The world of Formula 1 is no stranger to controversy, but one recent admission from the FIA has left fans and experts alike scratching their heads: 'We wish we had done better.' As the ground effect era draws to a close with the 2025 season, the governing body has openly acknowledged a significant oversight in the previous regulations—one that has plagued the sport for the past two seasons. But here's where it gets controversial: was this a simple mistake, or a symptom of a deeper issue in F1's rule-making process? And this is the part most people miss: the delicate balance between innovation and regulation that defines the sport.
The core problem? The FIA underestimated the impact of extremely low ride heights, which became a double-edged sword for teams. To maximize performance, cars were designed to run lower and stiffer than ever before, but this came at a cost. In 2022, porpoising emerged as a major headache, causing not only technical challenges but also physical discomfort for drivers. Max Verstappen’s candid remark in Las Vegas—'My whole back is falling apart'—highlighted the human toll of these design choices. Even after adjustments, the issue persisted, leaving many to wonder: could this have been avoided?
Single-seater director Nikolas Tombazis didn’t shy away from taking responsibility. He admitted that the FIA, along with the teams, overlooked the critical role ride height would play in the 2022 regulations. 'It was a miss,' he told a select group of media, including Motorsport.com. 'The issue became obvious just before the championship started, when it was too late to make changes.' But here’s the kicker: Tombazis also pointed out that the initial porpoising problem, while significantly improved, was entirely unanticipated. 'I wish we had done better there,' he added, leaving the door open for debate: Could stricter regulations have prevented these issues, or would they have stifled innovation?
The FIA, however, dismissed the idea that limiting suspension freedom could have solved the ride height problem. 'Suspension changes wouldn’t have had a first-order effect,' Tombazis argued. Instead, the focus shifted to another unintended consequence: increased scrutiny on plank and skid wear. Incidents like the 2023 US Grand Prix and McLaren’s recent struggles in Las Vegas underscored the complexity of inspecting these components, raising questions about standardization. But is a one-size-fits-all approach the answer, or would it strip F1 of its technological allure?
Tombazis hinted at a controversial solution: 'The more we move toward a standard car, the fewer problems we’ll have.' Yet, he quickly clarified that this isn’t the direction F1 wants to take. 'We want Formula 1 to be a technological battle,' he emphasized. 'We don’t want it to be a single car with different stickers.' This tension between standardization and innovation is at the heart of F1’s identity, but it also leaves room for unforeseen challenges.
Looking ahead to 2026, the FIA is optimistic that the new regulations will mitigate ride height and porpoising issues. With a simpler floor design, the optimal ride height is expected to rise, theoretically reducing the risk of porpoising. 'It’s very unlikely we’ll see similar characteristics,' Tombazis said. However, the FIA remains cautious, acknowledging that unforeseen side effects are always possible. 'When the cars hit the track, anything can happen,' he added.
As F1 evolves, the question remains: How can the sport strike the perfect balance between innovation and regulation? Should the FIA take a more prescriptive approach, or is the current system, with all its flaws, the best way to preserve F1’s competitive spirit? We want to hear from you—share your thoughts in the comments below. After all, the future of Formula 1 depends on it.
