What are Alonso's options for 2018?

Fernando Alonso seems to be losing patience and options. Do you see Ferrari as a plausible option? Kimi Raikkonen came back, but...
@eggry, via Twitter

Anything is possible and a Ferrari return, although fairly unlikely, is not completely out of the question. Patience is easy to lose, but options are hard to come by - especially options that can bring him the success he yearns for. So let's look at the teams from the top...

Mercedes
Unless Lewis Hamilton spits the dummy and flies off to Hollywood to seek his fame and another fortune, I'm pretty sure Mercedes will stick with what it's got. That's no aggro, and it has a team-mate for Hamilton in Valtteri Bottas, who doesn't yet have a contract for 2018 but is one-tenth of the cost of Fernando Alonso.

Ferrari
Sebastian Vettel will be retained, and rightly so, and in Kimi Raikkonen they have someone who can mix it with the best and score solid points. If Ferrari really wants a change, then there are other, younger, drivers available rather than going back to Alonso.

Just look at what Esteban Ocon has done in the Force India (other than wiping out team-mate Sergio Perez in Baku). Antonio Giovinazzi and Charles Leclerc are under Ferrari's wing, and as Max Verstappen and now Lance Stroll have shown, youth is the way forward.

Red Bull
Because of its young-driver programme, this is a closed shop - and it would be a major change in philosophy to sign someone as long-in-the-tooth as Alonso.

Outside of those three teams, there is no guarantee of success; or, at least, not success at the level Alonso is looking for. Renault might well be a long-term plan, but Alonso doesn't have a long time, so I'm afraid he's better off sticking with what he has. Honda will get there and, if not, McLaren will change engine supplier.

What are your thoughts on Ron Dennis, who has finally parted company with McLaren. Did you have much to do with him while working for rival teams?
Michael Curtis, via email

Love him or loathe him, Ron has to be complimented for what he brought to F1. His standards spread to every other team in the pitlane and, because of that, it's made F1 what it is today.

Personally, I didn't really get on with the man. He was so totally focused on what he and McLaren were that he had no time for anyone else.

For what little I've done for and in F1, I'm very proud of the fact that I came from being a mechanic, and I hope that inspires young people who don't have the privilege of a degree education. But Ron hated the fact that he came from being a mechanic and hid the fact if it was at all possible.

He has been very successful and I am still a little disappointed that his tenure at McLaren has come to an end in the way it did. But then I suppose there are many others that he treated in exactly the same way.

Felipe Massa lost a good result in Baku due to a rear-damper failure. Can you explain with more details the role/construction of the rear damper?
@Greekf1fan, via Twitter

The rear suspension on a current Formula 1 car is all mounted in the front section of the gearbox. This allows for the rear bodywork cross-section to be much tighter around the gearbox, making the car aerodynamically more efficient.

Having it like this means that everything is hidden from view and only a major stripdown or suspension-movement data will reveal any problems.

On Massa's car, one of the rear shock absorbers failed. A current F1 shock absorber is very similar to, if a little more sophisticated than, a modern road car's. It's a hydraulic cylinder with an internal piston on a shaft, with some form of pressure relief system on that piston. As the piston moves through the hydraulic oil, the pressure relief system opens and closes, 'damping' the movement.

One end is mounted on the gearbox and the other is driven by the wheel and upright assembly via the rear pushrod. A failure of any part of this 'damping' system means the car will suffer from excessive movement from bump inputs as it gets thrown upwards like a pogo stick.

Basically, we saw this - even on the straights. If this happens, there is no way to drive around it.

Having watched Le Mans, do you think this style of pitstop would add some excitement to F1?
Kevan Whittaker, via Twitter

Le Mans is a very different style of racing to F1. By its nature the length of the race dictates that there will be lots of pitstops, so the procedure can be more controlled.

In F1, pitstops came about because it was the fastest way to get from the red lights going off to the chequered flag, and refueling and fresh tyres became the standard. Then, on cost-saving grounds, refueling was banned so it was down to only fresh tyres, and to make sure everyone pitted at least once, the use of two different tyre compounds became mandatory.

Pitstops are used as a mechanism for attempted overtaking. All we ever hear from the commentary is how this circuit suits the undercut or the overcut, and this is because overtaking a car of similar performance on the circuit is almost impossible.

