What we make of F1's first go at fixing its 2026 problems

Boring. Sensible. Prudent. Rational.

These are the kind of words that come to mind in summing up the outcome of Formula 1's crunch rules summit on the 2026 regulations.

We didn't get anything close to a regulatory revolution (but that was never on the cards anyway), and there was no leftfield solution that emerged out of the blue to guarantee all of F1's problems would be solved by the time of the Miami Grand Prix.

The Race understands, however, that there were some aggressive ideas on the table that had been up for discussion over recent weeks.

While the details of those are not known right now, it is believed that they would have meant being bolder with adjusting recharging, boost limits, or active aero modes. However, they did not get as far as approval despite some support from F1 and the FIA.

Sources suggest some of these ideas were parked (for now) because they were potentially too complicated, too unproven, and it was felt this was not the right time to try things that were any more extreme than they needed to be.

Instead, being sensible won out.

The changes agreed were about pulling some obvious levers in tweaking the energy numbers, in a bid to better align the physics of the current cars with what people think F1 should be.

But being prudent does not mean that what F1 has ended up with is a damp squib, nor that a golden opportunity has been missed for a proper shake-up.

In fact, because the tweaks are so logical, with the explanations for each of the rules modifications having a rational and easily understandable explanation, they are the absolute proof of this process being led by a common-sense approach to ensure things work, however unexciting that may be.

For example, elements such as the reduction of the recharge limit from 8MJ to 7MJ is not just a case of teams, F1 and the FIA plucking a number out of the air that sounded good.

Detailed analysis and simulation by teams had gone into getting these final decisions across the line.

Telemetry plots were created and analysed to see how cars would perform with different energy levels around various tracks. Their performance profiles around the corners and their speed traces down the straights were scrutinised in detail to evaluate best where things needed to be pitched.

The final call then came down to one based on data of where F1 wanted the compromise to be.

The more you cut the recharge limit, the less energy that would need to be recovered and the more flat-out qualifying could be. But heading in that direction comes at the cost of laptime.

In the end, a 7MJ limit that will increase laptimes by just under one second at a typical track was viewed as a better bet than a 6MJ limit that increased it by around twice that.

For weeks now, the messaging from numerous stakeholders in the paddock has been of the need to use a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer (or a baseball bat as Toto Wolff said on Monday) to make positive changes, which is exactly what has been done.

Each of the modifications announced should bring benefits in their own way.

Reduced recharge limits in qualifying will prevent extreme energy-harvesting tactics. The new deployment restrictions, especially the 250kW cap in non-hard acceleration zones, should minimise huge closing speeds between cars. The new low power start detection concept should help make the first moments of a race safer.

Everything is a step in the right direction. But it is just that: a step.

Most of those present on the video conference meeting - including those from the FIA and Formula One Management - would probably concede in private that F1 cannot head to Miami and think that all its early-season challenges are now behind it.

First of all, simulations do not always match up to reality. And, considering there are plenty of examples of unintended consequences with these regulations already, F1 still needs to see how these revisions work in the heat of competition.

The rules tweaks agreed also do not appear to have fully addressed some key elements that have annoyed drivers and fans alike.

There has been no more grating sight and sound for many this year than seeing and hearing the F1 cars losing 50km/h down the straights once they run out of battery power.

It's not a good image - it's especially terrible from the onboards - and the drivers don't like it. As world champion Lando Norris said in Japan: "It still hurts your soul seeing your speed dropping so much."

Lowering the recharge limit may help improve things on this front slightly because drivers are going to have to be more selective about where they deploy maximum power - so top speeds may be lower, and the acceleration and deceleration curves will be smoother.

However, less recharge means less energy overall and more of the straights where cars are without extra battery power on tap. So the speed drops are still going to be significant, and critics will continue to point this out.

Just as the lack of noise from the turbo hybrid cars in 2014 acted as a rallying call for those who didn't like that rules era, so the huge speed drop-offs on straights could end up fulfilling a similar role right now in unifying those who don't enjoy contemporary F1.

There is no doubt that more will need to be done before F1 can feel comfortable that all the problems with the current regulations are cured. And it may take more rules summits and bigger tweaks for 2027 to get a lot closer to that point.

But what F1 does have now, at least, is a proof of concept for change.

It's that the teams can get their technical chiefs together to come up with well-considered ideas; that they can go away and test them, and that subsequent intelligent improvements can then secure the F1 Commission support needed to be etched into the rulebook, rather than everything getting derailed by petty politics and selfishness.

After all, much worse than this rules summit having a boring, sensible, prudent and rational outcome would have been to do nothing at all.