Nico Hulkenberg believes Haas' current investment drive will help it turn into a “serious competitor in the coming years” in Formula 1 as he prepares for a move to Sauber/Audi.

The German driver will leave Haas after a successful two years with the American team – one season under former team principal Guenther Steiner and a 12 months under the brand new regime under former technical director Ayao Komatsu.

Haas is in a significantly better position within the Constructors' Championship for the 2024 season because the automobile package not destroys tires during races.

It means Hulkenberg's continued qualifying heroics since returning as a full-time F1 driver in 2023 resulted in six points, with Kevin Magnussen and his one-time substitute Ollie Bearman also netting.

The team is currently just three points behind RB and is fighting fiercely for a lucrative sixth place within the Constructors' Championship.

Team owner Gene Haas has already been persuaded to sign a recruitment deal to extend the 300-strong squad by 10% and is believed to have also approved a major investment in facilities on the team's British base in Banbury.

Asked in an exclusive interview with Autosport what he thinks Haas' future will likely be when he joins the Sauber team, which can turn into Audi in 2026 after F1 rule changes, Hulkenberg replied: “I believe the team could be very well positioned now.

Nico Hulkenberg, Haas VF-24

Photo: Alastair Staley / Motorsport Images

“I believe it's a working organization and I believe we've proven that to some extent this 12 months with the changes that happened over the winter.

“This [also] it at all times also depends upon many other aspects. Commercially – what partners have they got, what budget have they got, what resources have they got?

“That's obviously a key element for these sorts of questions. And I don't know what is going to occur next, what is going to occur here.

“But I hear the team has more exciting things within the pipeline which I believe will only help them.

“I believe Haas will likely be a serious competitor in the approaching years, especially next 12 months needless to say since the regulations are stable.

“2026 is an unknown for everyone, but what's exciting is that 2026 is a blank sheet of paper and that's why it's so interesting for anyone who could do a better job than other teams and stand out.”

You can read the whole interview with Hulkenberg here.

Formula 1's political battles off the track can often be as interesting because the motion on the track.

The fight to approve technical innovations in your automotive and eliminate your rivals has long been the important thing to attending to the front of the pack.

One such battleground this yr has been flexible wings, and interest in them has increased on each the front and rear of quite a lot of cars.

The situation is kind of delicate because flexible bodies operate in a gray zone of regulations. The wings undergo static load tests within the pits, however it is inconceivable to create parts that is not going to flex to some extent under the large aerodynamic loads on the track.

Therefore, at the center of the conflict is how much of the FIA's movement is taken into account fair play and the way much is taken into account gross exploitation. These are lines that might shift – especially if competitors start lobbying in the shape of complaints.

The last such debate concerned McLaren's “mini-DRS” within the rear wings. Although the design fully met the statutory load tests, politics from rivals forced the FIA ​​into discussion before it was agreed that the change could be made.

While the McLaren's rear wing top flap deflection was extremely obvious considering we haven't seen it before, it's not the one trick seen on the pit lane this yr.

However, as is at all times the case in such cases, scouting your rivals will depend on how hard you push yourself and whether it’s perceived as winning Mickey or not.

The fundamental topic of conversation in Azerbaijan was the McLaren rear wing, however it was clear that some rivals were rotating the rear wing assembly rearward to cut back drag, although some were doing this to a greater extent than others.

Red Bull Racing RB16B foldable rear wing

Photo: Giorgio Piola

Ferrari SF21 FP1 rear wing, Azerbaijan Grand Prix

Photo: Giorgio Piola

Given that the FIA ​​has asked teams so as to add goal dots to their rear wings in 2021 (see above, right, yellow dots added to Ferrari's rear wing) to permit reversing camera footage to be monitored and see how big it’s bending has occurred, this behavior must now mean that it has been deemed acceptable.

Nothing recent

Controlling the quantity of flexion utilized by teams to extend downforce and reduce drag will not be even remotely a brand new problem in the game.

Each regulatory cycle simply raises more questions as teams attempt to apply their old knowledge to the most recent regulations.

For example, we saw teams try to govern rear wing gaps within the early to mid-2000s to cut back drag.

Rift gap separators were seen as a technique to ban this practice. Meanwhile, static tests performed on each the front and rear wings have been continually adjusted to cut back the variety of bending units built into the structures through the years.

Rear wing flap retraction test

Photo: Giorgio Piola

Front wing deflection test loads

Photo: Giorgio Piola

While the bend within the rear wing components was more noticeable, the teams also worked to benefit from the bend within the front wing.

Its use was fully debunked when F1 entered a brand new regulatory era in 2009, as not only were the aerodynamics regulations much tighter, but footage of the front wing being installed was rather more available because of the location of cameras.

The lack of the larger and more complex shoulder structures also meant that the front wing had to offer more support from a wake control standpoint.

Its design and bend were intended to push the wake outward and reduce turbulence which may otherwise be absorbed beneath the ground and cause flow instability within the diffuser.

The governing body has been fighting a long-running battle on this front throughout this era, but as is the case today, teams only have to pass static testing.

This helped provide opportunities for multiple development directions to emerge as each team leveraged the wing's built-in flexibility to support their stated goals.

During this era, teams clearly spread their wings in alternative ways. Some used a vertical bend in order that the outer a part of the wing curved towards the track surface, while others had the wing assembly rotate backwards.

The different approaches obviously suited each of their end goals based on design configurations, each locally and downstream.

This also made it difficult for the FIA ​​to conduct policing activities because the FIA ​​had to search out alternative ways to forestall these different practices.

Similarly, there appears to be no common theme in the quantity and form of bend utilized in the present generation of front wings, with each team finding a technique to bend the wing in a way that helps achieve their overall goals.

Furthermore, there also appears to be independent bending of the components, making it completely difficult to find out where and when the deformation is going down.

FIA front wing point goal test mock-up

Photo: Giorgio Piola

To higher understand and maybe help the governing body set regulations in the longer term, it has been monitoring front wing deflection more closely for the reason that Belgian Grand Prix.

Teams must now place dots on the front wing and endplate elements, which will be used as reference points within the footage captured by the brand new cameras mounted in the same old position on the side of the nose.

It's never really been an issue of who uses flexi-wings to enhance automotive performance, because everyone does it to some extent.

However, the issue is moderately one in every of ensuring that practice doesn’t lead to a design that clearly performs in a way that overcomes static load tests but deforms excessively on the track.

Not only would this lead to a different arms race between teams as all of them race for similar designs, however it could create an unsafe development environment as boundaries are pushed too quickly beyond known material limits.