Will there be closer racing next year thanks to the new rules?
cvogel090309, via Instagram
It's a simple question and the simple answer is that I don't see why anything should change. If any of the big teams don't get their new car right first time then they will spend their way out of it. If a smaller team doesn't get it right then the field could be even more spread out. What we need to remember is that change costs money and at least for a short time it will open up the performance gaps between the teams. Then, as time passes, everyone will gravitate to more or less the same solution and the competitive level will close up.
We did have some good races in 2018, but if the powers that be review them and the reasons why they will probably find that it was more to do with circuit layout and, on some occasions, cars that were out of position on the grid. Forget all these technical regulation changes and focus on the sporting regulations and introduce some more randomness.
I am not saying that we want it to be to a Mario Kart level, but some simple changes like being able to use the DRS (if it has to stay) earlier to close the gap to another driver. I would suggest increasing the required gap to something like three seconds. That way you can close up quickly and try an overtaking manoeuvre before your tyres have overheated. Currently, having to be within a second of the driver in front before you can use it means that your tyres lose grip before you can challenge them.
Doing away with the blue flags would also be quite effective. All we hear is moaning about drivers not getting out of the way quickly enough but if it was down to the driver to get on with it themselves then perhaps they would use that extra energy they are using on the radio call on driving the car and overtaking.
Isn't next year just going to be another foregone conclusion, with Hamilton and Mercedes dominating again - or can Ferrari spring a surprise?
David Stone, via email
Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton are at the top of their game and will never be easy to beat. But if Ferrari and Sebastian Vettel genuinely look at why they didn't take the 2018 championship battle right to the last race, are honest with themselves in apportioning blame and instigate procedures that eliminate these mistakes from happening again, then they can take the battle to Mercedes.
When I say blame, I really mean responsibility. It's blame because it has happened and someone was responsible and that someone should now know it is their responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again.
As far as the driver errors are concerned, it's easy to review the season as a group and take in the errors that led to the loss of points. This is also the best time to review any pit or strategy calls that were either positive or negative.
The more difficult part is where Ferrari introduced developments that didn't perform on track as expected. The team should now know that it is better to wait a race and make sure you understand what you should get from your developments before heading to the track. It's much better to optimise the performance of a car that you understand than a car that has altered aerodynamic characteristics. That just confuses the issue.
Unfortunately, now that the 2018 season is over Ferrari will more than likely paper over the cracks that lost it the battle and come back next year making the same errors.
With the new wing regulations do you see teams putting more of an emphasis on downforce from the floor?
Kenny Geauvreau, via Twitter
The teams put in the maximum effort into producing as much downforce as possible from every area of the car. As the underfloor is one of the most efficient areas, teams already focus on that area.
Unless there is a change in the technical regulations for the underfloor geometry this area will more or less be the same as last year. Actually, with the changes to the front wing endplates and bargeboards probably reducing the vortices that help seal the sides of the underfloor, I can envisage a small loss of performance in this area.
If I was involved in researching or writing the regulations it is the area that I would be putting more effort into. It is the one area that is less affected by turbulence from another car, so instead of trying to reduce the turbulence from the leading car, which you will never do, come up with solutions to allow the cars to work in a more turbulent environment.
Do you think that the Honda PU can live up to the expectations that Red Bull have? Or do you think that it is something to throw the Renault PU under the bus and hype up the Honda? And how much can they improve if it's all true?
@TeunvOudheusden, via Twitter
We are now heading into the sixth (fifth for Honda) year of these engine regulations and during that time Mercedes has dominated. After struggling for a couple of years, Ferrari has finally caught up and is now at more or less the same level.
Renault has never really showed it knows what it takes to join that club. Other than saving face by Red Bull winning a few races using its power unit, it would actually look pretty second rate when it comes to the end-of-season school report to Renault's directors.
