Ask Gary Anderson: Who benefits from radio ban?

Do you think the new ban on radio information from team to driver will give Lewis Hamilton an advantage over Nico Rosberg in the final races?
Calum Edward, via Twitter

Calum, from what I hear on the radio, Lewis seems to need more encouragement from his engineer than Nico does.

I've never worked with either of these drivers, but I think Lewis has a higher level of natural talent, while Nico works harder with his engineers to have a better understanding of what the car should do and what he should do.

With this in mind, I think Nico will be better prepared when things aren't quite going to plan and things like the diff setting or engine torque maps need to be altered, whereas Lewis will be a little bit lost.

Where Nico keeps things close to his chest and just gets on with it, Lewis seems to have to make things public.

His tweeting of telemetry showing a lack of top speed after qualifying for the Belgian Grand Prix in 2012, when he drove for McLaren, and the response to the Spa incident with Rosberg are examples of this.

I believe this shows a lack of confidence in his supporters to understand why things happen.

Who do you think will win the drivers' championship?
@labradourf1, via Twitter

From the first test at Jerez, my money has been on Rosberg and I see no reason to change that. Just to add, I am not a betting man!

They have come up through the ranks together and both are at more or less the same stage in their careers. Lewis has won one world championship and Nico is still waiting.

They are different people and have a different style of how to achieve success. But when push comes to shove and the mental games start to affect the performance, I believe Rosberg is tougher.

Hi Gary, I have followed F1 since 1976 and I do not understand how 22 drivers in 11 different cars with three different engines can be separated by very few seconds over a lap. How can a very good driver be at a similar pace to a bad driver?
Poul Erik Skov, via Facebook

I think to understand this you need to go back a lot earlier than when you started following F1.

I have been involved in F1 since 1973. Since that time, engineering understanding has developed 1000-fold.

In my early years, there were eight of us travelling to races in a blue Transit van with two mechanics for each car - we even had a spare car then - a tyre man and a truckie.

The driver would get in the car and just drive it. He or she would work with their mechanics or even the team owner (in my case Bernie Ecclestone at Brabham).

We might change springs or an anti-roll-bar setting, but mainly it was down to the driver to get the best from what they had. The grid positions, never mind the whole grid, could be separated by seconds.

Currently, it's more or less all done in the back of the garage. The boffins set the cars up using very sophisticated simulation tools and the handling of the car is 99 per cent sorted before the driver steps into it.

In reality, this is also why a young driver can do a very good job in a current F1 car. He doesn't have to bring the story of how the car is handling back to the team, the data tells the story.

The team optimises the car's set-up using this data, the driver just has to be talented. There are many of those out there.

Why does the FIA not allow the free use of any compound on any corner of the car? Pirelli says it is possible.
Jorge Koechlin, via Twitter.

It would be possible to use different compounds on all four corners of the car, as it would also be possible to have wings mounted directly on all four corners of the car with varying downforce on each corner depending on the car's handling characteristics. The question is, why would we need it?

In the early '80s, I ran one of my Formula 3 cars at the Osterreichring - when it was a real high-speed circuit - using three Yokohamas plus an Avon tyre on the left-front. The Yokohama on the left-front just wouldn't last, so anything is possible.

The regulations are set out to prevent things spiralling out of control. Everything costs money and we all want the biggest bang for our buck. Unfortunately, most of the time, F1 forgets this.

What do you think about Force India's lack of qualifying pace? Can they overcome this?
Kunal Pokharna, via Twitter

The Force India started the season being relatively easy on tyres, which allowed it to run longer or even reduce the amount of pitstops needed.

When you have a car that's easy on tyres, it normally means it has inherent understeer, which protects the critical rear tyres.

When a new set of tyres is fitted, it's very difficult to get the fronts and rears working together.

Normally, new tyres will bring more understeer to the car. This, combined with the car's inherent understeer, means you have too much understeer and can't get the best from new tyres in qualifying.

If the car's inherent balance is towards oversteer, fitting new tyres helps the balance of the car and a better laptime is possible. But this comes with the risk of overworking the rears on long runs.

It's not only Force India that suffers this problem. In reality, it's what spreads the grid. If you look at the fastest laps, the slower teams are always a lot closer to the quicker teams in the race than they are in qualifying.

Is the upcoming winter testing the most critical for Ferrari if it is going to get back into contention for wins and championships?
@UNITEDFERRARI, via Twitter

It's not circuit testing that Ferrari needs; it's a complete overhaul of how it works.

There are problems in every area, from the power unit and the chassis to the aerodynamics and how they work at the track - no one thing is responsible for Ferrari's struggles.

I am sure this is what team principal Marco Mattiacci will be looking at. Coming in from the outside world might just be a good thing.

With Luca di Montezemolo gone, he will have a much more open mind on how a successful operation has to be structured.

You will hear it said many times by the people involved that F1 is different. That's absolutely true, but why it's different is the question that needs to be answered.

F1 is not easy and with the current regulations if you screw up with your power unit concept, as Ferrari and Renault seem to have done this year, then you're stuck with it.

All things are relative, so I use the term 'screw-up' loosely. I blame Mercedes for this: if they hadn't done quite such a good job, then we would have had a very competitive power-unit year considering how close Renault and Ferrari have been!

For my more in-depth look at Ferrari's struggles, read this.

With Formula E having thick ends on the front wings and 'bumpers' at the back, should F1 follow this route with FIA-supplied parts?
@StegTheDinosaur, via Twitter

I think Nico Prost and Nick Heidfeld answered that question at Formula E's first race in Beijing on Saturday!

All of these types of structure are only of use if they do something. Many of them are cosmetic and because they look like they will give protection, open-wheel drivers get a false sense of security.

Personally, I see F1 as an open-wheel formula. The drivers need to respect this, which generally they do. If not, they pay the price.

Johnny Herbert raced for you when you were technical director at Stewart/Jaguar. What do you think of him as a driver and do you think he would have been even better without his accident in Formula 3000?
Dan Burton, via email

Johnny was a pleasure to work with. He was quick and he was fun to work with, but also frustrating because he could have achieved so much more.

His F3000 accident at Brands Hatch in 1988 was horrific. I was doing F3000 that year with Roberto Moreno; Johnny's accident stunned the paddock.

We went on to win the championship, but if Johnny hadn't had that accident things might just have been different.

As I often say, 'IF' is just F1 backwards. Who knows where he could have got to if that accident hadn't happened. He had the talent and the youth to achieve great things.

He won three grands prix, one of them for Stewart at the Nurburgring in 1999. By anyone's standards, that's not easy to achieve.