How Mexico's altitude fed race controversies

Mexico is a unique circuit, in that air density is approximately 22% lower than for a track at sea level. This affects many things, that in turn had an impact on the amount of penalties flying around during the grand prix weekend, the first of which is downforce levels.

Teams will, as normal, simulate the optimum downforce level to achieve the best lap time, and then make decisions on the wing and drag levels. At Mexico City, the wing will have a larger cross section than you would normally have to generate this level of downforce, with most teams probably running something similar to what they run for the Hungaroring.

With the turbo hybrid engines, power loss is not a problem at altitude, it's just that the turbo will have to work a bit harder and run faster to achieve the same boost levels. But beyond that, the main problem for the power unit is cooling, so most teams had larger, more dedicated radiator cooling ducts.

The other problem is the brakes, with the cars going faster than normal because of the power-to-drag ratio being better and the reduced downforce, meaning braking distances are increased. That means higher temperatures, or increased cooling.

Because of the energy input, it is impossible to cool the brakes during the braking episode. This means all the cooling has to be done after the braking, with the discs and pads brought down to a practical level before the next braking zone.

Arriving at Turn 1, the brakes would be about 250C. At the end of braking they could be around 1000C, any hotter than this and the wear rate increases exponentially.

The problem is that the material doesn't really give much retardation until it reaches around 400C. So as the brakes heat up and the driver increases the pedal pressure in desperation to slow the car down, they lock the brakes when the temperature goes through the 400C range.

A good example of this was Lewis Hamilton at the first corner in the race, when the low temperature problem was even greater because of sitting on the grid, as well as the front-right brake apparently being glazed.

The other talking point over the weekend was that the tyres needed very different warm-up treatment to get the best from them. That meant the advantage of the softer compounds didn't come as normal.

If you consider the cars ran in Mexico with around 22% less downforce, that means the tyres also had this percentage less vertical, lateral and longitudinal (braking) workload each lap. But with normal power levels from the power unit, the longitudinal (acceleration) loads were the same, so more wheelspin was inevitable.

This would lead the tyres to have higher surface temperature and lower carcass temperature, making them grain more as the initial surface of the tyre tears itself apart.

These unique technical demands made the cars difficult to drive in Mexico, with Nico Rosberg saying the effect of low tyre temperatures all weekend made his feel very nervous.

Low tyre temperatures also make the cars difficult to stop under braking, which ultimately became a big talking point at the end of the race as driver behaviour on track, and the reaction by the FIA stewards, caused huge controversy. Track limits were at the centre of this.

Perhaps to prevent this becoming a problem, if and when Donald Trump builds his ridiculous wall between Mexico and the United States, maybe it could be wide enough to have an F1 race on top of it? Then the configuration could tackle track limits and allow a second American or Mexican GP - with the two sharing the cost! I've heard plenty of more ridiculous suggestions...

But, more seriously, track limits must be regulated and consistently enforced. Yes, drivers can make a mistake and screw up a corner, but if this happens they usually lose ground.

I'm sure everyone will have their own views on this and what penalties should be given, but if I was enforcing the regulations, the cost for running wide would still be a five-second penalty. But it would be served with immediate effect and, when Hamilton ran wide at the first corner, the FIA would inform the team, which would radio Hamilton to ensure he lost five seconds to the cars around him within two laps of the incident.

This could very easily change the course and outcome of a race, in that it would stop drivers from escaping the DRS zone by making mistakes that actually let them move clear of a pursuer.

As far as close racing is concerned, the FIA has lost its way with what is acceptable and what is not. We all want to see close racing and if we have this, the odd touch is inevitable. And that should be considered acceptable.

Again, if I was implementing the regulations I would go for the same five-second time penalty served in exactly the same way. The FIA makes the team aware of the penalty and the team radios the driver to lose that amount of time before the end of the next lap.

Doing it this way, and transmitting the radio traffic, would mean that we are not waiting for decisions or penalties. They would be served with immediate effect, so the viewing public would be watching an accurate representation of the race situation at any given moment.

So, this is how I would have tackled the various offences during the weekend:

1. Hamilton would have got a five-second penalty for his first-corner visit to the runoff area.

2. Nico Rosberg and Max Verstappen would not be penalised for their first-corner wheelbanging, as this was proper racing and what we want to see more of. This is what did happen on Sunday.

3. Carlos Sainz Jr would not have had a five-second penalty for forcing Fernando Alonso onto the grass. Alonso saw it all unfolding and he could have backed out of it. That's what racing should be all about, trying a move knowing you have an escape plan.

4. Verstappen should not have been given a five-second penalty for his move on Vettel, because he didn't gain. He only protected what he had. If this is the way these decisions would go now, many previous incidents not penalised would have been treated very differently.

5. Sebastian Vettel definitely moved under braking and put Daniel Ricciardo into a dangerous position. He needs to practice what he preaches and is becoming a trouble magnet. He has been involved in far too many skirmishes this year.

6. Vettel's radio comments about Charlie Whiting's implementation of the rules were out of line. He should be setting an example to up and coming drivers, but instead he acted like a spoiled kid. A hefty fine - say of US$1million - should have been given with the proceeds passed on to a good children's charity (not the FIA's benevolent fund) for bringing the sport into disrepute.

I have, for many years, been a Vettel fan, but he has changed. He is always the first on the radio after he has been involved in an incident to publicly explain what happened. This is basically to minimise the risk of being penalised for his actions, and it appears he has done the same after his verbal abuse of FIA technical delegate Whiting.

The fact he gets away with this shows the FIA's inability to see past the surface of any of his indiscretions. We don't want the other drivers to think they can do the same, so please FIA, clamp down on it when you can.

Penalties are very random and even the drivers have realised this. The racing and the potential penalties are turning into a lottery. Because the drivers put in an exceptional amount of effort to deliver a result, they deserve consistency.

I know we all wanted to hear more radio traffic, but - honestly - Vettel moaning about Felipe Massa not letting him past and Alonso being an idiot on the radio to his engineers is not what we want to hear.

On the positive side, it was good to see Hamilton and Rosberg have a chat in the cooldown room at long last. This is the way it should be, as many people want to see the emotion that we used to see when we had drivers like Nigel Mansell, Nelson Piquet or Aryton Senna on the podium.