Gary Anderson: Why F1 needs half the downforce

Why is F1 so afraid to experiment with different GP formats such as reversed grids, sprint races, etc?
Calixto Erico, via Twitter

Any time anyone experiments with something publicly, they risk failing and losing face. That's the main reason nothing happens.

Things need to change for a reason, which needs to be debated in public. Formula 1 pays for itself because of the spectators and viewers - if they stop watching, then the big sponsors will be lost and it will go down the pan.

So the big question is, what do the spectators and viewers want? We've had many surveys completed over the years, but the people that can make changes seem to turn a blind eye to any proposals.

Everyone, including me, has an opinion, and I would like to see better racing. To achieve this, the cars need to lose about 50 per cent of the current downforce, with the main effort being put into reducing the complexity of the front wing. This would allow cars to follow each other without losing significant downforce and dropping back.

To compensate for this loss, increase the rear-tyre width to achieve similar cornering speeds at 150km/h. With less downforce, the cars would then be slower in high-speed corners, which would be safer. They would also be faster in low-speed corners, leading to better overtaking as the racing line would not be so critical.

This also means that, with a control tyre supplier, a team like Marussia would have the same amount of grip from those tyres as Mercedes or Red Bull. So reducing aerodynamic budgets will reduce spending dramatically.

On top of that, I would like to see reversed grids set by pre-race championship order. We would then have a true world champion who can drive a car in all situations and not just drive a fast car from the front.

Is there a lack of vision at Ferrari in terms of how the car is designed? Since 2010, the cars always look unbalanced.
@foolish_savant, via Twitter

Vision is a very difficult thing to quantify. I suppose the double diffuser in 2009 was visionary, but in reality it was about finding a grey area in the regulations and exploiting it. The regulations are the same for everyone and it is the interpretation of those rules that gives a team an advantage.

Ferrari has confused me over the past few years in that the rear end of the car seems to give up. To combat this, it sets the car up with understeer, which was obvious at the second part of the Swimming Pool in Monaco.

The front wing and nose area of a current F1 car is the most critical aerodynamic part and unless you get this right it will influence the airflow downstream.

With Ferrari's nose interpretation for 2014, I think it's missing something in this area. Either the windtunnel isn't telling it the truth or the team has not been able to come up with a front wing concept that has the correct airflow structure to bring the rear of the car to life.

What banned technology would you reintroduce to improve modern-day F1?
James Frankland, via Twitter

James, if we were to reintroduce the technology that we have seen in F1 in the past years and update it by the amount of time it's been since it was outlawed, we might be one step away from a completely electronically driven car.

The driver would just give the systems an input as to what he wants to do - faster, slower, turn left or turn right - and the black box would work out the best way to achieve these inputs.

This would be an engineering challenge and people like Adrian Newey would be rubbing their hands, but the accountants might not be so happy. I doubt it would improve the racing either.

As I have said above, a major reduction in aerodynamics is what's required. That, combined with more mechanical grip from the tyres, would go a long way to improving the potential for overtaking and in turn the spectacle.

How long until the new-regulation cars are as fast as the V8s? Or will they ever be?
@FakeGhostPirate, via Twitter

I'm not sure that will ever happen. Forget the engine for a moment, these cars are 50kg heavier than last year's, so that's perhaps 1.5s, depending on the circuit.

There is still a small loss in overall downforce, probably around one second, again depending on the circuit. The tyres are also more durable and you don't get that without affecting the performance, so let's say that's worth half a second. Total that up and you have three seconds slower on a 100-second lap.

If we look at this year's times against last year's as a percentage so that the circuit length is equalised, we see this.

Fastest... Weekend lap 2013/14  Race lap 2013/14  Weekend/race diff '14
Australia  +4.036 per cent      +3.588 per cent   +3.472 per cent
Malaysia   +2.668 per cent      +3.898 per cent   +4.099 per cent
Bahrain    +0.926 per cent      +0.006 per cent   +4.155 per cent
China      +4.055 per cent      +3.712 per cent   +2.123 per cent
Spain      +5.592 per cent      +3.132 per cent   +4.325 per cent
Monaco     +2.876 per cent      +2.483 per cent   +3.277 per cent
Average    +3.359 per cent      +2.803 per cent   +3.569 per cent

This suggests that the overall power unit performance compared to last year's engine and KERS package is fairly similar. The 2014 fastest lap of the weekend compared to the fastest race lap is also fairly consistent other than China, which was weather-affected.