Because of this, Red Bull has every right to be aggrieved with Renault's performance, but I don't agree with Red Bull being as verbal as it has been. They won four drivers and constructors' championships together before these regulations came into play, so it was a partnership and in any partnership your need to respect each other.
As for Honda, its first three years with McLaren were politically very difficult and I don't think it had the freedom to get on with what it wanted or needed to do. By partnering up with Toro Rosso, Honda has now had a season to try to understand where it really stands.
It's still very difficult to know if Honda will just be another Renault, which after five seasons has not got to the Mercedes and Ferrari level or show if it can be at or close to the that level.
I personally think Honda can do it and being a partner directly with the Red Bull team it won't have long to wait to find out.
Changes for 2019 weren't 'supposed' to happen (big reg changes happen every 3-4 years, right?). Do you see more (big) tinkering happening between seasons in the future?
Ed Boswell, via Instagram
If tinkering between seasons happens on a regular basis to the level of the 2019 changes then there will be teams going out of business because there is nothing as expensive as change. It's not the change itself, as most teams will build a new car for the new season anyway, it is the recovery and/or optimisation spend that eats up the budget.
Getting it right first time is not an easy task, but if you have to have a second hit at it on top of your normal planned development stages then it will just be down to a spending war and once again those with the big budgets will be able to do that faster than the teams with smaller budgets.
I do believe that dotting the i's and crossing the t's every season is required just to keep on top of things. But I'm talking about simple things like rear-view mirror position and size. Every driver for many seasons will tell you that it is almost impossible to see another car behind if they are offset by a couple of metres, so that sort of thing needs to be addressed.
Also, things like the ever-growing complication and cost of front and rear brake ducts should be looked at. They simply need to be scaled back by a certain percentage because no team is now using the full dimensions to actually cool the brakes. It's the add-on aerodynamic bits that need to be got rid of, or at the minimum drastically reduced in size and complexity.
When it comes to major changes that could mean a new chassis and all the other paraphernalia that goes with it, if it is really required then every three years should be the absolute minimum life cycle for any set of regulations. Five would even be better as it would allow the teams to develop their end of season packages over the winter and actually do the first four races with it before introducing their new cars at the first European race. That way, the smaller teams might just be able to see what the big boys were up to before committing to the manufacturing of their new packages.
Why have the rear wing changes been made? And what difference will the loss of the endplate slots and the raising of the rear wing will have. And why have they made changes to make the DRS 30% more powerful by making the slot bigger?
Jaime Garcia, via email
The rear wing being raised will give the driver a better rear view, so that in itself is not too bad a thing. The slots in the rear wing end plates improve the efficiency of the rear wing by connecting the low pressure area behind the rear tyre to the underneath of the rear wing and diffuser, so that change will slightly reduce the performance of the rear wing.
As for the dreaded DRS changes, this is just stupid. When we all want to see better car to car racing and not simply motorway overtaking, but someone with the power to change things thinks that making the DRS more powerful will lead to better racing. These sorts of decisions are what is stopping F1 from moving forward.
If anything, the DRS should have been done away with, because it is the definition of artificial. What is the challenge if your car is 20km/h faster on the straight than the car in front of you? Racing should be about racing and not about mirror, signal, manoeuvre overtakes.
As I said above, if the DRS has to stay then allow it to be used to catch another car. But as soon as you are within a second then eliminate its use, or allow it to be used so many times per race at the driver's discretion. Allow it to be used in the same places but whatever the race laps are then that is how many times you can use it. Then it's up to you to either use it to catch someone, pass someone, or defend - it's your choice.
What practical difference will increasing the minimum fuel allowance by 5kg have on the racing?
James Frankland, via Facebook
Simple answer: none because very few cars actually use the current fuel allowance.
On most circuits, it's better to optimise the car's performance and lap time with the car being as light as possible. Yes, it means that the drivers need to fuel-save but that can be done very simply by what is called lifting and coasting at the end of the straights.
