The Australian Grand Prix launches the 2026 Formula 1 (F1) season at Melbourne’s Albert Park on Sunday.

While the US strikes on Iran forced many teams to change their travel plans, organisers are confident the event will go ahead without a hitch.

There is plenty to look out for as the F1 world turns its attention towards Melbourne: the season-opening race is the first of a new era, with changes to technical regulations, while Australian Oscar Piastri is ready to challenge for the drivers’ championship as the crowd watches to see if he can break a lengthy drought on home soil.

Key changes to technical regulations

While the cars will look similar to last season’s, they will be vastly different.

The core aim of the new regulations is to make racing more competitive and increase passing.

Compared with 2025, this year’s cars are smaller, more agile and use more electric power.

The Drag Reduction System (DRS) – an adjustable rear wing device to promote overtaking – has been phased out after being introduced in 2011.

Active aero is now part of the regulations – not just a grey area that teams have tried to exploit.

Active aero allows drivers to change the position of the front and rear wing to produce high drag for cornering (increasing downforce, grip and braking performance), or low drag to deliver more speed on straights.

The biggest regulation changes apply to the power units. The cars will keep their 1.6 litre, turbocharged V6 engines, but the hybrid system will be rebalanced, resulting in a roughly equal split between combustion and electric power.

With almost three times greater electrical power (an increase from 120 kilowatts to 350kW) available, drivers will need to manage the battery charge and deployment.

The cars are smaller and lighter than last season, with the wheelbase reduced by 200 millimetres (to a maximum of 3,400mm), total width reduced by 100mm (1,900mm max), and minimum vehicle weight by 30 kilograms, down to 768kg.

These changes are designed to increase agility and encourage more overtaking opportunities.

Why F1 made these changes

Technical resets are part of the competitive lifecycle in F1.

F1 teams build and unveil a new car every season because technical regulations are updated, and because the pace of development means last year’s design is unlikely to be fast enough to be competitive.

Major technical regulation resets happen every few years and 2026 is one of those bigger shifts.

Changes to technical regulations can improve racing, increase opportunities for previously struggling teams, and ensure innovation stays at the forefront.

Each revision challenges engineers to interpret the regulations with limited data, enabling early innovators to gain a competitive advantage.

This unpredictability can reinvigorate fans’ appeal as new contenders emerge.

The 2026 changes are also aimed at supporting sustainability ambitions.

F1 has committed to net zero carbon emissions by 2030, and the use of sustainable fuels reflects this. These commitments could help inform the development of new technologies that find their way into road cars, too.

What will the racing look like?

The lighter, smaller cars may produce more dynamic racing, particularly on narrower street circuits where the smaller cars are more manoeuvrable.

The introduction of active aero should also add a tactical layer, as drivers adjust their wing settings to balance cornering grip and straight line speed.

The increased electrical output of the power units though have raised concerns from some, including four-time world champion Max Verstappen, that F1 racing might resemble Formula E.

Formula E cars run exclusively on battery electrical systems, making energy management central to race strategy: drivers must balance speed with battery conservation, often lifting off the throttle early to regenerate energy through braking.

With battery management, electrical regeneration and deployment all becoming more strategic than before, we will have to wait and see.

Piastri’s weight of expectation

After coming agonisingly close to winning the World Drivers’ Championship last season, the hopes of a nation hang with Piastri.

Australia has produced F1 world champions (Jack Brabham and Alan Jones) but has never produced a winner of the Australian Grand Prix.

Since its move from Adelaide (1985–95) to Albert Park in 1996, the Australian race has opened the F1 season on 23 occasions, meaning it has been the debut race for many drivers.

While many drivers have been successful in their home races – including German Michael Schumacher (four victories at Hockenheim), UK driver Lewis Hamilton (eight wins at Silverstone) and Verstappen from the Netherlands (three victories at Zandvoort) – none of these have coincided with the first race of a season and the implementation of new technical regulations.

Piastri will have to manage the weight of expectation combined with the demands of driving a new car under new regulations, adding a substantial psychological load in his pursuit of a home race win.

His calm and analytical approach to racing should position him well to find early performance in the new car.

But it’s not just about the driver – team performance and competitors’ adaptation will all play a role in whether Piastri is crowned champion at the end of the season.

