.

How far off the pace do we expect the AM cars to be, if their energy problems are as bad as has been reported?

*** Google tells me that the cutoff is 107%, in which case the cutoff time would be approximately Poll + 5.25 seconds.

Google also notes that many drivers who have failed to qualify under this rule have been allowed to race, under "exceptional circumstances". Most notably the 2016 Hungarian GP where qualifying was rain affected, with 11 drivers failing to qualify - all were allowed to race.

I'm not sure that AM would be allowed to start if they failed to qualify under the 107% rule. I'm not sure what "exceptional circumstances" they could argue, given that the problem is that their car is a complete bag of shite.

 

[skam85]

Do you know what the cutoff % is?

Last year the Pole time was Lando's 75.096 seconds.

At 5%, the cutoff time would be Poll + 3.76 seconds.
At 10% the cutoff time would be Poll + 7.5 seconds.

How far off the pace do we expect the AM cars to be, if their energy problems are as bad as has been reported?

107% but even if they are outside of that, and they do laps in practice within 107% the stewards typically allow them to race. It's happened in the past.

 

[Vader]

107% but even if they are outside of that, and they do laps in practice within 107% the stewards typically allow them to race. It's happened in the past.

Thanks for this. I was in the process of editing my own post, after checking with Google.

The big question is whether the AM car will be good enough to do practice laps within 5.25 seconds of poll? Could be doubtful, if the car is anywhere near as bad as has been reported.

I guess we'll see when they hit the track on Friday.

 

[skam85]

Thanks for this. I was in the process of editing my own post, after checking with Google.

The big question is whether the AM car will be good enough to do practice laps within 5.25 seconds of poll? Could be doubtful, if the car is anywhere near as bad as has been reported.

I guess we'll see when they hit the track on Friday.

They managed to get under 4s I believe in testing. I don't think the 107% is under threat - even for a quali lap on fumes and brand new softs you'd think they'd manage to be 3-4s off the pace at absolute worst. If they can manage to complete an out lap & flying lap that is.

Likely they'll run a bit in FP1 with some bandaid solutions for the battery and assess their weekend from there.

 

[Cromulant]

Thanks for this. I was in the process of editing my own post, after checking with Google.

The big question is whether the AM car will be good enough to do practice laps within 5.25 seconds of poll? Could be doubtful, if the car is anywhere near as bad as has been reported.

I guess we'll see when they hit the track on Friday.

All they need is 1 lap I guess.

Its not due to rain so they won't get that get-out-of-jail free card.

 

[StFly]

107% but even if they are outside of that, and they do laps in practice within 107% the stewards typically allow them to race. It's happened in the past.

Thats in Quali only.

FIA Category- PDF download

Section B has the 107% (note what the colours represent if reading).

For race, the direction is also in section B, and below

AM would fall under this on the grid BTW.

They'd qualify last if they went through, start and if it was very obvious and failed and was an immediate risk then the above would engage.

Since it'd then be known you can go back to the other docs to go financial penalties or what penalties accrue for such a thing. This is also why AM considered things as they know the regs.

Granted this is to do with driver more so than entity, however under the race direction there is no "you can not be that far behind, you suck' instance, just a "if you don't complete 90%, you are unclassified for this race" directive. That and the race shall not exceed 2hr. That's in 2.5.5 in Section B as 2.5 is Race Session.

So TLDR: correct for qualifying, be it quali or sprint, but for race, no, if damaged or junk GTFO as safely as possible is the direction for the race proper.

 

[Vader]

They managed to get under 4s I believe in testing. I don't think the 107% is under threat - even for a quali lap on fumes and brand new softs you'd think they'd manage to be 3-4s off the pace at absolute worst. If they can manage to complete an out lap & flying lap that is.

Likely they'll run a bit in FP1 with some bandaid solutions for the battery and assess their weekend from there.

OK... so I've done a bit of research on the F1 website. Testing was done at Bahrain, so I'll take the circuit times for that circuit.

The Pole time for the 2025 Bahrain GP was Piastri's 89.841 seconds. 7% of that would be 6.3 seconds.

Which brings us to the 2x 3-Day Testing sessions at Bahrain last month:
Day 1: Lando was quickest with 94.669 seconds. Stroll the only AM driver, 5.214 seconds slower than Lando.
Day 2: LeClerc was fastest with 94.273 seconds. Alonso the only AM driver, 3.975 seconds behind.
Day 3: Antonelli fastest with 93.669 seconds. Stroll 4.496 seconds behind.
Day 4: Russell fastest with 93.459 seconds. Stroll only 2.515 seconds behind, Alonso 3.077 seconds.
Day 5: Antonelli fastest with 92.803. Alonso 4.669 behind.
Day 6: LeClerc fastest with 91.992. Stroll did 6 laps but didn't set a time.