So instead of the driver jumping on the brake pedal as soon, or even before, he has completely lifted the throttle pedal they just wait that couple of tenths of a second. This allows the car to slow down with the aerodynamic drag. Just the car's drag at high speed will generate something like 1G of braking resistance, which is similar to braking quite hard in your road car.
This also reduces the initial load on the brakes and allows the airflow on the diffuser and rear wing post DRS to re-attach. And by easing onto the brake pedal, it allows the balance between the rear hydraulic brakes and the electrical re-generation rear braking to sort itself out, reducing the risk of locking the brakes initially. In general, it makes the car more stable under braking, so is a win-win-win situation.
On some circuits it is better to run with the higher fuel load, but over the season you could count them on the fingers of one hand - and you wouldn't even have to include the thumb.
From my point of view, it is going in the opposite direction to what F1 should be going in. The have created this hybrid beast, which is impressively efficient. Then they step backwards and allow more fuel. Surely, the correct thing would be to at least leave it alone, forcing the engine manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their power units every season.
Which teams are more likely to be benefited from these changes?
agus2598, via Instagram
The big, well-funded teams will just out-spend and out-research the small teams. The 'why' is simple, because they have more money, more people and more research tools.
When we have had a regulation change in the past, I have always thought of it like you are driving along the road taking the kids to the seaside and you arrive at a roundabout with three exits and no signs and you forgot the map. A small team needs to get out of the car to see if they can smell the sea air, and if they can and they follow that road they will get to the beach.
For a big team, they don't bother getting out of the car - they have enough manpower and money to head off down each road. As they discover that one route is taking them into the mountains they turn around, the next route will be taking them into an industrial area so they turn around but the third route is the way to the beach and they have just as many people going down that route as the small team. The big problem is that now they are joined by the other people that headed off in a different direction, so they are now three times as strong as a small team.
If, as we all hope, a small team does for some miraculous reason get it right and is in a position in Melbourne to stick two fingers up at the big boys, then it will only be a matter time before it is overpowered.
Will there be closer racing next year thanks to the new rules?
cvogel090309, via Instagram
It's a simple question and the simple answer is that I don't see why anything should change. If any of the big teams don't get their new car right first time then they will spend their way out of it. If a smaller team doesn't get it right then the field could be even more spread out. What we need to remember is that change costs money and at least for a short time it will open up the performance gaps between the teams. Then, as time passes, everyone will gravitate to more or less the same solution and the competitive level will close up.
We did have some good races in 2018, but if the powers that be review them and the reasons why they will probably find that it was more to do with circuit layout and, on some occasions, cars that were out of position on the grid. Forget all these technical regulation changes and focus on the sporting regulations and introduce some more randomness.
I am not saying that we want it to be to a Mario Kart level, but some simple changes like being able to use the DRS (if it has to stay) earlier to close the gap to another driver. I would suggest increasing the required gap to something like three seconds. That way you can close up quickly and try an overtaking manoeuvre before your tyres have overheated. Currently, having to be within a second of the driver in front before you can use it means that your tyres lose grip before you can challenge them.
Doing away with the blue flags would also be quite effective. All we hear is moaning about drivers not getting out of the way quickly enough but if it was down to the driver to get on with it themselves then perhaps they would use that extra energy they are using on the radio call on driving the car and overtaking.
Isn't next year just going to be another foregone conclusion, with Hamilton and Mercedes dominating again - or can Ferrari spring a surprise?
David Stone, via email
Mercedes and Lewis Hamilton are at the top of their game and will never be easy to beat. But if Ferrari and Sebastian Vettel genuinely look at why they didn't take the 2018 championship battle right to the last race, are honest with themselves in apportioning blame and instigate procedures that eliminate these mistakes from happening again, then they can take the battle to Mercedes.
When I say blame, I really mean responsibility. It's blame because it has happened and someone was responsible and that someone should now know it is their responsibility to make sure it doesn't happen again.
As far as the driver errors are concerned, it's easy to review the season as a group and take in the errors that led to the loss of points. This is also the best time to review any pit or strategy calls that were either positive or negative.
