The Formula 1 Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia descended into farce on the formation lap when F1 cars ground to a halt thanks to a software glitch. Why was this allowed to happen?
I want to preface this by stating categorically that I do not enjoy criticising the sport I love so much. It pains me to do it, but I do it out of a position of love, and a longing for better. On this occasion, it is unfortunately warranted. There is no single reason for this intervention; instead, a combination of knock-on effects led to one of the most embarrassing incidents in the 34 years I have watched this glorious sport.
My fiancée is slowly getting used to the now never-ending amount of F1 on in the house, and was left utterly incredulous by the scenes on-track when the cars took to the grid for their first attempt at a formation lap. She could not understand how rain could stop these cars in their tracks. My mum, similarly, when she called me, collapsed in laughter and said: “Who knew electric cars don’t work in the rain?”
Joking aside, the ridiculous events on the first formation lap and in the pits should not be happening at the pinnacle of Motorsport. The 2026 cars and regulations have come under significant fire since the start of the season, with modifications made to address the shortcomings, but Malaysia showed more work is needed to eliminate the potential for embarrassing incidents in this regulation cycle. And make no mistake, the drivers are not happy about what they were part of on Sunday.
Chaos ensues on the formation lap
Scenes of multiple cars stopping on the circuit, causing the start procedure to be aborted and leading to a delay of over 40 minutes, were met with understandable haughty derision and exasperation.
I want to be clear, however, that I am not criticising the delay to the original formation lap. The rain falling in Sepang as the original race start approached resembled a lake, bordering closely on the infamous 2009 race that had to be curtailed at the halfway stage. No F1 car has business racing in unsafe conditions, but cars must be able to deal with a small to moderate amount of rain, a trait that the cars, on first glance, appear to have failed on.
Dissecting the scenes is a challenge, given how much happened in such a short time. But, as a broad reminder, the cars took to the track after a massive deluge. Lawson failed to launch; he was powered by a Red Bull Ford powertrain. Isack Hadjar ran wide into the gravel but continued. Verstappen then mysteriously slowed with a steering problem, as the pack suddenly slowed behind the Red Bull. Hamilton then began to dramatically slow and pulled away from the pack, eventually coming to a stop on the back straight.
The Safety Car then had the peculiar problem of having leaders behind it. At the same time, the Cadillacs and at least one Haas also began to crawl to a halt before joining Hamilton in setting off again. The curious thing about all of these casualties? Almost all of these cars were Ferrari-powered. To the watching crowd, it looked like complete and total ineptitude.
The cars then returned to the pits, where radio silence dominated as questions as to how the cars should restart were asked behind closed doors. After a delay that took far too long, the cars were shuffled around in the pitlane. The end result: the race did eventually start, one hour and forty minutes after the original scheduled time for lights out.
Cause and ramifications of F1’s regulations’ own goal
Defending and explaining this to my fiancée proved nearly impossible. How do you respond when asked why multiple cars are suddenly stopping simultaneously in conditions that, although wet, are more than survivable for cars taking part in the pinnacle of motorsport?
At first glance, it appeared that the rain was, indeed, the cause of the issues. It is worth bearing in mind that this new generation of F1 cars had not yet run in the wet. But on Sunday in Sepang, the new cars faced the worst conditions possible while gathering data on wet-weather running. To the casual fan, it looked like the cars simply couldn’t cope with the rain.
But that didn’t cause the formation lap farce in Malaysia. The culprit for this was something far more mundane: an FIA software problem. Rather than affecting one car, it seemed multiple cars were left at the mercy of a wayward computer system.
The consequence of the formation lap debacle then followed the race into the pits. F1 is cutthroat by its nature, and teams will take any and all opportunity to get one over on a rival. So with cars stopping on the formation lap, teams would be entitled to ask for their driver to jump ahead of those who stopped. Instead, a permanent message appeared on the live feed – “Start Procedure aborted”, while conversations took place away from the prying eyes of the world feed and media.
As the minutes ticked by, the silence became deafening. A bemused Martin Brundle commented with words to the effect of “this may be the first race in history where we make it up as we go along.” Thankfully, sanity prevailed, and we once again got underway, now with a bone-dry track. The latter point only reaffirmed the growing narrative that the rain caused the issue, with no official word before or during the race as to what happened. And that running order? The FIA pressed the reset button, opting to revert to the original running order. A sensible decision, but a few teams will have felt hard done by.
The consequence of the sorry episode doesn’t need to be said, but it is not a good look for a sport that, by its very nature, has to be precise. Instead, it chose silence in the first instance, attempting to gloss over the problem and sweep it under the carpet, with about as much success as if someone tried to hide an elephant under a rug after it invaded their home in the middle of London.
FIA clarifies position
The FIA released a statement after the race, explaining the issue as the furore around it grew on social media and across the wider F1 fanbase.
“On the formation lap ahead of the Bahrain Grand Prix in Malaysia, an unprecedented combination of low engine speed, low-grip conditions, wet-weather energy management settings and the Sepang circuit’s sector configuration led to an unintended loss of power for a number of cars.
