What's wrong with F1's 2017 changes

Why have the powers that be added downforce rather than just increasing mechanical grip? Will we not be left with the same situation where cars can't follow close to one another without destroying tyres?
Alex Hughes, via Twitter

Alex, I wish I knew. You are correct that adding mechanical grip via the tyres would have been fine. If I had anything to do with it, I would have reduced aerodynamic grip.

The tyre problems in 2016 and before are not only caused by one car following another. The tyres themselves overheat very easily and following another car just exaggerates it.

The problems for 2017, as I see it, are plentiful:

1) Wider cars (by 11%) will increase corning stability and will increase drag slightly. But more importantly, this will effectively reduce the track widths and the potential for an overtaking manoeuvre, especially somewhere like Monaco.

2) Increased downforce levels will create more problems with turbulence, especially as the complexity of the front wing has been retained. The underfloor will be a little more resilient and less susceptible to turbulence, but I think this will be of little significance in the overall package.

3) These changes have increased the teams' research and development budget, effectively doubling it. This is a whole new learning curve for everyone, so the developments will be coming thick and fast.

4) The only positive will be increased tyre grip (but I don't know yet if Pirelli has achieved this) as the tyres come out of the back of a truck and are the same for Sauber as they are for Mercedes. So this is a laptime benefit that at least does not increase the costs.

The consensus seems to be that the new rules won't make the racing noticeably better. Do you agree with this, and if so what happens once we've had the first three or four races of 2017 without any big impact?
Michael Burns, via email

I've hopefully made my thoughts on the regulations very clear above.

As far as what will happen if they don't work after the first three or four races is concerned, well I suppose it will be down to the viewer deciding not to keep watching.

The new owners will then start panicking and something will then be added to try to patch it all up. It will be impossible to go back as such, so it will have to be something to spice up the show.

The 2017 cars are supposed to be more physical, although no doubt they will still be far easier than they were in the 1980s when we had real drivers. What impact does driver fitness, consistency and recovery have on performance and do you expect some of the younger drivers to struggle this year?
David Cast, via email

David, I don't think the younger drivers will struggle. Actually, for me it will be the opposite, as they are normally the ones that adapt more readily to change.

All the drivers are physically very fit, but more important than that is mental fitness. This is what reduces the risk of mistakes and allows a driver to concentrate on the job in hand lap after lap.

In the current era, Michael Schumacher brought this to F1 and, as he showed many times in his career, he could pump in times lap after lap that very few other drivers could get close to over even one lap.

As Jackie Stewart will say, the time he became a great racing driver was when he learned to relax in the situation and not try to white-knuckle the car.

This doesn't only come from physical fitness, but many drivers don't recognise what it takes to achieve this.

Is it a good idea for Felipe Massa to return with Williams in 2017?
@gridjunkief1, via Twitter

I never like it when a driver returns from retirement, especially this quickly. It shows that he didn't think things through well enough and that he believed he wasn't going to get a drive with the same potential as Williams.

In reality, rather than retiring Massa should have just taken a year out, something might just have popped up if other teams knew he was available. You never know, Lewis Hamilton could still slip on a banana skin before Australia.

The other thing is the risk of hurting yourself. If you have retired and come back, you will look at things a little differently. In doing that, your judgement will have altered and, in cars that should be quicker than they were in 2016, that can have its own consequences.

Will McLaren make the step into the top five this year?
John East, via Twitter

With the resources McLaren has, it should be in the top five or even better. But the problem from my point of view is that, from a chassis perspective, McLaren believes it is quicker than it is. Eric Boullier said recently that if McLaren had a front-running engine in 2016 it would have won races. I don't think so.

There is a lot of work to do on both sides before McLaren will be a consistent front-of-the-middle-pack team. Even then, it has the huge task of catching the leading bunch, whoever they are.

To add to these simple problems with the car, the management structure seems to be going through a reshuffle. With Ron Dennis gone, everyone will be trying to find their new positions and decision-making will be more difficult for a while until all this settles down.

When rules change, normally the gaps between cars extend. Do you expect this to happen and why do you think this is the case?
Phil Bates, via email

Phil, yes I am pretty sure it will happen again as it has done for many years.

It is basically that someone will get it more right than the rest. For 2009 it was Brawn that came out of the embers of Honda with all guns blazing and established itself at the front of the field - at least until others spent lots of money and came up with their own version of the double diffuser.

I spent the other evening trying to read through the regulations for 2017. I knew it wouldn't be easy but I had no idea that they had progressed into the minefield that they have.

To be honest I doubt very much that any team can actually stick its hand up and say, 'yep we have a handle on the regulations'.

As I said above, it will take time and many millions of dollars before we see the end result of what I consider to be a flawed set of changes.

What do you think about the FIA technical directive on the Ferrari suspension question?
@LookBackTime, via Twitter

Like all of these very complicated systems, the detail is what will make it legal or illegal.

It is in all the other teams' interests to bring what they think Mercedes is using to the FIA's attention. That doesn't mean they actually know what it is using or that the FIA will deem the system illegal, but at least what Ferrari has done has highlighted that there might be something worth taking another look at.

There is no doubt in my mind that any system like this is there for one purpose and one purpose only, to improve the overall aerodynamic platform through its working range.

Basically, if you can reduce front to rear negative movement with weight transfer and weight transfer-inflicted inertia there will be an aerodynamic improvement.

With it almost certain there will be no 2016 GP2 graduates on the F1 grid, do you think the current F1 feeder series needs a major rethink - and if so what do you propose that could keep GP2 as relevant to F1 while keeping the costs down?
Lewis Jones, via Facebook

Lewis, the best feeder series for Formula 1 is and always was Formula 3. Many great drivers through the years have proved this.

GP2 and GP3 were both created as money-makers for the people who created them. They had the influence to get them as back-up races to the F1 calendar, then the budgets just escalated.

They are the shop window for F1 teams to have a look at drivers and we have had some very good drivers come through GP2 and GP3, so they are not a lost cause, but now teams do their own in-depth research into a driver's talent level.

The days of team owners like Ken Tyrrell leaning over the pitwall and looking at the drivers during the support races on a grand prix weekend have long gone.