This shows that similar race fuel-saving is being used at all circuits. So to answer your question, yes I see half a second coming from aero over the season; and if Pirelli gets more adventurous with its tyres, something from that, but it will be no more than one second in total.

How much hatred did you feel for those Yamaha engines in '92?
M Ludovic, via Twitter

Everything in life is a means to an end. Without Yamaha, Jordan Grand Prix might only have existed for one year. We desperately needed free engines, but in reality I don't think any of us thought they would be that bad.

The biggest problem was the inconsistency. From one engine to another that was, as far as Yamaha was concerned, identical there were huge performance differences. I'm talking about a 20km/h difference in top speed and one second minimum lap time! You never knew what you had until you went out on the track.

That, combined with engines that would seize on the stands about 30 seconds after starting them up, made it a very trying season.

I remember Michael Schumacher, when he drove for us at Spa in 1991 in the Cosworth-engined Jordan, saying he had followed a Brabham-Yamaha up the hill out of Eau Rouge and he didn't think much of it. This is probably one of the reasons we lost him for 1992 - he knew we were going with Yamaha.

Stefano Modena, who drove for us in 1992 alongside Mauricio Gugelmin, summed it up to the Yamaha guys. He said it was all happening around you - lots of noise and engine revs - but it felt like if you put your finger on the nose of the car, you could just stop it. It had no torque, it felt as if you were driving a sewing machine.

I did lose my cool a few times that year, but I suppose it made me a more resilient person.

Any thoughts on why Rosberg appears to consistently use more fuel in races than Hamilton?
Jay Ell, via Twitter

It is not a case of appears, it is a case of he does use more fuel to do the same laptime. So it's a question a lot of people are asking.

When I go out to watch trackside, the thing I notice is that Lewis carries more speed into the apex of the corner than Nico does.

I believe he is able to do this by coming off the throttle a little earlier than he used to. By doing this, you lose a fraction of time in the braking area but the car is more settled during braking and it allows you to have that little bit more confidence on entry, which means you are more consistent with hitting the apex.

You save fuel because you lift earlier and you improve the laptime because you're able to be faster right into the apex. If you can do this consistently, which it looks like Lewis is able to, then you can reduce the pre-race fuel load.

From what you see on the screen, it looks like about three per cent, or 3kg in the hundred you are allowed. Carrying three kilos less weight per lap for a 60-lap race is worth six seconds.

Most teams are now carrying less than the full fuel limit in the races so as to make the car lighter.

I was wondering if there would be any advantage in carrying the max amount of fuel allowed and then using the extra fuel to run at max revs for more power from the petrol engine. This would also allow more ERS power to be recovered.
Dermot Farrelly, via Facebook

Dermot, it's the fuel-flow regulation and not the fuel capacity regulation that stops the drivers from using more revs. At 11,000-11,500 rpm, depending upon the engine, the fuel flow gets to the 100kg/h maximum limit, so having more fuel in the tank would not be advantageous.

At this rpm, you are basically holding the engine back with the turbo which is being held back with the MGU-H. This is then generating electrical power, which is going directly to the MGU-K. This is why the driver goes up the gears, keeping the revs well below the maximum 15,000rpm, to allow the car to speed up but not use in excess of the 100 kilos per hour fuel flow.

Fuelling the car with less than the permissible 100kg is just a trade-off of weight against laptime.

Can we go back to retro designs so F1 cars can look like real F1 cars? They are just so boring over the last seasons.
Shane West, via Facebook

I wish that were possible. When I go to a historic F1 race, they look like what a racing car should, and the drivers get their heads down and try to find laptime as opposed to visiting the pits looking at reams of data with 20 engineers trying to find that magic solution.

The cars look like they do today because of the research and design facilities the teams currently have. If someone (other than Adrian Newey) were to design a car with a drawing board and pencil and the odd visit every other week to a windtunnel, I doubt it would be very competitive.