“As a result, the FIA Technical Department removed the energy limit constraint in the affected sectors through an updated software release distributed to all competitors during the race delay caused by heavy rain, enabling teams to make the necessary changes to the Power Unit before the start of the race.
“This issue had not been detected by the FIA or the teams during testing or during the laps to the grid. The FIA, together with the teams and Power Unit manufacturers, will undertake a full review of the issue.”
After the race, the FIA sent Single Seater Director Nikolas Tombazis to face the media to explain the details behind the crippling glitch. The start procedure differs in wet conditions, and Tombazis explained that the glitch stemmed from a lack of wet running.
“We didn’t manage to test the software as extensively as we would have liked because there has been very little wet running this year, and there was a bit of a combination of circumstances which caused this bug to kick in.” he said to media, including Motorsport Monday.
“Some cars went very slowly, almost came to a standstill. There was a bit of a concertina effect between cars and some cars almost stopped once the problem happened.”
“Bugs in software are not always caused by something being too difficult. Sometimes an oversight.”
Tombazis said the FIA took full responsibility for the glitch, and detailed why only certain cars were affected.
“It’s the responsibility of the FIA to have that software…just to be clear, the software is developed by the FIA in collaboration with the teams. It’s part of the standard code that we have that is common to other cars. So, yes, we are the regulator, and we have this responsibility.
“Any bug is a product of a mistake.”
“Initially there were huge lists of issues found by the teams testing the software, and every time there would be a bug fix or an update, this one just slipped through the net.”
Driver dissatisfaction on the rise again
The drivers reacted as one might expect; they were left far from impressed. These are elite athletes who are ready to be tested to their limits, man and machine working in perfect harmony to deliver a sporting spectacle. Instead, their reputation was also besmirched by association: they were the ones driving the cars at the point of the glitch.
This is not the first time drivers have raised concerns over the 2026 cars, though those voices fell into resigned tolerance in recent months as conversations about a return to V8 power continue in the background, but this is not expected until 2030.
Grand Prix Drivers’ Association Chairman Carlos Sainz unleashed his wrath on the rule makers again after the action in Sepang, and criticised the regulations. His voice commands respect and carries weight, and he rounded off his takedown of the regulations with a comparison to a term that is quickly becoming taboo in the paddock: a V8 engine.
[F1]needs to have a hard look at themselves and see how we ended up in this situation,” he said.
It is clear the regs are extremely complicated for the drivers, for the teams, for the PUs, for the manufacturers. It is too complicated.
“Again, my only question mark is who, five years ago, decided that this was the direction to go? We are doing the best with what we are given as a sport and as regulations. The FIA and F1 are doing the best they can with what was decided four or five years ago, but clearly what was decided four or five years ago is wrong…
“Not a lot more to say, [we] just learn as a sport not to do those mistakes again and not suffer from the same strange cases.
“That is what happens when there is so much software, so much controls involved. If it was a V8 aspirated, it would have never happened.”
Reigning world champion Lando Norris delivered a short but powerful rebuttal: “It just proves that we shouldn’t have any of that stuff on the electronic side,” while teammate Oscar Piastri, with typical deadpan reverence, said “, Never seen an F1 race delayed by a bug. That was a new one.”
But perhaps it is George Russell, again a voice that carries significance, who summarised the sorry saga so well. He underlined the perception given to fans by the debacle: “The whole day felt like a bit of a faff, with the delay and then the red flag and then endless laps under the Safety Car and then suddenly doing extra laps to allow Checo [Sergio Perez] to overtake; it didn’t feel very F1 today,” he rued.
“I’d have been a bit disappointed if I was in the stands, watching that unfold, so… that wasn’t good”.
What this means for F1
Although Tombazis confirmed a fix had been quickly implemented, F1 shared an unfortunate trait with IndyCar in Malaysia: neither series could run in the wet. At the slightest hint of a drop of a rain, a session is delayed in IndyCar, justifiably so considering the insane speeds and the tyres used at the ultra-fast speedways. But F1 is not IndyCar, and this incident cannot happen.
I will not engage in hyperbole by saying this incident damaged F1’s credibility. By admitting the problem, the FIA has ensured this will be known as a bad day at the office and nothing more. But it is utterly remarkable that the sport found itself in this position. The FIA says it will work with the teams to understand the problem, and this needs to happen fast.
In a year dominated by regulation changes, demands to return to V8 engines and concerns over AI having too much control over the cars, we are now faced with a software glitch that crippled cars – because of a bit of rain. The drivers are now getting restless, and there seems to be a borderline flat-out denial of the fact that the sport has a problem, one that it cannot fix in the short term.
It really does sum up F1 in 2026. A missed opportunity, divisiveness, and refusing to accept that the regulations are flawed until absolute disaster hits. Multiple cars stopping on circuit because of a software problem is something I’d expect to see at lower-level motorsport, not the pinnacle. Mistakes happen, of course, but this is the latest in a long line of errors. Singapore is next. I hope they’ve checked the lights…
Discussion about this post