Ask Gary Anderson: How to fix F1's aero

What would be the effect of getting rid of these stupid front wings? Fewer races spoiled by unnecessary punctures and less turbulent effect from the car in front?
Keith Scandrett, via Facebook

It's really great to see that fans can also see the obvious. Why the people who make the decisions can't amazes me.

When the current front-wing concept was first introduced, it was supposedly going to solve all the problems of following another car. It was based on a couple of years of research by a bunch of very clever people, but what did it do? Nothing.

You also have to consider that the last time a driver sees the outer, most vulnerable, part of the front wing is when he gets in the car on the grid.

I would reduce the overall width of the front wing, reduce the overhang - to make the wing both shorter and narrower - and reduce the number of elements. So what would this do to the performance?

The positives:

1 Reduce the overall downforce the car could produce, therefore reducing the percentage of downforce loss when following another car.

2 Reduce the loss of front downforce and impact on car balance when following another car.

3 Reduce every team's overall budget and, in turn, development budget by a serious amount.

4 Massively reduce the risk of front-wing damage and rear-tyre damage to the car in front in the event of contact.

The negatives:

1 None.

Should practice/qualifying bans be introduced for racing incidents?

Alexander Roberts, via Twitter

I am not a big fan of bans or penalties. We watch motorsport because we want to see the best competition possible and if there are too many penalties, it just ruins that.

Having said that, there needs to be some form of control. But it really does need to be different from what we have now.

We now have drive-through penalties, post-race added time penalties of varying degrees, grid drops for a multitude of infringements, including power unit and transmission penalties, on top of a driver superlicence penalty-points system.

For me all of this should be turned into a time penalty that varies depending on the severity of the crime. This penalty could be from one tenth of a second upwards, with the most severe being one second.

At the end of each race, this could all be added up for each driver and then at the next event added to their qualifying time.

If a driver has a one-tenth of a second, or a second of penalties, this would be added to his Q1 time and if that puts him out of the top 16 then at least another more deserving driver gets through.

If not, it is added to his Q2 time and again if that puts him out of Q3 then someone else gets through. If not, it is added to his Q3 time to give him his final grid position.

At the moment grid penalties are only added at the end of qualifying, which for me seems really stupid.

Gary, what was the story behind Nigel Mansell's test for Jordan in 1996. Was it just a PR stunt or could he have driven the following season, and how did he perform - was he still up to it by then?
Mitch Connor, via Facebook

It was a bit of a PR gimmick. We didn't have a great year in 1996 and had to get back in bed with Benson & Hedges.

Nigel actually did a very good job and I don't think I will ever forget it.

First of all, he came to the factory. We made a seat and I gave him a guided tour. We then went up to Eddie Jordan's office for a chat and, in his best Brummie accent, Nigel turns around and said, "Eddie, I've driven for the best Formula 1 teams in the world, Williams, Ferrari, McLaren, I've visited Benetton and many others and what you guys have done with what you have is incredible".

When we went to Barcelona for the test, we were also running Ralf Schumacher who had done a couple of tests beforehand. Nigel went out for his first run and was faster than Ralf. He then came on the radio and said, "My hands are cold, I'm coming in for a cup of tea".

That said just about everything. Great guy.

Why is the FIA so much against active aerodynamics? It seems like an area that would have relevance to road cars.
Mark Lovas, via Twitter

I am not a big fan of active aerodynamics, because it will only separate the big teams from the small teams. Active suspension is in effect active aerodynamics, as around 50 per cent of an F1 car's downforce is produced by the underfloor. When we had active suspension before, budgets escalated dramatically.

Active aerodynamics could have a place to compensate for loss of downforce and/or balance when following another car. But the reliability and the degree of the system needs to be considered, otherwise safety could be a concern.

If it is used as a system for overall car performance, then it is a band aid on top of what should be a solid aerodynamic base that makes up an F1 car.

Any chance Paul di Resta will get a drive next year or is it really all over for him? Is he too old at 28?
Elliot Dixon, via Twitter

I don't think there is much chance. He is a very compotent driver, but the teams looking for a driver of his level are looking for money and that is something he doesn't have.

Paul had his chance and many people, including me, tried to get him to be more sociable with the media and more of a team player. But he didn't see his attitude as a problem when so many others do.

So he suffered the consequences of not listening to people who have been around for a lot longer than him.

Who was the best driver in a Jordan, in your opinion?
Mark Grasso, via Twitter

That's a difficult question to answer without making enemies!

We only did one race weekend with him but Michael Schumacher has to be the guy who, without doubt, was the fastest, most confident and immediately showed his true potential.

That said, Rubens Barrichello and Giancarlo Fisichella would be the two regular drivers who, as a team, we got to know well and who I would pick out as the two best drivers for their inherent talent and pure speed. They were great to work with and a lot of fun to know and be with.

Both of them deserved more from their careers, but they didn't come out of it too badly.

What purpose do the vanes under the Marussia front wing serve?
@stefanF1C, via Twitter

All the teams have some form of turning vanes in this area. Basically, they are there to help with the consistency of front-wing and underfloor performance.

This part of the front wing has a lot to cope with. When the car rolls, or dives under braking, the height of the front wing relative to the road changes dramatically. This can lead to airflow-separation problems which has a major affect downstream.

On top of that, the front wheels are continually being steered to varying degrees depending on the corner radius. This also has a major effect on this part of the wing.

Having these vanes, or splitters, reduces the risk of airflow-separation problems spreading across the wing's under-surface.

If this separation can be contained, or at least controlled, the aerodynamic performance of the front wing and turn-in of the car will be enhanced.

Can you give some insight into the progress made in improving the efficiency of the Red Bull-Renault ERS?
Henrik Hansson, via Facebook

To be honest, other than coming to terms with how to get the best out of what they have, I am not sure I have seen any great progress.

The ERS system creates X kilowatts of energy. It is then down to the engine company and the team to make best use of it.

Mercedes simply has more kilowatts available to use and it uses it well. Both Renault and Ferrari are struggling in that area and until they can do a fairly major redesign, they will still be in trouble.

Just look at the rear wing at Spa on the Mercedes and compare it with Red Bull's version. To achieve a competitive top speed, Red Bull was throwing away something like 8-10 per cent of its potential downforce.

It just goes to show how good the Red Bull car is aerodynamically.