Lewis Hamilton isn’t buying the idea that Formula 1’s new 2026 start routine is a safety ticking bomb — even if it looks faintly ridiculous on TV.
The early noise out of Bahrain pre-season running has centred on how long these cars now need to “get ready” to launch: drivers juggling battery deployment, waiting for the turbo to spool and holding revs for far longer than anyone’s used to in the current era. At times in testing it’s been obvious the process isn’t yet slick, and that’s what triggered talk of a potential hazard when the five lights go out and half the grid is still effectively mid-prep.
Hamilton’s view is simpler: it’s not dangerous, it’s just different — and the sport needs to be careful with the language it’s attaching to it.
“It’s definitely not dangerous,” he said in Bahrain. “We should probably take that connotation away from it, because it’s just a different procedure. It’s just a longer procedure than it has been in the past.
“If right now, you put the five lights up, we would all still be standing there when the lights went out for a little bit longer.”
That last line is the key. If F1 changed nothing and ran the usual sequence tomorrow, you’d likely get an awkward half-beat where cars hesitate, some anti-stall, maybe a couple of messy getaways — but not a scenario Hamilton recognises as inherently unsafe.
And, crucially, he points out the turbo isn’t the difference between moving and not moving.
“You can still pull away without the turbo going,” Hamilton added. “You probably will anti-stall a couple of times. Perhaps the anti-stall is something that maybe is a potential for some people, but I don’t think it’s dangerous.”
The argument from the other side isn’t that the cars can’t physically leave the grid — it’s that the disparity in how quickly they can complete the procedure could create a concertina, especially deeper in the pack. McLaren team principal Andrea Stella was the most prominent voice raising the issue after the first three days in Bahrain, listing starts as one of three areas that, in his view, need attention as the new power unit rules bed in. He also flagged lift-and-coast techniques and the operation of an overtaking mode as topics for discussion within the F1 Commission, which met on Wednesday.
Stella’s logic was straightforward: if some manufacturers can get their systems primed much faster than others, you open the door to uneven launches that have nothing to do with driver skill and everything to do with architecture and calibration. And if the back of the grid has less time to run through the procedure because the start sequence traditionally begins shortly after the final car arrives in its box, then the risk is asymmetrical — a problem for those already disadvantaged.
That’s where Valtteri Bottas’ contribution landed. With Cadillac preparing for its first season on the grid in 2026 and realistic expectations placing it towards the rear early on, Bottas is acutely aware of how a “late” start procedure could punish the cars lining up at the back.
“Honestly, I don’t think it’s more dangerous than before,” Bottas said. “The main difference is… longer hold revs, and I think we got to figure out something for that.
“My only concern with that is, let’s say you’re at the back of the grid for the race start, once you start putting your hold revs, the light will already start going; you won’t have enough time to get the turbo spinning before the lights go off.
“But that’s obviously only an issue for the drivers at the back. Apart from that, I think we’ll find solutions. I don’t see any element of danger in just having longer hold revs.”
It’s not hard to see where this is heading. The cleanest fix — and the one Stella hinted at — is simply procedural: tweak the timing so every driver gets the same realistic window to complete the required steps. That would preserve the spectacle without making the start a game of “who can finish their checklist before the five lights go out”.
The debate gained extra traction because Hamilton inadvertently became the face of it. During the Bahrain test he carried out a practice start at the end of the pit lane and, on the broadcast feed, was timed revving his Ferrari for 22 seconds before pulling away. It was the kind of clip that ricochets around the paddock in minutes: not because it’s scandalous, but because it’s such a stark visual of how alien this new routine looks compared to the crisp, instant launches F1 has sold for years.
Hamilton joked that he’d simply been watching others rather than taking part in the end-of-test practice start the previous Friday. Max Verstappen, never one to waste a straight line, piled in with the obvious gag: Hamilton was “just revving it”.
Verstappen also offered the sort of deadpan “solution” that only works because everyone knows he’s half serious and half winding people up.
“You can always start from the pit lane if you feel unsafe,” he quipped. “You catch up anyway to the back of the pack by Turn 4. It’s okay.”
Underneath the jokes, though, the dynamic is real. Starts are one of the few moments left in modern F1 where the sport still feels raw and uncontrolled, where tiny margins and human reactions can decide positions instantly. If the 2026 rules accidentally turn that into a delayed shuffle — or, worse, a manufacturer-dependent lottery — the pressure to tidy it up will be intense.
Hamilton’s line is that nobody should panic, and he’s probably right: the system is new, teams are still learning it, and the sport has ample time to refine the start sequence before it becomes a weekly flashpoint. But the paddock rarely leaves an advantage unchallenged, and when questions are being asked about uneven capability between power units, this won’t go away on optimism alone.
What Bahrain has really done is reveal a truth F1 has lived with for decades: when the cars change, the procedures have to evolve too — and if they don’t, someone always ends up feeling like the rules were written for the front row.