Based on those numbers, they SHOULD be within the 107% qualifying limit. Very few (if any) of their laps were within 7% of the 2025 Pole winner's time, but none of the other teams got within 2 seconds of that time either. They were there for testing, not setting Pole times, so I wouldn't read too much into that.

Sources:
2025 Bahrain F1 GP Qualifying
2026 Bahrain Testing Day 1
2026 Bahrain Testing Day 2
2026 Bahrain Testing Day 3
2026 Bahrain Testing Day 4
2026 Bahrain Testing Day 5
2026 Bahrain Testing Day 6

 

[Vader]

Thats in Quali only.

FIA Category- PDF download

Section B has the 107% (note what the colours represent if reading).

For race, the direction is also in section B, and below
View attachment 2540406
AM would fall under this on the grid BTW.

They'd qualify last if they went through, start and if it was very obvious and failed and was an immediate risk then the above would engage.

Since it'd then be known you can go back to the other docs to go financial penalties or what penalties accrue for such a thing. This is also why AM considered things as they know the regs.

Granted this is to do with driver more so than entity, however under the race direction there is no "you can not be that far behind, you suck' instance, just a "if you don't complete 90%, you are unclassified for this race" directive. That and the race shall not exceed 2hr. That's in 2.5.5 in Section B as 2.5 is Race Session.

So TLDR: correct for qualifying, be it quali or sprint, but for race, no, if damaged or junk GTFO as safely as possible is the direction for the race proper.

If they're able to lap 3-4 seconds off the pace, which appears plausible based on their Bahrain testing results, then they won't be black flagged and will be allowed to continue racing.

A shite engine that can't recharge the battery is not a failed structural component making the car unsafe - that's what happens when you have a wing that's fallen off the car, or a failed suspension with a wheel hanging off.

Interestingly, they weren't the slowest car in ANY of the 5 test sessions where they set a lap time, with one of the Cadillac drivers finishing below them in 4 sessions, and Crashapinto below them in the other.

AM & Cadillac appear set for a race to be last. Cadillac have escaped a lot of notice as the new kids on the block, with correspondingly low expectations. They're flying under the radar, despite having a car which appears to be on par with AM's bag of shite.

 

[StFly]

If they're able to lap 3-4 seconds off the pace, which appears plausible based on their Bahrain testing results, then they won't be black flagged and will be allowed to continue racing.

A shite engine that can't recharge the battery is not a failed structural component making the car unsafe - that's what happens when you have a wing that's fallen off the car, or a failed suspension with a wheel hanging off.

Interestingly, they weren't the slowest car in ANY of the 5 test sessions where they set a lap time, with one of the Cadillac drivers finishing below them in 4 sessions, and Crashapinto below them in the other.

I get that, but it falls under race direction to say "you have incurred damage to your structure, GTFO of my track" there's no one looking at the telemetry and going "that guy is 7.2sec off the ldr, ping him to GTFO", that's just too labour intensive.

I only posted that as you guys were chatting about the 107% which is only in Qualis and sprints and applying it to race direction, which is just not the case.

 

[Forward Press]

It's a special effort nowadays to not get within 107% even with the worst car on the grid - think the last time this genuinely was the case (ie not affected by weather, crashes or similar circumstances) was when HRT was still trundling around the back of the grid. The budget caps have had the desired effect on evening up the competition.

If Aston Martin truly are 6 or so seconds off the pace and thus fail to make 107% (think Lance Stroll's pessimism was 'only' 3.5 seconds) then they would be in the conversation for worst team in the past 15 seasons.

 

[Vader]

I get that, but it falls under race direction to say "you have incurred damage to your structure, GTFO of my track" there's no one looking at the telemetry and going "that guy is 7.2sec off the ldr, ping him to GTFO", that's just too labour intensive.

I only posted that as you guys were chatting about the 107% which is only in Qualis and sprints and applying it to race direction, which is just not the case.

There is no evidence that the AM cars are structurally damaged.

They are slow. They have an engine that's less powerful than a 1980s vintage Civic. But they're not structurally damaged.

We weren't applying it to race direction. We were pondering whether they'd be able to qualify inside the 107% time limit, and therefore be allowed to start the race. In researching this, I went back to see what the 2025 Pole times were, as a guide to estimating how much leeway they would have in terms of their lap time.

There is speculation that AM will choose to start the race (fulfilling their contractual obligations), but pull the cars after only a few laps. If they should choose to do so it would not be because the race director has black flagged their cars - it would be their own choice, doing what they thing is best for the cars/drivers/team.

