- Vettel backs driver criticism of F1’s 2026 rules, warning it risks losing its identity.
- New regs sparked debate, prompting the FIA to approve mid-season changes.
- Paddock remains split – Wolff and Montoya pushing back against public criticism.
The four-time world champion, who retired at the end of 2022, publicly backed drivers critical of the sport’s new 2026 technical regulations.
He spoke to Swedish broadcaster SVT while in Stockholm to receive The Perfect World Foundation Award for his environmental and biodiversity work. His message was direct: Formula 1 must not lose its original Formula.
The 2026 regulations introduced a 50:50 split between electrical and combustion power. Three races into the season, drivers have complained that the rules make genuine wheel-to-wheel racing difficult.
The FIA has since agreed a package of mid-season changes ahead of the Miami Grand Prix on 3 May.
Vettel doesn’t want F1 to lose its DNA
Vettel said he sympathises with drivers who have struggled under the new rules.
“The cars are probably fun to drive, but it’s probably not so much fun to race because of the regulations and the difficulties that come with that,” he told SVT.
He then articulated what he sees as the sport’s core purpose. “I’m very critical not to lose the DNA and the heart of the sport, which is about finding the fastest driver in the fastest machine to win the race,” Vettel said.
His argument did not dwell on technical specifics. Instead, he focused on what happens when drivers climb out of the car.
“If they come out of the car and they’re full of adrenaline and very excited, it’s what makes people excited on the screens and in the stands as well,” he said.
That is a straightforward point, but it carries weight in the current climate.
The FIA and Formula One Management have cited a higher number of overtakes in 2026 as evidence that the regulations are working.
Drivers have pushed back, arguing that those overtakes stem from energy deployment gaps rather than racing skill.
Vettel’s voice carries a particular kind of credibility here. He has no seat to protect, no team to represent, and no contract to negotiate. He speaks as someone who competed at the top of the sport and chose to walk away from it.
The FIA responds to the backlash with mid-season tweaks
FIA officials, team principals, power unit manufacturer CEOs and FOM representatives held an online meeting and agreed on a set of changes based on data from the first three rounds of the season.
The maximum permitted energy recharge in qualifying will drop from 8MJ to 7MJ. The aim is to push drivers toward more consistent flat-out laps rather than carefully managed ones.
Super-clipping thresholds will rise from 250 kilowatts to 350 kilowatts. That allows drivers to recover more energy without lifting from full throttle, which should reduce the stop-start rhythm that has frustrated them the most.
A new 150kW cap on race boost mode will also come into effect. Officials designed it to reduce the kind of dangerous closing speeds that contributed to Oliver Bearman’s accident earlier in the season.
A new detection system will also monitor for cars with unusually low acceleration off the line, and trigger automatic MGU-K deployment to standardise the start sequence.
The changes go to an FIA World Motor Sport Council e-vote before Miami.
The F1 paddock remains divided
Not everyone has welcomed the public nature of the debate. Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff argued that criticism of the regulations belongs behind closed doors.
He described those involved in the sport as “guardians” of it, and said they “shouldn’t badmouth our own sport in public.”
Before the changes were confirmed, Wolff had called on the F1 Commission to “act with a scalpel and not with a baseball bat” when reviewing the rules.
Former F1 driver Juan Pablo Montoya took an even harder line. He suggested drivers like Max Verstappen and Lando Norris should face fines or expulsion for speaking out publicly, calling their comments “disrespectful.”
Vettel’s decision to speak openly puts him on the other side of that argument. By echoing the drivers’ concerns in a public forum, he implies that transparency is part of fixing the problem, not part of creating it.
His broader point stands regardless of what the Miami changes deliver. Formula 1 earns its audience through competition between the fastest drivers in the fastest machines.
The regulations exist to serve that competition. When they work against it, the sport’s most enduring voices tend to say so. Vettel is now one of them.