I would like to see the pitstops being a little slower so that you could actually take in what's happening. At the moment it's a fantastic feat of coordination, but it's just a blur. Fewer people involved the pitstops would also clear the way to being able to see more.

We don't usually see F1 cars catching fire these days, even in big accidents. How has fuel tank technology evolved over the years and how have they become so safe?
Ben Stevens, via email

Isn't it a great thing? Fire is one of the hazards that the FIA has thankfully put a great deal of effort into eliminating.

Gone are the days of wrapping a bit of aluminium around a rubber bladder. The structures around the fuel tanks are now much better, so penetration is very unlikely and the fuel tanks themselves are now basically made from bulletproof materials.

They are not rigidly attached to the chassis so, in effect, they can float within the chassis to not get torn apart. A lot of this technology has come from working hand-in-hand with the aviation authorities.

You can still see the odd flash fire, but that's only the small amount of fuel that's in the external pipelines and there is a maximum capacity for this.

All that said, fire is still a major risk and work needs to continue in his area.

We're quickly approaching the halfway point of the season. Which driver do you think has underperformed the most so far. Surely someone like Jolyon Palmer can't just claim bad luck? Or does someone else get your award?
Brad Klenk, via Facebook

I think the best way to answer this is to check out the link to Lawrence Barretto's team-mate comparison. This is very comprehensive and facts don't lie.

I would have to say I agree with you and that Palmer would get my vote. He is struggling against a strong team-mate, but that is what F1 should be about. Bad luck plays a part in it but, as in life, you make your own luck.

Having seen a number of races blighted by carbonfibre debris, isn't it about time front wings etc were made from a more resilient, shatterproof material? Perhaps with more stringent impact tests to stop large pieces detaching from the monocoque? I can't understand how the current situation is allowed to continue, especially given it's contributed to accidents, such as the one that sadly claimed the life of Justin Wilson.
Richard Walker, via email

The teams and the FIA are working tirelessly on safety and how best to react to accidents like the ones that claimed Henry Surtees' and Justin Wilson's lives. But it is not easy and they need to be sure that whatever is put in place will not be detrimental in other ways. The Red Bull cockpit canopy, if implemented correctly, will reduce the risk of head injury.

Going back to the beginning of your question about carbonfibre debris, I fully understand what you're saying, but where do you stop? The outer parts of the front wings are required to have minimum radii to reduce the risk of cutting tyres. But when these parts get knocked off and broken up, then the carbonfibre debris will always be a risk.

As we saw in Baku, it wasn't only front-wing debris that was being discarded around the track. There were bits of bargeboards, sidepods and underfloors. When cars are damaged, as was Raikkonen's Ferrari on the first lap, then they should be forced to come into the pits for an inspection. After all, for themselves - never mind the others - it's a safety risk.

If you were going to implement the use of a more resilient material, such as Kevlar, then all of the components outside of the main survival cell and frontal crash structure would have to be made from it. The test could be quite simple: just drive over a given component with a road roller and check the shard size.

What was your experience of dealing with the FIA on matters of driver discipline? Eddie Irvine got banned when you were technical director at Jordan, and I'm sure there were plenty of other run-ins. Did your experience of dealing with them change over the years?
John Nelson, via email

I learned very early that the best way was never to question them, otherwise the penalty would get worse. I didn't agree with that philosophy then, but after all these years I have to say I've changed my mind, otherwise there would be no discipline and the ones that questioned the most would get away with the most.

Eddie's ban extension from an original one race to three races on appeal was a typical example of that. But there were many more incidents on the technical side, and once you start questioning the FIA's interpretation then you are on a hiding to nothing.

What I didn't like was when others seemed to get away with things that we didn't seem to get away with. Unfortunately, I think that still happens, so for me continuity and consistency are vitally important, and I think this is where the stewards fall down.

This should be a paid group of very experienced drivers and technical personnel. This way you would get the same people making decisions on similar incidents or infringements.

Also, when everyone packs up on a Sunday night that should be it. We all want to go to sleep knowing what the result was, and that it will stand the test of time.

Got a question for Gary Anderson? Send it to askgary@autosport.com, use #askgaryF1 on Twitter or look out for our posts on Facebook giving you the chance to have your question answered