Ask Gary Anderson

Now that the development race is really kicking off, how do you think the pecking order might change?
Mark Lovas, via Twitter

Unless there is a fundamental chassis-design problem, Mark, which I don't believe anyone has, or a team has unexpectedly found a grey area in the regulations to exploit, like the double diffuser of 2009, a significant change in the pecking order from a chassis perspective seems very unlikely.

We will still see the competitive balance swinging from race-to-race as teams introduce their upgrades, but I believe the basic running order has been set.

That said, there is still the power unit side to consider. This year, that is just as important as the chassis and we know Mercedes leads the way in that area. Ferrari appears to be in second place with Renault lagging behind in third.

Renault previously suggested Barcelona would be the weekend where it would be up to speed, but that seems to have slipped back to Canada. But if a step can be made in performance, then Red Bull could be up there challenging Mercedes. It could also move Toro Rosso and Lotus solidly into the top 10.

Do you have any memories you can share about the sad weekend at Imola 20 years ago, in particular the accident Rubens Barrichello suffered but also the tragic deaths.
Vanessa Poole, via Facebook

Yes, it was a very sad weekend, Vanessa. I have been around this sport since 1973, and back then death for a driver was often just around the corner. Roger Williamson and Tom Pryce are just two of the many who lost their lives during that period, while Carlos Pace and Tony Brise also died in plane crashes. So I suppose I became a bit thick-skinned.

That said, when Rubens crashed his Jordan on the Friday at Imola, I genuinely thought about giving it all up as I didn't want to be making high-speed toys in which young drivers could go out and get seriously injured or even killed.

I was there when they were getting him out of the car and as he was being helicoptered away to the hospital (pictured) he was shouting at me to get the spare ready because he would be back soon. I visited him that night and after the adrenalin had worn off he was just hurting - no major injuries, just lots of bumps and bruises.

Saturday added a whole new dimension. Roland Ratzenberger was a genuinely nice guy. As I've often said, the guys at the back are pushing just as hard, if not harder, than the others in a car that's nowhere near as good to drive.

But Sunday was on a completely different level. There was the startline accident that brought out the safety car and then, for a reason we will never know for sure, we lost one of the greatest drivers of all time. From the moment we saw the accident, most of us in the pits knew it was bad. I know I certainly did.

The big question for me is that if we had had Rubens's crash on the Friday and Ratzenberger's death on the Saturday would anything have been done about safety or did it take losing Ayrton for anyone to bother to pay attention to the situation?

All of this made me realise that I must try my hardest to build a car that was as safe as possible.

Could refuelling ever make a return in F1?
Adam Murray, via Twitter

I never really knew what was wrong with it in the first place, Adam. It added a real team element to the strategy and I think that is what we are currently missing.

The main reason it was outlawed was for cost-saving and it did cost a fair amount of money to ship the refuelling rigs around the world. But when you consider that a new front wing for a current F1 car costs around £100,000, there are many other ways to save money.

F1 does seem to go around in circles so it would not surprise me if it came back at some time. Just look at active suspension. But by then it might just be a quick battery change as opposed to topping up your petrol tank...

What career path would you recommend for a wannabe motorsport engineer?
Jose Javier Buisan, via Twitter

Jose, you will never replace some level of engineering qualifications in one of the areas that makes up a current racing car. It depends on what floats your boat as to which discipline you get involved in.

Mechanical, aerodynamic, electronic, hydraulic design are all required, as are vehicle dynamics and vehicle simulation. So get involved in whatever you feel gives you that challenge.

Other than that, try to get yourself involved as a weekend warrior with a small team that's racing in one of the lower formulas. You can never replace that bit of hands-on experience and it will also help you realise what you want to get involved with.

Take any opportunity you get with open arms and give it your all.

What's your opinion on using standard-spec active suspension in 2017? Shouldn't they allow some degree of freedom for the teams to encourage some R&D?
Silviu Gora Jr, via Facebook

It's wrong to have a standard-spec system for anything on an F1 car, Silviu. If the teams and the governing body believe that a standard-spec active system is correct then why not take that all the way and have a standard-spec car? The big teams wouldn't like that, would they?

R&D is what F1 should be all about and pushing the limits will open up new technologies to the road car industry. I believe this can be achieved while still controlling costs, which I will try to explain in answer to the next question.

Cost-cutting is a big talking point today. What would you do to make F1 cheaper and better?
Adam Smith, via Twitter

Adam, I would rather call it cost control and I would rather put better before cheaper. I have been involved in this sport for 42 years and in that time there have always been the haves and the have nots. The haves are basically too stubborn, short-sighted and powerful to try to help anyone else.

An example of this is the car weight. The top teams won't agree to a small increase in overall car weight by having a 'driver weight' area so now Sauber, a team struggling for budget, has had to go and produce a new lightweight car because of a performance disadvantage.

So my proposal would be that the controlling body, the FIA, takes a more active role and instigates changes in the technical and sporting regulations to save the teams from themselves.

One of the changes would be for the power unit to become the power train. This would include the engine, turbo, MGU-K, MGU-H, battery pack and gearbox and allow a maximum of five of these units for the season. Use them as you wish but you only have a total of five. What we have now is too complicated and no one understands it or the various penalties.

Another would be that the nose, front-wing assembly, rear-wing assembly, complete underfloor, sidepods and brake ducts introduced at the first race of the season have to do a minimum of six races before they can be changed for a new specification.

This means that in a season of 19 races you have two in-season changes leaving one race as a wild card. So if you have really screwed up you can change the spec at the second race and carry on from there.

I would also tighten up dramatically on brake ducts. These have got out of hand over the past few years.

Doing this would mean that the teams would have more time to optimise the new components before introduction meaning there would be a lot less scrap rushed through.

After race six and race 12, there would also be a two-day in-season test to allow the teams to optimise the set-up around these new components before introducing them at races seven and 13.

Moving onto the proposed active suspension, if I was the FIA I would define it as a package of components that make up the complete system more or less as the FIA has done with the engine spec. Then I would put a sale price on it that means that if a team wants to buy a complete system from a rival, the price is set.

If team 'A' wants to spend twice as much on a system then that is their choice but team 'B' can come along and put its money down. So within a certain manufacturing time, which is defined pre-season, team 'A' has to supply team 'B'.

There are many other components on a car that this can be done with, such as steering racks, uprights, axles, brake callipers, braking systems and even pitstop equipment.

If this type of cost control was introduced then it would not curtail innovation, it would actually stimulate it as it would have to be done at a more relevant market price.