Gary Anderson: F1's dangerous rules precedent

Formula 1 is producing a season of great racing, so I don't want to appear to be having a moan. But there are several things arising from the German Grand Prix that the powers that be must take a long, hard look at.

Brakes were a big talking point at Hockenheim, with Lewis Hamilton's crash early in qualifying and subsequent question marks over the changing of brake material.

It's becoming a very serious issue: this season, we have witnessed more brake failures of one sort or another than we have for many years. As someone who was responsible for the safety of my F1 cars on track for many years, let me assure you that any failure relating to the brakes is one of the most serious a driver can encounter.

We have been very, very lucky that the consequences of such failures have not been a lot more serious.

Before somebody gets hurt the FIA must undertake a detailed analysis of the failures. If teams are pushing the limits too far, then on safety grounds the governing body can and must step in. A regulation can easily be written to minimise this risk.

Mercedes made brake changes before the race on Sunday © LAT

And the rules also include a clause which states that "the stewards of the meeting may exclude a vehicle whose construction is deemed to be dangerous".

But if it's a manufacturing problem then the use of certain materials might need to be banned until it can be proved that they are fit for purpose.

Put yourself in the position of the driver. Can you imagine what it's like to be travelling at 320km/h and discovering 100 metres before a 60km/h corner that you have no brakes?

I know there is plenty of run-off area, but what about the car that might be just in front of you that has fully working brakes and is slowing very quickly...

There is also the question of Mercedes being allowed to change Hamilton's front brake material from Brembo to Carbone Industrie discs under parc ferme conditions. This has set a very serious precedent.

The reason for the choice of material is that the initial feel was better. During qualifying, when what matters most are one-lap runs, this makes a big difference. So from now on, can all teams use a material with a better feel for qualifying and then change to a more durable material for the race?

The rules refer only to teams being allowed to replace a part with one that is "similar in mass, inertia and function to the original", and the way this rule has been interpreted seems to open the door to this kind of thing happening.

Parc ferme regulations were put in place to eliminate changes in car specification after qualifying. This reduces the budget by eliminating the use of qualifying components of any sort. That has now all gone out of the window.

The feel of the brakes is vital for a driver. To get confidence in a racing car, it all starts when he or she hits the brake pedal.

Some drivers want immediate bite and stopping power and this can very easily lead to initial front locking. Others want a more controllable increase in stopping power, allowing them to manage the braking into the apex.

Of the many drivers I have worked with, the biggest difference was between Ralf Schumacher and Giancarlo Fisichella at Jordan in 1997.

Ralf just wanted to monster the brake pedal, stop the car and then get off the brakes. Fisi was the opposite. He wanted to feel the car during braking and use it to load the car up on the corner entry.

Fisichella and Schumacher had different braking demands at Jordan © LAT

Given how important brake feel is, the FIA has opened up a can of worms in an area that, for all of F1's problems and politics, has been working very nicely for some years.

TRACK LIMITS RULES REACH THE LIMIT

The randomness with which track limits are policed is confusing. And from a fan's point of view, I believe all they want, and deserve, is consistency.

I watched the German GP coverage on television and the amount of discussion among commentators over this issue rapidly became very boring. And, as usual, everyone had their own opinion.

F1 is difficult enough to understand at the best of times. Being consistent is the simplest approach, and ideally you also need consistency of stewards.

It's a lot easier to make decisions if you're making them all the time. If you have to rise to the occasion a few weekends a year, then wrong decisions can and will be made and consistency will suffer.

The strange thing is that it's very easy to penalise those who exceed track limits. If it happens on a qualifying lap, then one second can be added for every off-track excursion - you will still get a laptime, but suffer for the excursion.

If a driver runs outside the track limits in the race, when he next crosses the start/finish line he needs to be no closer to the car in front than he was on the lap before running wide.

During the battle between Sebastian Vettel and Fernando Alonso at the British GP two weeks ago, one of the drivers was often using the extra little bits of asphalt on corner exit.

The teams and the FIA are in constant communication during the race weekend, so it's very easy to implement rules to tackle this.

In fact, it should be down to the drivers and the teams to do it themselves, with the FIA acting only as referee to ensure fairness throughout the field.

If not, we will have the same situation with inconsistent application of the rules from track to track, which will only serve to confuse and alienate the fans.