The more difficult part is where Ferrari introduced developments that didn't perform on track as expected. The team should now know that it is better to wait a race and make sure you understand what you should get from your developments before heading to the track. It's much better to optimise the performance of a car that you understand than a car that has altered aerodynamic characteristics. That just confuses the issue.
Unfortunately, now that the 2018 season is over Ferrari will more than likely paper over the cracks that lost it the battle and come back next year making the same errors.
With the new wing regulations do you see teams putting more of an emphasis on downforce from the floor?
Kenny Geauvreau, via Twitter
The teams put in the maximum effort into producing as much downforce as possible from every area of the car. As the underfloor is one of the most efficient areas, teams already focus on that area.
Unless there is a change in the technical regulations for the underfloor geometry this area will more or less be the same as last year. Actually, with the changes to the front wing endplates and bargeboards probably reducing the vortices that help seal the sides of the underfloor, I can envisage a small loss of performance in this area.
If I was involved in researching or writing the regulations it is the area that I would be putting more effort into. It is the one area that is less affected by turbulence from another car, so instead of trying to reduce the turbulence from the leading car, which you will never do, come up with solutions to allow the cars to work in a more turbulent environment.
Do you think that the Honda PU can live up to the expectations that Red Bull have? Or do you think that it is something to throw the Renault PU under the bus and hype up the Honda? And how much can they improve if it's all true?
@TeunvOudheusden, via Twitter
We are now heading into the sixth (fifth for Honda) year of these engine regulations and during that time Mercedes has dominated. After struggling for a couple of years, Ferrari has finally caught up and is now at more or less the same level.
Renault has never really showed it knows what it takes to join that club. Other than saving face by Red Bull winning a few races using its power unit, it would actually look pretty second rate when it comes to the end-of-season school report to Renault's directors.
Because of this, Red Bull has every right to be aggrieved with Renault's performance, but I don't agree with Red Bull being as verbal as it has been. They won four drivers and constructors' championships together before these regulations came into play, so it was a partnership and in any partnership your need to respect each other.
As for Honda, its first three years with McLaren were politically very difficult and I don't think it had the freedom to get on with what it wanted or needed to do. By partnering up with Toro Rosso, Honda has now had a season to try to understand where it really stands.
It's still very difficult to know if Honda will just be another Renault, which after five seasons has not got to the Mercedes and Ferrari level or show if it can be at or close to the that level.
I personally think Honda can do it and being a partner directly with the Red Bull team it won't have long to wait to find out.
Changes for 2019 weren't 'supposed' to happen (big reg changes happen every 3-4 years, right?). Do you see more (big) tinkering happening between seasons in the future?
Ed Boswell, via Instagram
If tinkering between seasons happens on a regular basis to the level of the 2019 changes then there will be teams going out of business because there is nothing as expensive as change. It's not the change itself, as most teams will build a new car for the new season anyway, it is the recovery and/or optimisation spend that eats up the budget.
Getting it right first time is not an easy task, but if you have to have a second hit at it on top of your normal planned development stages then it will just be down to a spending war and once again those with the big budgets will be able to do that faster than the teams with smaller budgets.
I do believe that dotting the i's and crossing the t's every season is required just to keep on top of things. But I'm talking about simple things like rear-view mirror position and size. Every driver for many seasons will tell you that it is almost impossible to see another car behind if they are offset by a couple of metres, so that sort of thing needs to be addressed.
Also, things like the ever-growing complication and cost of front and rear brake ducts should be looked at. They simply need to be scaled back by a certain percentage because no team is now using the full dimensions to actually cool the brakes. It's the add-on aerodynamic bits that need to be got rid of, or at the minimum drastically reduced in size and complexity.