My apologies if this confused you.

 

[skam85]

I get that, but it falls under race direction to say "you have incurred damage to your structure, GTFO of my track" there's no one looking at the telemetry and going "that guy is 7.2sec off the ldr, ping him to GTFO", that's just too labour intensive.

I only posted that as you guys were chatting about the 107% which is only in Qualis and sprints and applying it to race direction, which is just not the case.

Yeah I was only referring to quali, would be farcical if 107% was ever applied to a race for sure.

 

[StFly]

There is no evidence that the AM cars are structurally damaged.

They are slow. They have an engine that's less powerful than a 1980s vintage Civic. But they're not structurally damaged.

We weren't applying it to race direction. We were pondering whether they'd be able to qualify inside the 107% time limit, and therefore be allowed to start the race. In researching this, I went back to see what the 2025 Pole times were, as a guide to estimating how much leeway they would have in terms of their lap time.

There is speculation that AM will choose to start the race (fulfilling their contractual obligations), but pull the cars after only a few laps. If they should choose to do so it would not be because the race director has black flagged their cars - it would be their own choice, doing what they thing is best for the cars/drivers/team.

My apologies if this confused you.

Actually AM are doing their own gearboxes in house this year, so whilst they did not do the chassis, they might be up the creek if said gearbox is the cause of the problem for example. All Honda have said is they've been able to replicate I believe.

And no prob, am at work so quite probable.

 

[skam85]

It's a special effort nowadays to not get within 107% even with the worst car on the grid - think the last time this genuinely was the case (ie not affected by weather, crashes or similar circumstances) was when HRT was still trundling around the back of the grid. The budget caps have had the desired effect on evening up the competition.

If Aston Martin truly are 6 or so seconds off the pace and thus fail to make 107% (think Lance Stroll's pessimism was 'only' 3.5 seconds) then they would be in the conversation for worst team in the past 15 seasons.

Yep - 2012 Karthikeyen and de la Rosa at the Australian GP failed to qualify their HRTs.

Since then it's been few and far between. Recent years, Stroll, Latifi and De Vries were outside but allowed to race due to setting 'competitive' times in practice.

 

[Vader]

Actually AM are doing their own gearboxes in house this year, so whilst they did not do the chassis, they might be up the creek if said gearbox is the cause of the problem for example. All Honda have said is they've been able to replicate I believe.

And no prob, am at work so quite probable.

Honda have apparently identified the problem (at least one of the problems) - with vibration from their engine causing the batteries (in the chassis) to fail.

I suspect having an engine that's less powerful than a 1980s Honda Civic is probably not helping matters either...

 

[juice t]

It's a special effort nowadays to not get within 107% even with the worst car on the grid - think the last time this genuinely was the case (ie not affected by weather, crashes or similar circumstances) was when HRT was still trundling around the back of the grid. The budget caps have had the desired effect on evening up the competition.

If Aston Martin truly are 6 or so seconds off the pace and thus fail to make 107% (think Lance Stroll's pessimism was 'only' 3.5 seconds) then they would be in the conversation for worst team in the past 15 seasons.

Amazing effort to actually be worse than a 2021 Haas

 

[StFly]

Honda have apparently identified the problem (at least one of the problems) - with vibration from their engine causing the batteries (in the chassis) to fail.

I suspect having an engine that's less powerful than a 1980s Honda Civic is probably not helping matters either...

As free time now, had a re-read of things.

Takeishi stated

"If we could identify a single cause, it would be easier to fix, but because multiple linked factors generate the vibration, we don't know whether fixing just one will solve it," Watanabe simply stated it'd take time to solve things that they found. That's Honda on the matter.

That was as of today.

Previously Watanbe as the head was stating that it'd likely be the engine and things working on their Sakura instances to figure things out, but that was during testing, and then the whole we canned testing as such and such occurred when it did.

So for me they'll just run out of time to fix anything and sandbag it to save face, question being if the car fails in quali to not certify but then they really just need to run 1 run so it should be fine. Would be surprised if they start on grid though.

 

[TheGreatBarryB]

Foxtel has extended F1 coverage from 2027 in new $60m a year (was $45m) multi year deal. Although can't find to what year that extends to.

 

[Vader]

Foxtel has extended F1 coverage from 2027 in new $60m a year (was $45m) multi year deal. Although can't find to what year that extends to.

The big question is whether or not we'll be getting the F1 International Commentary feed option, or if we're going to be stuck with the SKY idiots?

 

[Jatz]

I'm in the minority clearly but I prefer Sky. That's just become the sound of F1 to me. I don't agree with some of what they say but I still enjoy their broadcast.