Jonas LeoNikolas Tombazis, the FIA’s single-seaters director, offered a candid evaluation of the past four seasons. While acknowledging that progress had been made in several key areas, he indicated that the overall success was not absolute. "I think we’ve made a significant step in the right direction on most of these aims, but I certainly wouldn’t claim total success on everything, so I wouldn’t give us an A star. I would give us a B or a C, or something like that," Tombazis stated in a recent media briefing, including Motorsport.com. This measured appraisal reflects the inherent complexities of regulating a sport driven by relentless innovation and fierce competition.
Financial Stability: A Resounding Success
One area where the FIA’s efforts garnered unequivocal praise was in fostering financial sustainability. The introduction of the budget cap, which became effective in 2021 before the ground effect regulations, has been pivotal in this regard. While Tombazis conceded that managing the intricate financial regulations had added a layer of complexity to the FIA’s role, he underscored its transformative impact. "I would certainly say that we cannot even imagine not having the financial regulations now. So I think that has been a success," he affirmed.
Prior to the cost cap, Formula 1 was characterized by an ever-escalating arms race in spending, where the wealthiest teams often outspent their rivals by hundreds of millions, leading to predictable hierarchies and threatening the existence of smaller outfits. The budget cap, initially set at $145 million for 2021 and incrementally reduced in subsequent years, aimed to level the financial playing field, encourage efficiency, and make the sport more attractive to new entrants and investors. Its implementation has indeed led to a more stable ecosystem, with teams reporting improved financial health and a greater sense of long-term security. The regulations have forced even the top spenders to optimize their operations, redirecting resources from sheer expenditure to strategic innovation within defined limits.
Related News :
- Abu Dhabi Grand Prix to Host Historic Three-Way Formula 1 Championship Decider for 2025 Season
- Alonso Anticipates Strategic Conclusion to Underperforming 2025 Season Amidst Gaze Towards 2026 Regulations
- McLaren CEO Zak Brown Describes Red Bull’s Max Verstappen as a Relentless Championship Antagonist Amidst Tightening Title Race.
- Williams Racing to Revert to Historic "F1 Team" Moniker and Iconic ‘W’ Logo for 2026 Season
- Adrian Newey Appointed Aston Martin F1 Team Principal for Transformative 2026 Season
The Elusive Goal of Closer Racing
The technical aspirations for improved racing, however, presented a more nuanced picture. The 2022 regulations were fundamentally redesigned to mitigate the "dirty air" phenomenon—the turbulent wake generated by a car that significantly reduces the aerodynamic performance of a following vehicle. By shifting aerodynamic emphasis to ground effect, the intent was to allow cars to run closer without losing substantial downforce, thereby promoting more wheel-to-wheel action.
Initially, in 2022, there were promising signs. Drivers and pundits alike noted an improvement in the ability to follow, particularly in medium to high-speed corners. "The technical side, I think yes, definitely cars did get to a point where they could race each other more closely," Tombazis acknowledged, specifically referencing the early phases of the 2022 and 2023 seasons. This initial success contributed to several thrilling races and a period where the competitive landscape, while still dominated by Red Bull and Ferrari early on, felt more fluid.
However, as teams delved deeper into the regulatory framework, they began to uncover and exploit what Tombazis termed "areas of the regulations that were a bit too permissible." These were not necessarily "loopholes" in the traditional sense, but rather interpretations that allowed engineers to deviate from the spirit of the rules, ultimately creating undesirable aerodynamic effects.
The primary culprit was the re-emergence of "outwash"—an aerodynamic phenomenon where air is pushed away from the car’s side, creating a wider, more disruptive wake. This directly countered the regulations’ goal of minimizing dirty air. Tombazis pinpointed three specific areas where teams most effectively generated outwash:
- Front Wing Endplate Design: The regulations had intended for the front wing endplates to create an "inwashing" effect, guiding turbulent air inwards and under the car to reduce its impact on following vehicles. However, teams developed intricate profiles that, while compliant with the letter of the law, generated significant outwash, pushing air outwards and exacerbating the dirty air problem.
- Front Wheel Drum Design: The internal "furniture" or fairings within the front wheel drums became another key area of exploitation. These components were optimized not just for brake cooling but also for their aerodynamic influence, contributing to the generation of outwash.
- Edges of the Floor: The design and interaction of the floor edges with the airflow were crucial to the ground effect concept. Teams found ways to manipulate these edges to enhance performance, often at the expense of creating a more turbulent wake for cars behind.
