Q: Lately I have heard a lot about F1 cars performing differently in the wind tunnel than on the track, and I was wondering if the use of A.I. could close the gap for the teams? Adrian Newey seems to have it figured out; Red Bulls’ cars seem to work as planned through practice, qualifying and the race, but other teams, not so much. I realize that they would run different set ups through practice, etc,, but was wondering if A.I. could help with choosing which setting to use, or even change the setting instead of relying on input from the driver or team. Perhaps they are already using A.I., but I was just curious as to how it could/or is used.

John Furnis

CM: In a sense, simulators are A.I, aren’t they? You’re inputting as much data as possible for the simulator to be able to recreate reality, and tell you what it believes changes will do in the real world. It then learns from each change that is made or each additional bit of data to ideally provide a more accurate outcome.

“Correlation” is always the word used, and it’s because there will always be a difference between what simulations are telling you and the true reality on track because there so many variables, but you want that difference to be predictable and understood. That then gives you more confidence when you make changes or developments, that you know what the outcome is most likely to be (even if it’s not the exact outcome the simulation is showing).

The other point to make is that a car still needs to be drivable by a human. A simulation might give you the best way of setting the car up for the fastest lap time, but if the human behind the wheel can’t extract it then it’s pointless. You’re finding the best result for the driver to get the most possible performance out of the car they can, so they need to be in the loop as a key component.

Q: I was reading that Alpine is considering selling its F1 team. Could this be an opening for Andretti Global to get into F1 by buying Alpine? They had a contract to lease Renault engines for several years until Cadillac was able to build its own. If Andretti could go this route, do you still believe the other teams vote against it?

Frank, Mooresville

CM: I’ve had a strong denial from Alpine when it comes to sales rumors, and Bruno Famin has come out publicly saying as such, too. From the discussions I’ve had with those close to the Andretti project as well, the route of purchasing an existing team is not one it’s exploring.

But no, I absolutely don’t think any teams would vote against a team being bought, because I’m pretty certain they can’t. They don’t have a say in who owns a team, and don’t have a vote on whether a new entrant comes in either, that is all from Formula One Management. But the teams don’t have an issue with Andretti, they have an issue with losing revenue by adding an 11th team and having to split their income 11 ways rather than 10.

Andretti might be able to buy some cool Alpine merch if this Japanese fan’s race suit is anything to go by, but the team itself is off-limits. Simon Galloway/Motorsport Images

Q: With Alonso resigning at Aston, I guess it’s safe to assume that the whole Honda/GP2 engine brew-ha-ha is now water under the bridge?

Shawn, MD

CM: Yep, absolutely! Fernando himself actually pointed to the Honda performance with Red Bull and future partnership with Aston as a key component to him wanting to extend his stay and be part of it.

Honda itself has said that it was aware of Aston’s interest in extending Alonso’s contract — and Aston even checked if that would be an issue, given the history — but the Japanese manufacturer sees it as a very different time and believes the partnership will be stronger for it.

I can’t see it being an issue at all, unless the Honda power unit is really poor in 2026… All of the recent signs are that won’t be the case, but while the history would make it an even better story if Alonso and Honda are successful together, it also might make cracks appear a little more easily.

Q: I find the talk about track limits in some series interesting, but NASCAR at Phoenix makes a complete joke out of it. What do you use as a basis for determining average speeds? I’ve been to Phoenix and cutting across the dogleg back then couldn’t be done because there was no pavement down there. Today it is just a mockery of what a paved racetrack should be. Who thought this was a good idea, and are there any plans to correct this?

Don Hopings, Cathedral City, CA

KELLY CRANDALL: There are no plans to correct anything at Phoenix Raceway, and NASCAR doesn’t see it as an issue for it to get into. It’s driver choice to cut the dogleg, and they do it quite simply because there is room there and if they don’t do it, they know someone else will. There is a belief there is time to gain or a move to be made using up all of the racetrack. It looks a bit ridiculous, for sure, and who knows if there really is that big of a time difference to be made. But the drivers see it as something to use, and they do.

THE FINAL WORD
From Robin Miller’s Mailbag, April 17, 2019

Q: Did the majority of the contemporaries of Foyt, Jones, and Gurney also have great respect for Jim Clark? This question comes up due someone commenting on the RACER website recently that “…Clark was surprisingly weak in cars of equal pace,” implying, I guess, that Clark was only good when he had a superior car, and that he was not a real “racer.” This sounds absolutely preposterous. Do you agree?

Ron N

ROBIN MILLER: Not sure what that “expert” based his comments on, but all you have to do is look at Riverside in 1967 when JC hopped in Rolla Vollstedt’s car and staged a great duel with Dan Gurney for first place, and he took it before breaking down. Don’t think any of Rolla’s cars had led a lap prior to that. And A.J., Parnelli and Ward had nothing but admiration for the wee Scot.