F1 factions: stakeholder analysis

Formula 1's 2026 technical rules moved the sport to a hybrid engine with a near 50-50 split between combustion and electrical power. What do stakeholders think?

problem

Formula 1's 2026 rules made energy management central to every lap. Drivers, including Max Verstappen, said the cars no longer rewarded driving skill. The FIA and Formula One Management (FOM) defended the rules with attendance figures and fan-survey scores. Autosport reported that Formula 1 had cut a Verstappen podium remark from its social media posts. By the end of September, the sport had changed its rules twice and agreed a larger package for 2027, without winning back its critics.

solution

The assignment: As outside counsel, map how each stakeholder group moved over the season, and tell Formula One Management how to respond when its most credible voices are its loudest critics.

Role: Solo strategist, analyst and writer; Town Squared Strategies.
Independent case study built from public information. Not affiliated with Formula 1, Formula One Management, the FIA or any team.

Case Study Site

Blog Post

What I did

Built an evidence base of 180 stakeholder statements. It covers all 65 official FIA press conferences from the season's first 15 races, with every participant logged so that silence was counted too.
Verified a 21-event timeline against primary sources. Single-source claims were flagged and attributed, not stated as fact.
Collected 2,861 fan comments from 84 RaceFans threads and 50 race-rating polls, with the 2025 season as a baseline.
Coded stance and argument framing using a written protocol. An independent second coder agreed on 80–86% of stance calls.
Built the response:
- an issue map;
- an interactive case-study site with seven charts that show movement over the season;
- an advisory recommendation;
- a Town2 Insights post.

What I found

Criticism split by competitive position, not into consensus. Drivers moved from defending the rules early in the season to clearly critical by summer, and almost all of that shift came from teams other than Mercedes. Mercedes drivers defended the rules all season. At the peak, about a third of drivers were critical.
Each side argued a different case. Drivers argued about driver skill. Formula One Management answered with spectacle and business: attendance, audiences and survey scores.
Rules moved on a timetable; messaging moved on criticism. Fixes arrived about five weeks after the peak in criticism. Official statements followed each spike within two weeks and mostly defended the product.
Fans were critical but kept watching. Three in four who took a position on the rules were critical, yet race ratings matched 2025 (6.09 vs. 5.98). Institutional trust was the second-largest theme in fan comments.

What I recommended

Stop managing drivers' voices: no edits to on-camera remarks and no message guidance to drivers on the rules.
Answer critics in their frame. Explain what changes for the driver on a qualifying lap, not how many people attended.
Claim the 2027–28 changes publicly as "back to flat-out racing," with drivers on the platform.
Give drivers a formal, visible channel into the rules process before the post-2030 engine debate closes.