These cumulative effects progressively eroded the initial gains in close racing. By the latter half of the cycle, particularly during the dominant periods of certain teams, the difficulty in following cars at speed became more pronounced, often necessitating the use of the Drag Reduction System (DRS) to facilitate overtakes on straights, rather than relying on genuine aerodynamic parity in corners. The competitive spread, especially between the top two or three teams and the rest of the field, also remained significant, demonstrating that while the field might have been closer in the midfield, the absolute front runners still enjoyed a considerable advantage.
The Governance Conundrum: Lack of Team Support
Despite the FIA’s awareness of these aerodynamic regressions, attempts to rectify the issues mid-cycle were ultimately unsuccessful. Tombazis confirmed that the governing body had indeed considered implementing rule changes for the 2024 or 2025 seasons to address the outwash problem. "These areas I mentioned, it’s not like that is something new today. It was also the case two years ago. Why we didn’t [change the rules]? Well, we tried, but we didn’t have enough support among the teams," he revealed.
The mechanism for introducing regulatory changes within an ongoing cycle is governed by the sport’s intricate governance structure, primarily outlined in the Concorde Agreement. This agreement, a commercial and regulatory pact between the FIA, Formula 1 Management (FOM), and the ten competing teams, stipulates that significant rule changes during a season or for an upcoming season require a supermajority vote. Typically, this means obtaining agreement from a substantial number of teams, often around 80% or more, depending on the timing and nature of the proposed amendment.
From the teams’ perspective, resisting mid-cycle rule changes is a strategic decision rooted in several factors:
- Competitive Advantage: Teams that have successfully exploited existing regulations to gain a performance edge are naturally reluctant to support changes that could negate their hard-won advantage. A dominant team, for instance, would see little benefit in altering rules that currently favor their car’s design philosophy.
- Development Costs: Formula 1 development is an incredibly expensive endeavor. Teams invest vast resources in designing, testing, and manufacturing cars under a specific set of rules. Any mid-cycle changes would necessitate further expenditure on redesigns, re-testing, and production, placing an additional financial burden, especially on smaller teams.
- Stability and Planning: Teams value regulatory stability for long-term planning and resource allocation. Frequent changes can disrupt development cycles and lead to inefficiencies.
This inherent conflict of interest—the FIA’s mandate to ensure fair and exciting racing versus individual teams’ pursuit of competitive advantage within the rules—often creates a deadlock. Without the requisite consensus from a majority of teams, the FIA is legally constrained from enforcing unilateral changes during a regulatory cycle, even when it identifies areas for improvement.
Looking Ahead: The 2026 Regulations
With the 2022-2025 ground effect era now concluded, the focus shifts to the upcoming 2026 regulations, which promise an even more significant overhaul. These rules will introduce entirely new power units, emphasizing sustainable fuels and increased electrical power, alongside a revised chassis concept aimed at making cars lighter, more agile, and crucially, further improving their ability to race closely.
Tombazis expressed cautious optimism regarding the new framework. "The outwash, we obviously believe that it will be better, but let’s have this discussion in two years and hopefully we will tell you that it was all OK and we will be all smiling," he concluded. His statement underscores the ongoing challenge of F1 regulation: a perpetual cat-and-mouse game between rule-makers striving for parity and teams innovating within (and sometimes around) the established boundaries. The lessons learned from the ground effect era, particularly the difficulties in implementing corrective measures, will undoubtedly inform the FIA’s approach to drafting and policing the 2026 regulations, as the sport continues its quest for the optimal balance of competition, innovation, and sustainability.
💬 Tinggalkan Komentar dengan Facebook
Author Profile
- Jonas Leo is a passionate motorsport journalist and lifelong Formula 1 enthusiast. With a sharp eye for race strategy and driver performance, he brings readers closer to the world of Grand Prix racing through in-depth analysis, breaking news, and exclusive paddock insights. Jonas has covered everything from preseason testing to dramatic title deciders, capturing the emotion and precision that define modern F1. When he’s not tracking lap times or pit stop tactics, he enjoys exploring classic racing archives and writing about the evolution of F1 technology.
Latest entries
F1December 14, 2025Red Bull’s Tumultuous 2025 Season: Outgoing Advisor Helmut Marko Alleges Horner’s Prolonged Tenure Denied Verstappen Fifth Consecutive F1 Crown- F1December 14, 2025FIA considered F1 rule changes, but lacked support from teams
- F1December 13, 2025ESPN sets all-time US F1 viewership record in final season before Apple TV switch
- F1December 13, 2025Helmut Marko Underscores Unrivaled Rapport with Max Verstappen Amidst Red Bull Departure
rifan muazin
arthur roy sitompul
Anshari Taslim
Ali Akbar Rosady