The issue became a major talking point after the Belgian Grand Prix, where several drivers encountered unexpected differences in straight-line performance at Spa-Francorchamps.
Under the 2026 regulations, almost half of a power unit’s output can come from its electrical system, making the timing of that energy crucial to performance.
The technology widely described as “AI” does not drive the car or independently choose its racing line. Instead, software constantly evaluates how the lap is unfolding and adjusts the battery’s contribution accordingly.
That process is designed to use the available energy efficiently, but it can produce a different response when circumstances vary from what the system anticipated.
A small change in throttle use, wheelspin or the amount of time spent accelerating can influence what power remains available later in the lap. Changing grip and weather conditions can also affect the calculation.
The result is that drivers do not always receive the electrical assistance they expect, even when two laps appear almost identical from the cockpit.
Click here to find out how.
Oscar Piastri spoke out against the technology in Belgium last weekend after being left frustrated after losing time on the straights to McLaren teammate Lando Norris during qualifying.
“It sucks. I can’t really say it any other way than that,” Piastri said.
“When you’ve got qualifying grids decided by computers behaving or misbehaving, it’s a pretty crap way of going racing.”
‘It sucks’: Piastri’s scathing assessment of ‘crap’ F1 regulations
Piastri said the problem was particularly difficult to accept because the difference could appear after a driver had completed the corners without making an obvious mistake.
He later acknowledged that the system could make him feel like a passenger, especially at circuits where the battery was placed under greater pressure.
“Sometimes, yes,” he said when asked whether it felt like he was relying on an AI program.
“But the principle of driving a race car that loses effectively half of its power before the end of the straight is hard to get your head around sometimes.”
Spa exposed the issue because its long flat-out sections demanded more electrical energy than the car could sustain throughout the lap.
Piastri said parts of the middle sector were completed using only the combustion engine after the available battery assistance had been exhausted.
Norris agreed that drivers could affect deployment through their own actions but argued the consequences were often out of proportion with the size of the input.
“It’s got nothing to do with you as a driver, really,” Norris said.
“Sometimes it does and we’re talking about being a few metres early on the button or whatever.
“It just makes a big difference at times, but there are certain things within your control and a lot of things, way too many things, that are out of your control.”
McLaren team principal Andrea Stella admitted the teams were also still learning why the engines sometimes departed from their expected behaviour.
“When we try to analyse this, it gets immediately quite complicated,” Stella said.
“In fact, when I left the debrief to come here for this media session, there were still discussions ongoing as to why we see differences when these differences would not be scheduled in terms of the underlying parameters.”
Teams began each weekend with simulations showing how the power unit was expected to behave, but the real car could encounter conditions that were not perfectly reflected in those calculations.
Once the lap started unfolding differently, the software could revise how it planned to spend the remaining electrical energy.
That was demonstrated by Isack Hadjar when he slowed during qualifying to provide Max Verstappen with a slipstream.
The unexpected loss of speed altered the situation the system had been prepared for, leaving Hadjar unsure how much power he would receive when he accelerated again.
“What is difficult is to guess what the engine is going to give you, because once you stop out of Turn 14 and deliver the power again, the engine is a bit confused because you’ve stopped for no reason. The software is confused,” Hadjar said.
“On that first attempt in Q3 I had way too much power, so I pulled away from him. And the second attempt, I didn’t have enough.”
The uncertainty also affected more than outright speed, with changes in energy harvesting capable of altering how quickly a driver approached the next braking zone.
That made braking references less consistent and added another complication for drivers already adapting to the lower-downforce 2026 cars.
The problem was expected to be less visible at circuits with shorter straights, including the Hungaroring this weekend, because the electrical system was not stretched as severely.
Manufacturers were also expected to gain a better understanding of the technology as they gathered more information throughout the season.
Fernando Alonso believed the current problems were recognised across Formula 1 and would gradually be reduced.
“I think with these current regulations and the battery deployment, there is something that has to be fixed and improved,” Alonso said..
“I think that’s well understood.
“I’m optimistic for the future that it will get better and that it will be better understood what the rules and what the cars need to be.”
Future regulation changes will reduce the proportion of performance produced by the battery, easing the demand placed on electrical deployment.
However, the adaptive software will remain, meaning teams must still learn how to prevent its calculations from producing unwanted surprises.
2026 F1 Hungarian Grand Prix – Schedule, how to watch, TV times & more
Discussion about this post