What does Antonelli's improvement mean for Russell? F1 Q&A

Yes, Antonelli is a protege of Wolff. But so is Russell.

Wolff said on Sunday: "I've always said George wouldn't be a grand prix winner if he wasn't a killer.

"These things, he analyses them, looks at the data, comes to his conclusions.

"And the conclusion is that he's never been quite at ease with the track. He never liked the smooth surface. And that's it. Tick the box. Tomorrow he's looking forward to Montreal.

"It's 18 races to go. And he wants to score. I don't think this has any relevance from his side to think about what could be at the end of the year."

Figure caption,

Montoya weighs in on rising Mercedes rivalry

Why were so many stewards' decisions in Miami delayed until after the race? What benefit is there to delaying or what data are they missing to make a judgement? - Dan

This is a question quite a few people were asking on Sunday.

It's not that unusual for stewards' decisions to be delayed until after the race, and in some cases the drivers have actively encouraged them to wait to hear all sides of the story before coming to a conclusion that wrecks someone's race.

That would particularly apply to those where there is likely to be interpretational nuance, such as an incident between two drivers.

The one that really caused surprise in Miami, though, was Max Verstappen crossing the white line on the pit exit.

This is a black and white decision - either he did or he did not. And he did - he was given a five-second penalty after the race.

The reason the stewards gave for delaying the call was that "when the incident occurred there was limited video evidence to make a clear decision on whether an infringement had occurred".

The stewards have access to all the TV footage they want during the race. There is no reason why footage that was available after the race was not also available during it.

It's their prerogative to delay the decision if they want. But in this case there is no plausible explanation as to why that happened.

The idea of F1 returning to a V8 engine has been hinted at by F1 president Stefano Domenicali and now FIA president Mohammed Ben Sulayem has said it will happen. What is happening with regard to future engines? - David

Most of the talk about F1 engines at the moment is on addressing concerns about the current rules. There is a meeting between senior figures due to take place this week.

There is talk of altering the ratio between the internal combustion and electrical elements of the new engines, which is currently at nearly 50:50.

The thinking is that a switch to more internal combustion engine power - for example by increasing the fuel flow - would help address the concerns that driving on the limit in qualifying has been compromised by the new engines.

The drivers say this still needs to be addressed, but are realistic little more can be done this year after the rule changes that were made before Miami.

Having said that, a number of senior figures have mentioned the idea of opening up straight-line mode - where the front and rear wings open to reduce drag - would be a quick fix on this front.

At the moment, this is limited to certain zones. The argument is to make it free, and leave it up to driver/team choice. This would enable more energy recovery, as the drivers would brake more often. And that would reduce energy starvation.

A change to the fuel-flow rate is likely not to come until 2028, because of the work that would be required to redesign the engines. But it is on the cards.

Longer term, 2030 or 2031 is the next date for a new set of engine regulations. What that looks like will be defined in the next couple of years.

Mohammed Ben Sulayem is provocatively stating he can do what he likes for 2031 because the FIA in theory has total control of the rules by then given the current Concorde Agreement - the contracts that bind F1, FIA and the teams together - runs out at the end of 2030.

But if he ignores consultation and just enforces a return to naturally aspirated V8s with a token amount of hybrid power he risks a number of manufacturers quitting F1.

The manufacturers by and large are open to changing the rules and, especially, making engines cheaper.

But the issue of road relevance cannot be ignored completely, even if F1 can claim its sustainable fuels make the engines carbon-neutral.

The new engine could well be a V8, but it could also be a V6. Some manufacturers are likely to want to keep a turbo, and there will be some level of hybrid, but how much remains to be seen.

Ben Sulayem says the fans want the loud noise that characterised the V10 and V8 era to return, but there is no convincing research proving that.

And ear-splitting engines may not be a good idea, especially for corporate guests above the pits and families bringing children to the tracks. That has to be considered.

They would also likely mean a serious threat to some of F1's current races because of the impact of noise pollution on residents.

Screaming naturally aspirated engines would likely kill Miami, where noise was a major issue when securing the deal, as well as Las Vegas, and put Madrid and Melbourne under threat as well. F1 will not want that.

Mercedes F1 boss Wolff said in Miami: "We are open to new engine regulations. We love V8s. It has only great memories from our perspective. It's a pure Mercedes engine. It revs high.

"And then how do we give it enough energy from the battery side to not lose connection to the real world?

"Because if we swing 100% [internal] combustion, we might be looking a bit ridiculous in 2031 or 2030. So we need to consider that, make it simpler and make it a better engine.

"Maybe we can extract 800 horsepower out of the [internal combustion engine] and put 400 on top of it, or more in terms of electric energy. We are absolutely up for it, as long as those discussions happen in a structured way [and] people's considerations are being taken on board.

"We recognise the financial realities of [original equipment manufacturers] these days. We don't have it easy. But if it's well planned and executed, we will see how Mercedes will come back with a real racing engine."

Figure caption,

Montoya demands penalties for F1 drivers disrespecting the sport

What is it that makes hosting F1 so expensive that many fantastic GP circuits have effectively been "priced out" of hosting F1? Is there any way costs can be reduced (even as a one-off) to allow any replacement races to take place, should it be needed this year? - Zach

Formula 1 is one of the biggest sports in the world. Hosting a grand prix costs a lot of money because F1 is a desirable commodity and lots of places want to have one.

As a result, grands prix have a market value. An expensive one. Just like hosting a World Cup or the Olympics is expensive - much more expensive, by the way, than a grand prix.

If there is not the money to pay it, at a level F1 considers acceptable, then a location does not get a race.

As a business, it's F1's responsibility to maximise its income. Hosting fees are one of the three main sources of revenue for the sport, along with broadcast rights and sponsorship. A large proportion of that revenue is paid to the teams.

In terms of the cancellation of the Bahrain and Saudi Grands Prix this year as a result of the US-Israel war with Iran, F1 decided that it was not worth holding a replacement race just for the sake of it.

Putting on a race costs F1 and the teams money. So had they gone to Imola or Portimao, for example, it would have been a race for the sake of it that lost them and the teams money rather than earned it.

And there was already a financial hit from losing the races.

What's the benefit of that? The calculations now are very different from 2020, when the sport was trying to survive a pandemic.

As for later this year, there is plenty of time before the date of any race that might be under threat from the war.

The first would be Azerbaijan on 25-27 September. After that, Qatar and Abu Dhabi at the end of the season.

If the war is still going on by the time it gets to, say, six or eight weeks before one of those races, it's hard to see how they could take place.

If that happens, the same calculation would be made. Any replacement race would have to make sense for F1 from financial and other reasons for it to happen.