Formula 1 is synonymous with relentless progress, as teams constantly push the limits of engineering to extract every ounce of performance from their cars. Historically, teams could depend on a relatively consistent upward trajectory in performance, with upgrades providing a fairly reliable path to shaving seconds off lap times. However, the landscape has shifted dramatically in recent years. Now, upgrades are not just unreliable—they can sometimes do more harm than good. This new reality has fundamentally altered the way teams approach development, and the reasons behind this shift are complex and multifaceted.
The Changing Face of F1 Regulations
The introduction of new technical regulations in 2022, designed to promote closer racing, has drastically changed how teams develop their cars. These regulations prioritize low ride heights and stiff suspension setups to maximize ground effect aerodynamics. While this approach increases downforce, it also introduces a host of new problems. Teams now have to grapple with the challenge of keeping the car close to the ground without risking the floor striking the track, a delicate balancing act that is difficult to simulate in wind tunnels and computational fluid dynamics (CFD) models.
This balance is crucial because, as the car gets closer to the track, the downforce increases exponentially. Push too hard, however, and you risk triggering porpoising—a phenomenon where the airflow stalls under the car, causing it to bounce violently. This issue, which plagued several teams in 2022 and 2023, illustrates how sensitive these new machines are to changes in airflow, and why upgrades that should theoretically improve performance can sometimes lead to unexpected setbacks.
The Aero-Mechanical Relationship
One of the most significant shifts in the design process under the new regulations is the closer relationship between a car's mechanical and aerodynamic systems. In the past, teams could develop aero solutions with relative independence from the car's mechanical behaviour. Suspension, dampers, and ride height adjustments would compensate for any aerodynamic inconsistencies. Now, with cars running much stiffer setups, these mechanical systems have less flexibility to counteract aerodynamic quirks.
James Allison, technical director at Mercedes, explains that this tighter relationship between mechanical and aerodynamic aspects creates a more complex development process. Teams can no longer just "add downforce" and assume their suspension teams will make it work. Now, every aerodynamic decision has to account for its mechanical consequences, and vice versa. This leads to a more cautious approach to upgrades, as pushing the boundaries in one area can cause unexpected issues in another.
Aerodynamic Complexity: More Than Just Downforce
Another hurdle is the challenge of generating consistent downforce across a wide range of speeds. One of the key areas where this becomes problematic is the front wing. The wing needs to produce significant downforce at low speeds to provide grip in slower corners but must also avoid creating an imbalance at high speeds, which can destabilize the rear of the car. Flexibility in the wing's design can help, but controlling this flex within the bounds of the regulations is incredibly difficult.
Moreover, the simplification of top-body aerodynamics under the current rules, particularly with the removal of the intricate bargeboards seen between 2017 and 2021, has made the cars more sensitive to changes in airflow during cornering. Tiny variations in ride height, which can be influenced by driver inputs or track conditions, have an outsized effect on aerodynamic performance. As Fernando Alonso pointed out, sometimes pushing a car to its absolute limit can actually make it slower, as the car becomes too sensitive to these small changes.
“So if you drive at 90% sometimes you're faster because you don't put the platform in inconvenient angles or ride heights or you're not pushing the limits. It's where everything falls apart when you're at the limit.”
“Sometimes driving at 90% is faster.” Alonso said to the media.
The Wind Tunnel and CFD Limitations
In addition to the intrinsic challenges of the regulations, teams also face limitations in their ability to test and refine their upgrades. The aerodynamic testing regulations (ATR) restrict the amount of wind tunnel time and CFD runs each team can perform, with top teams getting even less access as a penalty for their success. While wind tunnels are still a crucial tool for understanding how cars will perform on track, they can't perfectly simulate the dynamic conditions of a race. This makes it difficult to predict how new parts will perform when subjected to real-world forces like yaw (the angle of the car during cornering) and varying ride heights.
For instance, Aston Martin uses the same wind tunnel as Mercedes, yet their development trajectory in 2024 has been starkly different, proving that a team's ability to extract performance from its resources is just as important as the quality of the resources themselves. As Aston Martin team principal Mike Krack acknowledged, it's not the wind tunnel itself that’s the issue, but how effectively the team can utilize it.
“We have another team using the same windtunnel with less time (due to regulations), so this is not an excuse,” mentioned Krack. “We could do better.”
The Testing Dilemma
Track testing, once a vital part of the development process, is now severely limited. Opportunities to test new parts outside of race weekends are rare, and even when they do arise, teams are often constrained by the nature of the test, such as Pirelli tire tests, which don't allow teams to control the run programs or test new components extensively.
Moreover, the sprint weekend format, which limits teams to just one practice session, further reduces the time available to dial in upgrades. Teams must now rely heavily on simulations, which, as we've seen, don’t always correlate with real-world performance. When upgrades don’t behave as expected on track, teams have little time to fix the problem before they have to race, leading to unpredictable results.
The Cost Cap Conundrum
The introduction of the cost cap has also played a role in slowing the development rate. With a baseline spending limit of $135 million, teams must be more selective about the upgrades they pursue. This financial limitation forces teams to prioritize certain areas of development while potentially neglecting others. It also reduces the ability to produce multiple versions of a component to test on track, further increasing the reliance on simulations and making it more critical that upgrades work as intended right out of the box.
The Tire Puzzle
Finally, there’s the issue of Pirelli’s tires, which have been a constant source of frustration for teams and drivers alike. As George Russell described it, extracting maximum performance from the tires can feel like "black magic." Tires are highly sensitive to factors such as track temperature, surface conditions, and even the type of rubber compound used. These variables can cause huge swings in performance from one stint to the next, making it difficult for teams to accurately assess the effectiveness of their upgrades.
"The first half of the race, we were 1.5s off the pace.”
"The last 20 laps, I was a second quicker than Oscar [Piastri] and Charles [Leclerc] and three tenths quicker than Max, Checo and Carlos.”
"It's the same circuit, same driver, same car. We just went from a yellow tyre [medium] to a white tyre [hard].”
"Honestly, it's actually pretty infuriating that it changes this much."
Russell’s comments highlight how, even when everything seems to be working—when the car, the driver, and the track conditions align—unexpected tire behaviour can throw a wrench into the works. This only adds to the overall unpredictability, making it even harder for teams to draw definitive conclusions about the success or failure of an upgrade.
Conclusion: Navigating an Uncertain Landscape
The current Formula 1 regulations have introduced a new layer of complexity to car development. Teams are now navigating a landscape where upgrades that should, in theory, make the car faster, can often introduce new problems or exacerbate existing ones. Whether it's the delicate balance between aerodynamic and mechanical performance, the limitations of wind tunnel testing, or the confounding behaviour of the tires, modern F1 development is more unpredictable than ever.
Teams are adapting to these challenges in different ways, with some, like McLaren, finding a steady path forward, while others, like Red Bull and Ferrari, have faced more turbulent development cycles. In this brave new world of F1, the teams that can master these intricate and interdependent systems will be the ones that rise to the top, while those that can’t will continue to struggle with unreliable upgrades.
Comments