The fan and driver reaction to the Australian Grand Prix was absurd. We need to give it more than one race

F1 fans the world over need to take a chill pill.

The reaction to last weekend's Australian Grand Prix, particularly surrounding the quality of the racing and the use of the electronic boost mode, has been absurd.

Melbourne was the first weekend of a completely new era of F1. The new-for-2026 aero and engine regulations are without doubt the biggest rules overhaul in the sport's history.

READ MORE: Johnston 'couldn't breathe' during iconic moment

READ MORE: Fans swarm as Johnston breaks record in iconic moment

READ MORE: Aussie sensation Tudhope wins second medal in Italy

Yes, they're complicated. Yes, there were some reliability issues. Yes, there were some other kinks and bugs teams will have to work hard to exterminate.

But it was the first race, and Albert Park represents something of an outlier on the F1 calendar, particularly after it was reconfigured for the 2022 race.

On Sunday, the battle for the lead between George Russell and Charles Leclerc in the opening laps was high-speed game of cat and mouse as each driver used their overtake button to pass and re-pass the other. It was thrilling, and if Ferrari's strategy team didn't soil the proverbial as they have on so many occasions, it might have gone on for much of the race.

But after the chequered flag fell, fans and drivers were quick to label it artificial racing.

Max Verstappen once again threatened to quit the sport, and labelled the cars "Formula E on steroids".

Sergio Perez said using the boost mode was akin to playing Mario Kart, while reigning champion Lando Norris labelled the engine regulations the "worst" in the sport's history.

"We've come from the best cars ever made in Formula 1, and the nicest to drive, to probably the worst," the defending champion said ahead of the race.

Funny - the Mercedes pair of George Russell and Kimi Antonelli had nothing bad to say about the regulations, and the engine that powered them to a 1-2 in Melbourne is the same one bolted into the back of Norris' McLaren.

Ferrari ace and seven-time world champion Lewis Hamilton was also upbeat after his fourth-place finish.

It's almost like now McLaren aren't the quickest team, there's a reason they want the regulations changed again.

The new rules mandates the car's power output must be split 50-50 between the combustion engine and the electrical motor. I'll concede the engine regulations in particular are probably too complicated. I consider myself a hardcore F1 nuffy – I've grown up watching the sport and was making the annual pilgrimage to Albert Park long before Drive to Survive made it cool.

But even I've found it difficult to wrap my head around. Without trying to sound like a big head, if I can't understand them, what chance does the casual fan have?

So why is Albert Park an outlier?

As much as the drivers love starting the season in Melbourne, the track layout itself isn't the best to show off what the new regulations are capable of. Albert Park is considered something of an outlier on the calendar, particularly in recent years following the reconfiguration that made the track one of the fastest in the world.

After the 2020 event was cancelled, turn one and three were widened (the track itself was made wider) and turn six was opened (the radius was made larger). It meant the cars brake significantly less through turn one and six. Another corner was chopped out altogether, turning the Lakeside Drive run over the back into one big long drag.

What it means is there are more long straights (four) than heavy braking zones (three). Given a significant chunk of the cars' usable kinetic energy is harvested under braking, challenges around energy management are exaggerated in Melbourne.

While that does not bode well for tracks like Monza and to a lesser extent Azerbaijan, with its twisty nature and heavy brake usage, Monaco on the other hand might suddenly be a cracker.

The more things change the more they stay the same

The racing being 'artificial' or 'not real' is a complaint as old as the sport itself.

When legendary designer Colin Chapman started experimenting with wings and ground effects on his Lotus cars in the late 60s and into the 70s, the purists believed relying on downforce wasn't 'real racing'.

Then in the late 80s and 90s as electronics became more advanced, traction control and semi-automatic gearboxes became a requirement to remain competitive.

And KERS in 2009? DRS in 2011?

It was all 'artificial', 'gimmicky', or in more modern times 'like Mario Kart'.

I'll concede Oscar Piastri's crash, and the explanation of a 100kw 'power surge' isn't a great look for McLaren or the sport.

But for crying out loud, it was the first race! Yeah, it sucked it was Oscar, and his crash sucked the life out of the entire precinct. Give the teams and drivers a moment to figure everything out.

The next two races - this weekend in China and then Japan in a fortnight - are both at traditional, permanent race tracks, and both have different characteristics. There is also a sprint race at the Shanghai circuit on Saturday afternoon.

Perhaps if both of these races are duds - Japan last year was an absolute snoozer - then maybe we can talk about changes.

Until then, let's just enjoy not knowing what's going to happen.