Ask Gary Anderson

In the first instalment of a new AUTOSPORT Plus series, AUTOSPORT's technical expert GARY ANDERSON answers your questions.

Inevitably with the huge interest in Formula 1's 2014 rules, this week's selection features plenty of discussions on the latest technical regulations and their potential loopholes, and Gary also tackles the topic of his departure from the BBC.

"Are you convinced exhaust 'trickery' is impossible under the new rules?"
@Jaeger_9, via Twitter

It will be very limited as the location and angle of the exhaust outlet is now defined in the 2014 technical regulations.

Toro Rosso has an aggressive rear-end design aimed at recouping downforce lost to the exhaust rule amendments © XPB

But there is always potential when you have fast-moving airflow coming out of the exhaust system to do something with it.

Toro Rosso has been most aggressive with a rather brutal twin-element monkey seat around the exhaust outlet. This will give a little more rear downforce, but isn't that difficult for other teams to copy.

"Is it true that this year's cars might be as dangerous as Adrian Newey says?"
@DWierenga, via Twitter

Dangerous, as Adrian put it, is a harsh word to use. But I do agree with him that this year's cars have more potential to go underneath a car that's stalled on the grid, and also go underneath the tyre and/or conveyor-belt barriers.

The new regulations are an attempt to eliminate an accident like Mark Webber's in Valencia where he flew into the air after hitting the back of Heikki Kovalainen.

Yes, something needed to be done to reduce the potential for this type of accident and after many simulations this new nose height was defined. But only time will tell if it's a positive or negative step.

"Would the front nose camera mounts on this year's Mercedes, as seen at Jerez, be legal if they were on the car come the Australian Grand Prix? I was under the impression that they had to be mounted at a pre-determined fixed point on the side of the nose?"
Rebecca Morrell, via Facebook

You're correct that the regulations for 2014 do define where the front-mounted cameras can be located.

The Mercedes W05 sported distinctive front camera mountings at Jerez © LAT

But it's an open area - 150mm to 450mm in front of the front wheel centre line and 325mm to 525mm above the reference plane.

It's then up to each team where they fit them within that area.

"What's the upside to the Lotus two-prong nose and why the change in design?"
@DhasenG, via Twitter

The reason for all the different nose designs is the FIA defining a location for the nose bulkhead to reduce the chance of intrusion in the case of a T-bone accident.

This bulkhead is 50mm rearward of the front of the nose and must be more than 750mm forward of the centre line of the front wheel. The minimum cross-sectional area is 9000sq/mm and the centre of this area has to be 185mm above the reference plane.

By going for the 'twin-tusk' style, Lotus is trying to get as much airflow as possible between these tusks to help the performance of the underfloor.

"Is there any incentive for Ferrari to create an inwash with the front wing because of its pullrod front suspension?"
@Rzarecta, via Twitter

On all the cars the wishbone sections help to realign the airflow coming off the trailing edge of the front wing. This helps the aerodynamic performance of the leading edge of the sidepods.

Ferrari has retained its pullrod front suspension. Compared to a pushrod concept, this is at a very shallow angle and should be more effective in realigning the front-wing wake.

I don't believe it would be a big enough advantage to allow you to introduce more inwash; it would just have the potential to offer more control of what's there already.

McLaren's front wing appears to be a big step forward over the 2014 car © XPB

"Is McLaren's front wing better than last year's?"
@viveksundarm, via Twitter

Loads. McLaren has joined the 21st century with its front wing design. Last year's assembly probably produced more peak downforce and had more of a percentage loss when the airflow under the wing stalled because of the wing-to-ground clearance reducing.

Managing this with car set-up is a nightmare and impossible to achieve consistently.

"Are the teams making front downforce or airflow under the car a priority with the nose designs?"
@Mullenator9000, via Twitter

The nose details and the airflow that gets through between the front wheels contribute to both front and rear downforce.

As a very rough guide, the front wing is responsible for about 50 per cent of the total front downforce - the leading edge of the underfloor and some of the front turning vane detail is responsible for the other 50 per cent.

The airflow that gets to the underfloor and is pulled through by the diffuser is responsible for about 50 per cent of the rear downforce leaving the rear wing, with the rear brake ducts and other turning vanes responsible for the other 50 per cent.

Nico Rosberg's Barcelona pole time last year was a 1m20.718s. Anderson expects a 1m23s this time around © XPB

"How much slower do you expect the lap times to be compared to last year?"
@CJAugarde, via Twitter

When everyone gets up and running, let's say by Barcelona, I would expect this year's frontrunning cars to be about three seconds off last year's pace - one and a half seconds from the extra 50kg of weight, one second from aerodynamics, and half a second from the more durable tyre.

"Is F1 getting too slow?"
@chris_burns79, via Twitter

Yes. F1 needs to be the pinnacle of motorsport and completely untouchable by any other series. It should only have the best drivers in the world and the cars should be monsters to drive. If any driver gets out of a car after a race and says the car was fantastic and a pleasure to drive (as many do now) then we have got it wrong.

"What first sparked your interest in motorsport?"
David Jordan, via Facebook

I come from Coleraine in Northern Ireland and I suppose I always had an interest in speed. When I was young, my cousin Freddie Heaney and my brother-in-law Jim Scott both raced Minis.

Jim and another friend, Alfie Mayers, also raced bikes and I helped them when I could (although really, I was probably more of a hindrance). I also used to do a bit of rallying.

Anderson, Brian Hart, Rubens Barrichello and Eddie Jordan unveil the 1993 Jordan design © LAT

When I came to England in 1972, I started work at Motor Racing Stables, the racing school at Brands Hatch. One day, there was a big meeting on and after speaking to one of the mechanics I realised I could make a living playing with racing cars. So I got a job at Brabham and the rest is history.

"What was the BBC thinking when it got rid of you, Gary?"
Ben Roynon, via Facebook

Got rid of me seems a little harsh, but in reality I suppose that's the correct term.

Ever since I started work with them, I've been pushing them to do more on the technical side, and during the second half of 2013 it appeared to me that they were wanting to do less.

For example, I set up an open-house visit to Renault to cover the engine package for 2014 in detail and twice on the day before we were due to go it was cancelled by the BBC. The reasoning was that as far as they were concerned, the viewers were not that interested.

I was not very happy. I believed that with the enormous technical changes for 2014, we should be doing more, not less.

I felt that if I couldn't bring to the viewer what I felt they wanted because my hands were tied, then it was better not to be there at all. I was in the midst of writing a resignation email when I got the call from them to meet up for a chat, which is when, as you say, they got rid of me!