When it comes to major changes that could mean a new chassis and all the other paraphernalia that goes with it, if it is really required then every three years should be the absolute minimum life cycle for any set of regulations. Five would even be better as it would allow the teams to develop their end of season packages over the winter and actually do the first four races with it before introducing their new cars at the first European race. That way, the smaller teams might just be able to see what the big boys were up to before committing to the manufacturing of their new packages.
Why have the rear wing changes been made? And what difference will the loss of the endplate slots and the raising of the rear wing will have. And why have they made changes to make the DRS 30% more powerful by making the slot bigger?
Jaime Garcia, via email
The rear wing being raised will give the driver a better rear view, so that in itself is not too bad a thing. The slots in the rear wing end plates improve the efficiency of the rear wing by connecting the low pressure area behind the rear tyre to the underneath of the rear wing and diffuser, so that change will slightly reduce the performance of the rear wing.
As for the dreaded DRS changes, this is just stupid. When we all want to see better car to car racing and not simply motorway overtaking, but someone with the power to change things thinks that making the DRS more powerful will lead to better racing. These sorts of decisions are what is stopping F1 from moving forward.
If anything, the DRS should have been done away with, because it is the definition of artificial. What is the challenge if your car is 20km/h faster on the straight than the car in front of you? Racing should be about racing and not about mirror, signal, manoeuvre overtakes.
As I said above, if the DRS has to stay then allow it to be used to catch another car. But as soon as you are within a second then eliminate its use, or allow it to be used so many times per race at the driver's discretion. Allow it to be used in the same places but whatever the race laps are then that is how many times you can use it. Then it's up to you to either use it to catch someone, pass someone, or defend - it's your choice.
What practical difference will increasing the minimum fuel allowance by 5kg have on the racing?
James Frankland, via Facebook
Simple answer: none because very few cars actually use the current fuel allowance.
On most circuits, it's better to optimise the car's performance and lap time with the car being as light as possible. Yes, it means that the drivers need to fuel-save but that can be done very simply by what is called lifting and coasting at the end of the straights.
So instead of the driver jumping on the brake pedal as soon, or even before, he has completely lifted the throttle pedal they just wait that couple of tenths of a second. This allows the car to slow down with the aerodynamic drag. Just the car's drag at high speed will generate something like 1G of braking resistance, which is similar to braking quite hard in your road car.
This also reduces the initial load on the brakes and allows the airflow on the diffuser and rear wing post DRS to re-attach. And by easing onto the brake pedal, it allows the balance between the rear hydraulic brakes and the electrical re-generation rear braking to sort itself out, reducing the risk of locking the brakes initially. In general, it makes the car more stable under braking, so is a win-win-win situation.
On some circuits it is better to run with the higher fuel load, but over the season you could count them on the fingers of one hand - and you wouldn't even have to include the thumb.
From my point of view, it is going in the opposite direction to what F1 should be going in. The have created this hybrid beast, which is impressively efficient. Then they step backwards and allow more fuel. Surely, the correct thing would be to at least leave it alone, forcing the engine manufacturers to improve the efficiency of their power units every season.
Which teams are more likely to be benefited from these changes?
agus2598, via Instagram
The big, well-funded teams will just out-spend and out-research the small teams. The 'why' is simple, because they have more money, more people and more research tools.
When we have had a regulation change in the past, I have always thought of it like you are driving along the road taking the kids to the seaside and you arrive at a roundabout with three exits and no signs and you forgot the map. A small team needs to get out of the car to see if they can smell the sea air, and if they can and they follow that road they will get to the beach.
For a big team, they don't bother getting out of the car - they have enough manpower and money to head off down each road. As they discover that one route is taking them into the mountains they turn around, the next route will be taking them into an industrial area so they turn around but the third route is the way to the beach and they have just as many people going down that route as the small team. The big problem is that now they are joined by the other people that headed off in a different direction, so they are now three times as strong as a small team.
If, as we all hope, a small team does for some miraculous reason get it right and is in a position in Melbourne to stick two fingers up at the big boys, then it will only be a matter time before it is overpowered.