F1 got lucky three ways. But now it has a difficult and urgent problem to solve

It wasn’t just Oliver Bearman who had a lucky escape in yesterday’s Japanese Grand Prix.

Bearman was doing 308kph when he left the track approaching Spoon curve after being caught out by the rate at which he caught Franco Colapinto ahead of him. This was a situation drivers had warned F1 about before: one driver using his energy boost to attack, the car ahead going slower than on the previous lap as his car recovers energy, and the resulting speed differential causing a huge crash.

This could have come to a much worse end than Bearman limping away to the Medical Centre with a bruised right knee. Had he hit the Alpine he would likely have lost contact with the ground, shed far less speed than he did, and the implications of that could have been far more serious. Only that morning a car travelling at much lower speeds was launched onto a debris fence at the preceding corner.

But if F1 got lucky that Bearman emerged largely unscathed, this was only one of three ways fortune has been on its side.

Secondly, consider Carlos Sainz Jnr’s point after the crash: The same incident could easily happen elsewhere on the calendar, potentially at a place where speeds are higher and run-off is more limited, making the consequences more dire.

Transplant Bearman’s crash to, for example, Jeddah, and there would have been far more things for Bearman to hit. The majority of corners at F1’s fastest street circuit are taken at speeds of well over 200kph. The barriers are close to the edge of the track, restricting visibility at places and meaning any mistakes tend to result in crashes.

F1 was originally supposed to race at the Jeddah Corniche Circuit in less than three weeks’ time. Given the concerns over closing speeds which were always going to be a particular hazard at this track, it is fortunate that events beyond its control have forced the race’s cancellation.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

In a third lucky break, the cancellation of that race plus the Bahrain Grand Prix has given F1 a whole month to tackle its problem. The FIA already intended to use the opportunity to address other shortcomings with its new rules, but the Bearman crash should propel the concerns over closing speeds to the top of the list.

The problems F1 has given itself with its 2026 regulations were clearest of all at Suzuka. In qualifying, the capabilities of the chassis and the drivers were utterly emasculated by the energy-starved power units. Suzuka, one of the world’s most challenging racing circuits, has been neutered as far as F1 is concerned.

As if that wasn’t bad enough, another drawback of the 2026 regulations became even clearer last weekend. A quirk of the rules inadvertently punishes drivers for taking more speed through corners by sapping their energy on the straights. Bearman remarked they were better off driving at “99%” instead of pushing flat-out.

The quality of the racing remains a more divisive subject. Some proclaimed the race a triumph: Ferrari team principal Frederic Vasseur called it “good for F1, good for everybody”, though his junior driver would surely have been forgiven for seeing it differently as he limped away from the wreckage of his Haas.

Mercedes team principal Toto Wolff talked up the race. Before the grand prix began Lewis Hamilton said the “yo-yo racing” phenomenon was no different to karting.

Lando Norris flatly rejected that comparison after swapping places several times with Hamilton as their energy levels varied. Max Verstappen waved to Pierre Gasly as they yo-yoed back and forth. Afterwards the Red Bull driver openly talked of walking away from F1 at the end of the year if the FIA doesn’t fix its rules.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

But all these other concerns must rank as secondary considerations to the issue of closing speeds. Jeddah may be gone but there are many other venues where a similar crash could turn out worse than at Spoon curve, such as the high-speed approach to turn 11 at Miami, F1’s next destination.

F1 drivers’ warnings to the FIA that its new rules risked increasing the likelihood of such a crash have been borne out. This is a clear issue of safety which requires a response.

In its statement responding to the crash, the FIA understandably stressed any changes would “require careful simulation and detailed analysis.” The unexpected five-week gap will hopefully provide the opportunity to do that.

No doubt the answers to this problem will not be easy to find. Those in charge may have to make unpopular changes.

With the next two rounds due to be sprint races, leaving just one hour of practice each, the opportunity for real-world analysis before competitive sessions is limited as it stands. It remains to be seen whether the FIA would consider using the ‘spring break’ to schedule a test of whatever changes it introduces.

It may have to accept forcing an overall reduction in the performance of the cars. It may have to accept seriously disrupting the competitive order of the teams. But neither of those things should prevent it taking steps to correct the potentially dangerous situation which has arisen because of the new rules.

Advert | Become a RaceFans supporter and

2026 Japanese Grand Prix

• ‘Easy to say when you’re on the pit wall’: How Gasly fight left Verstappen frustrated
• Piastri sees no easy fix for high closing speeds between F1 cars
• F1 got lucky three ways. But now it has a difficult and urgent problem to solve
• ‘Good show, good for everyone’: Ferrari and Mercedes bosses praise Japanese GP
• Verstappen says he could walk away from F1 at end of 2026 over new rules

Browse all 2026 Japanese Grand Prix articles