Anderson: F1 chassis rules too limited

Do you think today's regulations, with engine homologation, limited engines per season, fixed gear ratios etc, have stagnated the competition?
William Y. Setiady, via Twitter

The current engine regulations have certainly reduced the design risk levels that engine companies used to take. I can remember V12s, V8s and in-line four-cylinder turbos all competing in the same event.

Formula 1, as far as the chassis is concerned, with its current regulations is no longer a place for people like Colin Chapman, Gordon Murray, John Barnard or now Adrian Newey. They are people who thrive or thrived off creativity and innovation.

That said, F1 has moved the innovation towards the engine companies so in one respect that is good for the future of road-car technology crossover. But we have 11 teams in competition with each other and only three - soon to be four [with the arrival of Honda] - engine companies.

F1 has become more of an engine competition than a car competition. It has always been a chassis competition and should still be.

When the time comes for F1 to write its next set of engine regulations, can you ever see a normally aspirated engine coming back?
Nick Hipkin, via Twitter

I would be very surprised to see normally-aspirated engines return. The future is definitely in smaller-capacity engines with turbos and hybrid power units of one sort or another.

When you consider that even with the extra 50kg and a small aerodynamic loss the cars are doing more or less the same lap times and using 30 per cent less fuel to do so, what we have now with the turbo and the ERS is so much more economical than last year and it would be silly to throw all that away.

But what we do need - and the reason these rules were introduced - is more engine manufactures getting involved: VW, BMW and Toyota [above], to name but a few. It's time you lot came in and showed us what level of technology you're at.

Could Pirelli make each team choose the tyre compounds they want for each race? Give them a date cut-off but otherwise free choice...
Iwan Burton, via Twitter

This is similar to the way Bridgestone worked and it was OK when testing took place every other week and teams could do their homework in detail. But I am not sure it would be that easy now with testing being so limited.

When teams talk about certain tyres suiting their car and other tyres being difficult to warm up, or that they overwork them, it normally comes from the car's inherent balance, or a lack thereof.

Normally, the softer the tyre, the more rear grip you get. So if you have a well-balanced car on, let's say, the medium-compound tyre you will have more understeer with the soft or supersoft tyre. So you might have more grip but a worse balance so the car doesn't go any faster.

I think the system we have now with two compounds per weekend available for each team is fine.

What are your memories of the Red Bull Ring circuit? Do you think it's fitting for current F1?
Mark Lovas, via Twitter

Every race track is a challenge for the drivers and teams. I have had the pleasure of going there with Formula 1 when it was a real driver's circuit with very fast, high-load corners in its original form as the Osterreichring.

I remember John Watson in the McLaren coming into the pits and saying that when the car was loaded up mid-corner that he couldn't turn the steering wheel. We told him to go off and do some weightlifting only to discover later that because of the high steering loads the steering rack was actually seizing up.

My worst and best memory there was with Jordan in 2002 when Nick Heidfield crashed into Takuma Sato. I was watching the accident happen while calling Giancarlo Fisichella into the pits before the safety car was called out.

This call meant we went from running 10th to finish fifth and score some points that the team badly needed.

It's 1995 and rule change means one car only. Do you run Rubens Barrichello or Eddie Irvine at Jordan?
Rob Rowley, via Twitter

That would be a difficult decision but I think it would be Rubens. Both of them were quick and good to work with but I believe Rubens was that bit more professional.

I have sat in road cars with both of them going around racetracks fairly quickly and while Rubens drives with his fingertips, Eddie would be white-knuckling it. Both would be going as fast as each other but with one of them you are fairly happy that he is in control, while with the other you feared you might have to walk back to the pits.

Rubens was and still is a star and someone who I really enjoyed working with. Unfortunately, being at Ferrari with Michael Schumacher, as they were, meant they were both clearly number twos. So if there was any way that Schumacher could get a better result then they would have to pull over.

That said, Schumacher deserved everything he achieved. He worked endlessly for it and I am extremely happy that we are now hearing that he is out of the coma.

Michael, my thoughts are with you on your long road to recovery.

Who do you think is responsible for the clash between Perez and Massa at the Canadian GP?
Asif Hussain, via Twitter

I think it was 50/50. When you go across the start/finish line in Montreal, the circuit kinks to the right and the fastest line is to be in the middle of the track and then turn a little to keep tight to the right hand side of the track. This gives you the best line into Turn 1.

If you look at Perez's steering he doesn't seem to turn to the right, probably in an attempt to block Massa. Unfortunately, Massa does turn right as he is running out of road and that's when they touched.

It was Massa's right-front wheel to Perez's left rear so in reality Perez was in front and Massa was behind so it was his responsibility to make sure they didn't touch. In my view, it was a racing accident.

Apart from F1, have you been interested in getting involved with any other forms of motorsport?
James Perry, via Facebook

I started out working for Bernie Ecclestone at Brabham in 1972 building Formula 3 and Formula Atlantic cars and then got a job as a mechanic with the F1 team in early 1973.

In the middle of 1976, I decided to pursue my ambition of becoming a racing driver, so my brother-in-law and I built the Anson F3 car. After discovering that I was a bit too tall, perhaps didn't have the required talent and my wallet wasn't thick enough, I went to work as a mechanic at McLaren.

I became chief mechanic there, but had always been interested in design. I left in 1980 to join Ensign, but after Clay Regazzoni's accident at Long Beach, the company lost direction and I decided to restart Anson.

We initially made parts for F1 cars, but then designed our own F3 and Super Vee cars. We won some races and a couple of championships, which led to designing and building a Group C2 sportscar and a Formula Ford for the USA, but it was hand-to-mouth financially.

I left the company in 1985 and starting doing some engineering in Indycar. Then I helped to set up Bromley Motorsport to compete in F3000 in 1987. We won the championship in 1988 with Roberto Moreno.

I then worked at Reynard in 1989, which was a challenge because it was the first time I worked in a drawing office. I was in charge of the design of the 1990 Reynard F3000 car.

This led to Eddie Jordan, who I had known since the early 1980s, to ask me to design the first Jordan F1 car [pictured]. Andrew Green, now technical director of Force India, and Mark Smith, who was until recently in the same role at Caterham, both came with me from Reynard and we started from zero and finished fifth in the constructors' championship in 1991.

Other than in 2001, when I worked for Reynard in America on Indycars, until I semi-retired at the end of 2003 I was always involved in F1.

I've seen quite a few changes in motorsport but the one that stands out as the most irresponsible to me is the introduction of one-make formulas. If these had been around when I was cutting my teeth, I would never have had the opportunities that I have had.