The stage is set

So, the stage is set in Melbourne for the next chapter of F1, with Piastri Australia’s best title chance in recent times.

Changes to technical regulations rarely produce a predictable outcome. Drivers and teams go through periods of learning and experimenting to find performance.

The Australian Grand Prix is more than the start of a new season. It is the beginning of a new competitive landscape, where local fans will wait with bated breath to see whether Piastri can finally break the Australian GP hoodoo.

Dan van den Hoek, Senior Lecturer, Clinical Exercise Physiology, University of the Sunshine Coast; Anthony Bedford, Associate Professor of Data Science and Senior Performance Analyst, University of the Sunshine Coast, and Bridgette O'Malley, Associate Lecturer (Sport and Exercise Science), University of the Sunshine Coast

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.

About one in two Australians will be diagnosed with skin cancer by age 70. The most dangerous kind is melanoma, which develops in skin cells called melanocytes that have been overexposed to the sun.

Common moles also develop from melanocytes, and appear as small dark marks or bumps on your skin. They are usually harmless growths, but any individual mole has a low risk of developing into a melanoma.

The more moles you have, the more likely one may become malignant. So a high “mole count” is one of the strongest risk factors for melanoma.

But there’s good news. Over the last 25 years, our team of researchers has tracked the number of moles on almost 4,000 Australian children and observed a nearly 50% drop in that period. Here’s what we found.

Why moles matter

Most Australian children develop moles, with the average teenager having 50 moles by age 15. They are most common in people with paler skin who are exposed to intense ultraviolet radiation (UV).

People with more than 100 moles are seven times more likely to develop melanoma during their lifetime, compared to those with fewer than 15 moles.

Other risk factors for melanoma include having paler skin or hair colour, a family history of unusual moles or melanoma, and certain genetic conditions.

What we studied, and what we found

In the early 1990s, our research team began the Brisbane Twin Nevus Study.

Each year, we examined 12-year-old twins and their siblings living in sun-drenched south-east Queensland. We studied twins because they can help us measure how both genetic and environmental factors affect mole count.

In total, we followed 3,957 children in the years between 1992 and 2016. We found the average number of moles on children’s bodies fell by 47% over that period.

Based on this drop, we predict this would reduce these children’s lifetime risk of developing melanoma by four times, compared to children born in the 1980s.

It is hard to know exactly what caused this halving of childhood mole numbers. But our best explanation is that better sun protection and avoidance in early childhood has led to this drop.

The success of ‘Slip, Slop, Slap’

Research suggests children today, compared to kids in the 1990s and 2000s, are getting less UV exposure before age 12. We calculated that our observed drop in mole count between 1992 and 2016 could be explained by the average UV exposure dropping by 12%.

This is most likely the result of decades of sun safety campaigns which encouraged parents, schools, and communities to take UV protection seriously.

The “Slip, Slop, Slap” campaign is the most well-known example. It was launched by the Cancer Council in 1981. Thanks to a board short-wearing seagull and sun-smart jingle, this campaign has become an iconic part of Australian culture.

As researchers, it’s hard to establish a clear link between the impact of public health messaging and measurable health outcomes. But one 2023 study examined the sun protection practices in 25 Queensland childcare centres. It found centres which required children to wear sun-smart clothing saw a 25% decrease in the number of moles found in kids aged five and under.

But parents can’t be complacent

A 47% drop in childhood mole numbers is worth celebrating. But the work doesn’t stop there.

Parents must be especially careful about sunburn. Sunburn is a sign your skin has been damaged by too much sun exposure. And repeated sunburns in childhood are one of the strongest risk factors for melanoma later in life.

Parents can also look out for any unusual moles on their child’s skin. Especially in children, moles are usually benign and very rarely turn into a melanoma. But if your child has a mole which changes in size, shape or colour, it’s best to get it assessed by a doctor.

And don’t forget about sun-smart habits. Our study reinforces the fact early sun protection, such as applying sunscreen, wearing hats and long-sleeved shirts, works. And they are easy to build into your family’s routine.

Many Australian parents are already teaching their kids about sun safety. But our study shows their everyday efforts, coupled with strong public health messaging, can save lives.

David Duffy, Research Fellow, Genetic Epidemiology Lab, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute and Nick Martin, Head of the Genetic Epidemiology Laboratory, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.