Alex Brundle has called on the FIA to intervene over what he describes as a serious safety risk in the 2026 Formula 1 race start procedure, warning that the new hybrid power unit regulations could leave cars stationary on the grid and exposed to high-speed collisions from behind. The concern centers on a technical requirement for drivers to rev their engines for roughly 10 to 15 seconds to build turbo boost before launch, a process that clashes with the existing start light sequence and could create dangerous disparities between cars at the front and back of the grid. With pre-season testing already raising questions about the complexity of the 2026 rule set, the debate over start safety has become one of the most urgent issues facing the sport before its next regulatory era begins.
Turbo Spool Time Creates a Grid Bottleneck
The root of the problem is mechanical. Under the 2026 power unit regulations, cars will rely on a revamped hybrid system that demands a lengthy turbo spool-up before the clutch can be dropped at lights out. That process takes an estimated 10 to 15 seconds of sustained revving to generate adequate boost pressure. The current start sequence, by contrast, operates on a much shorter and less predictable countdown, with the five red lights illuminating and then extinguishing after a brief, variable pause. The mismatch means drivers could find themselves sitting on the grid for an extended period with engines screaming but wheels locked, waiting for the system to reach the threshold needed for a clean getaway, all while clutch temperatures rise and the risk of a stall increases.
The specific regulation at the center of the dispute is Article B5.7 of the 2026 Sporting Regulations, which governs the start procedure and the timing of when drivers must be in their grid boxes and ready to launch. Critics argue that the article does not adequately account for the time drivers need to prepare their power units, particularly those starting further back on the grid. Because cars line up in staggered rows, a driver in P20 begins the spool-up process later than one on pole, yet faces the same lights-out moment. That timing gap is where the danger lives: a car that stalls or is slow off the line becomes a stationary obstacle in the path of 19 others accelerating from behind, with the visibility of the drivers in the midfield and rear compromised by spray, heat haze, and the natural concertina effect of a crowded launch.
Brundle’s Warning: A “Pure Safety Concern”
Alex Brundle, a racing driver and commentator with deep ties to the F1 paddock, has been among the most vocal critics of the current start plan. In recent comments he urged the FIA to step in, framing the issue not as a competitive quirk but as a genuine threat to driver welfare. “It’s a pure safety concern,” Brundle said, describing a scenario in which a car stalls at the front of the pack and is struck by “an unsighted driver from P20” who has no time or visibility to react. The image he paints is stark: a 20-car field accelerating into a bottleneck where even a fraction of a second’s delay could trigger a chain-reaction collision, reminiscent of past start-line shunts that have left debris strewn across the circuit and forced red-flag stoppages.
What makes Brundle’s intervention significant is that it frames the problem as systemic rather than incidental. Anti-stall systems exist, but they are designed to recover a car that bogs down, not to prevent the initial failure from becoming a hazard to others, and they cannot change the fact that a car which hesitates for even a second is effectively parked in the path of rivals. The real risk is not that one driver stalls but that the grid’s compressed timing leaves no margin for error, especially when everyone is managing complex hybrid settings and clutch bite points under intense pressure. Andrea Stella, the McLaren team principal, is among the stakeholders who have weighed in on the need for procedural changes, adding team-level pressure to the FIA’s decision-making process and underscoring that this is not just a media talking point but an operational worry inside the paddock.
Hamilton Pushes Back on “Dangerous” Label
Not everyone in the paddock shares Brundle’s alarm. Lewis Hamilton, now driving for Ferrari after his high-profile move from Mercedes, has acknowledged the longer start buildup but explicitly rejected the idea that the procedure is inherently unsafe. Hamilton stated that the F1 start procedure is “not dangerous” with the 2026 cars, even while conceding that the revving sequence to spool the turbos is a departure from what drivers are used to. His position carries weight given his status as the most experienced driver on the grid and a seven-time world champion, and it reflects the perspective of someone who typically starts near the front, where the timing margin is widest and the risk of being unsighted behind a stalled car is lowest.
Hamilton has, however, been far from uncritical of the broader 2026 overhaul. He has described the new rule set as “ridiculously complex”, arguing that the layers of energy management, deployment modes, and operational constraints risk overloading drivers and diluting the purity of racing. That apparent contradiction, downplaying the danger of the start procedure while warning about the complexity of the regulations, highlights how differently the same framework can be interpreted. For Hamilton, the concern seems to lie more in how the rules affect race craft and driver workload than in a specific fear of start-line collisions, whereas for Brundle and others the start is precisely where complexity and risk intersect most acutely.
Why Grid Position Could Become a Safety Variable
The split between Hamilton and his peers points to a deeper issue that most coverage has glossed over. In current F1, grid position is a competitive variable: starting P1 is better than P20 because of track position and clean air, but the safety profile across the grid is broadly similar. Under the 2026 start rules, grid position could also become a safety variable in its own right. A driver qualifying near the back does not just face a harder race; they face a mechanically riskier launch. The spool-up window shrinks the further back a car sits, and the density of traffic behind them increases, so a minor miscue in clutch release or boost buildup could have outsized consequences. That is not merely a performance disadvantage. It is an asymmetric exposure to collision risk that has no close parallel in the current regulations and cuts against the sport’s efforts to equalize safety standards across the field.
This dynamic is especially concerning for smaller teams and rookie drivers, who are most likely to qualify in the lower half of the grid and least likely to have the engineering resources to optimize their launch maps for the new procedure. If a Haas or a Williams stalls on row 10, the consequences fall not just on that driver but on every car behind them accelerating at full power with limited sightlines and very little room to take evasive action. The FIA has not yet published a formal response or proposed amendment to Article B5.7, but the fact that figures like Brundle are already sounding the alarm suggests that governing bodies may soon be forced to choose between adjusting the start sequence, relaxing certain power unit constraints, or accepting a level of risk that many in the paddock consider avoidable.
Possible Fixes and the Road to 2026
Several potential solutions have been floated informally as teams and officials digest the implications of the 2026 framework. One option would be to modify the start procedure itself, extending the time between the formation lap and lights out to give all drivers a guaranteed window to complete their turbo spool-up sequence. That could involve a standardized countdown visible on steering wheels or trackside displays, ensuring that a driver in P20 has the same preparatory margin as the polesitter. Another avenue would be to tweak the technical regulations governing energy deployment so that cars can access a baseline level of boost without prolonged revving, thereby reducing the need for drivers to sit stationary at high RPM while waiting for the lights.
There is also discussion around whether grid marshals and race control could be given enhanced authority to abort a start if telemetry indicates that multiple cars have not successfully reached their launch-ready state. While this would introduce occasional delays, proponents argue that a controlled extra formation lap is vastly preferable to the chaos of a multi-car collision. Teams, for their part, are likely to push for software and hardware solutions (refined clutch control algorithms, more forgiving anti-stall calibration, and clearer driver prompts) to mitigate the risk within the existing rule set. Ultimately, the path the FIA chooses will signal how it balances its push for more efficient, hybrid-heavy powertrains with the non-negotiable imperative of keeping drivers safe when the lights go out.
More from Morning Overview
*This article was researched with the help of AI, with human editors creating the final content.
